Chamber and committees

There will be a division.

For

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

Against

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)

Abstentions

Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

There is a long list of additional suggestions of things to which regard should be had, including the good food nation plans, crofting law reform, common grazings, the biodiversity strategy, the river basin management plans, the rural development plan, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill and the proposed human rights bill. We have had a huge range of suggestions from stakeholders, and I presume that you will be open to suggestions about how section 3 could be amended to ensure that it covers their concerns.

I also want to touch on the importance of monitoring and evaluation of the rural support plan. We have heard that, in 10 years’ time, we could be asking ourselves whether the rural support plan delivered what it set out to do. Did it improve soil health, mitigate climate change, increase resilience and enable rural communities to thrive? Those are all suggestions that Professor Dave Reay made on what the rural support plan should do. How do we articulate that? How do we ensure that the bill provides for the monitoring and evaluation necessary to ensure that we are heading in the right direction and that we are not waiting until the end of the plan’s five-year period?

I am sorry, but, before we move on, I am going to jump back to section 3, on matters to be considered in relation to the rural support plan and the Scottish ministers needing to “have regard to” certain matters. There are questions about whether we need that section at all. What is the purpose of it? On the reference to ministers needing to

“have regard to ... any other statutory duty”,

I presume that they would be required to have regard to those issues whether or not they were set out in the bill. You touched on having a list. Why is there a section 3 at all, given that the Government has to pay regard to statutory duties whether or not they are set out in the bill? Given the list of other considerations that you have said are really important, but which are not in section 3, why have we got a section 3 at all?

Would that not be more clearly set out by having a more specific, tailored framework for what the rural support plan might look like? Rather than having to make assumptions about what is covered by the phrase

“ministers must have regard to”,

what if there was a section of the bill that made it clear what was to be included within the rural support plan? Would that not achieve that in a far more transparent way?

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

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

Amendment 84 moved—[Finlay Carson].

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

Amendment 84 disagreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Edward Mountain].

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Amendment 85, in the name of Jim Fairlie, is grouped with amendments 85B, 85C, 86 and 87. I call Emma Harper to move amendment 85 and to speak to all amendments in the group.

No other member wishes to comment. I therefore invite the minister to wind up.

I invite Alasdair Allan to speak to amendment 90 and other amendments in the group.