���˿���

I would like to get some more detail on that point. Are you saying that the real living wage is part of that and that your aim is for that to be adopted by the agricultural sector and not be set by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board?

Amendment 131 would remove development in EU law and policy from matters that a rural support plan must have regard to. Scottish farmers deserve a plan that works for them rather than one that suits the Scottish National Party’s plan for independence as set out by the cabinet secretary.

The bill is a chance to break free from the one-size-fits-all approach of the EU’s common agricultural policy. Therefore, Scottish ministers should use their powers to create a bespoke approach to agriculture funding for Scottish farmers. Farmers and producers are already held back by the Scottish Government’s decision not to embrace gene-editing technology, which would bring widespread benefits across the industry and strengthen our food security.

Those constitutional games not only create barriers within the UK internal market; crucially, they hinder farmers’ ability to provide food for Scotland. Instead of using the agricultural industry as a constitutional pawn, Scottish ministers should embrace this opportunity to create agricultural policy that puts the needs of Scottish farmers and producers at the top.

NFU Scotland supports amendment 131 and says that there are valid concerns in relation to the reliance on developments in the law and policy of the EU while preparing and amending the rural support plan. Major divergence from current practice could cause issues in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; therefore, NFU Scotland wishes the requirement to consider EU law and policy removed. Furthermore, Scottish Land & Estates agrees with the amendment.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I will support a number of them, but I want to highlight Ariane Burgess’s amendment 48 on behalf of the Green Party. I will be very happy to support that.

As I have stated, I am happy to support the amendment. However, why do you think that the NFUS did not consider the proposal to be required? It said that it would not be helpful to include a list of such producers in the bill, as it could result in a negative consequence for those not listed. I do not know which types of producers the NFUS thinks would not be on the list, but did you consider that issue? I am concerned that the Government is going to agree with the NFUS, but I want to state that I think that your amendment is important.

Amendment 133 would create a rural community wealth fund to provide funding for projects in rural Scotland on an application-by-application basis.

Rural communities have been tagged on to this bill as an afterthought by the Scottish Government. It was noted in the committee’s stage 1 report that

“the Scottish Government should be more explicit about the ways in which financial support would be used to develop rural communities”.

If the SNP is serious about supporting rural communities in the bill, it must ensure that the resources are there to provide the housing, transport, local day-to-day services and connectivity that will encourage people to move and work in local areas.

I move amendment 133.

I have a supplementary question. You have twice made the point that the retailers want this. In its submission, the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association said that, in its regular meetings with suppliers, the latter had never raised the issue of REM. Is REM something that Marine Scotland is discussing with retailers, rather than the fishermen who are supplying them? How will the legislation convince those fishermen that REM is needed if their suppliers are not mentioning it?

Any supermarket will speak to its suppliers about what criteria it wants, to ensure that what goes on the supermarket shelves is what the consumer wants. I want to put on record the concern that those conversations have not been had with the people who are going out on the pelagic boats to fish. It is more about international quotas, rather than REM. One stakeholder said that REM had never, ever been mentioned in SPFA meetings.

Does the SSI technical specification say that there has to be a certain type of winch sensor rather than a simplified winch sensor? Could the technical specification allow for a sensor that fishers themselves could repair?

For a pelagic vessel, the fishing season is very limited. Is it the fault of the fishers if they put in the wrong type of sensor? Will they be non-compliant if they put in a simplified sensor that they can fix themselves?

Yes, I know, but that was my question. Could a fisherman fix a sensor that is in the technical specification? We heard that they could not unless it was a simplified sensor.

I just think that it is the wrong way round. It is putting the cart before the horse. It would have been good, particularly in an industry in which seasonality and safety are so important, if the fishers had had the ability to work with the Government to understand the technical specifications through a consultation process. To my mind, that has not happened, which is a disappointing aspect of the SSI.