Chamber and committees

At the moment, there is clearly a gap in enterprise funding when it comes to conditionality.

Okay, that is helpful. You also mentioned that funding is often discontinued. Is it a common problem that somebody gets a project, it is funded for a couple of years, then, suddenly, that scheme just disappears altogether? That is pretty common, is it not?

Thank you convener, and thanks to the panel for your answers so far.

You have touched on the issue already, but one of the most common concerns that the committee hears about is how the employability services that you talk about are funded. There is the lack of multiyear funding, late awards, schemes being discontinued—as Alan Thornburrow talked about—and projects that do not seem to tick an education box or an employment box, so they fall through the gap. The use of self-directed support is becoming more common and there is concern that, as a result, the checks and balances are not there that would be there if a project was directly funded.

Apart from the obvious fact that we need to fund those services a lot more, what changes do you think we need to make to employment services to make them fit for purpose? You only have an hour to answer that question. Carmel, you mentioned the rules, so I will start with you.

Is that becoming a growing problem? Effectively, people are paying to work for free.

That has certainly happened to a number of projects.

Joanna Panese, specifically on autism, somebody mentioned The Usual Place. I was struck by its scheme of autism awareness for employers, which is about not an individual but a wider awareness among businesses and organisations. However, it finds it almost impossible to get funding for that scheme, because it does not tick all the boxes. The outcomes are not obvious. It is not that five people will go into employment next month as a result of that scheme. It is about just trying to raise awareness among businesses. Are there particular challenges in employability services for people with autism, or do the challenges just involve the general points that others have made?

Amendment 130 is connected to previous amendments in earlier sections. Those amendments, had they been agreed, would have meant that, instead of ministers having to have regard to the objectives that amendment 130 seeks to remove, they would have been required to act in a manner that

“they consider best contributes to achieving the”

overarching

“objectives”,

which is a stronger position, in my view. However, because those amendments were defeated, I will seek to withdraw amendment 130 later.

Amendment 45 seeks to add an additional matter that ministers “must have regard to”—that is,

“any other financial support provided by the Scottish Government to agriculture and rural communities.”

The aim of amendment 45 is to ensure the best use of public money. Different funding streams enter rural areas, and it is important to ensure that they work together effectively to ensure maximum impact. The amendment simply seeks to facilitate that and to ensure that the Government is not making funding decisions in a silo.

Amendment 49 seeks to strengthen the consultation that must happen in preparing the rural development plan by placing a duty on ministers to consult with certain bodies. I have included the bodies that I think are relevant to those consultations, but I appreciate that there might be others. If that is the feeling of the committee, and if the amendment is successful, I would intend to add, at stage 3, any other relevant organisations that ministers consider appropriate.

I move amendment 130.

Given that amendment 22 has been agreed to, I will not move amendment 3.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Amendment 99 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The bill as introduced confers a wide range of powers but with few checks and balances. The intention behind amendment 109 is to find a way to increase the accountability relating to the policy while improving the governance of agricultural policy. The agriculture budget is substantial and, in my view, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that the way in which that public money is spent is clearly connected to the objectives and is demonstrably in the public interest.

The objectives themselves are very broadly written and, sadly, that has not been changed by amendments in the previous grouping. Establishing indicators and targets would give a much clearer sense of what outcomes the Government is trying to achieve. Leaving any meaningful direction on what our targets should be entirely to the Government, so that it can do what it likes through the rural support plan, does not provide the scrutiny that we should expect. That simply gives the Government free rein, especially given the vagueness of the objectives. That is what the Government would want, of course, and I think that Rachael Hamilton is entirely right in saying that the lack of detail in the intentions of the rural support plan is inexcusable. That is the reason why I lodged my amendments.

Amendment 150 is a modest amendment that places a duty on ministers to outline the distributional impact of funding schemes. Anyone who is opposed to that does not have a lot of credibility, frankly, if they say that they support a fairer distribution of support. It will not have escaped the attention of environmental groups across Scotland who are watching this meeting that the Scottish Greens have completely sold out on amendments in group 1 on placing the environment at the heart of the bill. In opposing the amendments in this group, they will surpass themselves.

I would say to the cabinet secretary that promising something in the future that we do not know about is a way of opposing an amendment at this stage, and that does not give us any basis for doing so. I will certainly press and move my amendments, although I will not hold my breath on their being agreed to. I hope that what the cabinet secretary has to say on the future direction of the rural support plan alleviates my concerns.

I press amendment 109.

I will speak to amendment 28 and to my other amendments in this group. The aim of amendments 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39 and 41 is to ensure that the rural support plan has appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, so that ministers cannot make changes without accountability. After discussion with the Parliament’s bill team, it became apparent that the only way in which to do that was to introduce the rural support plan by regulation and to make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

The rural support plan is likely to have a greater influence on the lives of agricultural workers, farmers and crofters than the bill itself, so it would be wrong to allow ministers of current or future Governments unchecked power to simply draft the rural support plan as they please without proper scrutiny by Parliament.

Amendment 112 would require that the rural support plan sets out definitions and outcomes for the bill’s objectives, as well as how ministers intend to achieve those outcomes. It is widely acknowledged that one of the reasons why we fail to meet our climate targets, for example, is that the Government has lots of plans and strategies but often has no clear route map for how those plans and strategies will be implemented to meet their objectives. We need to avoid that when it comes to the rural support plan and ensure that the plan contains a clear route map for delivering the objectives that the bill sets.

Amendments 30 and 31 seek to ensure that a clear requirement is placed on ministers in the bill to include an indicative multi-annual financial framework in the rural support plan. That would provide certainty to the sector and enable farmers and crofters to invest, plan better and deliver on the required outcomes that we expect from them in relation to the plan. It would also provide certainty for the Scottish Government in the delivery of new support mechanisms. We know that our farmers and crofters work to a long timescale and that the environmental actions that will be needed will require repeated funding over a period of years. From 2019, the UK Government has delivered a five-year funding framework for agriculture, so there is precedent for doing that.

Amendments 30 and 31 are linked to amendment 115, and the consequential amendment 113, which also includes the need for

“indicative proportionality of multi-year budgets”,

along with other requirements for the rural support plan.

I made the point earlier that the bill is very much a framework bill and that the most important decisions will be made afterwards through the rural support plan. It is therefore imperative that parliamentarians, stakeholders and those whom the rural support plan will impact—namely, our farmers, crofters and rural communities—have a clear understanding of what each rural support plan will include.

Of equal importance is the chance to scrutinise those plans, especially in relation to how they will interact with the objectives that are set in law. That is why the schemes should be required to state their objectives and rationale as well as their expected uptake. The former ensures that the schemes are kept in line with the framework bill’s objectives and the latter ensures that value for money is achieved. Equally, there should be information on how funding will be monitored. That would help to establish where the best value for money is being delivered in line with the objectives.

Amendment 32 seeks to ensure that the rural support plan establishes baseline figures, which would allow proper analysis to be carried out of the progress that is being made in delivering the bill’s objectives.

Given that the rural support plan will have a significant impact on agricultural workers, farmers and crofters—arguably more so than the bill itself, as I have said—it is important that the plan is not delayed any further. Amendment 35, in a similar way to amendment 122, seeks to set in legislation a date by which the first rural support plan should be delivered.

I apologise, convener, but I have managed to avoid speaking to several of my amendments.

They are on a different page of my notes. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments, convener, so I thank you for your patience.

Amendment 37 sets out a requirement that the Scottish ministers should consult before amending the rural support plan under section 2(5).

Amendments 38 and 40 provide more opportunities for scrutiny and transparency around the reasons and motivations for amending the plan, including evaluating progress to date when setting those future plans.

Amendment 128 seeks to set out in greater detail what is meant by “rationale”. The objectives of each scheme should be detailed so that they are in keeping with the objectives of the framework legislation. To make that more robust, a justification for the intervention must be made. In addition, to ensure that there is value for money, there should be an analysis of the use of public funds to make sure that the objectives are being delivered in a cost-effective manner. As part of that, it is important that there is an explanation of the decision-making process when deciding on particular schemes, including on the evaluation of similar schemes.

Amendment 129—you will be pleased to know that this is the final amendment I will speak to in this group—reiterates earlier amendments 92 and 101 to introduce a clear link between the objectives in the bill and the decisions made by ministers through the rural support plan.

I move amendment 28.

I am finished.