���˿���

I am just wondering where in the objectives it is said that they relate to food security.

You say that you do not want farmers to be viewed as separate from rural communities, but you have set out rural communities as a separate entity, although some farmers might see themselves as business people, some as hobby farmers and so on. I have been listening to you since you have started speaking to the amendments, and you have repeatedly and consistently used the word “farmers”. You have talked about farmers, farmers, farmers, never rural communities, rural communities, rural communities. So, you are not describing rural communities when you talk about farming support, and this is a framework bill to support farmers and crofters.

When we took evidence, we heard a lot about farmers’ wellbeing and livelihoods and heard a lot of information about farmers thriving rather than just rural communities. I think that this is absolutely integral. If you do not accept my amendment 101, I think that we should perhaps work together to ensure that farmers are explicitly acknowledged in the context of thriving rural communities.

Why did you not lodge stage 2 amendments so that we could consider them? As the convener said, that was the committee’s recommendation, and I do not understand why it was so difficult to come here with such amendments.

Will you come forward with a plan for how much you will commit towards the rural affairs budget prior to announcing the budget for next year?

In that case, how can the UK Government do so?

Throughout the bill process, we heard from stakeholders who said that it would be useful for the Scottish Government to recognise that the processing facilities in Scotland are not up to scratch and that it would be easier for people to access food locally if those processing facilities were available, rather than food being produced in Scotland and then having to travel to England and back to Scotland to the retailers.

We need a recognition that we have to do something about that. My amendment sets out to ensure that we evaluate where those food miles are going. A number of products are travelling a long way to get back to source, and it is important that people can access food locally. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not seem to recognise the intent behind the amendment.

I think that it was a consequential amendment to amendment 28. I think that you have already called amendment 112.

I move amendment 118.

I recognise that amendment 94 is puzzling to many, but I hope that I can explain my thinking behind it.

As is noted in the stage 1 committee report, a definition of “high-quality food” is not provided in either the bill or the accompanying documents. We were told by the 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.]

Therefore, there is a fairly woolly explanation coming from the Scottish Government. With no definition of “high quality” detailed in the bill, that will lead to a lack of clarity for farmers. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary as to whether she will work with me to add a definition to the bill at stage 3, if amendment 94 is not agreed to.

Amendment 97 would insert a new purpose of

“the protection and preservation of food security”

into the objectives of the bill. As we all know, food security should be at the heart of the bill, given that Scotland’s food producers face significant challenges in the coming years. The amendment is intended to ensure that the bill delivers on strengthening Scotland’s food security.

Amendment 101 would allow for the recognition of farmers as an objective of the bill by specifically including them in section 1(d). By making specific reference to farmers, the amendment seeks to highlight the crucial role of farmers and to ensure that they are noted in the bill as a distinct group. Although some might believe that farmers are already encompassed by the term “rural communities”, my amendment would put beyond all doubt that allowing farmers to thrive should be a clear and distinct objective of the bill.

My amendment 102 would create an additional bill objective to protect and effectively manage soil health. Soil health, as we know and have heard in evidence, is an integral part of farmers’ ability to deliver high-quality food, climate adaptation and food security. Of course, that will also be integral to the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

On my colleagues’ amendments, I am very happy to support amendment 92, in the name of Colin Smyth; amendment 93, in the name of Emma Harper; amendment 20, in the name of Rhoda Grant; amendment 22, in the name of Elena Whitham; amendment 23, in the name of Ariane Burgess, which I pick out as dealing with a factor that is important to young people; and amendment 108, in the name of Colin Smyth.

Do you believe that Governments should bring forward a plan for what they are going to allocate to the rural affairs budget before a budget or a spending review? Is that what you are saying?