Chamber and committees

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

Amendment 103 disagreed to.

Amendment 104 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The question is, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Amendment 109, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 110, 111, 64, 150, 189 and 190.

The question is, that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Abstentions

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

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

Amendment 110 disagreed to.

Amendment 111 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Amendment 28, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 29, 112, 30, 31, 113, 114, 32, 115 to 117, 33, 118 to 120, 34, 121, 35, 122 to 124, 36 to 39, 125, 40, 126 to 129 and 41. I remind members of the pre-emptions and direct alternatives in this group, which are shown in the groupings paper.

You have given us some reassuring words about the rural support plan, but it is now quite some time since it became clear that a new agriculture bill would need to be introduced. Despite your warm words, and despite the committee’s call, you have lodged no amendments to section 2 at all. The bulk of the committee’s stage 1 report focused on the need for certainty in relation to the rural support plan and for a draft plan to be produced as soon as possible. We are not going to be provided with any reassurance that what will be produced prior to stage 3 will be sufficient, and the committee will not have the opportunity to debate the matter at all, which is very disappointing. The points in the committee’s stage 1 report have not been addressed, because no Government amendments have been lodged to reassure the committee that the rural support plan will be fit for purpose.

I welcome your reassuring words. You talk about getting the committee members around the table—I think that that was the phrase that you used. Would you be willing to come back to the committee and set out exactly what your proposals are, discuss openly in a committee session what your amendments might be and allow the committee to do as you suggest, which is to work collaboratively to bring forward a rural support plan, with amendments at stage 3 that the committee has been actively involved in? Would you accept that invitation to come back?

That engagement would be not at stage 2 but prior to stage 3.