���˿���

This is another group with a sole amendment in it. Amendment 200 would place a 60-60 target in the bill. That target would require local authorities to source 60 per cent of the food that they procure from within 60 miles of the authority region within three years of royal assent. Although a 60-60 target might appear ambitious, it would reduce emissions by cutting unnecessary food miles and would support local jobs. I brought the proposal forward in amendments to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill but it was not supported. However, I still believe that, where it is achievable, it can be an ambition.

It is not possible for the target to work in all regions, particularly remote and island communities, so I suggest tailoring the support to ensure that, if it is not possible to hit the 60-60 target, the priority would be to procure as much food as possible from within Scotland and the United Kingdom, rather than importing food, as is done so much now.

I move amendment 200.

You do not see the need for a consultation provision to be included in the bill.

I will not move the amendment. I will work with the cabinet secretary in great faith.

Amendment 193 not moved.

Amendment 194 not moved.

Amendment 195 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Amendment 193 seeks to require ministers to consider certain principles when developing CPD requirements. The principles that are drawn on in my amendment are outlined in the recommendations in the stage 1 committee report. Those principles are the need for CPD to be

“co-designed with the sector to which it will apply ... delivered in the most appropriate format, which could include peer-to-peer knowledge exchange ... accessible to all farmers, crofters and land managers ... include an accreditation scheme for trainers and advisers”

and, finally, for it to be

“monitored and evaluated.”

By outlining those principles, my amendment 193 provides an opportunity to create effective CPD schemes that are tailored to the sector. The amendment is supported by the NFUS and SLE. Amendment 195 is consequential on amendment 193.

Amendment 197 specifies that CPD must be “affordable and accessible” for those receiving the training. That sensible amendment seeks to ensure that CPD schemes are accessible and inclusive for farmers and food producers.

Amendment 198 would insert a new subsection in section 27, stating that CPD activities could be required only if they related to relevant health and safety issues. The stage 1 committee report noted:

“Aside from recognising some training should be compulsory for health and safety reasons, there was no support amongst stakeholders for compulsory CPD.”

The compulsory element has been the subject of much discussion. By stipulating that CPD activities must relate only to health and safety, my amendment 198 seeks to ensure that CPD schemes remain simple and focused, rather than excessive and burdensome.

Amendment 199 would require a report to be published by Scottish ministers annually to assess how CPD is being “carried out and managed”. As has been noted in relation to other amendments in the group, CPD schemes should be simple and focused. Amendment 199 provides the Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise the effectiveness of the schemes that are implemented by Scottish ministers and ensures that any CPD schemes work in the interests of Scottish farmers, farm workers and producers, rather than being burdensome, as I have described.

Will the member take an intervention now?

The convener will recognise that many of the amendments that I have lodged are aimed at ensuring that some of the issues that I have concerns about are discussed. Although I would like amendment 191 to be agreed to, given my track record so far today of not having the cabinet secretary support my amendments, I have little confidence that it will be supported.

Nevertheless, amendment 191 is important. During evidence sessions, the committee spoke to tenant farmers, who told us of their frustrations around accessing some schemes and having some of the challenges raised in the context of the bill. Originally, it was proposed that tenant farmers would be recognised through the lens of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. However, a lot of that has now been moved to the scope of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is only in the initial stages of consideration.

My amendment 191 was inspired by looking at what the UK Government has done following the recommendations of the Rock review, which has included the introduction of a code of practice for tenant farmers. The amendment would give tenant farmers confidence that they are part of the bill. I understand why some may not support it—given the existing code of practice, they may not want to give tenant farmers their own code of practice. However, I think that it is really important, and I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about how tenant farmers will be able to be part of the arrangements for access to schemes overall in the bill.

I move amendment 191.

Will Ariane Burgess take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary share with the committee what information the UK Government has shared with her and the Scottish Government about the timeframe for announcing future funding—for example, in the next spending review?

Ms Burgess, I am minded to support a lot of your amendments, but I have noticed that you have chosen not to move a lot of them. Is that because you plan to come back at stage 3 with those amendments, or will you stay true to the intention that you have described and move the amendments so that we can understand whether we will be supporting them? I also wonder why you did not support my own amendment on soil health and the objectives.

I will press amendment 134. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not agree with the concept of ring-fenced funding. In 2022, the Scottish Government received £33 million following a 2019 UK-wide review into the fair allocation of farming support. That cash was intended for agricultural support, but it should have been spent on rural affairs. That money for the rural affairs budget has, so far, not been returned, so my amendment should allow the Government to clarify how the money that has been allocated for the agriculture budget has been used. We are disappointed that that money—which was supposedly ring fenced—has not been returned to the budget. That further proves the point that ring-fenced money is very important to Scottish agriculture. I thank Rhoda Grant for supporting the amendment.

The Scottish Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group. Ariane Burgess’s amendment 137 is particularly important, because communities are often left behind in relation to afforestation. It is an excellent amendment.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 157, as he described, would provide further scrutiny, clarity and accountability. It would also help everyone to be part of, and to become involved in, the concept of the bill.