���˿���

We discussed this matter last week. As I said, the stage 1 committee report on the bill notes that

“A definition of ‘high-quality food’ is not provided in either the Bill or the accompanying documents.”

If the Scottish Government is asking farmers and food producers to deliver “high-quality food”, it is important that the Government is clear about what it means by that.

Pete Ritchie of Nourish Scotland stated in evidence to the committee:

“it is bad law to put ‘high-quality food’ on the face of the bill if there is no intention to define it.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 13 December 2023; c 8.]

Others disagreed with that. However, as I stated in committee last week, we were previously told by Scottish Government officials that high-quality food relates to

“unadulterated produce that comes out of the ground and that is produced under the basic standards and expectations of Scottish agriculture”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 29 November 2023; c 4.]

To me, that is meaningless.

Last week, the cabinet secretary further suggested that,

“if people comply with the high, rigorous standards that we”

—the Scottish Government—

“have in place, that will meet the definition of high-quality food.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 8 May 2024; c 13.]

That statement does not chime with the previous statement by Scottish Government officials, so there is clearly disagreement, or no official line, on the matter.

Does the cabinet secretary intend to provide a clear definition of “high-quality” in the rural support plan? If so, would she be happy to discuss an amendment to that effect before stage 3?

I move amendment 204.

No problem.

This is the second time that I have tried to bring forward the particular argument for supporting local food producers to supply, through the procurement process, local schools and hospitals and local communities. I am not convinced that the framework in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 is going to be able to prioritise local procurement. When we debated it, there was very little support from the Scottish Government to review the current procurement process. However, I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the 2022 act being the right piece of legislation to take forward this aspect, through the consultation on, and delivery of, the local good food nation plans and so on. I am, therefore, happy not to press my amendment.

Amendment 200, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 185 would require Scottish ministers to review payments that are made under the legislation that is listed in the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020. Briefly, I would like some reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government has the ability to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of payments and the delivery of the required outcomes, because I am concerned about that. For example, will the powers that Scottish ministers have to shape the rural support plan allow for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the required outcomes?

I move amendment 185.

Yes, I will do so.

Amendment 137 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Will Ariane Burgess take an intervention?

I completely understand what you have said about protecting good food-growing land while ensuring that we can meet our environmental targets. I am minded to support the amendment, although Ariane Burgess is not. I wonder whether the right thing to do in the future would be to consider some of the schemes so that land is protected, noting that a limited number of schemes can support the biofuels industry. I am looking closely at what the UK Government is doing.

I had never heard of rural anchor institutions, as you well know—we have discussed that. I was a bit sceptical about the amendment being something that others could understand, but I think that, from your description, it is really important. Rhoda Grant has been highlighting machinery rings, which can offer a number of ancillary services, some of which—co-operatives and others—help people with things like mental health and set up supportive networks. Amendment 56 is really important and I will support it.

I would like to understand where the cabinet secretary is coming from, because Tim Eagle’s amendment 154 speaks very much about what the Government has just advocated in relation to the guidance, rather than guidance that has an aspect of being a regulatory or statutory prism. I believe that the cabinet secretary is arguing against supporting amendments 154 and 155 by not agreeing that it is unnecessary to have a statutory obligation, which is what amendment 154 sets out to remove.

During the evidence sessions, many stakeholders and farmers—those people at the grass roots—described the guidance as having to be, from the Government’s point of view, carrot rather than stick. I am surprised that we are now in this conversation whereby the Government is looking at assessing what level of cross-compliance there should be when the whole of section 7 is about guidance. I think that it will be quite worrying for farmers that you have said that, cabinet secretary. I am concerned that farmers will be worried that they are not being given the carrot and are being given more of the stick.