���˿���

This is a really important section. Amendment 114 requires each future rural support plan to evaluate the previous rural support plan. It is a sensible amendment that is designed to make Scottish ministers reflect on the effectiveness of the previous rural support plans in order to improve future plans. It was noted in the stage 1 committee report that an amendment to this effect would

“provide transparency and accountability around the effectiveness of the strategic priorities and budget of the previous plan in terms of meeting the overarching objectives”.

Amendment 116 requires further information about the support schemes to be set out in the rural support plan, including the objectives for the scheme, the intended outcomes, targets and milestones, how the scheme will be monitored and evaluated, the date that the scheme will commence, and the initial budget for the scheme and the sources of funding. The amendment is designed to give much-needed clarity and detail to farmers who will be impacted by future schemes. It allows Parliament to scrutinise the detail of future support schemes. An amendment to this effect was also outlined by the stage 1 committee report, which noted calls from stakeholders for the rural support plan to outline the detail on the objectives that I have asked for in my amendment.

Amendment 117 requires each rural support plan to include a scheme that is intended to support young farmers under the age of 41. Only 6 per cent of farmers in Scotland are under the age of 35, and it is clear that the future of Scottish farming is at risk in relation to that demographic. Every young person in rural Scotland should have the opportunity to farm or pursue a career in a rural sector, if they so wish. The Scottish Government needs to support our young farmers to overcome the barriers that they face, such as the high cost of securing access to land, and my amendment would ensure that young farmers are given access to specific funding that is tailored to them. That will support the next generation of Scotland’s farmers and secure Scotland’s food and farming future. Because the Scottish Government is so keen on aligning with Europe, it reflects some of the movements that have been made in the European Union.

Amendment 120 requires Scottish ministers to conduct a food mile analysis before the publication of a rural support plan, and to have regard for the analysis in the subsequent plan. A public sector food mile analysis would improve our understanding of the challenges that Scotland’s supply chain faces. It would increase transparency and improve fairness in the supply chain for farmers and food producers. My amendment aims to reduce unnecessary food miles by ensuring that food that is produced locally can be processed locally.

Amendments 121 and 126 provide for the rural support plans to be laid before Parliament for at least 30 days, allowing Parliament sufficient time to scrutinise and report on them, as called for in the stage 1 committee report. The explanation for amendment 126 is similar to my explanation for amendment 121.

Amendment 127 requires ministers to consult such persons as they consider appropriate or affected by a rural support plan or an amended plan before publishing it. The minister previously stated that the rural support plan will be co-designed alongside stakeholders. Again, that was called for in the stage 1 committee report. This essential amendment provides reassurance to stakeholders by requiring a statutory consultation on future plans.

I would like clarity on what the Scottish Government would do in relation to its commitment to agriculture prior to a budget. Will the Scottish Government come forward before the budget with an indicative number that it could set towards its commitment to agriculture?

I hear what you are saying, cabinet secretary. Basically, you are throwing a grenade at all the amendments in this group. All of us have worked in good faith with the Government bill team to shed light on the clarity, scrutiny, evaluation, impact and monitoring of the rural support plan—a lot of which we would like to be in the bill. Do you believe that a lot of that detail should be in the bill when we come to stage 3, or will you and the Government team continue with the proposal to put it in secondary legislation?

At the moment, I am minded not to support amendment 5. Unless you are just about to come to it, what do you mean by “fair work principles”? What are they? Some of those fair work principles are set by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board—the board sets farm wages. What is the difference between what operates now and those fair work principles?

Amendment 132 would require ministers to publish a timetable for regulations—including information on what regulations are planned for the following two years, when any draft regulations will be published, whether any regulations are to be introduced as a package, and any other relevant information. This important amendment is designed to improve parliamentary scrutiny by ensuring that the Parliament is aware of, and given the opportunity to scrutinise effectively, upcoming suites of secondary legislation. In its stage 1 report, the committee called on the Scottish Government

“to keep it updated on the number of instruments, policy detail and timetable for the secondary legislation over the course of 2024 and 2025.”

Amendments 139, 168, 172 and 184, which were lodged by Tim Eagle, amendment 156, which was lodged by Beatrice Wishart, and amendments 77, 87 and 90, which were lodged by Rhoda Grant, seek to strengthen the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the bill by confirming that regulations in the bill will fall under the affirmative procedure.

I move amendment 132.

Just to summarise, I am again disappointed that the Government is not willing to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise effectively the upcoming suites of secondary legislation, particularly in relation to my amendment. I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comment that she wants to co-develop any future schemes, but we have waited more than six years for this bill to come to fruition. Farmers have been waiting, but movement has been snail paced and glacial. If we do not struggle, we will not make any progress.

We have come forward with these amendments after listening to evidence from people wanting us to consider the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. We have listened to people. I am just very disappointed, and I will continue to support all the amendments in the group.

I press amendment 132.

The Scottish Government believes that we should put our trust in it to address all the issues that everybody is concerned about. We have heard from farmers, stakeholders, those in the supply chain, those who are concerned about climate change and those who have pointed out that local people do not have enough affordable local housing to allow them to stay in the areas where they work and live, do not have access to connectivity and do not have access to, say, bus transport to let them get to work and other places. We have heard that this Government has been letting them down. This amendment explicitly sets out that, as part of this agriculture and rural communities bill, a fund should be set up to deal with those issues where rural and island communities have been let down.

I press amendment 133.

Will the cabinet secretary comment on the committee evidence session in which high-quality food was described as

“unadulterated produce that comes out 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.]

That does not represent high quality. Although we want to have an aspiration for farmers and crofters to produce high-quality food, it is important that we define what high quality means in terms of food production. Will the cabinet secretary support and work with me in order to potentially lodge a stage 3 amendment in that vein?

The cabinet secretary must understand why members of the committee and others have lodged amendments of this nature. We asked for more clarity and detail on the rural support plan, which we did not get and we were not provided with. Evidence suggests that others who work in and around the sector agreed with us. That is why many of these amendments have been lodged. However, the cabinet secretary is now telling us that the detail will come at stage 3. I want it to go on the record that I would have appreciated having had sight of your intentions. You can understand why we have lodged these amendments.

Yes, but we have had a commitment up to the end of the financial year, plus there is the uplift from the Bew review. When you come back for the discussions and collaborative working that you want to do with the committee on the amendments relating to the rural support plan, will you also come forward with what the Scottish Government will commit in future budgets, beyond what you have already committed to?