Chamber and committees

There will be a division.

For

Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

Against

Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 43 disagreed to.

Amendment 104 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Amendment 44 not moved.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18—Interpretation of Part

I think that that is a boast rather than a declaration of interests. [Laughter.]

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 102 agreed to.

Amendment 39 not moved.

Amendment 40 moved—[Edward Mountain].

That is not what has been suggested. We are talking about the rural support plan, not the framework bill.

We also heard one of your bill team tell the Finance and Public Administration Committee that

“the vision for agriculture, combined with our route map, is nine tenths of our plan.”

I presume that that refers to the rural support plan. They went on to say that

“Some of the extra elements that will go into that are in development right now.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 6 February 2024; c 25.]

Although you will look at what the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have suggested about bringing the plan forward, that quotation would suggest that it is almost there. The stakeholders have repeatedly said that we need to see it sooner rather than later.

Why are you waiting to get advice on the recommendations from two other committees before you do what the majority of stakeholders are asking, which is to see the rural support plan? This is not about what is in the framework bill—we all accept that flexibility is needed—but to give the Parliament some confidence that we are not just giving the Scottish Government carte blanche and a cheque book to do whatever it wishes. The support plan will set out far more detail: your officials have said that it is almost there, so why do you not make the commitment to publish it before 2025?

Thank you. Emma Harper and Rachael Hamilton have supplementary questions. We will then move on to questions from Rhoda Grant.

We will talk about the code of practice later.

There is a general understanding that it needs to be a framework bill—an enabling bill—and that that is necessary now. However, there has been criticism that the bill is less detailed and specific than one might expect, based on other legislation. Concerns have been raised that the bill is excessively vague and permissive without currently providing adequate guidance to stakeholders or assurance of scrutiny or control over implementation in the future. Would you consider putting a little bit more meat on the bones at stage 2 about the parameters within which you intend the legislation to work?

You will be aware that there are concerns about there being only four objectives in the bill. Will you consider adding to the list of objectives? We have heard concerns that there is no reference to a range of priorities, including small-scale farming and crofting, animal welfare and health, productivity, resilience, land reform and generational renewal. Are you minded to consider increasing the number of objectives by potentially introducing new ones at stage 2?

So, you would be open to amendments that would increase the number of objectives.

On that, we have heard from many stakeholders that a little bit more certainty is needed. Given that the bill is a framework bill, the rural support plan could actually be the bill, because it will set the direction of travel for five years, 10 years or whatever.

One of the overriding calls was for the rural support plan to be available sooner rather than later. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee suggested that it should come before stage 3, and the majority of stakeholders suggested that it is needed before we start to develop secondary legislation.

I cannot find the quotation right now, but we heard in an earlier meeting that nine tenths of what will be in the rural support plan has already been developed through the two policies that the cabinet secretary has touched on. If nine tenths of it has been developed, why can we not have a commitment to have that rural support plan now rather than sometime in 2025, when the committee will have limited ability to scrutinise it?