Chamber and committees

My amendment 160 requires a consultation, within six months of royal assent, on the proposed use of the section 9 powers to cap. A suggestion to that effect was highlighted in the committee’s stage 1 report, which asked the Government

“to ensure that any consultation on capping, tapering or frontloading payments is completed at an early opportunity with consideration for businesses that would be affected by any change.”

My amendment would give stakeholders the opportunity to make representations on key issues to the Scottish Government. Requiring that to be done within six months of royal assent would provide certainty about future payment schemes for those who are affected by any changes.

Regarding some of the other amendments in the group, we will support amendment 159 and particularly amendment 161, which provides for effective consultation, as well as amendments 162 and 163. I also very much support amendment 164, which makes the capping powers subject to the affirmative procedure.

Right—so we are leaving it in your hands to define that. That is not really what this committee is about. It is about ensuring that we can, by regulation, define what is considered to be the test of “in the public interest”. I am surprised that the Scottish Government is scared of amendment 166.

What is the process for developing the concept of supporting smaller farmers and crofters through front loading and access to particular environmental schemes?

I have nothing further to add in winding up. I press the amendment.

Amendment 110 would insert a provision that progress against objective 1(b), which is

“the production of high-quality food”,

should be monitored by the Scottish food commission. The amendment is designed to acknowledge the functions of the commission under the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 in monitoring the effectiveness of addressing food-related issues.

Amendment 111 would require an annual review and a report on

“the impact of the ... Act on achieving the objectives set out in section 1”.

It is, I believe, a sensible amendment that is designed to increase accountability by requiring evaluation of the bill’s effectiveness against the delivery of the intended objectives. If we agree that the objectives are the key aims for the bill, it is reasonable to ask Scottish ministers to review the impact of the bill against those key metrics annually. That would ensure that they remained focused on the agreed objectives in the bill.

My amendment would also improve Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the delivery of secondary legislation against the intended outcomes of the bill. That is particularly important given the context that it is a framework bill, with much of the policy detail coming in secondary legislation.

Amendment 190 would introduce a requirement on ministers to produce an annual food security report. That document would report on disruptions to Scotland’s food supply chain as well as on what steps the Scottish Government was taking to address them. As I previously stated in relation to amendment 97, food security should be at the heart of the bill. Scotland’s food producers will face significant challenges in the coming years. An annual food security report would ensure that Scottish ministers were aware of the issues in the supply chain, and it would require that they outlined the actions that they were taking to strengthen Scotland’s food security. That would also provide a quantifiable assessment to Parliament and stakeholders, to enable them to hold the Scottish Government to account on that issue.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, Scottish Conservatives will support Colin Smyth’s amendment 109, Rhoda Grant’s amendment 64 and Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 189.

At this stage, I am not minded to support amendment 46, because I am concerned that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill has been introduced only recently and we do not know how that will play out. I am slightly worried about adding land reform to any objectives.

I am just wondering where in the objectives it is said that they relate to food security.

You say that you do not want farmers to be viewed as separate from rural communities, but you have set out rural communities as a separate entity, although some farmers might see themselves as business people, some as hobby farmers and so on. I have been listening to you since you have started speaking to the amendments, and you have repeatedly and consistently used the word “farmers”. You have talked about farmers, farmers, farmers, never rural communities, rural communities, rural communities. So, you are not describing rural communities when you talk about farming support, and this is a framework bill to support farmers and crofters.

When we took evidence, we heard a lot about farmers’ wellbeing and livelihoods and heard a lot of information about farmers thriving rather than just rural communities. I think that this is absolutely integral. If you do not accept my amendment 101, I think that we should perhaps work together to ensure that farmers are explicitly acknowledged in the context of thriving rural communities.

Why did you not lodge stage 2 amendments so that we could consider them? As the convener said, that was the committee’s recommendation, and I do not understand why it was so difficult to come here with such amendments.

Will you come forward with a plan for how much you will commit towards the rural affairs budget prior to announcing the budget for next year?