Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill

The Convener

Agenda item 2 is consideration of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill. Before we go any further, I ask any members present whether they would like to declare an interest. I declare an interest in that I am a member of a farming partnership.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I declare an interest as a member of a farming partnership, too.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I am the joint owner of a very small registered agricultural holding, from which I derive no income.

The Convener

This is our first evidence session on the bill. We will take evidence from the Scottish Government bill team, who will provide information on the background to the bill and its objectives. I welcome Dr John Kerr, the head of the agricultural policy division; Dr George Burgess, deputy director of food and drink; Ally McAlpine, senior statistician; Vicky Dunlop, who is the bill team leader; and Andy Crawley, who is a lawyer for the Scottish Government. Vicky Dunlop will give a very brief introduction to the bill, of no more than three minutes, before we go to questions.

Vicky Dunlop (Scottish Government)

Thank you, convener. Good morning, committee. I thought it would be quite helpful to give the committee a little bit of background as to how the bill came about and why we need it.

Essentially, we need the bill because when—or indeed if—the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the existing common agricultural policy rules will continue to apply across the whole of the UK, including Scotland, as retained EU law via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Without the primary legislation, Scottish ministers would not be able to make changes to retained EU law. In their report from May last year, the agriculture champions recommended a transition period of three to five years after the UK leaves the EU.

That informed our approach to the “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period” consultation that ran last summer, in which a period of stability, with little or no change to existing CAP rules, was proposed for 2019 and 2020, followed by a period of simplicity during which the overarching structure of the CAP would be maintained but with improvements made where possible.

An analysis of the responses to the consultation was published on the Scottish Government’s consultation hub in November 2018. The outcomes of that analysis are being taken forward by the simplification task force, which we expect to report very soon, and the 2021 to 2024 policy and delivery co-ordination group.

All that has helped shape the development of the bill. However, the timing has been driven by the prospect of leaving the EU, and specifically the scope of the CAP from 2021. In addition, following the recent developments in the laws around data protection—namely the Data Protection Act 2018 and the general data protection regulation—we decided to take the opportunity to update the legal mechanism by which the Scottish Government collects agricultural data. The current mechanism relies on powers under the Agriculture Act 1947 and is in need of updating.

There was an opportunity for a schedule to the UK Agriculture Bill to grant the Scottish ministers the necessary powers to do much of what is set out in this bill. However, as is set out in the legislative consent memorandum that was submitted to this committee at the end of last year, the UK and Scottish Governments disagreed about the reserved or devolved nature of three areas of the UK bill.

As the committee will be aware, the UK Agriculture Bill fell when the UK Parliament was prorogued in October this year. It was expected to be reintroduced following the Queen’s speech, but the early general election has overtaken those events. It will now be up to the incoming Government to decide whether to introduce an agriculture bill and what it may include.

As a result, the Scottish Government decided that the best option was to bring forward a bill to the Scottish Parliament, and that bill is the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, which we are discussing today.

The Convener

I will ask the first question—I am not sure who will answer it. On 31 October 2018, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy was in front of the committee and was quizzed by Maureen Watt MSP regarding the Scottish Government’s ability to make payments. I will quote part of that evidence session and ask you to clarify why we need the bill. Maureen Watt said:

“The cabinet secretary will be aware that NFU Scotland is concerned that there may not be a legal vehicle for delivering payments beyond 29 March 2019”—

that was to be the exit date—

“For the record, can you give me your thinking on that?”

Fergus Ewing was very clear. He said:

“we are absolutely satisfied that there is no problem with continuing to make all payments that are properly due to farmers and crofters.”

He went on to say:

“I am absolutely satisfied of that for very good legal reasons, as I have indicated. We will provide the committee with the legal advice in copperplate and detail.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee; 31 October 2018; c 20-1.]

We never got the copperplate and detail, but at that stage the cabinet secretary was clear that there was no need for a bill. What has changed? Who would like to go with that question?

Dr John Kerr (Scottish Government)

When we leave the European Union, the retained EU law will apply and that will allow us to continue to make payments. However, as this committee in particular will know well, we have had to do an exercise to ensure that the retained EU law functions properly. That is the deficiency-fixing exercise and colleagues in this room will have done a lot of work to allow us to progress the UK statutory instruments to make the necessary fixes. That process should have come to a conclusion when we left the European Union, but a number of dates have come and gone and we still have not left the European Union. There are one or two issues that colleagues in the four Administrations are working on together to ensure that we are in a legal position to pay.

That is why Mr Ewing gave the assurance that he did at the time, which was true and remains correct, because this bill does not perform that function. That function is a process of making sure that the retained EU law works. What this bill does, as Vicky Dunlop sought to clarify, is enable us to make amendments to the EU law in order that we can bring in any changes that the industry is looking for through the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation and to make any necessary changes once we have left the European Union.

The Convener

Today’s evidence session will be interesting, because the bill makes some fundamental changes and gives the Scottish Government a lot more powers to vary payments, maybe in preparation for changes that have not been agreed yet. I will have to put the question to the cabinet secretary as well, and ask him why things have changed so much.

Stewart Stevenson

I want to pick up on what Vicky Dunlop said about the three areas of disagreement between the two Governments, and to get on the record that the Presiding Officer has confirmed that the bill is within the legal competence of the Parliament.

Vicky Dunlop

I completely agree. The bill does not touch on those three areas of dispute.

Stewart Stevenson

That is the answer. Thank you.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I read the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, paragraph 64 of which states:

“during a debate on 10 January 2019, the Scottish Parliament agreed to the appointment of a group to make recommendations on future long term policy, and this ‘Farming and Food Production Future Policy Group’ was announced at the Royal Highland Show in June 2019. However, legislating for a long term rural policy in this Bill may pre-empt the Scottish Ministers’ decisions in relation to the recommendations of that group, and so negatively impact”.

I could not agree more. That is a very good synopsis of why there is no policy in the bill and some have called it a technical bill. When I looked at the bill, however, I saw that section 3, which is called “Power to provide for the operation of CAP legislation beyond 2020”, says:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify the main CAP legislation for the purpose of securing that the provisions of the legislation continue to operate in relation to Scotland for one or more years beyond 2020.”

Since I was first elected 20 years ago, I have been wary of giving ministers powers through regulations. That is necessary on occasion, but I am wary of it. Our job is to interrogate the bill. If section 3 is passed unamended, it will give ministers of whatever colour and from whatever Government we have in the future an immense power by regulations to introduce a new system of agricultural support, such as the one that the group is going to recommend to the current cabinet secretary. Section 3 does not do only what is mentioned in the policy memorandum. It would give massive power to future cabinet secretaries. Why is it phrased in that way?

Vicky Dunlop

As you correctly pointed out and acknowledged, the bill does not set out the long-term future. That will be done by the farming and food production future policy group. The bill will enable Scottish ministers to implement the proposals in the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation. Although I acknowledge and accept what you have said, the power is for the short to medium term to enable the recommendations made by the agriculture champions.

Mike Rumbles

Why does the bill not say that? It gives much more power than just that.

Vicky Dunlop

It is driven by where we are at. Andy Crawley might want to comment.

Andy Crawley (Scottish Government)

I am happy to comment on the scope of the power, given that that is the subject of the concern that has been raised. My view is that the power is not as extensive as you think. It is restricted to modifying the existing CAP legislation—the CAP law that will become retained EU law if and when we leave the EU. It is not a power to completely rewrite the common agricultural policy, nor is it even close to that. It is restricted to modifying the existing legislation, so that is a substantial restriction on the scope of the power straight away.

More broadly, part of the purpose of the power—we might call it technical, but in a big way—relates to the fact that the CAP scheme, as I am sure members of the committee are aware, runs in phases and the current scheme is for 2014 to 2020. There are some restrictions in the CAP legislation that would cause difficulty once we get to the end of next year if the intention is to continue to operate the CAP, which is the purpose of the bill. The power is intended to be used to deal with those restrictions. If, for example, financial limits need to be modified or replaced in order to ensure that the CAP could continue to function, the power will allow ministers to do that.

I draw the committee’s attention to section 3(2), which is about that. The national ceilings are currently set under EU law. If we are out of the EU, which is the only situation in which the power would be available, our ministers will need to be able to deal with those issues.

Mike Rumbles

I hear and understand what you say but, as I said, our job is to interrogate the wording of the bill. It is absolutely clear that

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify”—

I agree that it says “modify”—

“the main CAP legislation”,

but if we are out of the EU, there is no CAP. It is about what the CAP covers. The bill says that ministers may

“modify the main CAP legislation for the purpose of securing that the provisions of the legislation continue to operate in relation to Scotland for one or more years beyond 2020.”

The current minister has said that his intention is to have a new system by 2024. I would have no problem if the bill said “one or more years up to 2024”, because that would mean that the Government—of whichever colour—that we had by that year would have to come back to Parliament with primary legislation that we could interrogate.

This is a really important issue, because we are looking at the entire public policy for agricultural support throughout Scotland. Despite what Andy Crawley has just said, the bill gives ministers the power to modify that without coming back to primary legislation, does it not? Will you answer that question?

Andy Crawley

I do not agree with the way that you have characterised the issue, so I do not think that I agree that the power could be used in that way. On the wider issues of CAP policy over the longer term, it is not really for me to say. I would defer to colleagues from Government on that.

Mike Rumbles

Okay. I think that this is really important. On anything that we consider, different and often conflicting legal advice will come forward. As I understand it, we have a difference of opinion on the matter. Would it not be more circumspect—let me put it in that way—to remove the doubt with a Government amendment at stage 2 and put the policy intention, which is a good one, beyond doubt in the bill? I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be listening to this. Would it not be better to put the matter beyond any possible dispute?

Dr Kerr

Before I answer that, I would like to make a small correction to Mike Rumbles’s comment a moment ago that, once we leave the European Union, there will be no CAP. That is not the case, because we will retain the EU law and confer the powers of the CAP into UK legislation. There will continue to be a CAP, and the bill’s purpose is to allow us to operate that until such time as we bring in new primary legislation.

Mike Rumbles

I understand that.

Dr Kerr

That brings me to your point about when that will be. When we set out on this journey, we anticipated that we would be leaving the European Union in March. We then anticipated that we would be leaving at the end of October, but we have still not left the European Union. It is very difficult for officials and legal colleagues to come up with a robust point at which we can safely say that we will not need the powers in the bill, and particularly the provisions that you mentioned. We have not taken the step that you suggest and included an end date because we do not yet know when we will be in a position to have our new primary legislation in place.

Mike Rumbles

I will make a final comment. In my experience over 20 years of many Governments and civil service advice, the job of the civil service is to say to Government, “We need these powers because you might need them in the future.” The point that I am trying to make is that our job as MSPs is to make sure that the legislation that comes through is fit for purpose from our perspective.

The Convener

I guess that, when the cabinet secretary comes in, you will push him hard on that point.

Stewart Stevenson has a supplementary question.

Stewart Stevenson

I have ended up with a tiny question. I note that, in section 1, which defines terms, the definition of “main CAP legislation” refers to specific domestic legislation and includes a list of six points, so it is clear that it is not the European stuff that we are referring to.

My question relates to some of the things that Mr Rumbles said, which he has said before. The powers of ministers are all subject to Parliament. Section 3(4) says that the affirmative procedure applies. Will you confirm on the record that ministers may make no changes without the Parliament’s explicit consent? Mr Crawley is nodding to say that I am correct.

Andy Crawley

That is right.

Stewart Stevenson

Thank you, convener.

The Convener

I will park that as a comment. John Finnie expressed an interest in that as a line of questioning, so we might go back to it.

Will you clarify something? The “Stability and Simplicity” consultation has been completed, but we have not seen the results, so it is difficult to see how the bill reflects the changes that were recommended. Will the committee see that shortly?

Dr Kerr

The results of the consultation were published. We did an analysis of the results. What we have not yet brought forward is the considerations of the simplification task force. There are a couple of reasons for that. Much of what the task force discussed fell into the scope of things that we will be able to do only when we have the necessary powers to make changes. The cabinet secretary has previously spoken at the committee about inspections and penalties. In order to change those things, we have to think about the powers that we need to do that. That would fall within the scope of the bill. Quite a lot of the internal discussion has been about what we can usefully say from the simplification task force now and what we should defer until we have come forward with proposals for 2021 to 2024.

The Convener

I am not sure that that fully answers the question, but I am not sure that you are going to do that. The next question is from Richard Lyle.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

As there are no details of any agreement between the Scottish and UK ministers on a unified policy approach to agricultural support, it is not yet clear to what extent there will be a common system for agricultural support across either Great Britain or the United Kingdom. In some ways, we will have to devise a new system, call it what you like—CAP, no CAP or whatever CAP. Are the powers that are given to the Scottish Government via this bill intended to enable simplifications or improvements to existing CAP schemes for a transitional period of approximately five years? With that in mind, are the provisions in this bill time limited?

Dr Kerr

As we discussed a moment ago in response to Mr Rumbles’s questions, the proposal is not to time limit the powers in the bill. We do not know how long we will need them for, because we do not know when we might bring in future primary legislation.

Richard Lyle

Is that because we do not know how long we will still be in the EU?

Dr Kerr

That is one of the factors at play.

Richard Lyle

We do not know, and that is the problem. You guys are grasping in the dark and people like us are criticising you for it, but what can you do? Will the policy measures to be introduced via secondary legislation be specifically time limited to the end of that transition period, if you do not know what the transition period is?

Dr Kerr

That depends on what we take powers to do. There is a range of different things that we might want to do. Indeed, we might choose to do very little; that would be in line with stability, and any simplification should limit the discussion to something that is quite small in nature. However, the specific issues will determine whether or not it is appropriate to time limit those powers, and we will have to take that on as we bring forward each piece of secondary legislation.

Richard Lyle

I have a small finishing question. Do you sometimes wonder whether you are planning for something but you do not know what you are planning for—yes or no?

Dr Kerr

Yes.

Richard Lyle

Thank you.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I have more of a technical legal question. Is all this predicated on the fallback position of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that, post-exit, EU retained law will have an effect in Scotland, or does the bill relate directly to the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in this Parliament and subsequently challenged, should it re-emerge? If the two Governments diverged with regard to the continuation of CAP, either during transition or post-transition, it is still unclear which of those two pieces of legislation this bill would be affected by, if at all. That is possibly directed towards a lawyer.

Andy Crawley

The drafting approach in this bill is based on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, because that is the piece of UK-wide legislation that provides for retained EU law. As you correctly say, the first continuity bill was intended to do something similar. I do not have any information on what colleagues might do about that bill and that issue but, as far as this bill is concerned, nothing needs to be done in that respect. This will stand by itself working with retained EU law.

Jamie Greene

Irrespective of whether the continuity bill re-emerges.

Andy Crawley

Yes.

Peter Chapman

The agriculture industry out there desperately needs to see what future support will look like. We know that this bill will not give us the answers to that, but the policy memorandum says that it will

“enable pilot projects to be run in order to test out new policy approaches, so as to inform the development of longer term future rural policy.”

Could you indicate what the focus and purpose of those pilot projects might be, to give us an idea of the Government’s thinking about future support?

The Convener

I am pretty sure that that is for you, John, although I may have that wrong.

Dr Kerr

We are not yet at a stage to categorically say what the pilots will be, because we are still in the development stage. On Friday, we will be discussing issues with the farming and food production group that has been mentioned. That work is very much on-going and actively so. Some of the issues that were discussed by the simplification task force are being handed on specifically with what we might usefully pilot in mind. It might be helpful to remind the committee of the operating principles that were set out in the debate in January: sustainability, profitability, simplicity, innovation, inclusion and productivity. Those are the sorts of things that we are pushing towards. In the intervening time, we have also announced a climate emergency, so it is also foreseeable that the cabinet secretary will wish to address some of the pressing issues that the Government has before it in addition to those that were set out in the debate in January. That is the framework that we are working within and we are hoping to bring forward useful pilots that will help us to determine future policy. The other constraint is that it has to be deliverable within the timeframe that is allowed.

Peter Chapman

When are we likely to have some idea of what the pilots will look like? Is there a timescale to have some pilots at least up for discussion or being trialled?

Dr Kerr

We anticipate being able to say more in the coming months. In particular, the farming and food production group is proposing to report its recommendations in the summer. We should have something by then and we may have some simpler things from the simplification task force sooner than that, hopefully.

Peter Chapman

The proposal is that the pilots would be funded by a cap on individual farmers’ payments—an upper limit is one of the proposals. Is there any further information that you can share on that plan to cap payments?

Dr Kerr

We set out in the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation what sum of money a proposed cap at certain levels would yield, but we have not got the discussion on the responses to a stage where we are able to share our thinking with you. We have not put decisions to ministers on that, so we are not there yet, but I can say that there was a mixed set of responses to the consultation, with a cap being favoured by a good number of responses and a cap at £75,000 to over £100,000 being the sort of level that people thought was acceptable. We have some useful information on which to build our decisions.

Peter Chapman

I have another question about powers. It is similar to what Mike Rumbles was speaking about. In theory, the proposed conferral of powers on the Scottish ministers allows the Scottish Government to implement a new system of agricultural support to replace the EU CAP schemes after the end of the transition period through secondary legislation and without the need for further primary legislation. We know that secondary legislation allows much less scrutiny by the Parliament of what is going on. Do you think that that is a sensible way to go forward?

Dr Kerr

The CAP schemes are set out and become part of retained EU law in the UK, and what we are proposing here is to amend those regulations where those amendments may create a simplification or an improvement. I think that using secondary legislation to do that is the correct vehicle for a whole set of reasons, not least of which is the timeliness and the efficacy of doing it in that way in order to get the support to farmers quickly. I think that it is an appropriate way to do it.

Peter Chapman

It means that there is less chance for scrutiny of this going forward. Do you accept that?

Dr Kerr

I think, though, that it is commensurate with the level of changes that we would bring forward.

Richard Lyle

The question that everybody always wants to ask is this: how much money do we get from the EU for this, either through the UK or whatever, and how will it be funded in the future? Will it be funded by the UK or by Scotland?

Dr Kerr

The answer to that is that we are continuing to press the UK Government to meet the commitments that were previously met by the European Union.

Richard Lyle

How much money is paid—how many millions?

Dr Kerr

It is £500 million a year or so.

Richard Lyle

Right, so who will pay that £500 million after we leave the EU? It is a simple question.

The Convener

I am sure that John Kerr would like to answer that, but it may be more appropriate to let the cabinet secretary answer it when he comes in. I think that it is more of a political question than one for the bill team. I will park John’s excitement at the opportunity to answer that and go to Stewart Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson

My question may be for Mr Crawley. On the subject of scrutiny of legislation, be it primary, affirmative or negative, is it correct that it is entirely up to Parliament what the scrutiny process for any form of legislation is and that the difference between the types is related not to scrutiny but to the powers to amend?

Andy Crawley

I think yes. It is certainly up to Parliament to decide what level of scrutiny is appropriate.

The Convener

I have a general question. As farmers get pillar 1 and pillar 2 payments through the current CAP system, my understanding of the legislation is that it would allow the cabinet secretary to shift everything from a pillar 1 payment to a pillar 2 payment without further consultation with the Parliament. Have I got that completely wrong, or is that what the legislation suggests?

Dr Kerr

One of the reasons why we need to take these powers is to allow us to make changes such as the one that you are envisaging, although we have no plans to do something as radical as that. I do not think that that would count as a simplification or an improvement. Some people might see it as an improvement, but I think that that would be contestable. That is not what is proposed and it certainly would not be our intention to do that without bringing forward the powers.

The Convener

I was not asking whether it is proposed or intended; I was asking whether the legislation gives you the ability to do that should the cabinet secretary so wish.

Stewart Stevenson

And Parliament agreed.

Richard Lyle

That is a political question.

The Convener

No, it is a factual question, Mr Lyle. My understanding of the legislation is that, under the current system, payments can be shifted from pillar 1 to pillar 2 without further consultation.

Dr Kerr

That would require parliamentary scrutiny.

The Convener

Where does it say that?

Dr Kerr

With some of the processes that we are currently replacing by bringing the legislation into domestic law, some of the functions of the Commission are also being replaced. In order to make pillar-to-pillar transfers, we have to notify the Commission of our intention to do so, and there are limits, which are set out. We would have to follow the required process within the European framework that will have been retained. I would look to Andy Crawley to tell me exactly where that was in the legislation, because there is quite a lot of legislation and I am not familiar with the precise articles.

The Convener

Maybe we can park that and you can give me a specific lesson afterwards, so that I understand it—because I do not see it at the moment—rather than taking up any more time.

Dr Kerr

I am happy to do that.

Jamie Greene

I have listened to the first part of the session and I am still a bit confused as to what this bill does and does not do, which I do not think is a great place for the committee to be in at the moment. I am hoping that, by the end of this session and future sessions, we will have more clarity. It is still unclear. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which I am very grateful for, says:

“the Bill grants powers for Scottish Ministers to, by regulation:

• Make changes to ... any part of the CAP legislation.

• Make changes to the operation and financial provisions of CAP ...

• Revoke or modify legislation on public intervention.”

That sounds like quite a lot, so I am still at a bit of a loss as to whether this is simply a bill that enables Scottish ministers to continue to pay CAP support under the current system, to continue to pay CAP support under a new system and modify the current system, or to devise an entirely new subsidy system as a result of any policy decisions that it makes. Can someone enlighten me as to where we will end up if this bill passes?

The Convener

Who would like to lead on that? It looks like John Kerr is champing at the bit.

Dr Kerr

Yes, everyone is looking at me. The purpose of the bill is to make improvements or simplifications to the retained EU law, which we will then have. The CAP legislation is quite big and it does quite a lot of things. It does things with direct payments under pillar 1—there are a number of schemes within that area of the common agricultural policy—and it does quite a lot under pillar 2, from agri-environment schemes all the way to LEADER projects, which benefit rural communities. It is doing quite a lot of things already.

The scope of the powers in the bill would allow us to make improvements or simplifications to all those schemes. In one sense, that is quite a broad range of things that we can do, but we can only change them to the extent that they are an improvement or a simplification. It does not go as far as your latter point, which would be a wholesale change. We are not proposing to get rid of pillar 1 payments or get rid of pillar 2, and we could not do so, because that would be a wholesale change. What we are proposing is to allow us to make the necessary changes to the retained EU law to continue to function.

Jamie Greene

I return to the premise of my original question. If the bill is to allow something that currently exists to continue, I understand and accept that there is a technical need for Scottish ministers to have that power. However, if Scottish ministers want to do something different from what is currently happening and the bill enables them to do that, it does not specify the limitations of what those changes may be. The cabinet secretary told the committee that the bill is “a technical bill” that is designed to give ministers powers to amend EU law in relation to the CAP but that it is not intended to make changes to existing policy. You have just said that the bill could enable quite substantial changes to policy. Can you give me an idea of some of the changes that the Scottish Government may want to make under the bill?

Dr Kerr

European Union member states already have discretion to decide which schemes they do and do not use within the different funding mechanisms. For example, in Scotland, we use voluntary coupled support under pillar 1, whereas other parts of the UK do not. It is already in our gift, within the European framework, to choose whether to do that and the extent to which we provide funding through that mechanism. Those are the types of things that the bill gives us the powers to amend as we would if we were a European Union member state or a territory therein. A wholesale change is not what is envisaged.

Jamie Greene

It is not what is envisaged, but it is possible—that is my point.

Dr Kerr

No, it is not possible, because that would go beyond the powers of the bill, which are about making improvements or simplifications.

Jamie Greene

I think that other members will have questions on that subject. Again, those are quite vague terms that could be interpreted in different ways.

I have another question. Why has the Scottish Government chosen to go down the road of introducing the bill? What was wrong with the UK Agriculture Bill? What deficiencies did you feel were not addressed by that bill, which meant that Scotland-specific legislation needed to be passed by this Parliament? I am keen to dig deeper into that.

Dr George Burgess (Scottish Government)

I will take that question.

The Convener

I feel that it is more a question for Mr Ewing to answer. However, if you want to start and let him fill in the gaps when we see him, that is perfect.

Dr Burgess

As Vicky Dunlop’s opening statement set out, although our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sincerely offered an opportunity for the Scottish Government to participate in the drafting of the UK Agriculture Bill, our view is that the appropriate place for legislation on devolved matters is here, in the Scottish Parliament. Nothing in the bill that is before us today requires Westminster intervention in any way; therefore, the prime place for that legislation should be here. We are now slightly ahead of the UK Government, as the UK Agriculture Bill has fallen and, at this stage, we do not know when it will be reintroduced.

Jamie Greene

It is in no way the case that the bill reflects the fact that there is political disagreement between the two Governments on a number of issues and that your way of dealing with that disagreement is to legislate.

Dr Burgess

As Vicky Dunlop has set out, our bill focuses on a different set of issues from those that were identified earlier around a disagreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on the World Trade Organization provisions on producer organisations and fair dealing in supply chains. None of those provisions is in our bill. We sought, unsuccessfully, to improve the provisions in the Westminster bill. However, should that bill re-emerge, as we expect that it will, we will look to make its provisions more suited to Scotland.

The Convener

I think that you have pushed that as far as you can, Jamie. Emma Harper has some questions that she wants to ask.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I will pick up on supply chain issues—for instance, the issues around dairy producer organisations, fruit and veg supply chains and how we protect the producers over the big guys in the business when we support milk contracts.

Section 6 allows producer organisations and associations of the producer organisations to be recognised under a given set of conditions, and organisations that are recognised in that way may be exempt from some provisions in the Competition Act 1998. I am seeking information about the extent to which the bill will cover areas that might be disputed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. How can we support our producer organisations and make the supply chain more stable?

The Convener

I think that is a question for George Burgess.

Dr Burgess

The provisions in section 6 relate simply to the fruit and vegetable producer organisation aid scheme, not to the fundamental issue of the recognition or otherwise of producer organisations. The United Kingdom Government has asserted that that area is reserved, but, as is set out in the legislative consent memorandum for the Agriculture Bill, we do not agree with that position. Indeed, over the past 20 years, it has been understood that, in practice, the recognition of those organisations is devolved. There has been a slightly surprising change of stance by the UK Government.

The UK Government’s proposed new legislation on the recognition of producer organisations will be in the UK bill, and the provision in section 6 is simply about the aid scheme. The UK Government does not dispute that the granting of aid to producer organisations is a devolved matter; its assertion about reserved status is more about the exemption from competition law that producer organisation status grants. There is a distinction between the two things, and I have received no indication that the UK Government has any difficulty with the provision that is in our bill.

Emma Harper

Will the bill help to promote dairy producers? We have seen the volatility in the milk market. The South Scotland region has 48 per cent of Scotland’s dairies, and there is such a difficulty. We are finding that a lot of dairy farmers do not even have contracts that will help to support them. Will the bill help to support some of the producers and make their lives a bit more stable?

Dr Burgess

This bill will not, because, in the UK Government’s view, this bill cannot. The UK Government has taken the view that producer organisation recognition and the provisions on fair dealing in supply chains, which were in the consultation that we carried out with the UK Government on dairy supply chains and mandatory contracts, can be addressed only in UK legislation, not through anything in our bill.

The Convener

Do you believe that this bill allows the development of common frameworks across the United Kingdom and that it works hand in glove with all of the United Kingdom, or is it pushing purely towards Scotland?

Dr Burgess

The bill itself does not enable frameworks to be created, nor does it get in the way of frameworks; rather, the frameworks are a concept that has been developed under the auspices of the joint ministerial committee between the Administrations. In the early half of 2018, quite a bit of work on the frameworks was done between the UK Government, us and Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues.

That work has taken a little bit of a back seat lately because the concentration has been on fixing the deficiencies in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and on no-deal preparations. However, we are meeting our colleagues next week, and we will reassess the position, looking at frameworks and all the work that needs to be done on them. In the meantime, some work has been done on what are called working level arrangements—in essence, the practical arrangements between the Administrations—focusing on a no-deal scenario and how, in practice, we can make sure that the work between the Administrations goes on.

You could see the marketing standards provisions as an example of how we are ensuring that there can be a UK-wide framework. The provisions on marketing standards for England, Wales and Northern Ireland that are in the UK Agriculture Bill and the provisions that we have in our bill would allow Scotland, if it so desired, to keep in step and ensure that we had a UK-wide set of arrangements.

Stewart Stevenson

I was going to ask this question later, but the issue of marketing standards has come up and it is a wee technical question. Section 8(2)(d) covers labelling and section 8(2)(j) covers the place of farming or origin. Does the bill allow us to insist that the place of origin be stated on food labels?

Dr Burgess

Yes. Section 8(2) provides quite a long list of provisions, all of which come directly from the existing European legislation. Although they are framed as new powers, they are really no broader than the existing EU powers. In some areas of marketing standards, there is a requirement for country-of-origin labelling; in some areas, there is less of a requirement. What section 8(2) gives is a general power that is identical to the one that the European Union already has.

Stewart Stevenson

I do not want to go any further on that point. It was just a technical question.

We have covered a lot of ground on simplifications and improvements. I have one tiny question left, which I think we can deal with briefly. It would be helpful to the committee if we could have an early indication of any simplifications or improvements that are currently being contemplated at official level. When we have the minister before us, we might ask him about that as well.

Dr Kerr

We have noted your enthusiasm to get stuck in. We are keen that you can do so, so we will take that request away and bring something back as soon as we can.

Stewart Stevenson

In the light of the previous discussion, I expected that that might be the answer.

The less favoured area support scheme is very important and distinctly different in Scotland, as 85 per cent of our farming ground is less favoured. Is the intention to continue the current scheme for the duration of the transition period, or is it envisaged that changes may be made to LFASS? If so, when and of what character?

Dr Kerr

Mr Ewing has already said—I think that he said it at last week’s committee meeting—that we intend to bring forward proposals to change LFASS. It is quite an old scheme—in some ways, it is quite outdated—and we intend to start the process of bringing forward a replacement for it. In fact, that work has already started and we are already engaging informally with some stakeholders on the matter, as Mr Ewing indicated previously. The intention is to do that as quickly as we can.

Stewart Stevenson

As an official, are you being directed towards development of new policy or merely towards improving the implementation of the existing policy?

Dr Kerr

The main thrust of our approach on LFASS hitherto has been to use the European Union’s areas of natural constraint approach, and that is the process under which we are still working, given that we do not yet know whether we will be in or out of Europe. That is the basis on which the new scheme is being looked at. In that sense, it is a new policy because the scheme has different rules and a different basis.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I thank the panel for their input today. You have substantially covered the area, but I want to raise one small point relating to section 2 and the fact that wide-ranging powers will be conferred through secondary legislation. That issue has been well covered, but how will the views of the public and stakeholders be taken on board in producing any secondary legislation, accepting that it is for Parliament to determine how the bill is progressed?

Dr Kerr

For any new proposals such as the one on LFASS, which we have just discussed, we would normally go through a process of engagement with stakeholders, and the level of engagement would be consummate with the size of the change that we were proposing. We engage specifically with interested parties through regular meetings with key stakeholders at official level, which we have at least quarterly. Any proposals that we bring forward are consulted on in that way.

Jamie Greene

Can I clarify something? Under section 2, changes to CAP legislation will be made through regulations that are subject to the negative procedure. Can you explain why that is the case? Why will the affirmative procedure not be used? Given the importance of the future of the CAP, why will those regulations not be in a separate piece of legislation that the committee, for example, can consult fully and take proper evidence on and that people will have the ability to amend?

Dr Kerr

We have indicated that they should be subject to the negative procedure because we envisage that they will involve simplifications and improvements that are not major in nature. It is a matter for consideration, but that is our recommendation, given the magnitude of the change that is involved.

Jamie Greene

If I was a Scottish minister and I wanted to make sweeping changes to the CAP in the future, how would I go about doing that? Would I use this piece of legislation or would I need to introduce a new bill to Parliament?

Dr Kerr

As we have stated, the purpose of the bill is only to make simplifications and improvements. If we wanted to make broader changes, new primary legislation would be envisaged, and that is what we have stated that we intend to produce.

Mike Rumbles

Section 2(1) states:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify the main CAP legislation.”

Can you tell me what the main CAP legislation is, please?

Andy Crawley

Section 1(2) defines the main CAP legislation, which is the list of the main European regulations that will become retained EU law. It is the direct payments regulation, the rural development regulation and the horizontal regulation. It is the basic acts. To put it crudely, it is the European primary legislation that will move into national law if and when we leave the EU.

Mike Rumbles

Ministers may, by regulation, change primary legislation that we have through the EU—is that what you are saying? You just referred to primary legislation.

Andy Crawley

It is not a like-for-like change; they are the basic acts—the important pieces of EU legislation. From our perspective, at least, the point to recognise is the scope of the change that can be made. I go back to what John Kerr said: the bill is about simplification and modernisation.

Mike Rumbles

My point is that one person’s modification is another’s change, and one person’s simplification can be quite radical, can it not?

Andy Crawley

That is one point of view.

Mike Rumbles

It can be, can it not? You are not saying that it cannot be.

Andy Crawley

I am not sure that I can answer that question.

The Convener

I think that Stewart Stevenson wants to come in. Are you going to clarify the point?

Stewart Stevenson

That is for others to say, convener. Looking at section 3(1), it seems clear to me—and I will be happy to hear confirmation that I am reading it correctly—that the modifications to the main CAP legislation are constrained to securing the continued operation of the provisions of that legislation, with section 2(2) saying:

“The Scottish Ministers may only make modifications ”

as

“would simplify or improve”.

That is it; it is not a total power to do all the things that you may wish to do.

Ultimately, of course, it is up to the courts to decide what the intention is and, therefore, it will be important that, when we talk to the minister, we seek clarity to get that on the record. Is my reading of the bill correct, in that it is not an untrammelled power but is constrained by both section 2(1) and section 3(1)? I am getting a nod from Mr Crawley. Thank you.

The Convener

I am not sure whether that puts Stewart Stevenson on the bill team or back on the committee.

Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)

I will stay with part 1 of the bill. What consultation has been done on the provisions relating to public intervention and private storage aid, aid to fruit and vegetable producers, the EU food promotion scheme, marketing standards and carcase classifications? What change does the Government intend to make in relation to those specific areas?

The Convener

Those are definitely for George Burgess.

Dr Burgess

Those are for me.

Most of those provisions are of a piece with the wider stability and simplicity work. As already noted, the provisions on the fruit and veg aid scheme specifically refer to simplification and improvements. There has not been specific consultation on the provisions; they were to some extent already covered by the wider “Stability and Simplicity” consultation.

However, as I mentioned, the provisions on marketing standards are effectively a response to the provisions that the UK Government included in its Agriculture Bill. As we have set out in the policy memorandum, the risk is that, if those provisions proceeded for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland could be left adrift. It is better to take a matching set of powers here so that we can, if the need arises, make similar changes to our marketing standards.

There will already be fairly wide-ranging powers under the retained EU law to make changes to marketing standards. It is not that nothing can be changed in marketing standards; it is simply that the provisions in the bill will allow us to keep pace with other parts of the UK.

Angus MacDonald

Could you give us a bit more clarification with regard to carcase classifications? I am intrigued as to why that those are included. Why would they have to change?

Dr Burgess

The carcase classification provisions are effectively a species of the marketing standards provisions in the EU common organisation of the markets regulation. They have a slightly different origin: at the outset, the intention was more to make sure that the carcases that went into cold storage under the public intervention scheme that ran in decades gone by were of an appropriate standard, whereas the rest of the marketing standards are more directed at consumers and the retail sector—essentially, they are in the same basket as the rest of the marketing standards. In the UK Government’s Agriculture Bill, they are all dealt with in a single clause. We thought that, for clarity, it was better to separate out marketing standards and carcase classification.

At this stage, there is no intention to make any changes to the carcase classification provisions. In the past, DEFRA has suggested that it might be interested in looking at a different scheme of carcase classification in future. The current systems are more about the confirmation of the animal, rather than anything to do with what might be described as the eating quality of the meat. There has been some indication from DEFRA that it is interested in moving into that space, but at this stage, there is no proposal anywhere in the UK for changes to the carcase classification legislation.

Angus MacDonald

Thank you for that clarification. [Interruption.]

The Convener

Sorry—my phone is ringing. That is quite the most appalling thing that has ever happened to me in this committee, so I am going to chastise myself for not following my own instructions. I apologise to committee members—I hope that it never happens to you. To my wife, I say that you should not be ringing when you know I am in a committee. [Laughter.] I apologise profusely to everyone. I will talk to my wife later.

Angus MacDonald

If it does ever happen to me, I will remind you of this, convener. [Laughter.]

The Convener

Wait until I speak to my wife.

Angus MacDonald

The previous UK Agriculture Bill proposed to abolish for England, Wales and Northern Ireland the market intervention powers contained in the common organisation of the markets regulation, and to replace them with new powers that would be available during “exceptional market conditions”. The bill that is before us allows market intervention provisions under that regulation to be disapplied, temporarily or permanently, or otherwise simplified or improved, in Scotland. Does that indicate a fundamental difference in approach between Scotland and the rest of the UK? If so, what is the rationale for that?

Dr Burgess

I do not think that I would describe it as a fundamental difference of approach. We have already talked a little bit about the old days of market intervention. Many people in this room will be old enough to remember the days of the butter mountains and the wine lakes. Those have largely gone. There is relatively little use of the public intervention and private storage aid provisions at the moment. They are used a little in relation to skimmed milk powder in Northern Ireland, and the European Commission has recently opened an intervention scheme for olive oil, which is not something that affects us greatly in Scotland. However, the provisions are far less regularly used now; in fact, I would probably go as far as to say that they are used now only in particular market crisis situations.

Our colleagues in DEFRA have decided that it is time to draw a line under the schemes and remove them. The provision in the previous Agriculture Bill would allow the schemes to be done away with.

We have taken an approach that is more in keeping with the stability and simplicity approach. We allow some simplification of and improvements to the schemes, and there are provisions to suspend the effects of the schemes. Some of the market intervention provisions are mandatory: if prices fall below a certain level, a scheme automatically kicks in. We would want to avoid a situation in which that happened in Scotland while the rest of the UK was not intervening in the same way. We could end up with one part of the UK trying to prop up the entire UK market.

The approach that we have taken allows us to suspend the operation of the schemes. The longer-term future of whether we retain anything like them will be a matter for the longer-term policy work.

The Convener

I have a question on the carcase classification provisions. George Burgess and I both know that every abattoir has a slightly different permutation of carcase classification as far as pricing is concerned. The abattoir will set pricing; some abattoirs go much deeper into carcase classification than others. There is no intention by the Scottish Government to change that or to force every abattoir to use a standard form of carcase classification, is there?

Dr Burgess

All abattoirs should be operating the same carcase classification system.

The Convener

Yes, but sometimes they split the pricing, or part of the pricing, further than the basic classification.

Dr Burgess

No. Essentially, the EUROP scheme will continue. You want to be an E or a U; you do not want to be like me and be classified as a P. That scheme will remain in place. How the individual abattoirs deploy that with their suppliers, in terms of how finely they set out their pricing schedule, is a commercial matter for them. The bill would not affect that. I go back to the question about fair play in the supply chain: the scheme is there to ensure a bit of rigour so that farmers do not get a poor price and discover that their animal has been downgraded without there really being any objective standard to measure that against. It provides a bit of clarity and transparency in the arrangements.

Emma Harper

I will pick up on the answers to Angus MacDonald’s questions. The previous UK Agriculture Bill proposed the abolition of the fruit and vegetable aid scheme in England, whereas the bill that is before us enables Scottish ministers to simplify—you talk about simplification, which sounds positive—and improve the on-going operation of the scheme in Scotland. Can you clarify the difference between the UK approach and the Scottish approach?

Dr Burgess

Yes. Essentially, our approach is in line with the stability and simplicity approach. We are not, in the bill, doing away with the fruit and veg aid scheme; the intention is that that would continue to operate in Scotland during the next couple of years, pending the longer-term policy work.

Across the UK, around £40 million a year goes into the fruit and veg aid scheme, of which about £4 million is for Scottish producers. There will be some complications, in that many of the producer organisations have members in a number of different parts of the UK. In fact, some of them are transnational organisations, with members in Spain. The complications of that, as part of Brexit, still have to be fully worked through.

The immediate intention is not to do away with the fruit and veg aid scheme, which in our view has been a valuable way of supporting a sector that is generally unsupported in the CAP scheme.

Emma Harper

Section 7 gives the power to revoke the EU food promotion scheme. Does the Scottish Government intend to revoke that scheme?

Dr Burgess

Yes, and we understand that that intention is shared by other parts of the UK, or at least by DEFRA. The food promotion scheme is an EU-wide competitive scheme. Some Scottish bodies have benefited from it. For example, Quality Meat Scotland has participated in previous years. At the moment, the only UK participation is through the Northern Ireland Dairy Council, which has a couple of schemes to promote dairy products, primarily in the middle east. There is no current benefit from that EU scheme.

The scheme has been translated into domestic law under the deficiencies process. We have, or will have, legislation that would allow us to operate the scheme domestically. However, essentially, we will end up with what has previously been an EU-wide competitive scheme turning into a purely Scottish scheme that is rather too heavy duty for our needs. We already have existing powers, as noted in the policy memorandum. Under the Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008, there is a power to make grants to Quality Meat Scotland, which we have already used and which could be used to achieve the same effect as the food promotion scheme. There are also powers under the Agriculture Act 1993. We already have the simpler mechanisms by which we could achieve the same end as the EU scheme would provide. Therefore, it becomes redundant.

Emma Harper

The policy memorandum states that any decision to make changes to the marketing standards

“can be taken on a case-by-case basis regarding whether to follow any changes introduced in ... the UK Agriculture Bill, or whether to retain alignment with EU law.”

How is it envisaged that taking a case-by-case approach to decision making on this or other aspects of the bill will work in practice?

Dr Burgess

At the risk of repeating the question, it will happen case by case. If DEFRA were to propose to change a particular bit of marketing standards legislation that would take it out of alignment with the European standards, that would be the point at which we would need to look at whether it was better for us—based on trade flows, for example—to maintain alignment within the UK so that the standards in England and Scotland were aligned, or to retain alignment with the EU.

At this stage, I am aware of only one proposal from DEFRA for use of the powers, and that is in relation to hops and the frequency with which hops crops have to be inspected, which DEFRA is looking to reduce. That might be one where we are quite happy to fall in with DEFRA.

Jamie Greene

You talked about hops crops marketing standards. What might a divergence in marketing standards on a practical level look like? We have quite different understandings of food and drink and marketing standards. Will the bill allow Scottish ministers to look at changes that either the UK or the EU has made and decide which ones they prefer? Is that what you are saying to us?

Dr Burgess

Essentially, yes. If standards diverge because of decisions taken either at European level or by DEFRA and we have to decide which way to go, the bill will give us the flexibility to do it. I said earlier that there are already European powers to change marketing standards, and we would be able to use those powers but, because the ones in the UK Agriculture Bill are a bit broader, a change could be made under the UK Agriculture Bill that Europe would not be able to make. That could lead to the sort of divergence that we are talking about. In that situation, we would look at whether the balance of advantage would be for us to retain alignment with England or with the EU.

Jamie Greene

Have you had any feedback from stakeholders about a potential divergence in standards between Scotland and England?

Dr Burgess

There has not been any comment from the stakeholders. It is worth remembering that a lot of the standards, certainly in the fruit and veg space, which is one of the main areas, are effectively developed at an even higher level than the EU. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—UNECE—sets standards. The most recent EU legislation on fruit and vegetable standards aligned the EU system with the new UNECE standards that kick in next month. Although they look like very broad powers, most of the standards are developed at a supranational level.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

We move on to the collection and processing of data. Section 12 gives the Scottish ministers the power by regulation under the affirmative procedure to amend the definition of agricultural activity. Does the Scottish Government intend to change the definition of agricultural activity and, if so, to what?

Ally McAlpine (Scottish Government)

The question you are asking is why the power is in the bill. At the moment, we do not want to change anything that is defined. In fact, the legislation relates to the EU law definition of agriculture as it stands. The answer is, no, we do not want to change the definition, but considering that we rely on the Agriculture Act 1947, by putting the power in the bill, we are hoping that it will have the same longevity in relation to the Data Protection Act 2018.

Maureen Watt

The definition of agricultural activity talks about:

“(i) production, rearing or growing of agricultural products, including harvesting, milking, breeding animals, and keeping animals for farming purposes.”

Is it sufficiently clear for growing fruit and veg, for example?

Ally McAlpine

We want to be able to collect information from producers of food, and I think that that is covered by the list of specifications. I do not see anything that would not allow us to collect that information from fruit and veg producers. I disagree with the idea that we would not be able to do that.

Maureen Watt

To what extent do the provisions of the bill relating to data collection and processing mirror the corresponding provisions contained in the UK Agriculture Bill as was, whether it comes back in the same form?

Ally McAlpine

We had discussions with DEFRA early on when it started discussing this, and we looked at what it was trying to achieve with the bill. The focus was on animal welfare and plant health, which are covered by other legislation in Scotland.

The point that we thought was being missed was the fact that we now have the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under that legislation, we need a legal basis for collecting data, and we need to be able to specify that and show the public and the farmers what that legislation is. The bill was an opportunity to clarify that because, at the moment, a number of pieces of legislation or EU regulations can apply. Bringing everything together in one place helps us to focus and become more open and transparent about the data that we can and cannot collect. That is the focus of our bill, and it is different from the focus of the UK bill.

Maureen Watt

I suppose that farmers will want reassurance that there will not be any more data collection, although sometimes they forget that we collect data because we are spending taxpayers’ money on their subsidies. Can we have that reassurance?

Ally McAlpine

Yes, you can have that reassurance.

Stewart Stevenson

On a technical issue, section 16(4)(a)(ii) is about helping people to manage risks,

“including, but not limited to ... climatic risks”.

I want it to be clear that that would include the particular risks associated with climate change, especially in the light of the declaration of a climate emergency. It seems to me it would but I am just seeking clarity.

Ally McAlpine

Yes, it would.

The Convener

Before we move on, the deputy convener asked about changing the definition of agricultural activity. If the definition of agricultural activity changed as a result of the bill, what effect would that have on agricultural tenancies or planning legislation that rely on the current definition of agriculture as laid down? You have mentioned the Agriculture Act 1947, so you have used various definitions. Will that be affected if you change it?

Ally McAlpine

No, it will not be affected, but I can go into a bit more detail on that.

The Convener

Rather than waste everyone’s time on it, because it is possibly quite a geeky question, I would like confirmation that the definition for planning of agriculture and agricultural legislation will not be changed as a result of the bill, thereby affecting tenancies and planning legislation.

Ally McAlpine

The bill is about collecting statistics and collecting data from farmers for survey. It does not cover planning.

Andy Crawley

No, it will not affect it.

The Convener

Andy Crawley and Ally McAlpine, you can definitely write in and confirm that it will not affect those two bits of legislation. It is critically important that the definitions of agriculture in legislation will not be affected by a change of agricultural definition in the bill.

Angus MacDonald

Following on from Maureen Watt’s questioning, I am thinking back to 2014-15 and Brian Pack’s doing better initiative, which was an attempt to reduce red tape for farmers and land managers. Has an impact assessment been undertaken to confirm that the data provisions of the bill will not impose any additional burdens on farmers, crofters and land managers?

Ally McAlpine

No, we have not done an impact assessment, and no, there will not be an additional burden. I can give that assurance because the purpose of the legislation is to define the legal basis on which we collect data. That is supposed to be open and transparent, so farmers will be able to look at the act and see whether we are doing the job that we said we would do under the legislation. The bill restricts what we can ask, so there will be no additional burden.

Within the Statistics and Regulation (Registration Services) Act 2007, we have the code of practice, which places a duty on statisticians to look at survey burden. We are always looking to reduce that. For example, there used to be the sheep and goat inventory and the December census. Those two things are now combined to reduce the burden. Going forward, the statisticians in my team are always looking at ways of combining questions and reducing the time that surveys take. We also look at the sampling frames, and at sending out as few forms as we possibly can.

Angus MacDonald

Many farmers and crofters will be pleased to hear that, I am sure.

The Convener

Colin Smyth has waited patiently to ask his questions.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Absolutely, and they are very much in line with your reference to geeky questions, convener, because I have one or two quite specific questions around the importance of data collection. The policy memorandum states that the Scottish Government does not intend to collect additional agricultural data. Given the rapidly changing policy environment that we are facing with regard to issues such as climate change and Brexit, have there been any discussions about the fact that there might be a need to collect different data in the future?

Ally McAlpine

I am happy to give geeky answers; I am used to doing that. The geeky answer to your question is that we plan on collecting additional data but not from farmers and not through survey. For example, one of the things that we are currently looking at—I have a team working on this now—is the use of satellite data. At that point, things get very geeky as we are using data science to do that. Our approach involves information technology specialists, mapping specialists and statisticians working together to look at things such as what crops are growing across Scotland. There are worldwide projects going on in the area of satellite data, and we collaborate with academics with regard to what learning we can adopt in-house. We are not yet in a position to use that satellite data as we would like to, but the focus of our work in that regard is to move away from the cereal harvest and, therefore, reduce the additional data that we request from farmers, because we will be able to use new technologies to do that ourselves.

Colin Smyth

Sections 13 and 14 of the bill allow the Scottish Government to, by regulation, impose requirements on persons carrying out agricultural activity or who are in or connected with the agri-food supply chain. The delegated powers memorandum clarifies that that is intended to allow the Scottish ministers to collect data from industry or supply chain subgroups. Can you tell us what those groups are at the moment? Is that likely to be any different from the groups that data is currently collected from?

Ally McAlpine

No. The point of the legislation is to be more open and transparent. As alluded to earlier, we have been using the 1947 act, which specifies that we can ask for data from holdings. What we are actually doing with this legislation is stating who we are already collecting data from. We are not collecting data from anybody else. The legislation restricts who we collect data from and specifies them explicitly. For example, we will ask for information from a number of suppliers and we will look back to the cereal harvest as well—we will look at where the cereal goes after it leaves the farm gate. We would be looking further down the supply chain, which we currently look at—we would just be repeating that.

Colin Smyth

So, it would just be the existing groups—the status quo, in other words.

Ally McAlpine

Yes, the existing groups—nobody new.

Colin Smyth

The policy memorandum states that the data that is collected is used to analyse economic output and the performance and effectiveness of policies, and to help Scotland provide information on the sustainable development goals. Can you elaborate a bit on the type of data that is collected for that purpose?

Ally McAlpine

We have three main data collections that we combine to help to do that. One is the farm business survey, which involves between 400 and 500 farms. We do not do it ourselves; we contract it out to specialists, who are used to auditing financial accounts. We examine the information that we get from that and it helps us consider the effectiveness of things such as the CAP scheme. We do not ever get to see the individual record data; we get to see the analysis.

We also have the December survey, which is going out now, and the June census, which has already been out. Those focus on certain points through the year and look at what the situation has been with regard to agricultural production and where we might see problems within the production. We can alert policy colleagues if we see anything in those trends that needs to be raised. Those two surveys combined are fed into what we call the total income from farming statistics, which are a combination of those surveys and a number of other minor surveys. We take all of that information and we estimate what gross domestic product, gross value added, productivity and so on look like for the sector.

Emma Harper

My question is about the definition of agricultural activity in relation to bee keepers. In Scotland, we have hobby bee keepers and we have about 25 bee farmers. Does the definition include harvesting? Is that where bee keepers fall into the definition of agricultural activity?

Ally McAlpine

That is quite a minor issue. If it is all right with the convener, we might answer that question in writing later. I am not aware of what data we currently collect from bee keepers.

The Convener

I am sure that it would be helpful to submit the response in writing. As we all know, masses of data is kept even on things such as smallholdings with chickens, which have to register chickens in relation to avian flu and suchlike. I am sure that we would welcome knowing where our honey comes from.

Jamie Greene

Moving on from bees, I want to ask a technical question around the collection of data, linked to the issue of CAP payments. At the moment, the financial calculation for how much someone is paid and the level of subsidy is based on certain criteria. If the policy around CAP payments were to change, so that it used different parameters and required different pieces of information from the farmer or the landowner, would that be in conflict with the policy memorandum, which states that, as a result of the bill,

“there should be no additional burden placed on farmers, crofters and land managers”?

Ally McAlpine

Part 2 is about the legal basis for us going out and asking for information from survey. We have to state that under the GDPR—that goes in the privacy notice, and we can point to the piece of legislation that says that we are asking for that data. If a farmer wants to receive CAP payments, that involves the part of the GDPR on consent—the farmer would be consenting to give their information in order to receive the CAP payments. I do not think that that is covered here. John Kerr might have something to say on that issue.

Jamie Greene

My point is that, if the bill allows ministers to change the CAP system by whatever means, and if working out the financial subsidy is based on a different set of criteria, that will inevitably require additional information to be given by farmers to the Government.

Ally McAlpine

The level of information that we collect is at the whole-sector level. We are not collecting data for CAP. There is a clear firewall between what data is collected for CAP and what we collect. You could devise a different system and we would still be able to collect that data. That data is about the holistic goings-on within the sector, and we can then analyse that data to look at the effectiveness of whatever policies this Government or any other Governments want to bring forward.

The Convener

Richard Lyle, you get the last question.

Richard Lyle

I once had the good fortune to go to one of the local offices and try on the equipment that the chap uses when he goes out and measures the farm to the last inch or metre or whatever. Are we still going to have to measure up what people have in order to equate their payments to that, or can we get rid of that part of the process?

The Convener

John Kerr wants to come in, no doubt to say that it is centimetres, not inches.

Dr Kerr

Indeed, yes.

Richard Lyle

Okay, I am pre-EU.

Dr Kerr

At the moment the requirement is driven by the European Union legislation. What is envisaged is not a wholesale change, but Mr Ewing and the stakeholders are keen on reducing the burden of the legislation, if it is possible to do that, in particular with regard to where that burden is not producing a benefit to the farmers or the wider public.

Richard Lyle

We have to be able to minimise and reduce the red tape and the paperwork and the hoops that people have to go through. Some people say that you are going to take back control. Are you really going to take back control?

Dr Kerr

On that specific point about inspections and penalties, colleagues are involved in an active stream of work with specific regard to that purpose. We hope to minimise the impact of that on businesses and on us in delivery terms, so that we can do our work more efficiently on behalf of the sector, too.

The Convener

That brings us to the end of the questions that members want to ask at this stage. I thank all the people who attended this morning. There are some follow-up bits of information that the clerks will be in contact with our witnesses about.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion S5M-21650, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their buttons now.

I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing)

I am pleased to present the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill and to set out its general principles. I thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its report, which expresses support for the general principles of the bill. I also express gratitude to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and thank all stakeholders who have submitted evidence to the committee and have had discussions with me and my officials.

It is important to be clear on why we need the bill and on what the bill is and is not intended to address. The bill has been developed as a direct result of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. I am sure that everyone here knows that the Scottish Government believes that EU membership is the best option for both Scotland and the UK. However, we are where we are, in a kind of limbo—neither truly part of the EU nor clear about our future relationship with it or the rest of the world.

It is imperative that, as a responsible Government, we ensure that the right legal powers are in place so that we can continue to support the rural economy—farming and food production, in particular. The Covid-19 crisis has brought into sharp relief the importance of the secure production and supply of food as well as of the role of farmers, crofters and everyone in the agricultural supply chain. I am extremely grateful to every person who does that work for Scotland and for us all.

Clarity and certainty in funding are arguably even more important. That is why I remain committed to providing financial security by maintaining current common agricultural policy schemes largely intact until 2021, as I promised to do in “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”.

These unprecedented times also demonstrate the need for powers to adapt flexibly to changing circumstances—in particular, by making simplifications and improvements. As part of the preparations that are needed to leave the EU, the EU common agricultural policy is being rolled over into domestic legislation as “retained EU law”.

That process is happening in two stages. First, the rules on direct payments became law through UK-wide legislation on exit day, at the end of January. Secondly, the remaining areas of the CAP will become law at the end of the implementation period, which is currently due to be 31 September.

That is reflected in the powers in part 1 of the bill, which enable ministers by regulations to ensure that CAP schemes can continue to operate beyond the end of 2020, to make simplifications and improvements to the operation of the legislation governing those schemes, and to modify specific aspects of the common organisation of the markets regulation—namely, on market intervention, marketing standards and carcase classification.

The bill is not intended to create the opportunity to provide powers for a wholesale change in policy—that is not the purpose of the bill. I know that stakeholders and the REC Committee want to see a legislative commitment, through the bill, on the long-term direction of travel for rural policy. Although I am sure that the matter will be debated in detail should the bill progress to stage 2, I want to be clear that the reason why the bill does not set such a direction is that that is not its purpose. The bill is intended to be the mechanism by which we get to the proposals about long-term policy rather than to provide the answers themselves. That is an important distinction. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, cabinet secretary. I say to members that, although it is difficult to carry on conversations, yelling at each other across the desks makes it difficult for those of us who are at the front of the chamber. Thank you.

Fergus Ewing

I will briefly address the related recommendation in the committee’s report that a time limit be added to some of the powers in the bill by way of a sunset clause that would restrict their use after 2024. I understand and support the desire to hold the Government to a strict timetable, but surely the current unfortunate—albeit extreme—circumstances surrounding Covid-19 show that such timetables can unexpectedly be overtaken by events.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I think that everybody accepts that point. Most people who gave evidence to the committee were concerned that, if there was no sunset clause in the bill, it would allow this Government or a future Government to proceed with payments without the need to introduce any changes to a new system in Scotland. We all want to see a new system in Scotland—the cabinet secretary says that he would like to see it by 2024. The committee is not being prescriptive; we just said that we thought that the Government should propose its own date. I suggest that the end of the next parliamentary session might be a good date.

Fergus Ewing

I thank Mr Rumbles for his suggestion. I know that he is always seeking to be helpful and constructive. I look forward to debating the point in more detail than perhaps we can today, although I am sure that members will comment on it.

My point is that having a rigid proposal of the sort that has been recommended by some of the committee is not something that makes sense. I suggest—and I think that Mr Rumbles accepts this—that we are held to account every week about everything, and that will continue to be the case. When we make any substantive further policy proposals, we will be held to account. By virtue of being held to account by the REC Committee, we are open to scrutiny all the time in the Parliament. I can think of very few Parliaments in which there is more democratic scrutiny, and I welcome that. I do not think that Mr Rumbles did so, but no one who is arguing for a sunset clause should also suggest that there is an absence of scrutiny. There is great deal of scrutiny, which is the fundamental point. At elections, we are all accountable to the people of Scotland for what we do.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

Yes, I will take another intervention, although I think that I will have to abandon most of my speech.

Colin Smyth

I am deeply sorry to hear that, cabinet secretary.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that one way to address his concern that a cliff edge would be created by having a fixed date in a sunset clause would be to provide for the date to be moved through secondary legislation, if circumstances were such that the Government wished to do so and if Parliament agreed? I think that that would address his concern about having a fixed date in a sunset clause.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will allow the cabinet secretary a few minutes of extra time.

Fergus Ewing

Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is very generous.

When I was in mountain rescue teams, I always concluded that cliff edges were places that are best avoided altogether. Shifting the date does not seem to me to be an ideal solution, but, at the end of the day, it is up to Parliament and we will debate the matter in committee.

I welcome that debate and I emphasise to the convener and members of the committee that I do not have a closed mind on the matter. I know that the committee has discussed it in detail and it is required—it is right—that we discuss it in more detail than perhaps we can today. I will listen with great care to members.

The Covid-19 crisis is a stark illustration of why Governments need the flexibility to be able to act quickly and decisively. If Parliament decided to so restrain the powers of Government that we were unable to do that without making primary legislation—which we all know is a process that should be undertaken with great care—we would risk making a mistake.

Presiding Officer, I am not sure how much time I have left. I will certainly try to fill it for you, if you would like.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is spare time, so, unless your speech is an epic, we can let you get through it.

Fergus Ewing

I have just a couple of pages left.

Sadly, at the moment, we are faced with other uncertainties that make it difficult to do what some stakeholders and members wish us to do, which is to set all our policies for the future of rural support, farming and food production right now. Those uncertainties include the fact that we do not know what sort of trade arrangements we will have with the EU, which is our largest export market. We do not know what tariffs might be imposed on different sectors, such as on lamb exports, and we do not know what might be needed to change the current support mechanisms. We know that there is pressure on milk and beef and that there could be pressure on fruit production, as we may or may not be able to harvest fruit crops in full. There are also local and international pressures on cereal—not least the fall in the maize price in the USA, which is consequent on the collapse in the oil price.

There are many uncertainties, so I put it to members that those who ask why we do not have a fixed policy right now are not taking account of those pressures. They are also overlooking the fact that in “Stability and Simplicity” we have the most detailed and clear exposition by any Government in the UK of its financial support policy.

Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

Of course, there is uncertainty over the nature of future trade deals, but the foundation stone of our production in Scotland is a quality environment and quality produce. Those objectives can surely be reflected in the bill.

Fergus Ewing

We have always espoused those as worthy objectives. Consequential on that, we have also stressed the importance of ensuring that agricultural produce—beef, for example—is not imported from countries that do not observe the same high quality standards that are observed in Scotland.

I repeatedly made that point to Michael Gove when he was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. His answer was that the UK Government would include equivalence as a legal requirement in a future trade bill. That has not happened, and I am not quite sure whether it will. If it does not happen, what is to stop importation of cheaper beef from countries that, according to many people, do not observe the high standards of animal welfare that are displayed here? As that is uncertain, it makes it far more difficult to decide whether specific measures require to be taken. As an independent country, we would be free to ensure that we made such decisions ourselves, which Mark Ruskell alluded to.

I reiterate the intent to utilise the powers in the bill from 2021, to begin the simplifications and improvements that we need in our new policy approach. Examples include addressing the severity of penalties for infractions—often relatively minor ones—of the rules; making changes to the inspection system; and looking at the way in which the mapping system deals with small errors. Those are some of the nitty-gritty issues that we need to look at and on which farmers and crofters would welcome action.

Part 2 of the bill focuses on the collection and processing of data. The powers that we currently use go back to 1947, when agriculture was very different, so we have taken the opportunity to update and improve them by making them clearer and more transparent and by linking them to the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Those are issues of technical procedure and process rather than long-term policy—as in part 1.

I appreciate the recommendations of committees that the bill be approved by the Parliament today. I look forward to listening with care to what members say, and—assuming for the moment that members will want the bill to pass—I confirm that I want to continue to work with members constructively and am open to discussing possible amendments to the bill between its stages, despite the Covid-19 restrictions, if members want to have such discussions. I want to work collaboratively.

Above all, I want to deliver this bill, which is essential if we are to discharge our duties to the farmers and crofters of this country, through whose work we continue to have food on our tables.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I am pleased to contribute to the debate as convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of a family farming partnership.

The committee published its stage 1 report on the bill on 3 March. I thank the cabinet secretary for his letter of 29 April, which set out the Scottish Government’s response to our recommendations. I also thank everyone who took part in evidence sessions and provided evidence to the committee.

Overall, the committee supports the bill and is keen to see it progress, to facilitate a smooth transition for the agriculture sector following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. We also recognise the importance of providing greater clarity on the development of a long-term rural policy for Scotland. We have reflected the views of many stakeholders in calling for new primary legislation that sets out long-term policy to be introduced as soon as is reasonably possible.

On the purposes of the bill, multiple stakeholders expressed concern that the simplification and improvement provisions in section 2 reflect the lack of an overarching policy and are, potentially, open to different interpretations. We recognise the Scottish Government’s argument that to put a purpose clause in the bill would pre-empt the work of the farming and food production future policy group. Nonetheless, we encourage the Scottish Government to provide greater clarity on the underlying principles that are to be applied as measures are developed to simplify and improve common agricultural policy legislation.

Environmental stakeholders voiced concern that the potential for the bill to relax rules and red tape could lead to a regression in standards, including environmental protection and animal welfare standards. The cabinet secretary has provided helpful reassurance that the Scottish Government has no intention of relaxing those standards. We note the Scottish Government’s intention to address such matters further through its proposed continuity bill. As this bill progresses, we would welcome further detail on how the Government will ensure that there is no regression in standards.

The committee’s most significant concern is that the powers in the bill are not time limited. That view is shared by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, Scottish Land & Estates and the Law Society of Scotland—to name but a few. The Scottish Government has repeatedly asserted that it intends to use the powers for no longer than is strictly necessary.

We accept that there is continued uncertainty about the length of the transition and that there is a need to develop a long-term policy for Scotland following the UK’s departure from the European Union. However, the committee does not think that it is appropriate or proportionate for the Scottish Government to have, on an indefinite basis, the broad powers that will be conferred by the bill. Although I recognise that such is not the current Scottish Government’s intention, the power remains in the bill. Thus, a future Scottish Government could use those powers in perpetuity to amend rural policy through secondary legislation, without suitable, robust parliamentary oversight. That would be undemocratic. We therefore call for a sunset clause that will give due reference to the planned end of the proposed transition period in 2024.

The committee notes that the Scottish Government does not support that recommendation. However, we dispute its contention that our proposal would commit a future Government to a statutory deadline for implementing wholesale change. The committee proposes simply that, should a future Government determine that it needs more time to implement such change, it should be required to seek the renewed approval of the Scottish Parliament to extend the use of those powers beyond the date of the sunset clause. That would be democratic.

On the marketing standards and carcase classification provisions of the bill, many stakeholders have emphasised the crucial importance of maintaining alignment in standards across the UK internal market. That would avoid barriers to the movement and sale of agricultural products, post-Brexit. In that context, we welcome the Scottish Government’s repeated assurance that it has no intention of using those powers to disrupt the functioning of that internal market.

We also share the concerns that were highlighted by the DPLR Committee and various stakeholders, including NFU Scotland, regarding the blanket use of negative procedure to exercise the powers that will be conferred by sections 2 and 8 of the bill.

We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to reflect further on the procedure to be used, in light of our specific recommendations to simplify and improve those measures, which have wider policy implications, and to make the powers that are conferred by section 8 of the bill subject to affirmative procedure.

The committee strongly welcomes the provisions of part 2 of the bill, which provide an important update to the legal basis for the collection and processing of agricultural data. We welcome the Scottish Government’s clarifications regarding the precise scope of those provisions—in particular, that the definition of “agricultural activity” is restricted to the data collection provisions in the bill, and would not affect the definition in any other context, such as for calculating or allocating farm payments.

In recognition of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s view that proper consideration should be given to the environmental impact of the policy measures that are introduced by the bill, we welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment that

“the environmental impacts of any changes will be robustly assessed under existing processes.”

I turn to long-term rural policy for Scotland. Scotland’s agriculture sector has already committed itself to reducing emissions by 75 per cent, and to contributing to a doubling in turnover in farming, fishing, food and drink by 2030. Given those commitments, many stakeholders have argued that the timetable for bringing forward a long-term policy for Scotland lacks urgency. The committee acknowledges the lack of clarity around the future operating environment for the agriculture sector, and hopes that the Scottish Government will recognise that there is also an urgent need to set out, as far as possible, how the powers in the bill will help to set Scotland’s agriculture industry on a realistic path towards meeting the 2030 commitments; otherwise, we believe that there is a genuine risk that those commitments will simply not be met.

In the short time that I have been allowed, I have sought to focus my remarks on certain key issues that were raised by the committee in its stage 1 report. In the debate, my colleagues may wish to cover those and other aspects of the report.

In conclusion, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the general principles of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill be agreed to. We look forward to the further work of considering potential improvements reflecting the committee’s recommendations—especially and particularly on the sunset clause—when we consider the bill at stage 2.

Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as an advocate who once specialised in agricultural law and in relation to my crofting and farming interests. It is unusual to speak in a debate that so neatly unites two of my main interests—law and farming. The mere mention of mapping errors takes me back to when I represented the cabinet secretary’s Government in the Scottish Land Court in many agricultural subsidy appeals.

I start by paying tribute to our hard-working farmers, crofters and growers in these difficult and unprecedented times. As I have said in the chamber on many occasions, those who work in our agricultural sector are the custodians of our countryside and despite these and many other challenges that the sector has faced over the years, Scottish agriculture has continued unabated to provide us with high-quality produce. As a result of the resilience of our agricultural sector, there is an expectation on those of us in the chamber to ensure that, as we leave the EU, our farmers, crofters and land managers have not only clarity, but a support system that works for them in practice. The Conservatives acknowledge the significant work that the sector has carried out to improve environmental standards, increase productivity and drive efficiencies, from planting hedgerows to sequester carbon, and using better-quality feeds to reduce methane output, to operating the latest technologies to increase profitability. Our farmers and crofters are at the forefront of delivering for our environment and it is more important than ever that we continue to support the sector so that it can continue on that upward trend.

I turn to the legislation that is before us today. The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the bill at stage 1 to give farmers and crofters the security and certainty that they need, but with a view to improving the bill at stages 2 and 3. We acknowledge the need to ensure continuity as we leave the EU and note that, at this stage, the bill is an overarching one that sets in place the technical structures to allow farmers and crofters to continue to receive support. However, we also recognise the calls from organisations such as the NFUS, which notes in consultation with its members that there is an appetite for change and for

“the implementation of a new agricultural policy that better meets the outcomes desired by governments, consumers and the industry in terms of climate change ... and growth of Scotland’s food and drinks sector.”

Other submissions echo similar themes. Scottish Land & Estates stated:

“What the industry needs now is bold and ambitious leadership in setting a clear direction of travel for future policy.”

The UK Committee on Climate Change acknowledged the same. It said:

“The Scottish Government’s plans for a long-term policy framework to replace the EU Common Agricultural Policy are lagging behind both England and Wales.”

We share many of those concerns.

I accept that the cabinet secretary has readily acknowledged today and in correspondence with the committee that the bill is about process, not policy, and so already has a very focused purpose. We, too, will approach the bill in that spirit, but it would be remiss of me not to mention, as I have just done, the concerns of many stakeholders. We will continue as a party to press the Scottish Government for further clarity on its policy proposals for future farming support, but we recognise that that is a debate for another day.

I will address three specific aspects of the bill, the first of which—the absence of a sunset clause—has been referred to already. It is clear from reading the DPLR Committee and the REC Committee reports on the bill that there is a desire to ensure that a sunset clause is included in the bill at stage 2 to ensure that the powers conferred by section 2(1) of the bill do not remain available for an indefinite period. Scottish Land & Estates noted in its submission:

“The lack of a sunset clause means that the powers are not time-limited and could roll on beyond 2024 and the proposed transition period in Stability and Simplicity.”

The REC Committee report also recommends that

“as for section 2, section 6 of the Bill should be subject to a sunset clause”.

The Conservatives believe that such a mechanism will ensure that new policy is introduced after 2024, rather than allowing retained EU legislation to continue beyond then, with corrections being made through the negative procedure, which we do not think would benefit the agriculture sector in the long term. We share the concerns of many stakeholders, members who have spoken already in the debate and the relevant parliamentary committees that it would not be proportionate for the Scottish Government to have the potentially broad power conferred by section 2 of the bill on an indefinite basis. Although the Scottish Government appears to remain opposed to the insertion of a sunset clause, we acknowledge that it is open to discussion on the issue and we welcome that.

I turn to the proposed capping system. The bill introduces regulations to modify any provision of the main existing EU CAP legislation that relates to the setting or determining of ceilings on the amounts of any payments or expenditure for any purpose under the legislation. We acknowledge that those changes are coming down the track from Brussels, but we remain cautious that future Governments in Scotland may exploit that to reduce the funding available to agriculture. Farmers need clarity on what the capping of individual payments would look like. The NFUS is clear that all funds that are capped must remain within the agriculture portfolio and any potential saving should not be siphoned off into other areas of spending.

I share the views of my colleagues on the RECC that we need to scrutinise the measures effectively and need regular updates on the on-going development of the policy on capping and the specifics of future funding. Capping measures have the potential to impact larger agribusinesses. If we start capping, we need an evidence-based approach because jobs and livelihoods may be at risk. We urge the Government to provide us with more clarity on that section of the bill.

My final point is on the four nations approach. In leaving the EU, there is an opportunity to maintain the UK’s high environmental and animal welfare standards. We do not want a regression in standards and we want to be clear that consumers should know that when they purchase Scottish produce they are buying a product that has passed some of the highest standards in the world. I understand that the Government still proposes to introduce a continuity bill that will provide for the ability to align any area of Scots law with EU law in areas of devolved competence, although I believe that there may be some delay to that as a result of the coronavirus crisis. In the meantime, we are firmly of the view that we should keep to the highest standards, but we must be cognisant that, over time, greater alignment with the EU may well threaten the integrity of the UK internal single market that is so intrinsic to Scottish agriculture. Scotland trades three times as much with the rest of the UK as it does with the rest of Europe and we must be mindful of that proportion when setting any direction in standards. We believe that common UK frameworks must be agreed in order to ensure a consistent approach across all four nations.

The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the bill at stage 1. We will look to amend the bill at stage 2 to address the various concerns that have been mentioned and that are all informed by evidence and reasoned judgment. We remain of the view that we need further clarity from the cabinet secretary on future policy and the specific nature of a new farm support model—and we need that soon. The bill, purposively, does not provide such clarification, although crucially, it provides farmers with certainty over continuing payments and the mechanism for such payments. For that reason, the bill has our support today.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

The bill is important and I recognise the need for it to be passed swiftly in order to provide certainty on future payments for farmers and crofters. I am happy to support the bill at stage 1. However, our constituents may be asking why, in the current crisis, the Government has insisted that the first substantive debate that the Parliament has held in some months should be this one, rather than a debate on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their communities, including our rural communities.

I genuinely regret that the debate is taking place in a way that excludes many members, including some who have contributed to the stage 1 report that we are debating today. The Scottish Parliament should be leading by example and following best practice and advice. We are telling high-risk people to stay at home, but we are saying to any member who wants to participate in today’s debate that they must attend in person. We are telling businesses to make adjustments to enable home working, but we are failing to make adjustments that would allow members who cannot be here today to contribute to the debate through a videolink. That is not how workplaces should be operating during this crisis and that is not how legislation should be made. Labour called for the debate to be delayed until Parliament had put in place the technology to allow digital participation. I am disappointed that that call was not supported by other parties.

The Covid-19 crisis has shone a light on so many issues and Government announcements that are not being fully debated in this chamber, such as testing, personal protective equipment availability and economic support for our communities.

The Covid-19 crisis has also underlined the importance of a strong agriculture sector and a robust food supply chain. It has exposed the vulnerabilities in our food system, but it has also highlighted the resilience of workers in our critical food and drink sector. I offer my heartfelt thanks for their heroic efforts to all those workers—from the farmers who are fighting to rescue the summer harvest to those in our supermarkets who are working round the clock to keep essential supplies on our shelves. Their work has allowed us to avoid the major food shortages that we feared, and we owe them all a huge debt of gratitude. They should not have had to ask 32 individual local councils to designate them as key workers.

Although the sector’s hard work and innovation mitigated the worst impact of the sudden shift in demand from the food service sector to food retailer and the halt in people being able to move freely, the vulnerability of supply chains to major upheaval has been clear. The capacity to adjust rapidly, without chaos and cost, is seriously limited and we cannot ignore the precarious nature of our food system.

The sector has responded well to the crisis, but we should not be dependent on a largely reactive response. We need a more strategic, joined-up approach to managing our food system and robust contingency planning to ensure that the sector is prepared for future emergencies.

We need to better link food and farming policies and properly recognise their role in health, the environment and poverty. We need to end the siloed approach by introducing a more cohesive and comprehensive policy on food—from the farm to the fork to waste.

One way to help to deliver that would be through the development of a national food plan—a statement of policy, as proposed in the consultation on the good food nation bill. Although the decision to shelve that bill was perhaps unavoidable, it is still disappointing that that important piece of legislation will not get a chance to progress. However, we should not drop all elements of that bill. I urge the cabinet secretary to look at what we could incorporate from the good food nation bill into this agriculture bill. Since the bill that is before us was drafted and the stage 1 report was written, the world has changed; we need to change with it. We should start by looking at how we can amend the bill to underpin the development of a national food plan, as the Scottish Food Coalition recommended.

Other changes to the bill are needed. It provides powers for the Scottish ministers to make changes to common agricultural policy legislation to “simplify or improve” its operation and enable pilot schemes, but it does not define simplification or improvement, and the scale and purpose of pilots remain unclear.

We need more detail on the Government’s plans for the transition period and what it wants to achieve from the investment in agriculture and the wider rural economy, and we need clear direction for the future to provide as much certainty for the sector as we can. As we have heard, that clarity could be improved by the inclusion of a purpose clause in the bill.

In our stage 1 report, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee highlighted

“the views expressed by multiple stakeholders that the Bill lacks an overarching purpose or direction.”

In his response, the cabinet secretary expresses concerns about

“setting a statutory ‘direction of travel’ that proves impossible to deliver”

due to uncertainty about the future. That uncertainty is why we need a statutory purpose clause—a set of key values at the heart of policy making. A purpose clause would not pre-empt the work of the farming and food policy group. It is the role of the Government and Parliament to provide leadership in policy making. A purpose clause would set high-level objectives to guide policy making during the transition period and as we develop our long-term strategy.

Given the broad regulation-making powers that the bill would create, the need for more detail from the Government is also essential. I appreciate the need for secondary legislation to be used, but Parliament cannot be expected to write the Government a blank cheque. Therefore, I echo the Law Society of Scotland’s calls for more requirements for consultation and, where appropriate, the use of affirmative procedure to provide greater parliamentary scrutiny. That is particularly relevant to powers that allow ministers to “simplify or improve” the operation of CAP legislation, given the broadness of that language. At a minimum, the use of that power should be subject to adequate consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

More broadly, that power and others must be time limited. That will address concerns about those sweeping regulation-making powers being available to ministers indefinitely, and reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to bring forward a new system by 2024. I recognise the concerns over a fixed date that the cabinet secretary outlined in his opening comments, but those concerns could be avoided by including a mechanism for ministers to extend the duration of the bill by secondary legislation if necessary.

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought home to us all the importance of food, and it has exposed the fragility of supply chains, as we only narrowly avoided major shortages in our supermarkets, and many vulnerable people still cannot book home delivery slots for their essential groceries. It has sadly highlighted the vulnerability of many families, with the Food Foundation estimating that 3 million families across Great Britain have gone hungry during the lockdown. It has revealed a new desire for local produce, with more people using farm shops and local dairy deliveries for their supplies—but we have also all witnessed the scenes of farmers pouring unused milk down the drain. If ever there was a need for a better contingency plan for food supplies and a national food plan, it is now. Let us wake up to the fact that the world has changed and use this bill as an opportunity to put in place a national food plan.

Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

I thank the committee for its thorough report on the bill, and I send John Finnie’s best wishes to the chamber for this debate.

The Covid-19 crisis has certainly brought many issues to the fore, not least the vulnerability of our food system and the vital contribution that food sector workers—from the producers through to the fruit pickers, the processors, the independent shop owners and the women and men staffing our checkouts—make to our society. Crises hone our sense of what is important, and there are few more important things than having access to fresh, affordable and healthy food.

The Scottish Greens recognise the role of public subsidy in supporting our food system, and in delivering good management of our land and the wider environment, so we will be supporting the general principles of the bill.

We recognise the uncertainty that farmers have faced since the referendum in 2016 and the difficulties that still remain in designing a clear agricultural support system for a Scotland that is outwith the EU but closely aligned to it. In that regard, the transition period that the bill facilitates, and the research and development and pilot work that it proposes, are welcome. However, we agree with many stakeholders that the bill sorely lacks an overarching purpose and direction for how it should be used. The question remains, what are we transitioning to? What outcomes will we be seeking from the pilots and how will we judge success?

As it stands, the bill gives ministers extensive powers without addressing those questions or providing any guidance on how those powers should be used. Scottish Environment LINK has called on the Parliament to agree a purpose for the allocation of future agricultural support and has created a comprehensive list of outcomes for future support schemes. That is about recognising that we face twin climate and nature emergencies. Outcomes must tackle those crises head on, while building resilient food production systems that are able to withstand the inevitable shocks to come. Including those broad outcomes in legislation would not hinder the development of pilot schemes or the simplification of existing legislation, but it would provide clear direction and certainty to industry, Government and Parliament.

Farmers plan for decades, if not generations, ahead. They need to know that politicians and Governments are willing to do the same. Although uncertainty exists about how much subsidy money there will be in five years, or what type of trade deal the UK might end up with, Scotland’s strengths are clear. The quality of our environment and food go hand in hand, and although we might never be able to compete with more intensive forms of food production, whether those are within the UK or outside the EU, we have to build on our strengths. That is a clear certainty on which we should build objectives for the future.

The NFUS has urged ministers to drive forward the development of policy as a matter of urgency, and Scottish Land & Estates has called for a purpose section to be inserted at stage 2. Meanwhile, as we have heard, the Scottish Food Coalition has called for the bill to require ministers to set out a broader statement of policy on food, and I would encourage the Government to carefully consider that proposal. The requirement for a statement was a core part of the proposed good food nation bill, which has now been indefinitely postponed. Such a policy statement would have greatly influenced the delivery of a new agricultural support system, including how subsidies can be used to build resilience and diversity in supply chains, deliver on public health outcomes and address social justice issues around food.

I appreciate that the bill seeks to deal with specific mechanisms for farm payments, but consideration of financial support on its own, with no consideration of the wider policy framework that should influence those payments, is exactly the kind of silo thinking that the good food nation bill was supposed to address. Given that much of the development and consultation work for the statement of policy on food has already been carried out, I again urge the Government to consider how it can be included in the bill at stage 2.

I note the Government’s reassurance that there will be future consultation on wider agricultural policy but, given the long list of advisory groups and round tables that the cabinet secretary has convened since 2016, I am perplexed as to why we do not have a comprehensive agricultural policy ready to go right now.

Time is running out in our monumental task of delivering a 75 per cent reduction in climate emissions in 10 short years. That takes us to the end of session 7 and it is not a lot of time for us to turn the corner and to cut emissions in a way that also delivers a successful agricultural food economy in Scotland.

Our new Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 includes a framework for farming objectives, which have to be reflected in the new climate plan that is scheduled for December this year. The UK Committee on Climate Change has been critical of the Government’s lack of progress so far, and it would be unthinkable to have a revised climate plan without a clear policy on agriculture to accompany it.

We must ensure that our farmers can continue to receive the stable support that they have enjoyed under the CAP. To miss this opportunity to clearly set out the environmental, social and health outcomes that we want our farmers to deliver on would be a dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians, and it must be fixed through the bill.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Liberal Democrats support this very necessary bill. Among other things, it will ensure that agricultural support payments to businesses up and down the land can be paid by the Scottish Government after the end of this year. That is even more important given the current crisis, when so many enterprises throughout Scotland are going through such difficult times. I am pleased that the bill will continue its progress through the parliamentary process to becoming law.

The importance of the bill can be seen by the broad support for it from stakeholders who were called to give evidence to the committee in the lead-up to the debate. The bill allows the Government time to develop primary legislation to implement its bespoke agricultural policy for after 2024, which is the year that it has set itself in which to have the legislation on the statute book.

The one point of controversy that I wish to focus on relates to the broad powers that the bill will give to the Scottish ministers under section 3, which is headed “Power to provide for the operation of CAP legislation beyond 2020”. It says:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify the main CAP legislation for the purpose of securing that the provisions of the legislation continue to operate in relation to Scotland for one or more years beyond 2020.”

It is clear why the Government does not want to put an end date of 2024 in the bill: it is concerned that it might not be in a position to put in place new primary legislation by then.

I understand that point, which has been reiterated by the cabinet secretary this afternoon, but it causes a problem. The majority of witnesses to the committee expressed concerns that section 3, as it is currently written, would allow the current Scottish Government or, indeed, any future Government to delay or even fail to implement the primary legislation that is needed to support the new agricultural policy for Scotland that everybody wants to see post-2024.

I have quotations from just three organisations that gave evidence to the committee. In his impressive evidence, Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland said:

“Some sort of sunset clause, which is what we are talking about here, would be advantageous, but the time limit needs to be thought out very carefully.”

Yvonne Wight of the Scottish Crofting Federation said:

“as it stands, the power in section 3 of the bill will be available in perpetuity ... there are concerns about the CAP legislation continuing to operate in perpetuity.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 18 December 2019; c 5-6.]

The Law Society of Scotland said:

“Given the stated intentions of the Scottish Government that this is a transition Bill with work ongoing in relation to future policy, we question whether the powers under the sections in this part, in particular those powers in sections 2 to 4, should be time-limited by the introduction of sunset provisions. The powers in the Bill could be used by any future Government and this may not be done in line with the intentions of the current Government.”

The current Government might not be here for ever. [Interruption.] Steady on.

Even the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee called for a sunset clause when it examined the bill—although it suggested a date of 2030. It is the view of members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, however, that that would extend the date too far. I refer to the unanimous view of the members of the committee, by quoting the recommendation that we made in our report. The report states:

“The Committee endorses the view expressed by the DPLR Committee, with the exception of its proposal that a sunset clause should be extended to 2030, which it considers to be too far in the future. It therefore calls on the Scottish Government, as the Bill progresses to stage 2, to bring forward proposals for a sunset clause extended to a date that gives due reference to the planned end of the transition period in 2024”.

We are not hung up on the sunset clause applying in 2024; the bill that has been introduced has been framed with the best intentions. However, it is the job of parliamentarians to examine the bill critically and to see how it can be improved—that is our job, and it is the purpose of the stage 1 debate.

I hope the cabinet secretary will acknowledge that there are, among stakeholders, real and legitimate concerns about section 3 of the bill, which have been highlighted in the committee’s report and by members of the Scottish Parliament from across the chamber this afternoon. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has said that his mind is not closed to considering a sunset clause, and that he will work with members from across the chamber at stage 2 to see how the bill can be improved to everybody’s satisfaction.

I now refer again to the evidence that Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland gave to the committee on 18 December. He said that

“the time limit needs to be thought out very carefully”.—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 18 December 2019; c 5]

We do not want to restrict the actions of the Scottish Government. However, we do not want it to have the powers in perpetuity.

I would like the cabinet secretary to lodge a Government amendment that would place a time limit in the bill—perhaps to the end of the next session of Parliament, in 2026. That would give plenty of time to introduce primary legislation for a new bespoke agricultural policy for Scotland, which we all want. That would also ensure that we can all move forward together; it is important that we do that to pass this much-needed transition bill.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

I am glad that we are, at last, having this debate. The bill was considered by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee quite a while ago: I note that a number of organisations, including NFU Scotland, want the bill to proceed with some speed in order to provide a degree of certainty about payments, in these otherwise very uncertain times.

I regret that some of my committee colleagues are not here in person to deliver their views on the bill and the stage 1 report. However, a number of them have been in conversation with me and with other members, today.

Throughout consideration of evidence, there were many who wanted the bill to do more than it is intended to do. The bill is not a vehicle through which to overhaul the CAP or to completely revise how payments are made to farmers, and in the rural economy more generally. Thank goodness for that. As current events have shown, such a bill would possibly be largely irrelevant, and would have to be scrapped or heavily amended.

The bill is about process, and it is required as a result of the calamitous decision by the UK Government to leave the EU, which is regarded by the vast majority of Scots as a flawed decision—even more so in the situation in which we now find ourselves. The CAP will cease to apply at the end of 2020. Therefore, as a Parliament, we must take the necessary steps to continue to support our farmers and crofters. Agriculture is devolved, so it is right and proper that this Parliament should establish its own policy on it.

There will be a requirement, in time, for a definitive bill on future agricultural policy and payments. Thank goodness that the Scottish Government has not rushed into doing that now. In 2018, the Government’s response to a consultation on our exit from the EU was called “Stability and Simplicity”. That seems to be very apt now. Parliament, as the committee suggests, should accept the Scottish Government’s commitment not to use the legislation for any longer than it is required.

As a result of the global pandemic, the term “food security” has taken on even greater importance than it had previously. I hope that those who have advocated for a sunset clause will now agree with the NFU Scotland and others, and will realise that such a section would be inappropriate and is not required, given the Government’s commitment as set out in its response to the stage 1 report. Many of us are nervous about being here, and the Parliament’s timetable has been disrupted. It seems now to be even more inappropriate that a sunset clause be included.

As a result of the need for change, the Government has committed to some innovative agricultural pilot programmes. I suspect that the cabinet secretary did not have time to say anything about those because of the interruptions that he experienced during his opening speech. If he could speak about those schemes during his summing up, that would be welcome.

The bill addresses the need for alignment of standards—for standardisation across the UK marketplace. I think that most of us here would prefer to be seeing a commitment to standards that would still be aligned with those of the EU. The main driver, as always, must be the best interests of the Scottish agricultural industry and Scottish consumers. The people of Scotland expect nothing less from the Scottish Government.

The bill provides the ability to cap agricultural payments. That is broadly welcome; many people are horrified by the amount of taxpayers’ money that is given to already very wealthy farmers, so it is welcome that future payments will be based on a farm’s output, rather than on its area.

On that, it is worth noting the data-collection aspects of the bill. During his evidence to the committee, the cabinet secretary reassured me that the bill will not lead to a requirement for more information. It is important that data is collected in the most up-to-date way, and that it is relevant. If the data is to be credible, it must be used for the benefit of the nation by leading to good use of taxpayers’ money.

I promised my colleague Emma Harper that I would mention something that she would have brought up, had she been here. It concerns the producer organisations that are mentioned in the bill. Emma Harper represents 48 per cent of Scotland’s dairy farmers in her South Scotland region. She is very worried about continuity of milk supply, so she would like the cabinet secretary to clarify, in his closing remarks, whether the bill supports initiatives such as producer organisations and fruit and vegetable organisations, which can be hugely beneficial to farmers.

I would also like the cabinet secretary to say more about the agricultural transformation fund, because anything that we do now must be in the context of our commitment to mitigating climate change.

I will support the bill at decision time.

Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I make this contribution on behalf of my colleague Peter Chapman, who is unable to be present. He reminded me last night that one of the most important things that I should do is to draw members’ attention to his entry in the register of members’ interests.

Notwithstanding the fact that this speech is very much Peter Chapman’s contribution, I very much welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon as a member for Mid Scotland and Fife. Colin Smyth said that Labour was not content about the debate being held. I understand that Covid-19 is the focus, but the bill is very important. It matters to a lot of people in a hugely important sector. We should not forget that, although it may be about process, how we support the agriculture sector matters.

Like the rest of my Scottish Conservative colleagues, I am supportive of the general principles of the bill. I agree whole-heartedly that there must be a smooth transition in the ability to make payments to the agriculture sector as the UK leaves the EU—that is essential, especially when it comes to allowing farm support payments to be made post-Brexit, and the desire for simplicity and stability after the initial exit from the EU has to be very welcome.

I think that the Covid-19 crisis has shown the importance of having resilience built into the agricultural industry in order to maintain the supply lines and keep food on families’ tables; Mark Ruskell made an important point about that. As such, it is easy to argue that the bill has become even more important now than it was before. We owe so much to our agricultural sector, which is critical to the wellbeing of our society.

The bill focuses only on the short to medium-term future—from now until 2024—which will take us almost halfway through to our ambitious 2030 targets for a 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the doubling of our output to £30 billion. That leaves us only six years to enact the large-scale changes that are needed to meet those challenging targets. If the industry is to have any chance of doing that, it needs to have far greater understanding of the support mechanisms and of the direction in which we are going.

A substantial reduction of emissions in the agricultural industry, coupled with a desired target of doubling turnover in farming, fishing and food and drink to £30 billion without a clear policy, is, at best, wishful thinking. It is in that vein that my colleagues have argued that a longer-term sustainable rural policy for Scotland should be put before Parliament as soon as is reasonably possible, thereby giving the industry as much time as possible to enable efficient, effective and environmentally beneficial practices.

We welcome the use of pilot schemes and acknowledge the many benefits of trialling policy changes to identify and inform longer-term policy development. However, the Scottish Government must keep Parliament and, most important, the industry up to date as to what those pilot schemes are and how they will operate. There needs to be full clarity and transparency.

The renewed focus on an outcome-based approach, as opposed to an area-based approach, to the calculation and allocation of farm payments is welcome. One of the few assets from Brexit—in my view, they are few—will be our ability to design a bespoke system for agriculture that fits Scotland’s farmers’ needs and desires, so it is good to see that the cabinet secretary is responding to that.

There is a need for additional assurance at stage 2 that there will be no relaxation of environmental and animal welfare standards as a result of the bill. The issue of standards needs to be subject to common framework discussions with the UK Government. It is imperative to protect the integrity of the internal UK market and to avoid any potential barriers to the movement and sale of products post-Brexit. Assurances are needed that the Scottish Government will not needlessly diverge from the rest of the UK, on which Scottish agriculture is so heavily dependent.

The committee was in general agreement that the use of the negative procedure should be amended. Section 2 of the bill would give ministers sweeping powers to modify regulations relating to direct payments, transfers and funding. Without additional safeguards, the powers that are conferred in the bill could be used to amend rural policy without parliamentary scrutiny. That is not an acceptable situation. Therefore, the inclusion of a sunset clause, which has been spoken about eloquently by Mike Rumbles and by Edward Mountain, the committee convener, is important.

A contentious issue is the possibility of individual payments being capped. If a Government were to decide to do that, that must be done in a fair and proportionate manner. It needs to be recognised that farms receiving large payments are regularly and intimately involved in agri-environment schemes and employ significant numbers of staff. Consequently, any schemes must be subject to wide-ranging consultation before they progress.

Scottish Conservatives welcome the general principles of the bill and see the need for simplicity and stability post-Brexit. The bill has the potential to make major changes to the agriculture industry in the next few years. It will have implications for a world in which Covid-19 looks set to stay for some time. Change is inevitable, and the industry accepts and expects that we will urge the cabinet secretary to grasp this opportunity by using the Government’s ability to pilot new schemes as soon as possible in order to give our farmers the guidance and clarity that they need.

Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)

It is fair to say that everyone who has the agriculture industry at heart would like to see the bill done and dusted as soon as possible. I am therefore pleased that we are having this stage 1 debate to help to move it forward.

It is also fair to say that stakeholders are, broadly, on the same page in relation to the bill. It is good to see common ground between the Scottish Government and industry bodies such as NFU Scotland and the Scottish Crofters Federation. We know that NFU Scotland’s view is that the smooth passage of the bill will be vital to ensuring stability and certainty in the period immediately following the UK’s departure from the EU and as the agriculture sector plays its role in the recovery from Covid-19. That approach has never been more important than it is now, as we see the UK careering towards the cliff edge of a no-deal Brexit at the end of the year.

It is with that last point in mind that many stakeholders welcomed the proposal for public intervention and private storage aid. Section 5 of the bill gives the Scottish ministers powers relating to “intervention purchasing”, which involves paying private companies to store product rather than immediately placing it on the market. Clearly, none of us would want to see a return to the EU’s discredited milk lakes or butter mountains, and no one is suggesting anything on that scale. However, those provisions are designed to enable public authorities to manage prices in agricultural markets during periods of volatility. Although I am sure that none of us would wish to see such an intervention being used, if we have to endure a no-deal Brexit the legislation might be required sooner rather than later.

Steven Thomson, policy adviser at Scotland’s Rural College, stated in evidence to the committee:

“There also needs to be scope to maintain intervention. The EU has that potential, and America uses it in emergencies. We need to have the scope for storage and intervention in the markets in exceptional circumstances. A hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit may be such an exceptional circumstance in which we might need scope for that far sooner than we think.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 27 November 2019; c 18.]

Of course, such provisions would be used only in market crisis situations. However, as the cabinet secretary explained in his oral evidence to the committee, the Government was already looking at an exceptional circumstance that would require intervention using the powers conferred by section 5. That is—or was, and might be again—the previously made preparation for creating a compensation scheme for sheep meat in the event of the UK’s leaving the EU without a deal. That would—and still could—result in the introduction of significant tariffs on sheep meat exports, as the cabinet secretary alluded to in his opening remarks.

That is an important aspect of the bill that gives some comfort to the industry, which is why it has offered its widespread support for the inclusion of such powers. It also highlights the strong possibility that public intervention might yet be required to protect specific agricultural sectors in Scotland against specific exceptional circumstances—for instance, in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU.

I turn to the issue of a sunset clause, which has had quite a bit of coverage in the debate. In his opening remarks the cabinet secretary said, in relation to such a clause—I will paraphrase his comment—that now is not the time. When the committee signed off its stage 1 report, it endorsed the view of the DPLR Committee that there should be a sunset clause, but not that committee’s view that such a clause should be extended until 2030. However, that was then and this is now. It must be said that when the stage 1 report was published on 3 March, we did not yet know the impact of the coronavirus.

We have ambitious targets on agriculture ahead of us—not least that of doubling the value of Scotland’s food and drink sector under “Ambition 2030: Industry Strategy for Growth”. However, such targets also bring challenges, not the least of which will be ensuring that, over the same period, Scottish agriculture will make a significant contribution to a 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases, moving onwards to net zero by 2045.

Stability and simplicity are required and will be a must over the coming years up to 2024; another must is the need to ensure that the development of policy for the sector post 2024 is driven forward by the Scottish Government with an objective of introducing new primary legislation as soon as is reasonably possible in order to ensure the enactment of a new policy that goes beyond the stability and simplicity approach.

It is worth noting that NFU Scotland, while recognising the aspirations and intentions behind the inclusion of a sunset clause in the bill, now has concerns with such an approach, particularly with such a date being fixed in legislation. Its position is that fixing a sunset clause in legislation could equally constrain agriculture if, by 2024, the wider operating environment resulting from the UK-EU trade discussions or other current unknowns that could be destabilising—such as economic, environmental or social issues—is such that stability and certainty in agricultural policy are still required.

As NFU Scotland states:

“it is impossible to predict what political, market, regulatory and economic operating environment the agricultural industry will be operating in by 2024.”

It is for that reason that NFU Scotland believes that the Scottish Government should not be legislatively bound to implement a new agricultural policy by that date or any other specific date. That said, it is fair to say that development of future policy beyond stability and simplicity must get under way as soon as possible to ensure that the industry keeps up with the direction of travel.

I look forward to stages 2 and 3 of the bill and I hope that the cabinet secretary, in summing up, will have a bit more to say regarding a sunset clause in particular. This is not the time for an arbitrary statutory timescale for wholesale change to rural support services as we try to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Although I recognise that the bill is necessary, it is not urgent. We should not be debating anything but our response to Covid-19 and emergency legislation while not all members can attend the Parliament to vote and while this Parliament cannot pass legislation virtually.

We are also asking people to stay at home unless their reason for leaving is to contribute to the fight against Covid-19; this legislation does not do that, so we are setting a poor example. It is unacceptable that the Scottish Government has forced us to break the Covid-19 regulations that it has set.

There are also members of the committee that took evidence on the bill who cannot be here today, which means that we cannot find out what they have learned from taking that evidence. There is a difficulty in the processes of the Parliament when those who are supposed to inform members about the bill cannot be present in the chamber.

Although the bill is necessary, it is not urgent. Neither does it deal with the shape of farming support going forward—there is no vision and no ambition; it is just the same old support on offer. The Scottish Government should have been planning for what will replace the CAP, the form it will take and the public goods that will be required from crofters and farmers in return for that public support. Unfortunately, the Government has squandered that opportunity.

The cabinet secretary said today that the bill will provide stability until 2021. That is next year, and anyone who knows anything about farming and crofting knows that a year does not provide stability for them. They need to know the direction of travel. Our crofters and farmers will end up with no idea of what is to come or what public goods will be supported.

Covid-19 makes everyone’s future more precarious, and the Government should be providing certainty where that is possible. We have always said that public money must pay for public goods, which must include supporting local economies and providing jobs and income.

Fergus Ewing

Let me make it absolutely clear that we believe that stability should continue to be provided until 2024. Moreover, from 2021, in addition to the continued support that farmers know they can have and that they will get for the years until 2024, we will be trying pilot schemes of new initiatives. The stability will continue not until 2021 but until 2024 under our plan.

Rhoda Grant

That suggests to me that there will be no change in policy until 2024. How on earth will the farming and crofting sector meet its climate change challenges if there is no change in how support is distributed until 2024?

We need a joined-up policy across departments. For years, we have been telling crofters and farmers to diversify to make a living, yet that diversification could mean that they are not getting the financial help that they require during the Covid-19 crisis. All arms of Government need to sign up to and support policies. For instance, we have asked farmers and crofters to consider entering the hospitality industry but, in the current situation, self-catering accommodation does not attract any support.

The bill does not address the food chain, and the difficulties in that regard have been exposed during the Covid-19 pandemic. We hear of people not being able to access food because they have to isolate or because they cannot afford it; in contrast, we see farmers pouring milk down the drain because they have no market for it. That is absolutely obscene. For those of us who have plenty, that is heartbreaking to watch, so I cannot imagine how it must feel to those who are hungry or those whose families are hungry. The bill does nothing about that.

The industry is crying out for labour. Crops are going to rot in the fields, which could lead to a food shortage, but, yet again, the bill does nothing about that. The Government can support businesses through the crisis with finance, but that finance cannot prevent crops from rotting in the fields.

Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, access to food has been a big issue, yet the bill does not deal with that. If ever we should be looking for an agriculture policy that goes from field to fork, we should be doing it now. During the lockdown, 3 million people in Britain have gone hungry, 1.5 million have gone a whole day without eating and 7.1 million have had to reduce or skip meals because they could not afford enough for everyone in the household. That is pretty grim, yet, rather than the good food nation bill being treated as urgent, it has been delayed due to the pandemic. At the very least, the bill that we are discussing today must include a right to food until such time as we can get comprehensive legislation through the good food nation bill.

Agriculture and access to food are intrinsically linked but, historically, the Government has too often taken a siloed approach to policy and legislation in the area, and families are now suffering as a result. The bill was an opportunity to change that, but the Government has not taken it.

Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)

At this most difficult of times, as the Parliament is endeavouring to continue business, I commend the Parliament staff for the huge effort that they have put in to ensure that members can continue to represent their constituents. I understand that the Parliament is considering proxy voting to give a voice to members who cannot be here, and I had hoped that this speech would be the first proxy speech, but I appear to have been beaten to it.

My colleague and friend Stewart Stevenson, who sits on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and who represents the large food-producing constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast, cannot be here, as he is in the category of those who must shield—although only just, I should say. I will endeavour to echo his voice in a small way. I have been liaising with him on the points that he would have made in the debate. I stopped short of paying further tribute to him by wearing his galluses, tempting as that was, although I believe that our hairstyles are similar at the moment.

Stewart told me that, at the beginning of his seven weeks of lockdown, the fields that he walked past near his home in Boyndie for his daily exercise were winter torn and largely bare. However, when I spoke to him yesterday, he recounted that he had walked past the same fields and seen spring barley 9 inches tall. That made him think how easy it would be to imagine that the farmer needed only a few weeks’ work to transform a field from winter to spring, but, of course, we know better—that barley was long in planning. The farmer’s decision about what to plant was made at least as far back as last autumn, and possibly even earlier, when she or he made financial projections that enabled a decision on how much seed to order and assessed the potential market for the crop.

As they made those calculations, they knew that they were part of a chain of suppliers and buyers who were making similar calculations. The sheep farmers would have had to consider the potential for the lamb sales later this year when they put the yowes to the tup last year. They were probably cautious, because they might have foreseen difficulties in selling to France, which we all know is a very important market for Scottish lamb. Lamb producers in Scotland are particularly worried about a post-Brexit trade agreement, and Angus MacDonald has mentioned issues with regard to the lamb sector.

We can be certain that no Scottish farmer incorporated a viral pandemic into their spreadsheet projections last autumn. If we let that difficulty translate into reduced farming profitability, we face the prospect of having less of our home-grown food on our tables. That simply cannot happen from an economic, social and environmental perspective—and from a health perspective, too.

The agriculture bill that is before us this afternoon is more vital in content than ever. Most critical is its timing and our ability to be fleet of foot as we recover from this crisis and help our agricultural sector through the difficulties that lie ahead, as well as with Brexit. Only if we give certainty to our farmers and crofters—and all the businesses that work with and rely on them—about the support that they will receive will their actions in planning for 2021 and beyond preserve that most vital of industries.

So, how will the bill help—and why now? I will deal with the “now”. Few farmers are without an overdraft. Stewart Stevenson believes that the banks’ sentiment towards their agricultural creditors is unlikely to improve, and their margins are being squeezed by a base rate of nearly or actually zero. He says that some certainty on the farmers’ balance sheets will help to keep the banks at bay—and he speaks, of course, as an ex-banker.

The earlier we can act to deliver certainty, the better the outcome will be. A pound promised now and guaranteed through legislation is worth a lot more than a pound promised in September, even if it were to reach the relevant bank account on the same day. That is because, in a crisis, too many creditors will seek to minimise adverse outcomes by calling in loans if “bad” looks as if it may be followed by “disastrous”. Lenders or trade creditors winnae hing aboot, as they say in Stewart’s constituency. They will want to recover as fast as possible.

The bill’s most important purpose for farmers is:

“From 1 January 2021, to enable the continued operation of current CAP schemes and policies”.

That has already been promised to farmers, but we must not delay progress towards creating a statutory framework, especially at a time when there are so many other sources of uncertainty for everyone. There are not many areas on which we can give certainty right now, so when a chance comes along we have a duty to do so. If we increase doubt by not progressing this legislation, that will simply translate into more difficulty on farmers’ and crofters’ balance sheets.

It is Stewart’s view that the bill does not change policy but provides the powers to do so in the future, with the consent of Parliament. He believes strongly that the bill is an essential part of protecting the support for our farmers that previously came as part of our membership of the EU’s common agricultural policy. I represent a large rural and agricultural constituency that neighbours Mr Stevenson’s, and I am in complete agreement with him.

The noises from Westminster are clear. Despite strong objections on social and economic grounds, the UK Government has said that it will stick to the Brexit transition period ending on 31 December. Many of us, including myself, will make the case for changing that date, but we have to accept that the parliamentary arithmetic at Westminster is not in our favour. We would be fools to gamble on winning the argument, because of that large majority. When that happens, farmers and farming will be hit at precisely the moment when farming’s huge importance will be growing even more. Stewart has asked me to relay to members today that it is incumbent on us to support the bill, to guarantee our farmers some certainty now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Lewis Macdonald)

We now come to closing speeches. I remind members of the importance of maintaining social distancing, especially when entering and leaving the chamber.

Colin Smyth

As I said in my opening comments, Labour will support the bill at stage 1, because we understand its importance. However, I reiterate the comment that I made earlier that delaying the debate by a couple of weeks, so that members who are unable to be here today could have participated virtually, would not have in any way detracted from that importance. We have already seen a number of members giving proxy speeches when there would have been an opportunity in a couple of weeks for those members to be present virtually.

More importantly, such a delay would have allowed what would have been the first substantive debate on the crisis that we face over Covid-19 to have taken place this week, instead of waiting more weeks before that debate takes place. I wonder what our constituents must think about our priorities.

Although we will support the bill today, we also want to see improvements as it passes through the parliamentary process. I welcome the commitment of the cabinet secretary to work with other parties to deliver—I hope—the changes that we need.

A recurring theme throughout today’s debate has been the concerns of stakeholders over the lack of clarity and direction from the Government both during the transitionary period and in beginning the process of developing a new agricultural support scheme.

At every step of the way, it seems that it is stakeholders, and not Government, that have led the way. NFU Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK and Scottish Land & Estates have all set out proposals for a new system and for how we should use the transition period to begin the process of moving to that new system, and WWF has produced detailed policy options for reducing emissions.

We have seen little information from Government since it published “Stability and Simplicity” almost two years ago. The only changes that have been suggested so far are the largely technical ones that were set out by the simplification task force. We have had no detail on what other changes are being considered to improve on or simplify common agricultural policy implementation in Scotland and no detail on what the pilot schemes might cover, what their budgets could be or how they will be funded.

The transition period must be used to lay the groundwork for the new system, by developing and trialling schemes and, crucially, by providing training to ensure that farmers and crofters are equipped to deal with any new system. Put simply, the bill as it stands is a missed opportunity to deliver a clear direction towards which the sector should transition. The sooner we have a clear vision of what we want to replace the CAP, the more effectively we will be able to use the transition period to develop the detail. The clock is ticking.

As many members have highlighted during the debate, a purpose clause would provide more clarity on that direction of travel, and a sunset clause would provide more certainty on the timescales for bringing us towards a new system. There is very much still a discussion to be had about the exact wording of a purpose clause, and I look forward to having those discussions, but it is clear that a majority of members recognise that there are benefits to setting out a clear set of principles in the legislation. It would provide reassurance on the long-term direction of agricultural policy and help to address reservations about the broad enabling powers that the bill includes by providing a set of guiding principles for the use of those powers.

Likewise, a sunset clause would simply provide a statutory basis for commitments that the Government has already made. The cabinet secretary has consistently stated that the transition period will last only until 2024. Underpinning that commitment in law would provide a welcome guarantee that that remains the case. As I have said before, any sunset clause should of course include the option of an extension in order to avoid a cliff edge. The clause would simply be a matter of making clear that the default position is for the legislation to be temporary, in line with the Government’s own desire. Establishing a new system within the proposed timelines is essential, and passing the bill with no time limit sends the wrong message.

CAP funding is a lifeline for this key sector, but we know that the current system is not fit for purpose. We need a new system that distributes funding more fairly, supports and incentivises sustainability and environmentally friendly practices, and protects and enhances animal welfare, while building a more productive and resilient industry. There is a clear consensus among stakeholders on the need for a system that delivers on both environmental aims and productivity. Indeed, the sector faces ambitious targets on carbon reduction, from the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, and on productivity, from the ambition 2030 strategy.

The agriculture sector urgently needs a support system that better enables those aims to be met. An agricultural support system with environmentalism at its heart will allow the sector to make the emissions reductions that are needed. Equally, any new support system must also underpin productivity and growth as well as environmentalism. Those two aims should not be thought of as competing, and it is critical that neither is achieved at the expense of the other.

The bill does not set out a detailed long-term plan for agriculture and no one is arguing that it should, but it is clear that it should provide more direction and that failing to do so is a missed opportunity.

It would also be a missed opportunity not to wake up to the fact that the world has changed in recent weeks. The Covid-19 crisis is, first and foremost, a public health crisis. It is also a crisis that has exposed the need for a fairer, healthier and more sustainable food system. With the good food nation bill being dropped because of the crisis, we need to adapt—it cannot be business as usual. We should take the elements of the good food nation bill that the Government supported and incorporate them into this bill. That includes a statutory commitment to a statement of policy on food. It would be a dereliction of duty not to take this urgent opportunity to safeguard our fragile food system against future crises as best we can, shoring up resilience and future food security. That statement of policy should include a contingency plan for tackling future interruptions to supply. If this is not the time to do that, I do not know when that time will be.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I am pleased to be closing for the Scottish Conservatives in today’s stage 1 debate but, as other members have done, I make this contribution on behalf of another member who cannot be here in Parliament today to deliver it in person. In this case, it is Finlay Carson, who is at home in his constituency in beautiful Galloway.

I also refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as I am a partner in the farming business of J Halcro-Johnston & Sons, and to Finlay Carson’s and my membership of NFU Scotland.

We have heard some strong contributions from members across the chamber, reflecting the circumstances in which the agriculture sector finds itself as a result of Covid-19. They have not been immune to the challenges, and that makes today’s debate an important stage in ensuring that the sector has the clarity and policies in place that will help it to emerge stronger from this crisis and to continue in the years ahead, when we are beyond the transition period of exit from the European Union.

As highlighted by my colleagues, we support the general principles of the bill, but today’s debate has highlighted the need for proper frameworks and funding mechanisms to emerge in the future stages of the bill. As deputy convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, Finlay Carson has emphasised that the principles of the bill must be designed with environmental concerns in mind. The Covid-19 crisis has inadvertently brought benefits to our environment, with fewer emissions from many sources because there has been less activity. However, that does not mean that we can be complacent about the massive challenges that we face in tackling climate change, and our agriculture sector is at the heart of that. It is ready and willing to take up the challenge.

As Finlay Carson has often said in the chamber and at committee, we cannot continue to allow the agriculture sector to be demonised when it comes to the challenges of reducing emissions and enabling better practices. Agriculture has stepped forward and started to address those issues. The industry, including the NFUS, has long recognised the part that it must play in achieving the ambitious 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 on the way to hitting the net zero target by 2045. As we know, there is to be an unfortunate but inevitable delay in an update to the climate change plan, which makes it even more important that the right policies are in place throughout the bill. Faster and further is what is required when it comes to addressing climate change.

It is therefore disappointing that the Scottish National Party Government has not shown greater urgency in outlining a plan of action. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee understands that the period of simplification and improvement will run until 2024. We need to get it right now. Who knows when we will fully emerge from the Covid-19 crisis?

When we do, there will also need to be a sense of urgency to outline how future policy will be developed. Stability is key for the industry in the coming years, but change must also be instigated if the industry is to adapt, then change and, ultimately, deliver. We have already heard from the chief executive of the UK Committee on Climate Change that the Scottish Government’s plans for a long-term policy framework to replace the EU common agricultural policy are lagging behind those of England and Wales.

On environmental schemes, the funding for environmental and climate management interventions is a serious area of concern, with the provisions in the bill giving limitations on sources of funding and, potentially even more seriously, if not introduced carefully, capping on that funding. That would mean that the agriculture sector could lose out on lowering specific sectoral emissions as part of the overall work to reduce emissions.

When it comes to environmental standards, it is vital that a common framework is agreed across the four nations of the United Kingdom in order to maintain that commitment to the highest possible environmental standards. The same principles should apply when it comes to the agriculture regulatory frameworks that end up as part of the bill. The integrity of the UK single market is vital for the industry. It is therefore critical that the nations work within a commonly agreed framework and that although, as is currently the case, there is flexibility when it comes to the playing field, the whole of the UK plays within the same set of rules.

In Mr Carson’s constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, as well as in other areas of Scotland, an area that will be vital in the coming years is agritourism monitor farms. It is welcome to see that groups have been set up to provide further support and expertise as the programme continues. That is exactly what will be needed, given that the tourism industry is among the hardest hit during the coronavirus crisis. The diversification of farming businesses is something that can help to sustain them. I have been asked to highlight monitor farms, which have already sold £20,000-worth of farm tours for the spring and summer seasons, including such things as lambing experiences. However, that cash has, obviously, already been spent.

Tourism income aside, there is the urgent need to get in place policies that recognise the huge potential role that monitor farms can play in testing and in providing future policy with regard to climate change and the protection of biodiversity. The principle of monitor farms has been proven and they are widely accepted and respected as the right way forward by the agriculture sector. The monitor farm model should form the foundation of future pilot schemes as soon as possible, as delay is no good for anyone.

The agriculture bill is vital, but we must ensure that we get it right. With the current state of affairs, it is important that sufficient time is set aside by the Government, alongside requisite measures, to ensure that the right scrutiny can take place at stage 2. That is when Conservative members will seek to ensure that our industry is protected in terms of resources, policies and the highest possible standards in the years to come in a world outside the European Union.

Fergus Ewing

In these times, I feel that those who are listening to the debate, particularly those who are interested in farming and the rural economy, want to see politicians working together. We have largely seen that this afternoon, and I very much appreciate the clear statements from—I think—all the leading Opposition party spokespeople that they will support the general principles of the bill. For my part, I restate for the record that I am keen—as always—to work with members to improve the bill in so far as we can.

There were some very good contributions, including from Mr Cameron, Liz Smith, and Mike Rumbles. The convener of the committee gave a fair account of the committee’s report, and members of other parties made very useful and positive remarks. I therefore start by broadly thanking members for the spirit of the debate. However, I think that this is an important debate and I contest the point that we could postpone the bill, because it needs to be done. Farmers want us to do our work; they expect us to do our work. The bill does not need to be passed this month or next month, but it needs to be passed within a time limit, and given that we do not want to leave things until the last moment, we need to get on with our work. The public would expect us to do that—it is important to say that.

I absolutely agree that members are keen to debate the longer-term policy with regard to farming, the environment, food production and animal welfare standards. Many members quite rightly made points about that, and they are all very fair points indeed. However, although they are fair points, they are not directly relevant to the purpose of the bill, which is about a mechanism and a process. The bill is about providing a lever; it is a tool in the box—a spanner that enables us to do a specific task. Spanners are not designed to save the planet; they are designed to do something specific. That is what some legislation is about, and this bill is one such piece of legislation.

That does not mean that members have not made valid points, but that, with all due respect, some of those points are not directly relevant to our job with this bill today.

Mark Ruskell

As I understand it, the core purpose of the bill is to ensure alignment with the EU common agricultural policy. That policy will change in 2021, when the EU sets nine new objectives. We need to incorporate those objectives in our own agricultural policy if we want to stay aligned with the EU.

The cabinet secretary can surely see that our best chance of rejoining the EU—maybe as an independent nation—would be through an alignment with the EU CAP for 2021 to 2027. Those objectives could be incorporated in the bill.

Fergus Ewing

That is an interesting point, but the purpose of the bill is rather different. This Government absolutely believes that EU membership is the best option for Scotland and the UK, as I stated earlier. The bill’s specific purpose is to allow us to simplify, and improve on, the operations of the EU legislation. Without the bill, we would be unable to do that.

I will not labour the point, but I hope that most members will feel that, in making it, I am being absolutely sincere about the nature of the function and purpose of our job today. I am not necessarily critical of differing points of view; the debate is perfectly legitimate, but it is neither for today nor for this bill, and nor is it for stages 2 or 3.

The issues around a sunset clause and a purpose clause are important. Mr Rumbles made the key speech in that regard and went further with his suggestion of a specific alternative—something that we do not hear often on these benches in this type of debate. That point was interesting. I undertook that it would be considered carefully and that we will have discussions about it.

That is all well and good. However, I have met farmers, often at the behest of members. Mr Cameron, for example, invited me to meet some farmers from Lochaber, with whom I had a serious discussion, as they were very worried about future financial support. I hope that I was able to provide some welcome reassurance, particularly regarding the continuance of payments as part of the less favoured area support scheme. I was grateful to Mr Cameron for hosting and arranging that useful meeting.

I do not mean to be facetious or flippant, but I tell you this: not one farmer or crofter at that meeting mentioned a purpose clause or a sunset clause. They would be interested in actual sunsets, not legislative ones. I am not being facetious; those things do not directly concern farmers. Members might say that that was not their purpose in raising those issues and that they did so to discuss long-term policy—of course people are interested in long-term policy.

Liz Smith

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fergus Ewing

I will finish the point and then certainly give way.

My point is that farmers and crofters have an awful lot to worry about at the moment—my goodness me, I do not really have to enumerate those worries. Gillian Martin made that point very well—I do not know whether she was impersonating Stewart Stevenson or whether the speech was his offering—in her interesting and unusual contribution, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

She made the good point that the farmers who are concerned at the moment are practical, down to earth and welcome our efforts to continue to ensure that they get financial support in their bank account. I think that those farmers were grateful and satisfied that we secured that support to the tune of 81 per cent of the CAP payments—more than £340 million of loan payments, £430 million of pillar 1 payments and approximately £80 million of convergence payments, just before lockdown; in fact, it was weeks before it.

The fact that we were able to do that as a Government and to complete those complex tasks—thanks to the diligence of public servants throughout the country and to the rural payments and inspections division—is what is really important to them, rather than the minutiae of purpose or sunset clauses, which no farmer or crofter has ever mentioned to me.

Liz Smith

I think that the cabinet secretary is absolutely correct that farmers are concerned about the practicalities just now, but they are also concerned because the bill is about procedures. The whole debate about a sunset clause is about the level of scrutiny that can be given to decisions that are being made. As it stands, there is a concern that the Scottish Government could, if it so wished, take such decisions into its own hands. For parliamentary democracy, that is not right.

Fergus Ewing

Earlier, I said that Liz Smith made a good contribution and I think that she has made further worthwhile points. I totally agree, and I agreed when I responded to Mr Rumbles that they are very important points for us as parliamentarians. The distinction that I was trying to make, and which I hope that I have made, is that farmers perhaps have less interest in such points than they do in the practicalities, which I think Liz Smith agreed with. We will come back to those points. As a Government, we want to ensure that we are subject to appropriate scrutiny. We have never shied away from that, and we will not start to do so now.

The non-regression issue, which several members raised, is in a sense already dealt with by previous legislation that we have passed, including the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. They contain legislative provisions that are the law—we must abide by them, and rightly so. Those provisions already commit us to non-regression. If there is a thesis that somehow, we could do lots of regressive things, we cannot. We are constrained by the law and the law is in place.

Presiding Officer, I have no idea how much time I have, so I can fill whatever time you want me to.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

If the cabinet secretary wishes to draw his remarks to a conclusion now, I am sure that that would be most welcome—[Interruption.]

Fergus Ewing

I hear suggestions that winding up would be appropriate, and not for the first time while I have been standing in this place, it has to be said.

I am very grateful for the broad approach that members have taken today. I think that we are doing a good thing in scrutinising this legislation. I am sure that we will make progress at stages 2 and 3, and I very much look forward to working with members across the chamber to do what we can to make sure that we are able to adapt our policy in a way that will help farming, crofting and the environment, enable high-quality food to continue to be produced and preserve food security in an increasingly uncertain planet.

I thank all members and I look forward to continuing to work with them in the same spirit in the weeks to come.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes our stage 1 debate on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

There are two questions today. The first question is, that motion S5M-21650, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is, that motion S5M-21664, in the name of Graeme Dey, on committee membership, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that—

Rhoda Grant be appointed to replace Jackie Baillie on the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee;

Jackie Baillie be appointed to replace Neil Bibby on the Finance and Constitution Committee.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes decision time. I urge members, when leaving the chamber, to do so in a safe way by observing social distancing rules.

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning and welcome to the 15th meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in 2020. The only item on our agenda today is stage 2 consideration of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism.

We have a lot to get through this morning, but it will work well if we take things slowly and steadily. I will briefly explain the procedure for anyone who is watching.

There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but wish to speak should make a request to speak. Please speak only when I call you to do so. If the cabinet secretary has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite him to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.

Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member who is present objects, the committee will immediately move to a vote on the amendment. If a member does not want to move their amendment when it is called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member who is present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

Only committee members are allowed to vote, and voting will take place electronically. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put the appropriate questions at the appropriate points.

We will now start the stage 2 proceedings.

Section 1 agreed to.

After section 1

The Convener

Amendment 36, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 37 and 24.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 36, like the other amendments in the group, seeks to introduce a set of guiding principles for the secondary legislation to be introduced through the bill’s enabling powers. The proposed new section is intended to act as what I would call a “purpose clause”, in line with a recommendation that the committee made at stage 1, and it has two aims—first, to place some limitations on the extremely broad regulation-making powers that the bill introduces, and secondly to clarify our policy priorities.

Between now and 2024, we must develop an entirely new agricultural support system, and it is essential that the transition period is used to help to lay the groundwork for it, for example through pilot schemes. However, the bill provides no sense of policy direction for that work, nor does it set out the types of area that the pilots should focus on.

My amendment 36 includes a range of objectives, which I hope will act as a guide during this period without acting as a barrier to necessary changes. The objectives that are listed in my amendment, which are loosely based around the remit of the farming and food production future policy group, aim to ensure that the policy that is pursued in the transition period is consistent with the future direction of any new system. They cover fairly broad categories, which should be able to underpin a range of changes. On top of those more general categories, I have included a few specific priorities such as carbon reduction, working conditions and food security.

I have also included a subsection to clarify that none of the objectives should be achieved at the expense of another. That is an important point. For example, we should not pursue policies that may improve productivity but undermine carbon reduction, or indeed vice versa. Finding policies with minimal negative consequences is vital to the success of our next system, and we must start developing such solutions now.

The other two amendments in the group also seek to set out guiding principles to inform secondary legislation that is made under the provisions in the bill. The wording of the three amendments in the group reveals that there is fairly broad agreement on the way forward, as does the fact that three different parties have proposed a purpose clause.

John Finnie’s amendment 24 goes into a little more detail about what the objective should be and it raises a wide range of important issues. It would provide a clear and ambitious direction of travel, which I support. Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 37, which is drafted more broadly, would give ministers more flexibility while still providing greater clarity on the purpose of the transition period and our longer-term ambitions for the agriculture sector. Like my amendment, amendment 37 appears to have been informed by the remit of the future policy group.

I believe that my amendment 36 incorporates elements of the approaches of both John Finnie and Rachael Hamilton, as it contains some specific aims and some more general categories. However, all three amendments make worthwhile contributions and I would be happy to support any of them as a starting point in the debate on how we can deliver the overarching purpose and direction that the committee and many stakeholders highlighted the need for during stage 1.

If any of the amendments in the group is agreed to, we will be able to address any specific gaps or technical issues at stage 3, particularly if the Government acknowledges the strong support for a purpose clause and commits to working with all parties in seeking to achieve consensus on any final wording.

I move amendment 36.

The Convener

I call Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 37 and any other amendments in the group.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

My amendment 37 has similar objectives to Colin Smyth’s amendment 36, but there is a clear difference. Under the principles of secondary legislation, the committee will note that my list is shorter. My list is comprehensive because, having engaged extensively with stakeholders, I believe that we need a focused approach to what the regulations should contribute in principle.

An example of the objectives in Colin Smyth’s amendment is delivering for rural communities. Although I understand the basis and completely agree with his premise, I am concerned that it is too vague and that it might encroach on other legislation such as that on community empowerment. Farmers across Scotland want the replacement for the common agricultural policy to deliver for them, but I sense that what Colin Smyth seeks to achieve slightly veers off that trajectory and starts to involve other parties for whom the bill is not necessarily relevant.

On John Finnie’s amendment 24, I note that, similarly to Colin Smyth’s amendment, the list of objectives takes the focus off the bill. Some of the aspects in amendment 24 would be better introduced at a later date through well-researched policy, rather than through the bill. My amendment 37 keeps the principles focused on agriculture.

The Convener

I call John Finnie to speak to amendment 24 and any other amendments in the group.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I thank all the people and organisations that contributed briefings for our deliberations today.

As others have said, the bill will introduce powers to make changes to regulations and payment systems without defining either the scope or the purpose of those changes. WWF said:

“This introduces considerable uncertainty, at a time when ambitious action is required of the sector.”

Agriculture is one of the key sectors where policy levers to reduce emissions are devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government has missed its emissions target for the second year in a row. As Scottish Environment LINK said,

“the opportunity must be seized to signal how regulations and related funding for agriculture will change in the years ahead to deliver broad benefits for society.”

Given the need for brevity, I will not repeat comments that have already been made. I agree with much of what Colin Smyth said. It is important that we see a just transition. Although there may on the surface appear to be a lot of common ground between the three amendments in the group, this is about priorities and emphasis. It is clear that the status quo is not an option and we must build on the existing frameworks.

I will pick out a few objectives from the extensive list in my amendment 24. One is to achieve our greenhouse gas emissions targets. That is a fundamental aim, but it is not included in the Conservative amendment, which highlights the objective of “improving profitability”.

My proposed new subsection (2)(e) highlights the objective of

“maintaining and enhancing animal welfare”.

That would go some way towards addressing the concerns that have been voiced in recent days about the export of live calves, for instance.

My proposed objectives also include

“encouraging public access to, and public understanding of, agriculture”,

“maintaining and increasing population in rural areas”

—I know that the cabinet secretary has shared my interest in that—and

“ensuring sustainable livelihoods and improved working conditions among crofters and farmers, particularly those working on ... marginal land”,

to which my comment about local supply chains is pertinent.

I will support Colin Smyth’s amendment 36, not least because it includes the objectives of

“delivering flourishing rural communities”

and

“improving working conditions within the sector.”

However, I will not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 37. It includes a reference to

“increasing the resilience of the agricultural sector to climate change”.

I think that that alludes to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, but the objective is entirely insular and industry centred. I will leave my comments there.

The Convener

A couple of other members have indicated that they want to speak on the group. We will come first to Stewart Stevenson, followed by the deputy convener, Maureen Watt.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I always look carefully at the drafting of amendments, and most of my comments relate to that aspect, although they also relate to policy to some extent.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 36 contains the phrase

“may only be exercised by”,

and it goes on to state that any provisions that are made

“must not undermine the ability of regulations ... to contribute to the achievement of any other objective”.

Those two things are coupled. Similarly, John Finnie’s amendment includes the phrases

“may only be exercised by”

and

“must not undermine the ability”.

I have a difficulty with that wording. It may well be proper to proceed with something that increases resilience but might affect things such as profitability in the short term. How do we measure profitability? People have to submit accounts once a year and they will know whether they are profitable in the year, but the benefit may be further on. There is a genuine difficulty there.

As a former engineer, I know the old saying that every new solution brings new problems. To try in legislation to discount a big benefit under one heading against a small disbenefit under another is not going to work. That applies to the amendments from Colin Smyth and John Finnie.

Similarly, I have a difficulty with an omission from all three amendments in the group, including Rachael Hamilton’s, in that they make no direct reference to community per se. Objective (j) in the list in Colin Smyth’s amendment refers to “delivering flourishing rural communities”, but the benefits of agriculture extend beyond rural communities, so that wording is more restrictive than we might want it to be.

Finally, there is a big omission from the lists in all three amendments. In restricting the regulations to those that affect only agriculture, we would rule out regulations that would affect agriculture but would also require and provide for collaboration with other sectors. That is a fundamental problem with the lists. I always have a big problem with lists per se—I would rather see things expressed more concisely. I do not have a difficulty with what members are trying to achieve; I just think that the expression of the objectives in the three amendments is unlikely to commend itself to me or other members.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Good morning, everybody. Notwithstanding the technical difficulties that my colleague Stewart Stevenson highlighted, I point out that the amendments are completely undemocratic as they have not been consulted on.

There was no mention of these matters in the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill. Indeed, there was broad stakeholder support for the principles that underpin the bill, which is an important mechanism to facilitate smooth transition for the agriculture sector as we leave the European Union. It is a purely technical bill to ensure that payments continue after we leave the EU. The committee recognised in its stage 1 report that people want to see further developments of policy in agriculture, but that is not what the bill is about. I cannot see how we could agree to amendments 36, 37 or 24, given that we have not consulted on the proposals.

The Convener

I invite the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, to comment as appropriate.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing)

Good morning, everyone. It might take me some time to go through and do justice to the proposals in the three amendments in group 1, but I will seek to do that.

There was a debate during stage 1 about the inclusion of a purpose clause in the bill. As the three amendments demonstrate, however, that means different things to different people. Indeed, I am bound to reflect and gently comment that the three proposers, in their presentations, were not uncritical of the other proposals.

I am clear that part 1 of the bill is about process and not policy. It would, I submit, be inappropriate to set a direction of travel in this framework bill, which is required for the specific purpose of enabling the simplification and improvement of existing CAP schemes, before we know exactly where we need to go.

I understand why people wish for a set of objectives of future policy. However, I remind members that, following a debate that took place in plenary session on 10 January 2019, the Scottish Parliament agreed by resolution to establish a group to inform future policy on farming and food production. That decision was based on a suggestion from Mr Rumbles, which I was happy to take forward and have taken forward.

Parliament has already spoken on the process that we should follow, and we should not pre-empt that process. Were we to do so this morning, it could be construed as being disrespectful to Parliament as a whole. Rather, I suggest that the group be allowed to complete, as instructed, the task that the Parliament has given it. Any purpose clause in the bill—even one—that confined itself, as the amendments in the group do, to the use of the powers in part 1 of the bill would, per se, interfere with and cut across a process that Parliament agreed is appropriate, and which is nearly complete.

I also ask members to carefully consider what they are asking for. There is a timing issue here. We need not only the bill, but the secondary legislation under it to be in place by the end of the year in order to ensure that we can continue to make payments to farmers, which means that time is critical. All three amendments raise the risk that we would run out of time. We need to know what must be done, but each of the proposals would add complex new requirements and tests that would limit our ability to use the new powers to ensure that CAP schemes will work in 2021.

If such measures had been in place in respect of convergence funding and we had had to balance all the objectives that are set out in any of the three lists in respect of the decisions that we made, I believe that we would not have been able to disburse the first tranche of payments of convergence moneys to farmers and crofters in Scotland as we did in early March. In other words, if we had had to go through that complex process, the vital financial support that we were able to give—incidentally, and fortuitously, before the Covid lockdown—would not have been in the bank accounts of those farmers and crofters because we would have had a complex process that prevented us from achieving that task in the timely fashion with which it was dispatched.

I am still determined to start making simplifications and improvements from 2021, but I am bound to conclude that, if the committee was to agree to any or all the amendments in group 1 with the tests that are set out in them, we would not be in a position to prepare regulations for the end of the year, which might mean that no useful change could have effect next year.

Amendments 36 and 24 both seek to limit the Scottish ministers to making regulations under part 1 of the bill only for the purpose of contributing to one or more of the list of objectives that is set out in subsection (2) in each amendment. They are closed lists, which means that we would not be able to do anything else, no matter how desirable it was, under our simplification and stability approach.

Some of the objectives relate to matters such as biodiversity, water and air quality, animal welfare and plant and soil health, which are already provided for in legislation including the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Those laws are already in place, and ministers could not use the bill to legislate in a way that circumvented or was incompatible with those existing laws. Some of the objectives are not defined in the bill and determining exactly what was meant could be hugely problematic. Other objectives are highly subjective and it would therefore be hard to give them any meaningful effect in law.

Amendment 37 appears to be less onerous, but it does not define what is meant by any of the principles that it sets out and, in effect, it would prove to be more difficult to implement. It requires that all regulations must actually “contribute” to one of the stated principles. The validity of regulations could be in question if it could not be shown that they made such a contribution. It is not at all clear to me that that could be definitively established in relation to every regulation that could be made under the bill. The proposal is therefore, prima facie, unworkable.

Complexities and potential unintended consequences would arise from applying such prescriptive lists of objectives to the use of regulations in part 1 of the bill. Applying the objectives—some of which are already provided for in environment and animal welfare legislation—would not be straightforward. Working out how to assess potential simplifications or improvements to current CAP schemes against them would be time consuming. In all probability, we would not be able to make any change happen in 2021, yet the plan to make the changes was warmly welcomed by farmers and crofters. Worst of all, if the amendments were agreed to, it would limit our ability to help our farmers at a time when they most need help.

Earlier this morning, I re-read the policy and financial memoranda and the explanatory notes on the bill. If members address themselves to paragraph 4 of the policy memorandum, they will see that, under the heading “Purpose of the bill”, it says:

“This Bill is intended to provide the Scottish Ministers with regulation-making powers to amend or replace the European Union ... Common Agricultural Policy ... elements of retained ... law in Scotland, and to provide new powers for the collection of agricultural data.”

The notes clearly set out the purpose of the bill. It would surely be a risky prospect to have a counter-purpose stated in the bill.

For all those reasons, convener, and with apologies for the length of my arguments—I have sought to do justice to each of the amendments by addressing them in detail—I respectfully suggest that the amendments be resisted.

The Convener

Thank you, Mr Ewing—you have done justice to the amendments. When we are in different rooms, it is difficult to encourage brevity, but I ask members to remember to be brief.

Colin Smyth

I recognise the challenges in finding a wording that meets our aims. However, I do not believe that that is impossible if everyone is committed to achieving it. I remind all members that it was the committee’s unanimous view at stage 1 that the Government should consider lodging a purpose clause. I am somewhat surprised that support for the principle of a purpose clause appears to have changed, although we have form for saying one thing in our stage 1 report and doing the opposite in the final debate.

As a committee, we have debated purpose clauses in the past. We have debated at great length the objectives in a bill, for example in the passage of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, where we agreed a clear set of objectives for the new agency. We have a track record of delivering such things, despite the differences in wording at the beginning of the processes.

I think that all three proposed purpose clauses—I have not criticised the other ones—are based on a shared view on the need for clarity on what policy changes the bill will underpin. The cabinet secretary has said that we should focus on the work of the farming and food production future policy group, and I agree, but there is absolutely nothing in the bill that will allow us to do so. The bill simply gives the Government broad policy-making powers without providing any policy direction. The committee was told by numerous stakeholders that there is a lack of policy direction in the bill and with regard to future agriculture policy more generally.

I believe that there is a lot of commonality in the proposed purpose clauses. They are based on broadly similar priorities—that is, the need for a new system that better enables environmental sustainability, encourages productivity in the sector and supports rural communities. The consistency of approach of amendments 36, 37 and 24 is not surprising, given the clear consistency among many stakeholders on the necessary direction of travel.

I want to address two other points that the cabinet secretary touched on. I simply do not agree that a purpose clause would somehow make it impossible to deliver support and changes in 2021. There is no basis whatever for that claim.

Stewart Stevenson raised a number of technical issues to do with the wording of amendment 36, but he did not say that the principle of including a purpose clause in the bill was not relevant. That is not surprising, given that the committee agreed at stage 1 that that should be considered. I think that, if we give a commitment to work together on the wording, we could deliver a purpose clause that provides the policy direction that stakeholders are crying out for and which is currently lacking.

The Convener

Do you wish to press or withdraw amendment 36?

Colin Smyth

I will not press it at this stage. I simply ask that a commitment is made to work with all members in an effort to achieve a consensus on the wording of a purpose clause.

Amendment 36, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 37 not moved.

Section 2—Power to simplify or improve CAP legislation

The Convener

Amendment 1, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 8, 11, 14, 28, 29 and 16. If amendment 14 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 28, as it will have been pre-empted.

Before we hear from John Finnie, I will make a declaration of interests. I apologise, because I meant to do this at the beginning of proceedings. When the committee has discussed agriculture in the past, I have always declared that I have an interest in a family farming partnership. For the record, I would like to repeat that, so that no one is in any doubt regarding my interest.

I believe that Peter Chapman and Stewart Stevenson might also want to make declarations of interest.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I thank the convener for reminding us all that we need to declare our interests. I declare that I am a partner in a farming business in the north-east of Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson

I own a very small registered agricultural holding, from which I derive no income.

The Convener

I am glad that we have got that out of the way. I apologise to John Finnie for interrupting him.

John Finnie

[Inaudible.] I will speak to other amendments in the group, which covers procedure for the regulations.

Earlier, I alluded to briefings that the committee has received. We have all received the briefing from the Law Society of Scotland about how the procedure could be improved during the progress of the bill, and later on through consultation. That is particularly in regard to changing the arrangements for future decision making from negative to affirmative procedure.

I readily acknowledge that there is parliamentary scrutiny regardless of the procedure, as has been said many times in committee, but ensuring the active approval of Parliament seems better. I am grateful to my colleague Colin Smyth for his support. The public might expect that there should be the active approval of Parliament when we are dealing with matters such as the provision of information; powers of entry, inspection, seizure and search; penalties; and the creation of offences. I hope that members agree with that.

I support the cabinet secretary in relation to amendments 28 and 29.

I move amendment 1.

Fergus Ewing

Amendments 28 and 29 relate to the wider changes that I am seeking to make to section 8 through the amendments in group 7. Those changes are primarily to ensure that there is alignment with the approach that is being taken in the United Kingdom Agriculture Bill on switching from retained EU law powers on marketing standards to free-standing domestic law powers. The UK bill’s provisions allow for the affirmative procedure for making regulations.

Therefore, amendment 28 provides for changing the procedure from negative to affirmative, while amendment 29 would simply alter the wording of section 8(5) to reflect that change in procedure.

Noting that John Finnie’s amendment 14 pre-empts my amendment 28, I acknowledge his thoughtful approach in specifying a list of circumstances in which the affirmative procedure should be applied, but I hope that he will accept that there is now no need for that approach, given my willingness to apply the affirmative procedure to any use of the power. Therefore, I hope that he will not move amendment 14. If he does, I encourage members to resist it and support amendments 28 and 29 instead.

I turn to amendments 1, 8 and 11. I fully understand why members want additional scrutiny of the regulation-making powers under sections 2, 5 and 6. Normally, switching from negative to affirmative procedure would appear to be a fairly innocuous change, and it is one that Government often concedes. I have done so for previous bills, as have many of my Cabinet colleagues.

However, these are not normal times. The process is time constrained, not least because of other pressures on Parliament and the committee due to the impact of the coronavirus, which means that the bill will not be concluded before recess.

We need the bill and regulations under it to be in place by the end of this year or there will be a risk of delaying payments. As I said when speaking to amendments in group 1, I intend to start introducing changes under sections 2, 5 and 6 for the start of the 2021 CAP year, which begins in January. If we do not do so, such is the complexity of the CAP system that changes could not be brought in part way through the year and we would be waiting until 2022 before any simplifications or improvements could be made to any CAP scheme.

The situation is made even more complex by Brexit and the resulting multitude of pieces of secondary legislation required by the end of this year, many of which relate to the rural economy and are likely to come to this committee. That already presents an incredibly challenging legislative timetable for Government and Parliament.

I am also conscious of the group 3 amendments that are still to be considered, which relate to consultation. Again, a statutory requirement to consult on draft regulations would inevitably lengthen the process still further. However, we will debate those separately.

I am not unsympathetic to either issue. Normally, I and this Government would support the desire to ensure a more substantive role for both Parliament and stakeholders in the development of the content of regulations. However, I do not think that we can do either—never mind both—and be confident of passing regulations by the end of 2020 that would allow changes to be made to current CAP schemes during the transition period between 2021 and 2024, which I have committed to and which, previously, had the support of Parliament.

Therefore, I cannot support amendments 1, 8 and 11, in John Finnie’s name, and hope that members agree with me and will resist the amendments.

Through amendment 16, Mr Finnie seeks to adopt a similar approach to regulations made under section 10 that have provisions regarding enforcement. As with section 8, there is no time constraint relating to regulations made under section 10 and, having conceded on the principle of moving to an affirmative procedure for section 8, I am happy to consider doing likewise for section 10. However, I respectfully ask Mr Finnie not to move amendment 16 in order to allow for further consideration on this matter. It may be less complex simply to switch the entire procedure to affirmative for section 10, as we have proposed for section 8.

In summary, I would ask the committee to vote for amendments 28 and 29 in preference to amendment 14. I respectfully suggest that the committee vote against amendments 1, 8 and 11.

On amendment 16, I thank Mr Finnie for the work that he has done with the Government, but I respectfully ask him not to move that amendment, on the basis that I will seek to come forward with a simpler, more straightforward approach at stage 3. I hope that that is helpful and clear.

Colin Smyth

It is important to highlight my support for the amendments in this group. A number of them were based on advice that was helpfully provided by the Law Society of Scotland. In lodging his amendments, John Finnie was clearly more nimble on his feet than I was, but my support is registered for them.

We could be forgiven, following our previous discussion, for forgetting that the bill introduces wide regulation-making powers. There is a need for clarity on what they will be used for. It was entirely inappropriate that negative procedure was going to be used for the regulations; it is important that affirmative procedure is used at all times during the course of the changes being made under the bill.

I am more than happy to fully support the amendments lodged by John Finnie.

John Finnie

I am surrounded by paper here—as we all are—and I realise that I should have alluded to the pre-emptions in this group, as the cabinet secretary did in his remarks: amendment 14 would pre-empt amendment 28, and amendment 15 would pre-empt amendment 29.

I hear what the cabinet secretary says in relation to amendments 14 and 16. It is not my intention to move those amendments when the time comes. My colleague Colin Smyth is entirely right, however. If there is a will, there is a way. As we will come on to discuss, there is no harm in having scrutiny. Our committee would always be keen to make every effort to facilitate the Scottish Government’s programme, particularly when it comes to the remuneration of our crofters and farmers.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 2, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 3, 5, 6, 23, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20 and 20A. If amendment 15 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 29. I call John Finnie to speak to and move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group.

John Finnie

Amendment 2 calls on the Scottish ministers to

“consult such persons as they consider appropriate.”

That might seem strange, because we would have thought that that was a well-established practice. It is certainly best practice, and I would have thought that such engagement could be done expeditiously when it suited the Scottish Government. I hear the recurring theme about the challenges that that would pose for the timeframe, but I repeat that consulting people is best practice, particularly on the significant matters that would be deliberated on in the case of regulations laid under section 2(1).

I hope that members will support amendment 2. I acknowledge that my colleague Colin Smyth, who has signed a couple of my amendments, supports the proposal relating to Government engagement

“Before laying a draft of a Scottish statutory instrument”

that makes regulations, which, as I said, would be best practice. In any case, if I understand the cabinet secretary correctly, he would ordinarily tell us that there was on-going engagement, so what amendment 2 proposes should not be an onerous process.

I support my colleague Colin Smyth’s amendments 18 and 20, but I do not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 18A and 20A or Peter Chapman’s amendment 23. What subsection (3)(a) in amendment 23 proposes would be entirely subjective and would introduce the kind of bureaucracy that the Conservative Party continually purports to oppose, so I will not support it.

I move amendment 2.

Peter Chapman

Amendment 23 seeks to ensure that the organisations and people affected are consulted on the prospect of a ceiling on payments, which is also known as capping.

The idea of capping farm payments is an unwelcome prospect for many farmers, so for the Scottish ministers simply to have an unchallenged power to introduce capping without proper consultation would be very serious. There is also the ability in section 4 to move moneys from pillar 1 to pillar 2, which again is an area of great importance to all farmers. In my opinion, that is one of the most important parts of the bill and we cannot give the Government free rein to decide on those issues. The voices of farmers, whom the bill’s provisions will affect and for whom they will have profound consequences, must be heard.

Ensuring that the Government must consult and then report on findings means that there would be a more informed view of agricultural stakeholders’ thoughts and whether it would be appropriate to introduce any ceiling on payments or any movement of money between pillars 1 and 2.

Farmers are keen to play their part in reducing emissions, but for too long they have done so with little or no financial support and mostly through good practice and good will. Subsection (3)(b)(i) of the proposed new section that amendment 23 would insert mentions the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Any capping must ensure that funds that are generated as a result are used to ensure that farming becomes more productive and efficient, delivers environmental benefits and delivers on our climate change objectives.

We support all the other amendments in the group.

Colin Smyth

I support the majority of the amendments in the group, which all look to ensure that regulations made under the bill are subject to appropriate consultation. The bill includes broad regulation-making powers, without a sense of the policy intention behind them. Many of the proposed changes in such regulations could have a huge impact on those who are directly affected. It is critical that the Government consults and seeks agreement on them.

Amendment 18 in my name calls for consultation on regulations made under sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10. My suggestion is covered by various amendments lodged by John Finnie. I am happy to support those amendments. If common sense prevails and they are agreed to by the time that we come to vote on amendment 18, I will not press it.

Similarly, amendment 20 in my name has the same intention as John Finnie’s amendment 19, which is to introduce in the bill a clear requirement on the Government to consult prior to issuing regulations that define “agricultural activity”.

The requirement that is set out in my amendment 18 is clearer than that set out in amendment 19. Amendment 18 specifies that those

“likely to have an interest in the regulations”

and those representing

“those who may be affected”

should be consulted. However, the outcome of both amendments is likely to be the same, so I am happy to support either.

Amendments 18A and 20A from Rachael Hamilton look to remove the requirement to consult those whom the Government considers

“are likely to have an interest”

in the regulations. I imagine that the intention is to ensure that the consultation focuses on those who are directly affected, but that is potentially too narrow. A requirement to consult those who are interested as well as those who are affected would ensure that, if they had a relevant interest, environmental or animal welfare groups, for example, would have a chance to input. It is not unreasonable to suggest that all interested groups should be consulted.

Peter Chapman’s amendment 23 calls on the Government not only to consult but to report on the outcome of that consultation and on how the regulations contribute to our climate change ambitions. That would provide useful scrutiny and accountability, and the committee should be in favour of it.

Rachael Hamilton

I sought in amendment 20A to remove the reference to

“such persons as they consider are likely to have an interest in the regulations”.

However, on reflection, as a result I would not be able to support John Finnie’s amendments, which seek to require consultation on regulations made under sections 2 to 6 of the bill. Therefore, I will not move amendment 20A, because it would result in inconsistencies in the process of consultation under different sections of the bill.

I ask the cabinet secretary to clarify that, should amendments regarding consultation be agreed to, he will keep the focus of consultation purely on those who are involved in agriculture and not open it up to a wider audience, which could inadvertently involve people who do not have a good reason to be involved in the shaping of the future of agriculture.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I firmly believe that consultation is required when ministers consider modifying or changing the existing CAP legislation. We do not want Scottish ministers to bulldoze changes through without diligently consulting those whom their actions will affect. Scottish Land & Estates says:

“Large parts of this bill provide powers for Scottish Ministers to simplify, improve and modify current regulations and bring forward further legislation. We feel a commitment to consult with relevant individuals or stakeholders is important to ensure Scottish Government understands the ambition of the sector to embrace change and maximise opportunities, rather than sticking with the status quo”.

I will vote for all the other amendments in the group, and I will not move my amendments 20A and 18A.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I will try to be brief, convener.

We are presented with a somewhat dizzying array of amendments that require ministers to consult, some of which relate to whatever regulatory procedure is followed. However, I am puzzled by the fact that so many members have sought to lodge those amendments when, in our stage 1 report, we concluded that there was no need to require statutory consultation. I am becoming fed up of people seeming to agree a collective position in a stage 1 report and then ignoring it when we get to stages 2 and 3. The cabinet secretary gave undertakings around consultation at stage 1 and we accepted them. We should not be debating these amendments.

The Convener

Cabinet secretary, do you have any brief comments in relation to that?

Fergus Ewing

I say again, convener, that I have a duty at stage 2 to do justice to all the lodged amendments and, with respect, I need to take time to do that.

At stage 1, I gave clear commitments on consultation. Those commitments have not changed. I said that

“We will take steps to make sure that there is sufficient consultation of those who are closely involved”

with the impact of any proposed changes or measures in draft regulations.

I also said:

“We will not make major changes without appropriate consultation and engagement. We always do that. We come to Parliament and we are constantly held to account by this committee.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 15 January 2020; c 22, 26.]

As Richard Lyle has reminded us, both the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee indicated in their stage 1 reports that they were satisfied with those assurances—which were given and repeated in good faith—on consulting stakeholders and the Parliament. Those assurances were most sincerely given, as has invariably been my practice as cabinet secretary.

For reasons that are similar to those that I set out in relation to the amendments in groups 1 and 2—so I will not repeat them—I hope that the committee will accept my voluntary undertakings and resist the amendments in group 3.

It is useful to remind the committee of the consultation and engagement that have been carried out to date. I consulted very widely on the plan for stability and simplification, and on 13 January 2020, we published the task force’s recommendations. All that work will inform the priorities in and content of the draft regulations.

The main reason why I am reluctant to accept the amendments is what they would do to timescales. The Scottish Government’s approach to consultation provides for a standard 12-week period within which submissions can be made, with all appropriate submissions published and analysed before the Government sets out its response. On occasion, timescales can be reduced, but we are usually looking at a minimum of six months for such a process. I have already alluded to the fact that consideration of the bill will not be completed before the recess. There is clearly time pressure on making sure that farmers and crofters can avail themselves of the benefits that I believe many of them may well wish to flow from improvements and simplifications.

I point to two matters that were predominant in the task force’s recommendations, which members have already had five months—five months, convener—to consider. The first is amending the system of penalties, to make it less harsh—and, occasionally, oppressive—for farmers and crofters in its disproportionate penalising of them for modest errors. The second is simplifying the inspection process. If, as I suspect, farmers and crofters want those changes to be made, the last thing that they will want is for the Scottish Government to be prevented from introducing the changes because of an additional, extended consultation process, which would place a procedural straitjacket on the Government’s ability to deliver what they want.

My undertakings have been uniformly implemented for the past four years, and those that I gave at stage 1 were accepted. I hope that they will be accepted at stage 2, and that the wish to require a statutory timetable is simply misplaced, as such a measure is not required. I also hope that we can proceed to work together, with the substantial measure of scrutiny that this committee and the Parliament always exert.

The Convener

I call Mr Finnie to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 2.

John Finnie

Rachael Hamilton and Conservative colleagues sound continually like they are saying, “Give us the money; don’t talk to anyone else.” Crofting and farming do not operate in a vacuum: this is public money.

I am sure that Mr Lyle would vigorously suggest that he is not seeking to frustrate debate. The purpose of this process is to engage in discussion—it is a stage 2 debate. Things do not stand still, and we are not slaves to previous positions that we may have taken. Clearly, all the amendments are competent, or we would not be debating them.

I hear what the cabinet secretary has repeatedly said, but I think that he is actually making the case to support the amendments that are before us.

No one is seeking to frustrate progress or introduce additional or extended processes. If, as we are continually told and have heard again from the cabinet secretary, there is on-going engagement—and many people believe that the farming sector is at the heart of Government policy and decision making—the proposal in amendment 2 will not be a challenge.

There is no harm in consultation, which can take many different forms. This committee and other committees have had many documents before them on which there has been no consultation. That is never helpful. Things can be turned round very quickly when there is the will to do so.

I press amendment 2.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 3, in the name of John Finnie.

John Finnie

I will not move amendment 3.

The Convener

The next question is that section 2—

Richard Lyle

On a point of order, convener. If you look at the chat box, you will see that I want to press amendment 3.

The Convener

Amendment 3 has not been moved. As far as I am aware, it cannot be pressed.

Richard Lyle

I will move it.

The Convener

Mr Lyle, are you moving amendment 3, which is in the name of John Finnie?

Richard Lyle

That is correct.

Amendment 3 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Power to provide for the operation of CAP legislation beyond 2020

The Convener

Amendment 4, in the name of John Finnie, is in a group on its own.

John Finnie

This will not take long. Amendment 4 is about the conferral of functions under section 3 and the power to provide for the operation of CAP legislation beyond 2020. The amendment was suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. It would simply insert the word “appropriate”, so that the bill would read:

“may confer functions on any appropriate person in connection with, or with the making of, a determination in respect of a year.”

I move amendment 4.

Fergus Ewing

As the term is undefined for the purposes of the bill, I am not clear what would be the benefit of adding the word “appropriate”. Moreover, ministers could rightly be challenged in the highly unlikely event that they tried to confer a function on an inappropriate person. However, if the committee considers that the amendment would be advantageous and improve the bill, I am happy to accept it.

The Convener

I ask John Finnie to wind up briefly, and to press or withdraw the amendment.

John Finnie

I will simply press the amendment.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 11, Against 0, Abstentions 0. I am sure that there was a reason for voting on the amendment.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 5, in the name of John Finnie.

John Finnie

I will not move amendment 5.

The Convener

I think that Maureen Watt wants to move it.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

It is often the case that amendments that are not moved at stage 2 come back at stage 3. I want to know what the committee thinks about amendment 5 at this stage.

Amendment 5 moved—[Maureen Watt].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Power to modify financial provision in CAP legislation

The Convener

Amendment 38, in the name of Peter Chapman, is in a group on its own.

Peter Chapman

Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that, should any modification of the payment system, such as the capping of individual payments, result in surplus funds, those surplus funds are fully invested back into Scottish farming. We must ensure that all moneys allocated to farming from the central budget remain in the agriculture portfolio, and we cannot let any Government—whether in this or the next parliamentary session—siphon off funds into other budgetary areas.

The amendment is needed to give a cast-iron guarantee—I am sure that the farming community would expect nothing less—that any surplus funds or savings will be kept in the agriculture budget and not moved elsewhere.

I move amendment 38.

Fergus Ewing

I listened carefully to what Mr Chapman said, and I understand the sentiment behind his arguments, but I do not consider his amendment to be necessary. The Scottish Government budgetary process already contains reporting and monitoring mechanisms. In addition, any regulations that are introduced under section 4 would probably require a business and regulatory impact assessment to be conducted, and that assessment would, of necessity, include consideration of the effect of moving funding from one support mechanism to another.

On Mr Chapman’s example of the introduction of a cap on the level of pillar 1 payments, I make it clear that no such measure would be introduced without consultation. Moreover, we have already consulted on that measure in principle in the document “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”, and there has also been consultation on the measures in other parts of the United Kingdom.

There has been no shortage of consultation on the matter, and there would be additional consultation if a specific measure were to be proposed.

Furthermore, section 4 is subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament already has the opportunity—rightly so—to scrutinise in detail any proposed modification of the financial provision.

I have more comments in my notes, but I hope that that is enough to give a flavour of the reasons why I consider that amendment 38 is unnecessary.

The Convener

I ask Peter Chapman to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 38.

Peter Chapman

In the interests of brevity, I will simply press my amendment.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 6, in the name of John Finnie, has already been debated with amendment 2. I ask John Finnie whether he wishes to move amendment 6.

John Finnie

I do not wish to move the amendment.

The Convener

I think that Richard Lyle wants to move amendment 6. Is that correct?

Richard Lyle

That is correct, convener.

Amendment 6 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

After section 4

The Convener

Amendment 7, in the name of Mike Rumbles, is grouped with amendments 7A, 42, 22 and 26.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

It is the Scottish Government’s stated intention to introduce a new bespoke system of agricultural support for Scottish rural businesses by 2024. I fully support the cabinet secretary in that aim, but the bill will not achieve that, and nor is it intended to.

This technical bill is largely aimed at ensuring that the current support systems can continue beyond the end of this year. However, when the bill was published, I was concerned that the way in which sections 2 to 4 were drafted could allow a future Government to carry on the current system by regulations and not implement the new bespoke system of farm business support that we need.

I fully accept that the cabinet secretary’s intentions in that respect are entirely honourable and that he wants a new system for Scotland to be implemented with a new policy-driven agriculture bill—of that I have no doubt. However, how sections 2 to 4 are drafted would allow a different cabinet secretary—even one from a different party—to allow the current system to continue, as section 3(1) says,

“for one or more years beyond 2020.”

That means that the current system could carry on in perpetuity.

The committee’s role is to scrutinise and try to improve the bill to ensure that it does what it says on the tin. The committee did its job well at stage 1. Many witnesses said that sections 2 to 4 needed revising, and the committee came to the unanimous view that the provisions need to be altered.

In the stage 1 debate in Parliament on the general principles of the bill, I said that I was not hung up about having a sunset clause that would limit the powers in the bill to 2024 but that it would be perfectly doable to give the Scottish Government until the end of the next parliamentary session, which is in 2026.

I was grateful to the cabinet secretary when he said in summing up that debate that he recognised that I was making a constructive suggestion to improve the bill. I put on record that Fergus Ewing has, indeed, been willing to engage positively with constructive suggestions during the passage of the bill. As a result, if the committee accepts my amendments 7 and 22, Fergus Ewing and I recognise that they will improve the bill and will fully address the concerns about the issue that witnesses raised with the committee at stage 1.

I turn to the amendments in the group from Colin Smyth and John Finnie. As I see it, Colin Smyth’s amendments 7A and 42 would not do what my amendments do, and I am afraid to say that the proposed subsection (3) in John Finnie’s amendment 26 would cause more confusion.

I mean no personal criticism of either member, because they are rightly free to lodge any amendments that they wish. However, I would have thought that, if Colin Smyth had wanted me to support his amendment 7A to improve my amendment 7, it might have been a good idea to speak to me before we got to this debate.

I ask both those gentlemen to forgive me, but I urge members to reject their amendments and support my amendment 7, which really will improve the bill, and amendment 22, which is a related technical amendment to enable that to happen.

I move amendment 7.

Colin Smyth

One of the recurring issues at stage 1 was the need for a sunset clause to limit the powers that the bill will introduce. The issue was raised by several stakeholders who support the introduction of a sunset clause for a number of reasons. That was a key recommendation of the committee’s stage 1 report and it was also recommended by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

There are two key reasons why a sunset clause is needed. First, there is a general concern about providing ministers with the ability to make secondary legislation on such a wide range of issues indefinitely. Secondly, there is a need to hold ministers to their proposed timeline, which states that a new system should be up and running by 2024.

Amendment 42 suggests that sections 2 to 6 should expire at about the end of the next parliamentary session in 2026. That would give ministers an additional two years beyond the stated timescale. I hope that they would not use that time, as getting a new system in place by 2024 is critical. Amendment 42 would provide that extra leeway.

Crucially, however, I have included a mechanism to extend the period for which the legislation is in place—if that is needed. That is in response to the concerns raised about the potential cliff edge in support for the sector. I recognise the seriousness of the risk and have proposed mitigating that by allowing the legislation to be extended by a year at a time, for up to a maximum of five years. Again, that should be treated as a last resort, in the case of exceptional circumstances, particularly as the amendment already provides for an extension of another two years beyond the Government’s current timescale. Any extension would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so would need to be agreed by Parliament.

Amendment 7 in the name of Mike Rumbles would prevent regulation-making powers from being used after the end of the next session, but would allow the legislation to remain in place.

Although I appreciate that amendment 7 would address the concern about ministers having regulation-making powers, it would not require them to create the new system that we so urgently need. That is the key reason for the widespread calls for a sunset clause.

Let us be clear about what amendment 7 means from a legal point of view: updated legislation would be in place indefinitely. That risks being the worst of all worlds: no new system and no freedom to make any necessary changes to the temporary system. Put simply, Mike Rumbles’s amendment does not do what it says on the tin.

I know how this committee works and I know that amendment 7 will be agreed to—we have already seen that happen with another amendment today. That is why I have lodged an amendment to amendment 7. It proposes that, if amendment 7 is the agreed way forward, at the very least, we should ensure that the legislation falls three years after the regulation-making powers cease. I hope that members will consider amendment 7A based on its merits, rather than on who has spoken to it. We all hope that the legislation will be revoked long before then and that a new system will be in place before 2029, but amendment 7A would provide a useful backstop.

Amendment 26 by John Finnie proposes a similar timeframe to my amendment 42, although it does not include any contingency to avoid a cliff edge. However, it includes a requirement for ministers to report annually on their progress on achieving their policy objectives, which is a useful addition. If my amendment 7A is not agreed to, I would be happy to support John Finnie’s amendment 26, which would make a positive contribution to the bill. However, I would be keen to return at stage 3 to the question of what can be done to prevent a potential cliff edge.

I move amendment 7A.

John Finnie

The bill is intended to grant the Scottish ministers the power to make changes to the CAP regulations during a transitional period, but, as colleagues have said, it places no time limit on the exercise of that power. I readily accept that the Government has provided reassurance that the power would not be used for longer than is necessary. However, as others have said, the committee’s position on the need for a sunset clause was made clear in our stage 1 report, and I welcome the repentant sinners who now understand that.

I have quoted many of the organisations that provided briefings. In its briefing, Scottish Environment LINK expressed concern that if a time limit is not placed on the use of the power, transitional arrangements could remain in place for much longer than the 2021 to 2024 period that was originally envisaged. As I keep saying, the status quo is not an option. Significant changes to agricultural policy and support are needed to respond to the climate breakdown. The emergency imperative that we face means that that cannot be left open ended. A commitment must be made that legislative proposals for a new subsidy system will be put forward before the end of the transition period.

I am grateful to the stakeholders who have encouraged colleagues to support amendment 26, which sets an expiry date of 2026 for the powers that relate to the CAP and, as Colin Smyth said, would require ministers to report annually on progress on their policy objectives for agricultural support. I am sure that we will be told that we scrutinise those regularly, but the amendment would build that in and ensure that future agricultural policy can be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament as it develops. That is important.

Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)

I am keen to better understand the purpose and effect of Colin Smyth’s amendment 7A. For example, would it create a cliff edge for schemes with legacy payments that continue well beyond the original grant? Colin Smyth acknowledged the likelihood of a cliff edge, and I seek further clarification on that.

I think that we are all agreed on the efficacy of a sunset clause, but the concern is about the extent of it. John Finnie’s amendment 26 and Colin Smyth’s amendment 42 would apply a deadline to sections 5 and 6, but I am not sure why they want to end the schemes in question at a specific point, and I would appreciate an explanation of that.

There is no suggestion that the scheme for the fruit and veg producer organisations, for example, does not currently work, but that is an example of retained EU law that we will have to bring into devolved law. We could have to relegislate to create exactly the same aid scheme as the one that currently exists simply to satisfy an arbitrary cut-off point. I would appreciate clarification on those two points.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

Good morning, everybody. I want to pick up on what Angus MacDonald said about support for fruit and vegetable producer organisations. The committee took evidence on that, and our stage 1 report spoke about that support continuing and its being expanded to producer organisations in other areas. I would be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary whether support for dairy producer organisations could be considered. I know that this is a technical rather than a policy bill, but I would like to hear about possible future support for other organisations.

The Convener

Colin Smyth wants to comment briefly in response to Angus MacDonald.

Colin Smyth

There would be no requirement for any scheme to fall if it is included in the Government’s new agricultural policy, which it has committed to bring forward by the end of 2024. Amendment 7A would mean that if the Government had not done that by the end of 2029, the legislation would fall. It concerns me greatly that some members have suggested that the new system might not be in place by 2029 if they are concerned about any regulations falling before then. That is precisely why we need a sunset clause.

Fergus Ewing

Amendment 7 seeks to time limit the powers in sections 2, 3 and 4 so that they cannot be used after the Scottish elections on 7 May 2026, and amendment 22 provides for that expiry provision to come into force on the day after royal assent.

The stage 1 report and debate made it clear that there was an appetite across Parliament for some form of statutory cut-off date for the bill’s measures. I understand why members and stakeholders want certainty about the future, although I hope that they also recognise that there is a need to balance that against the current backdrop of uncertainties and the need for the Government to retain some level of flexibility to meet future challenges. Therefore, I am hopeful that we can reach a consensus on what that is from the range of amendments before us.

As such, I believe that a sunset clause that prevents the use of the powers in sections 2, 3 and 4 beyond 7 May 2026 would achieve that. I thank Mike Rumbles for introducing the proposal and for his helpful contribution to the stage 1 debate, in which he effectively suggested that compromise approach.

The proposed date makes sense, as it would mean that the powers in sections 2, 3 and 4 could not be used beyond the lifetime of the next parliamentary session. That is a clear rationale. I hope that it provides reassurance that the powers will not be used indefinitely, which addresses some of the concerns that other members have raised. It also means that an element of breathing space would be provided beyond the end of the transition period that I have committed to from 2021 to 2024, should the current circumstances with Brexit and Covid-19, or indeed future unexpected challenges, cause delays to our intended timetable for developing future rural policy.

On amendment 7A, I thank Mr Smyth for explaining the amendment, but I am concerned that it could have the unintended consequence of making multi-annual support mechanisms impossible to deliver. In 2029, even though we expect to have moved to new support schemes, we could still have legacy payments from CAP schemes. Forestry planting grants are perhaps the best example of maintenance payments that continue far beyond the initial grant because of the longer-term silvicultural maintenance of the trees.

Angus MacDonald correctly raised the point that amendment 7A could create an unwelcome cliff edge for such activities that take place over many years. Because we need to ensure that we have the CAP rules in place to maintain support in a multi-annual way, I urge the committee to resist the amendment.

On amendment 26, while there is clearly a purpose to applying a sunset clause to sections 2, 3 and 4, I am not convinced that there is a similar need in relation to sections 5 and 6, to which amendment 26 also seeks to apply a sunset clause. I am not inclined to support amendment 26, as we would need new secondary legislation to make any necessary transitional or saving provisions in connection with expiry, which would place additional demand on an already pressured Parliament.

Amendment 42 would also apply a sunset clause to sections 5 and 6, as well as providing an option to extend the 2026 date. Again, I am not convinced of the need to apply a sunset clause to sections 5 and 6. Although I appreciate that the option to extend might be seen to favour the Government and would provide further flexibility, I am also conscious that many stakeholders, and indeed MSPs, have expressed their desire to see a firm cut-off date. For that reason, I invite members to resist amendment 42.

I encourage the committee to support amendments 7 and 22, and I ask members to resist the other amendments in the group, should they be pressed.

Mike Rumbles

Contrary to what Colin Smyth said, amendment 7 does what it says on the tin: it clearly means that ministers will not be able to continue to use regulations to change agricultural support after 2026, and it completely implements what the committee unanimously agreed. I hope that amendments 7 and 22 are agreed to unanimously.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 7A would allow ministers to use regulations until 2029—the amendment actually says that—which I do not think is appropriate. Amendment 7A is a flawed amendment to my amendment.

I urge members not to confuse the issues, to support my amendments 7 and 22, and to come together. I hope that my amendments will be agreed to unanimously, and I hope that Colin Smyth and John Finnie will not press or move their amendments, because I do not think that they add anything to my amendments.

Colin Smyth

Given that amendment 7 does not require a new system to be in place for 2024 or any date, I will press amendment 7A. Concern has been raised that legacy payments might fall after 2029, but they would fall only if the Government failed to introduce a new system of legislation before 2029 or if any such legislation failed to continue any legacy payments that were desired. It is untrue to imply that waiting until 2029—a significantly longer time than under the Government’s proposal—to develop a new agricultural policy in some way endangers legacy payments. It would endanger them only if the Government failed to include them.

The crucial point is that amendment 7 will not require the Government to bring forward a new system by 2024; it will simply mean that the existing system will continue, with no new system replacing it. That is the worst of both worlds, whereby we will not be able to make new regulations and the old system will stay in place, with no requirement for a new system.

As I said, I will press amendment 7A, because many stakeholders will be concerned by the suggestion that the Government appears not to be committed to the 2024 date after all.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 7A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 10, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7A disagreed to.

The Convener

I invite Mike Rumbles to press or withdraw amendment 7.

Mike Rumbles

I press amendment 7.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Abstentions

Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 3, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

The Convener

Mr Finnie, I think that you were concerned that I had not mentioned your vote on amendment 7A. I have you recorded as having voted against amendment 7A. Could you confirm whether that is correct?

John Finnie

Yes, that is correct. I had replied to that effect in the chat box.

The Convener

Thank you. I am sorry for any confusion.

Amendment 23 moved—[Peter Chapman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.

Section 5—Power to modify CAP legislation on public intervention and private storage aid

Amendment 8 moved—[John Finnie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 disagreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 9, in the name of John Finnie.

John Finnie

I will not move amendment 9.

The Convener

I think that Richard Lyle wants to move it. Is that correct?

Richard Lyle

Yes.

Amendment 9 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 10, in the name of John Finnie.

John Finnie

In my efforts to try to assist you with the passage of the bill at stage 2, convener, I do not intend to move amendment 10, and a number of other amendments when we come to them.

The Convener

I think that Mr Lyle wants to move amendment 10.

Amendment 10 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Power to simplify or improve CAP legislation on aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations

The Convener

I call amendment 11, in the name of John Finnie.

John Finnie

Out of courtesy to my colleagues, I have no intention of moving the amendment, and I am not quite sure what my colleagues feel that they are achieving by the somewhat childish act in relation to the other matter.

The Convener

Does any member wish to move amendment 11? Mr Lyle, I think that you want to move it. Is that correct?

Richard Lyle

Yes.

Amendment 11 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

The Convener

I ask John Finnie whether he wishes to move amendment 12.

John Finnie

I do not wish to move the amendment, convener.

The Convener

I see that Richard Lyle wants to move amendment 12. Is that correct?

Richard Lyle

That is correct, convener.

Amendment 12 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 disagreed to.

The Convener

I ask John Finnie whether he wishes to move amendment 13.

John Finnie

I do not wish to move the amendment, convener.

The Convener

Again, I see that Richard Lyle wants to move John Finnie’s amendment.

Amendment 13 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Section 6 agreed to

Section 7 agreed to.

The Convener

At this stage, I will suspend the meeting for five minutes.

Section 8—Marketing standards

The Convener

Discussion is taking slightly longer than I had anticipated, but we need to continue to debate the amendments fully to allow the draft legislation to be properly scrutinised. If we get close to 12 o’clock and I do not think that we will be finished by then, we will reconvene next week, which might have to be particularly early and before our meeting on Wednesday.

Amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 30.

Fergus Ewing

Amendment 30 is the key amendment in the group. It seeks to replace section 9, so that the products and sectors for which marketing standards can be set are the same as those in the UK Agriculture Bill.

The first mentioned item in the new section 9 is “milk and milk products”. As we have heard from Emma Harper—she has been campaigning on behalf of dairy farming, and has rightly pursued the issue this morning—it is important that we get these aspects right. Therefore, rather than have just a high-level description of a sector in section 9—for example, “beef and veal”—with all the detail left to regulations, the new version of section 9 provides fuller detail of the products that are covered in the bill by reference to the European regulations under which the current marketing standards are set.

I am conscious of the time, convener. I do not consider the amendments to be contentious. They are designed to be helpful and to improve the law and, indeed, they act on the wishes of Parliament. I will guillotine myself and finish here.

I move amendment 27.

The Convener

As no member wants to speak, do you want to wind up, cabinet secretary?

Fergus Ewing

No—I do not need to wind up.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 14, in the name of John Finnie, which has already been debated with amendment 1. I remind members that, if amendment 14 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 28, because of pre-emption.

John Finnie

Given the cabinet secretary’s earlier comments, I do not intend to move amendment 14. I wait with interest to see whether any of his colleagues intend to move it on my behalf.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Amendment 28 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 15, in the name of John Finnie, has already been debated with amendment 2. I remind members that, if amendment 15 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 29 because of pre-emption.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Amendment 29 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9—Marketing standards: agricultural products

Amendment 30 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Section 10—Carcass classification

Amendments 16 and 17 not moved.

Section 10 agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

After section 11

Amendment 18 not moved.

The Convener

As amendment 18 has not been moved, amendment 18A cannot be moved.

Amendment 18A not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 24, in the name of John Finnie, has already been debated with amendment 36.

John Finnie

I will not move amendment 24.

The Convener

I think that Maureen Watt wants to move it. Is that correct?

Maureen Watt

Yes please, convener. I think that it is important to record our votes on the amendment.

Amendment 24 moved—[Maureen Watt].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 24 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 25, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is grouped with amendment 39.

Rachael Hamilton

First and foremost, we know that the internal single market of the United Kingdom is extremely important to Scottish agriculture. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK in 2018 increased by £1.2 billion to £51.2 billion. As a result, the rest of the UK continues to be Scotland’s largest market for exports, accounting for three times the value of the exports to the European Union. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report highlighted

“the emphasis placed by industry stakeholders on the importance of the rest of the UK as a marketplace for Scottish agricultural products”.

We need to maintain alignment in marketing standards across the UK’s internal market in order to avoid barriers to movement and sale of products post-Brexit. With my amendment 25, I want to ensure that standards are kept aligned in order not to risk damaging the UK internal market. On amendment 39, which is in the name of Colin Smyth, I do not believe that we should continue to align so closely with the EU, given the importance of the UK internal single market, as I have discussed.

I move amendment 25.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 39 calls for the changes that are made under the bill to be consistent with achieving dynamic alignment on EU regulatory standards—specifically those that are related to environmental standards, animal health and welfare, food safety and sustainable management of natural resources.

Agriculture is one of the areas in which regulatory alignment with the EU is most important, so it is worth exploring whether the bill could be an opportunity to enshrine that principle in legislation, given the delays to the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill.

Amendment 39 would apply only to secondary legislation that would be made under the eventual act. That would ensure that standards would be maintained during the transition period, without our putting in legislation something permanent and general that could end up conflicting with, or duplicating, the general provisions in the continuity bill. However, I hope to discuss the issue further and to consider alternative approaches to the general principle.

Often, probing amendments are used; the cabinet secretary is aware of my views on that issue. My aim is to have discussion about the principle. I appreciate that the conduct so far on some other amendments means that that might be difficult.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 25 raises an important point about the need for regulatory alignment with the rest of the UK on certain issues. Internal UK markets are worth three times more than the EU single market, so it is in the interests of Scottish agriculture to ensure that we have common frameworks with the rest of the UK, where appropriate.

Amendment 25 applies to food promotion schemes, marketing standards and carcase classification, all of which appear to be areas in which some alignment would be helpful. I am not convinced about the exact wording of amendment 25; indeed, I recognise that there is likely to be a conflict between it and my amendment 39.

However, I believe that the point that is raised in amendment 25 is similar to that which is raised in my amendment 39, and that it is an important issue that needs to be addressed. If that is not done in legislation, I hope that the cabinet secretary will at least clarify the position, and that we can have a grown-up debate on the issue.

Richard Lyle

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 25 feels like a typical Tory countermove to give away Scotland’s hard-fought-for powers, with the UK Government currently wriggling its way out of committing to maintaining high animal welfare, food safety and environmental standards. I would be very concerned if we were to agree today to commit to whatever standards the UK Government comes up with in the future. Surely we should maintain the right to make decisions case by case, based on what best meets Scotland’s interests, rather than on what suits the Tories.

I have some sympathy with Colin Smyth’s amendment 39. It is, after all, the Scottish Government’s and the Scottish Parliament’s agreed position to seek to keep pace with EU standards, even after we have left the EU. I am keen to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say. Is the amendment the best way to bring such a commitment into domestic legislation?

Emma Harper

I would echo the points that Richard Lyle has made. I am keen that, given the recent voting in the UK Parliament, which might affect the standards of produce that comes into this country, the Scottish Parliament should keep whatever ability and powers we have to maintain the best welfare and standards that we can apply. We need to ensure that the powers to control our food standards remain with the Scottish Parliament.

Fergus Ewing

I wish to make it clear that the Government is committed to doing the very best for Scotland’s rural economy, and I want to avoid any changes to marketing standards that would cause problems for Scottish businesses trading with the rest of the UK and beyond. Unfortunately, that test is not met by amendment 25, which refers to “UK Standards” when those are not actually provided for in the UK Agriculture Bill. Rather, it sets up three separate regimes of marketing standards and carcase classification in the rest of the UK—one for England, one for Wales and one for Northern Ireland. The Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill will complete the picture by establishing a similar regime for Scotland.

By passing amendment 25, we would end up with Scottish powers that differed from those elsewhere in the UK, which would make it harder to bring in comparable rules to those of the other Administrations, when that would be the right thing to do. Crucially, the amendment would have the effect that ministers would not be free to set standards that work for Scotland. We have heard that argument from Mr Lyle and Ms Harper: ministers would have to match an equivalent standard that had been set elsewhere in the UK, even if that standard was a poor fit for the needs of our farmers and consumers—or, worse, even it was a lower standard. Every other Administration in the UK would have freedom to act, while Scotland would be restricted under the amendment, despite the matter being devolved. In short, amendment 25 unhelpfully cuts across the devolution settlement, in my view, so I cannot support it.

I do not think that Colin Smyth’s amendment 39 is needed. I have sympathy with some of the arguments that he has put forward, but there are two primary reasons for my conclusion. First, Scottish ministers are already—and rightly—bound by key legislation. Examples of environment legislation include the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Those statutes already commit us to high standards, and the bill obviously will not change that.

Secondly, as I indicated at stage 1, the Scottish Government is committed to introducing a continuity bill that will provide the ability to align Scots law with EU law in areas of devolved competence. I anticipate that the matters that are covered by subsection (2) of the new section that amendment 39 seeks to introduce will be carefully considered for that purpose.

Including amendment 39 in the bill would potentially lead to the undesirable scenario of having different and, possibly, conflicting statutory measures, with different degrees of alignment applying to the same matters. I put that argument in the hope that Colin Smyth agrees that we would want to avoid that situation.

As Colin Smyth indicated, I am sure that we can work together across Parliament in seeking to achieve the aims that he has set out and which I share.

Rachael Hamilton

I accept the cabinet secretary’s comments about schedules 5 and 6 of the Agriculture Bill giving Welsh and Northern Irish ministers powers over carcase classification and marketing standards. However, my amendment 25 relates to the importance of the devolution settlement; indeed, it puts significant emphasis on how important the single market is to Scottish farmers.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 disagreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 39, in the name of Colin Smyth.

Colin Smyth

I will not move amendment 39.

The Convener

I think that Mr Lyle wants to move it. Is that correct?

Richard Lyle

You know me so well, convener.

The Convener

I will refrain from commenting on that.

Amendment 39 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39 disagreed to.

Section 12—Defined terms

The Convener

I call amendment 19, in the name of John Finnie.

John Finnie

I will not move amendment 19.

The Convener

Okay. I do not know people as well as I thought I did.

Amendment 19 not moved.

The Convener

I call amendment 20, in the name of Colin Smyth.

Colin Smyth

Consultation on agricultural activity is an important principle.

Amendment 20 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

I call amendment 20A, in the name of Rachael Hamilton.

Richard Lyle

On a point of order, convener.

The Convener

There are no points of order in committees, Mr Lyle, but if you would like to raise an issue, I will come back to you.

Richard Lyle

I record that I want to vote on amendment 20.

The Convener

If you were following the proceedings, you would know that, before we can vote on amendment 20, we have to vote on amendment 20A. Once I have disposed of amendment 20A, I will come back to amendment 20. Keep smiling. We are getting to the end. Have some trust in me.

Amendment 20A not moved.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Mr Lyle, now is your opportunity.

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20 disagreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 to 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Purposes for which information may be required and processed

The Convener

Amendment 21, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 40 and 41.

John Finnie

Section 16 contains an extensive list of purposes for which information may be required and processed, including, for instance, to “increase productivity”. Amendment 21 would add

“risks to animal or human health”,

which I think is proportionate and I hope will be supported by members.

I also give strong support to my colleague Colin Smyth’s amendments 40 and 41, on issues to do with food.

I move amendment 21

Colin Smyth

I lodged amendments 40 and 41 in response to the Government’s decision to shelve the good food nation bill. Although I acknowledge that the decision not to go ahead with the bill may have been unavoidable due to a lack of parliamentary time, it is nonetheless disappointing for many people. We therefore have a duty to reflect on whether there is other relevant legislation in which it would be appropriate to take forward elements of that bill.

A key part of the bill that is before us relates to data collection. Amendment 40, in my name, would allow data to be required and processed for the purpose of

“monitoring food security in Scotland”.

The experience of the past few months has shown what a huge challenge food security is, and addressing that challenge should be a key aim of the good food nation programme.

Monitoring food security can fortify the resilience of our food system by allowing the Government to proactively identify and mitigate threats to our food security. It can also help us to analyse and address the conditions that have given rise to high levels of food insecurity. Amendment 40 would ensure that the necessary data could be collected to monitor that important issue.

Similarly, amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the data that is needed for “any national food plan” can be collected. A proposed national food plan was a key element of the Scottish Government’s proposed good food nation bill, and the experience of the past few months has made it clearer than ever that we need a more strategic, joined-up approach to food policy. The term “national food plan” is the Government’s own language; it refers not to some central production diktat but to the need to work across departments on the full spectrum of issues relating to food, from farm to fork to waste. For example, a relevant issue in recent weeks has been the importance of contingency planning during a national crisis.

Amendments 40 and 41 would be relatively modest but useful additions to the bill, and both would serve a practical purpose in supporting the development of food policy. I lodged the amendments in part to encourage a discussion on the good food nation programme more broadly, and I hope that we can have an adult discussion on the matter today and in the weeks ahead as the bill proceeds through Parliament.

Now that the proposed good food nation bill has been shelved, I hope that the cabinet secretary will use this opportunity to clarify the Government’s plans in relation to a national food plan, and I hope that he will consider what other changes could be introduced in the bill that is before us in order to support those plans.

Amendment 21, which was lodged by John Finnie and which I support, clarifies the risks in relation to which information may be required or processed under sections 13 or 14, by specifying that the provision includes

“risks to animal or human health”.

That is a useful addition that will make the provision clearer.

Mike Rumbles

I fully support the concept of a good food nation bill, and I have done for some considerable time. I was disappointed that the Scottish Government felt that it could not proceed with its proposed bill, which was so close to being published.

However, the bill that is before us today is a technical bill, and it is therefore not the place to add in any such policy issues. We need a new good food nation bill, and I urge the Scottish Government to introduce one as soon as possible. On that basis, I do not think that it is right for Colin Smyth’s amendments 40 and 41 to proceed, and I will not support them.

The Convener

This will be my one contribution to the debate today, and I take off my convener’s hat in order to speak as a committee member. I have always supported a good food nation bill, and I was bitterly disappointed, having thought that the committee would be able to consider one, that things have panned out such that we will not now have the opportunity to do so.

Like Mike Rumbles, I do not believe that the bill that is before us is the perfect place in which to mention the good food nation concept. However, I believe that the bill process is the only chance that we will get to consider that concept, and I therefore support amendments 40 and 41. I am especially thankful that Colin Smyth found the time to come to me and explain his amendments, which I was originally not entirely happy with, so that I understood what they meant and what they were trying to achieve.

I see that Rachael Hamilton wants to come in—I will bring her in, and then we will hear from the cabinet secretary.

Rachael Hamilton

It is just a brief point, convener. I agree with the comments from you and from Mike Rumbles. We should have had the opportunity to enshrine the good food nation concept in law through the proposed bill. The concept is popular. In a way, I agree with Mike Rumbles that these amendments are a way to put into the bill that is before us what we all expected the proposed bill would take forward. However, we have no option, because the Scottish Government decided to drop that bill and we are left with no voice. We should do Colin Smyth’s amendments justice and take the issue forward to stage 3, where we can discuss it properly.

Fergus Ewing

I thank John Finnie for speaking to his amendment. We, too, had discussions prior to this meeting, and, in the light of that, I am happy to accept amendment 21.

I also thank Mr Smyth for his explanation of the purposes behind his amendments 40 and 41, much of which I agree with. The past three months have, sadly, illustrated the fragility of global food supply chains and thus food security. Plainly, therefore, it is necessary to collect the relevant data.

The committee gave consent to the UK-wide provisions on reporting on food security through the UK Agriculture Bill, because it makes sense for a UK-wide report to consider the effective working of UK and global supply chains. Part 2 of our bill enables the Scottish ministers to collect information about the activities of those who are in, or closely connected with, agri-food supply chains and those who carry out other agricultural activities.

In response to Mr Rumbles’s remarks, amendment 40 touches on an area that is within the scope of the bill because it relates to information gathering and to a species of information that we may wish to ingather. That said, I believe that the definition of the information that we are already able to ingather is wide enough to cover it, but we will undertake to look further at that if, in exchange, Mr Smyth is willing not to move his amendment. I undertake to come back to the committee and Mr Smyth prior to stage 3, after we have had a chance to look at whether, on the narrow technical point, it is necessary to bring something else into the bill to enable that to be done, with which we entirely agree.

Turning to amendment 41, Mr Rumbles is correct that it is trying to do something that the good food nation bill would have done. We are absolutely in favour of a good food nation bill, but I am afraid that, because of Covid, the parliamentary time is just not available. That is, I think, a statement of fact.

The statement of policy that the bill would set out would cover food production and consumption issues relating to, for example, the growing, harvesting, processing, marketing, sale, preparation and consumption of food and the disposal of waste arising from that, as well as access to affordable, local, nutritious and culturally appropriate food and food in the public sector.

The necessary postponement of the good food nation bill does not mean that we should not set out a statement of policy on a non-statutory basis. I agree with Mr Rumbles that the present bill is not the place for a substitute good food nation bill. However, if Mr Smyth again agrees not to move his amendment 41 today, I undertake to look at how we can set out a policy commitment on that and develop that statement of policy.

I hope that members will accept that undertaking and that Mr Smyth will not feel the need to move amendment 41. However, if he does, I suggest that it be rejected. I hope that he will accept that we desire to work with him and others on the committee to find a way forward on the matter, perhaps on a non-statutory basis. I hope that I have explained that clearly.

The Convener

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I ask John Finnie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 21.

John Finnie

I will simply press the amendment.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 40, in the name of Colin Smyth.

Colin Smyth

In the light of the cabinet secretary’s very helpful comments, I will not move amendments 40 and 41, in the hope that we will have further discussions on the issue. I make it clear that the issue is not about importing the good food nation bill into this bill; it is about considering the bill’s current objectives and updating them to reflect the events that we have seen in recent months. I hope that we will be able to have a grown-up debate in the weeks ahead and that we will not see the antics that we saw earlier, with people moving amendments that were designed as probing amendments. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments, and I look forward to the discussions in the weeks ahead.

Amendments 40 and 41 not moved.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 17 to 19 agreed to.

Before section 20

Amendment 42 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Abstentions

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 42 disagreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

After section 20

The Convener

Amendment 31, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is grouped with amendment 32.

Rachael Hamilton

From the start, I have been clear that the bill should be about process, not policy. The reporting mechanism in amendment 31 will ensure that new policy is introduced after 2024, rather than allowing retained EU legislation to continue beyond then with corrections being made through the negative procedure, which would not benefit the agricultural sector in the long term.

Farmers need clarity on policy direction, and amendment 31 will provide that by forcing the Government to report on its work. We share the concerns of many stakeholders, members who spoke in the stage 1 debate and the relevant parliamentary committees that it would not be proportionate for the Scottish Government to hold indefinitely the potentially broad power that section 2 confers on it.

My amendment 31 seeks to ensure that the Scottish ministers update and report to Parliament on their progress in developing a policy-focused agriculture bill that will outline the future direction of Scottish agriculture.

Policy work has been done by various task forces, but that work must be incorporated into a new bill; it would be inappropriate to add it to this bill. The Conservatives have continued to press the Scottish Government to provide further clarity on its policy proposals for future farming support.

My amendment 32 would ensure that

“The Scottish Ministers must, no later than 31 March 2026, bring forward proposals for legislation to implement their policy for agricultural support.”

The process for this bill cannot simply run on; a stand-alone Scottish agriculture bill must replace it no later than March 2026. Such a bill would outline a future farm payments model, detail various efficiency and environmental schemes and ensure that support is provided for pilot schemes and new entrants.

I move amendment 31.

Maureen Watt

Rachael Hamilton seems to be keen to bolt everything down in statute, but I thought that the committee had agreed, in its stage 1 report, not to require such a statutory undertaking. We are asking the Government to provide only a progress report on legislation to replace the current CAP by 2024. Would it not be the case that we would not be able to design, develop and implement a new support system in time to deliver any new policy? I would have thought that we would not want to risk that happening. I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say on that.

Fergus Ewing

As I set out in my evidence sessions with both this committee and the DPLR Committee at stage 1, I already update Parliament regularly on the steps that are being taken to develop future policy on farming and food production. I made it absolutely clear that I am happy to continue to do so, and I will.

Both committees accepted my explanation, as was reflected in this committee’s stage 1 report, which stated:

“As a result of reassurances provided by the Scottish Government that it intends to report regularly to the Parliament as regards the Bill’s implementation, the Committee is satisfied that there is no need for a statutory requirement on periodic reporting to the Parliament to be included in the Bill.”

With respect, I do not consider that that commitment needs to be made a statutory duty. Indeed, with regard to the proposed new subsection (3)(b) in amendment 31, I rather hope that the next Scottish Government will have made significantly faster progress in making substantive policy and legislation than Rachael Hamilton anticipates. I understand the intention behind amendment 31, but I suggest that, as this committee and the DPLR Committee have determined, it is unnecessary.

Amendment 32 has been somewhat superseded by the fact that we have now agreed that a sunset clause will apply in May 2026. If we consider the precise wording of the amendment, we see that it is simply no longer necessary, because Parliament will be obliged to legislate in May 2026, rather than on 31 March of that year. By definition, therefore, amendment 32 is no longer relevant.

I understand why the member has lodged the amendment, but I respectfully ask that she accepts that it is not necessary for her to press it. If she decides to press the amendment, I would encourage the committee to reject it.

The Convener

I ask Rachael Hamilton to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 31.

Rachael Hamilton

I thank the cabinet secretary for his generous comments. I have no further comments, as I have already made my points. I will press my amendment.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 31 disagreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

Section 22—Interpretation and effect

The Convener

Amendment 33, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 34 and 35.

Fergus Ewing

The battery in my iPad is about to go flat—as an expedient, the broadcasting staff may need to shift me to where my official, Mr Burgess, is sitting. I hope that we can get through this group swiftly. It contains technical amendments that seek to reflect the requirements of the withdrawal agreement, which was approved during the preparation of the bill, but whose full implications are still unfolding.

The powers in part 1 of the bill can be used only to modify former EU law after it is rolled over into domestic law. Section 22(1) therefore provides that a reference to any EU regulation is to be read as

“a reference to the ... regulation as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”

—that is, as retained EU law.

However, article 137(1) of the withdrawal agreement provides for the rollover of direct payment rules for the CAP 2020 claim year on 31 January 2020. As a result, there will now be at least two types of retained EU CAP law: pillar 1 rules already rolled over by the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020; and other rules as prospectively rolled over by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Section 22, as currently drafted, covers only the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and therefore needs to be amended so that it also covers the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020. The terms of the withdrawal agreement, and the urgent need to roll over direct payment rules at the end of January 2020, further show the need to be able to respond flexibly to unexpected events—of course, some uncertainty remains.

I need not detain the committee with the rest of my remarks. I have set out the technical reason for the amendments, and I hope that that will satisfy members on this somewhat abstruse legal matter.

I move amendment 33.

The Convener

It appears that you have satisfied committee members, because no one wishes to speak.

Fergus Ewing

It’s the way I tell ’em.

The Convener

There is no answer to that. Do you wish to wind up on amendment 33?

Fergus Ewing

I do not, thank you.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendments 34 and 35 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Section 23—Commencement

Amendment 22 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

After section 23

The Convener

I ask John Finnie whether he wishes to move amendment 26.

John Finnie

I will not move amendment 26.

The Convener

I see that Richard Lyle would like to move it.

Amendment 26 moved—[Richard Lyle].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 26 disagreed to.

Section 24 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. The bill as amended at stage 2 will be available later this week.

I thank everyone for taking part in today’s meeting. The process seems to have worked and the voting seems to have been recorded accurately. I thank participants for their time; I also thank all those people behind the scenes who have made the meeting possible.

The Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place, but members can now lodge stage 3 amendments.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

We turn now to the stage 3 proceedings on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.

In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings. I remind members that the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for a short technical break for the first division of the afternoon. There will be a one-minute vote after we have had the technical break. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

After section 1

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on objectives of secondary legislation. Amendment 21, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 21 is in my name, but it has the support of other parties. The amendment seeks to introduce a purpose clause to the bill to guide the secondary legislation that will flow from it and provide a broad sense of policy direction during the transition period that the bill is likely to cover. As it stands, there is a lack of clarity about the Scottish Government’s plans for the future, both for the long term and for the possible changes during the next four years, which the bill is primarily focused on.

The bill is an enabling one that provides significant powers to ministers to make changes to existing policy primarily during that transition period, but it is silent on the principles that will shape the use of any regulation-making powers introduced by the bill. A purpose clause requiring all secondary legislation to contribute to what are broad, high-level principles would address that weakness without being unnecessarily restrictive or pre-empting the outcomes of existing work on the long-term policy.

At stage 2, Rachael Hamilton, John Finnie and I lodged amendments setting out such a purpose clause. At that point, the cabinet secretary opposed the specific amendments and the concept of a purpose clause on the basis that it would be impossible to agree on wording.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing)

The reason why we opposed the purpose clause is that the purpose of the bill is not to determine those matters; the purpose of the bill is as set out in the supporting documents: to enable the process to allow us to make changes to EU law and to retain them.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 21 is a technical amendment and would not introduce new detailed policy; it would simply guide what secondary legislation that is produced under the eventual act should do. That is well within the scope of the bill, but I appreciate why the cabinet secretary simply wants a blank cheque.

As I said, during stage 2 the cabinet secretary opposed a purpose clause and said that he did not believe that the wording could be agreed. We have come back with wording that is agreed by Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and, crucially, stakeholders who genuinely engaged with MSPs in the process for stages 2 and 3, representing a wide range of interests. They have helped to shape an amendment that strikes a balance between providing much-needed direction and not restricting ministers’ options. Amendment 21 incorporates a range of key priorities and ambitions, which I am sure members across the chamber share, for our agriculture sector, from carbon reduction to improved productivity and stronger working conditions.

When the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee took evidence on the bill, one of the strongest messages that came from stakeholders was that the bill lacked an overarching purpose or direction. The committee recommended that ministers address that issue; they failed to do so, but amendment 21 does. I am therefore pleased to move amendment 21 in my name and I am grateful to other members and the many stakeholders who properly engaged in the process to agree the joint wording.

I move amendment 21.

Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

We are supportive of much of the content of the proposed purpose clause, but we do not believe that amendment 21 is the right vehicle for it. First, the bill is a technical one, as the cabinet secretary set out, to ensure that payments for farm support continue. Secondly, what amendment 21 proposes would cut across the work of the farming and food production future policy group. Members will remember that that group was established following the Parliament’s agreement in 2019 to set it up. It was done via a Mike Rumbles amendment and we should follow that through to its conclusion.

Oliver Mundell (Dumfriesshire) (Con)

Where is that group’s report and will MSPs have a chance to scrutinise it any time soon?

Willie Rennie

The work is continuing and I am sure that, as the cabinet secretary has set out previously, the Parliament will be able to debate the group’s work. Much of the content of the proposed purpose clause is included in the remit of that policy group, so we would cut right across the group’s work if we were to agree to prejudge the conclusions of that work. We therefore cannot support amendment 21.

Many farming sector organisations do not support the purpose clause either. In fact, they support much of the content of it but, like me, do not support amendment 21 being the vehicle for it. Therefore, let us follow through on the vote of the Scottish Parliament in 2019. Let the futures group do that work and debate it in the fullness of time. Let it then come back to the Parliament so we can reach a conclusion with the full knowledge of that group.

Oliver Mundell

Further to Colin Smyth’s comments, I put on record the Scottish Conservatives’ support for amendment 21. I will come to the amendment in a moment, but I will briefly take the opportunity to personally thank my predecessor Rachael Hamilton for the hard work that she has done on this amendment alongside other parties and stakeholders. Like many of the amendments that appear in my name, amendment 21 incorporates many of the points that Rachael Hamilton championed at stage 2 and reflects the Scottish Conservatives’ genuine desire to improve the bill.

We believe that, without a purpose clause, the bill lacks focus and gives ministers far too expansive a remit. The amendment in the name of Colin Smyth has attracted support from three of the five parties in the chamber and has been drafted with the input of a wide range of stakeholders.

Fergus Ewing

I am puzzled about why Mr Mundell is supporting the purpose clause when his colleague Donald Cameron said at stage 1 that it was not appropriate and that the Tories did not support it.

Oliver Mundell

I do not think that that is the exact history, but when the facts change, so does our position. At stage 1, we thought that we were going to hear from the futures group and that we would have a chance to look at stage 3 in that context. We thought that the bill would sit within the context of a future policy direction for agriculture. The cabinet secretary may shake his head, but it is shameful that, after all the time that has passed, farmers in Scotland do not have an idea of the future direction of travel for policy. That is not good enough.

Willie Rennie

It is becoming a bit of a habit for the Conservative Party to stand up against NFU Scotland. Peter Chapman did so just last week. Is Oliver Mundell doing so again today? I think that he is ill advised to do so.

Oliver Mundell

I respect what the NFU has to say and I am glad that Willie Rennie has confirmed that he does too. I look forward to receiving his support when we come to Peter Chapman’s amendment 1 in group 4, which is very important.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

Andrew McCornick was supportive of a policy-driven bill. He said:

“this Bill does not set a clear policy direction for Scottish agriculture and NFUS is absolutely clear that a new policy-focussed Bill must also be introduced as soon as is reasonably possible.”

Oliver Mundell

I thank Rachael Hamilton for that helpful intervention.

The Scottish Government would do well to take notice. Perhaps if we had had a clear steer from the cabinet secretary or a report from the futures group, we would have been in a very different place. Our support for amendment 21 is based on a balance of risks. Is it possible that we are tying ministers’ hands too tightly? Possibly. However, there is a greater danger and a very present risk from the lack of focus in the bill and in giving too much discretion to the same ministers who refuse to take the big decisions. That is why we support amendment 21.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I am surprised about the disagreement that there seems to be about this. The cabinet secretary is entirely right when he says that this is an enabling piece of legislation. However, if we look specifically at what is being asked, it most certainly does not cut across anything, as Willie Rennie suggests. In fact, it is quite the reverse—it complements much of what has gone before. The amendment says that

“the objectives are to ensure that agricultural activity contributes to—”

and then gives a lengthy list. The list is not exclusive, and it could be added to—

Fergus Ewing

I know that Mr Finnie supports agroforestry, agritourism and agrirenewables. Amendment 21 mentions none of those things. That means that we could not lodge regulations to support renewables, tourism and agroforestry on farms. Does he think that that is sensible?

John Finnie

I do not think that that is accurate. There is so much flexibility in the amendment, for example where it talks about “facilitating ... supply chains” or “delivering flourishing rural communities”. The latter is the cabinet secretary’s entire raison d’etre, presumably, so there is no issue over delivering any of those things.

The important thing is that there are many things to be commended in the amendment—there is a lengthy list. For instance, I am delighted that Mr Mundell has lent his support to

“improving working conditions within the sector”,

which we will return to later in the debate. It is a welcome departure from some of the Victorian comments his colleagues have made in the past about that issue.

Clearly there are limitations to what the Scottish Government can do at the moment with regard to that, but there is nothing in the amendment that I for one second think that the cabinet secretary could find offensive. I encourage people to support amendment 21.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Amendment 21 might be well intentioned, but it is totally harmful. The restriction that each purpose must not harm any of the others is so complex as to be unworkable. Indeed, it could mean that the legislation would be no significant improvement on the common agricultural policy.

Not for the first time, the Tories find themselves on the wrong side of the argument, against Scotland’s farmers and crofters. They are showing their true colours. They care more about the big landowners and not about those who produce food in this country. I hope that farmers and crofters are watching and seeing that they cannot trust Scotland’s Tories to put them first.

Fergus Ewing

This matter was fully debated at stage 2, when I set out clearly why such an amendment was neither necessary nor appropriate to include in the bill. The amendment was defeated by 9 votes to 2 at that point, when the Conservatives voted against inclusion of a purpose clause.

I have listened carefully to the debate today, but I am afraid that those arguments still hold. The main reason why amendment 21 should not be passed today is that it is not what farmers and crofters want. As drafted, the amendment would make it virtually impossible to deliver on some of the important—indeed, vital—changes that farmers and crofters want to see.

The point is well made by NFU Scotland in its briefing, which states:

“if passed, amendment 21 could in fact make it extremely difficult for Scottish Ministers to deliver on some of the changes that NFUS believes could move Scottish agriculture to a new policy settlement that delivers for both agricultural production and all that agricultural activities deliver in the public interest”.

John Finnie

The amendment says:

“The objectives are to ensure that agricultural activity contributes to ... encouraging innovation, productivity, profitability and resilience in agriculture”.

How does that square with what the cabinet secretary has just said?

Fergus Ewing

The amendment says that regulations can be brought forward “only” for matters that are expressly contained in the amendment, and the amendment does not include a number of matters that are essential. It follows that regulations on those vital matters would be subject to challenge if we sought to bring them forward. It is a matter of simple legal interpretation, I am afraid.

Let me revert to my arguments, Presiding Officer, because they are very important, as amendment 21 is probably the most important amendment before us this afternoon.

I have already consulted publicly on these proposals for simplification and improvement. They were supported overwhelmingly by the majority of respondents. Almost every farmer and crofter who I have ever spoken to during 21 years as an MSP believes that we must simplify the penalty regime, which I think most members will accept can be disproportionately punitive and excessive in its scope. They also believe that we should endeavour to simplify and streamline the overadministration of the inspection regime. The penalty and inspection regimes are two matters of vital importance to farmers and crofters, and they have been consulted on in public.

Amendment 21 would require a quite different approach to what has already been consulted on. It would require us to start again—to halt the work on the existing proposals, despite the fact that those matters must be regulated later this year. There is a time limit, and we have to comply with it. If we have to start again, we cannot do what farmers and crofters want; we would have to start over. That might mean that there would be no improvements in 2021 and doubt as to whether any changes could be made for 2022. That is not what farmers and crofters in Scotland want.

There are other problems with amendment 21. It fails to mention key areas of activity in farms, which have been godsends and mainstays of many businesses. There is no reference to tourism, yet agritourism—as I hope all members agree—is a vital and growing sector.

John Finnie

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

Hang on a second; I want to finish this section of my remarks.

If members look for the word “tourism”, they will see that it is not there. There is no reference to forestry, either, and agroforestry is a vital component on many farms—

Oliver Mundell

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fergus Ewing

I will finish this bit.

For example, agroforestry is a key way to provide shelter belts to some farmers, as those members who are farmers well know, and it is a source of diverse income and a sustainable asset.

Oliver Mundell

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I want to finish my remarks on the group of three things that, for some reason—I do not know why—have been omitted from amendment 21.

The third thing is renewables. We want farmers to go green and to espouse wind energy, anaerobic digestion and, in some instances, hydro power. We want farmers to go green, but there is no reference—

Oliver Mundell

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I will give way if I have time, Presiding Officer. I have more to get through, because there are so many serious arguments against amendment 21.

As we know, there are people who do not like, for various reasons—they are entitled to their views—tourism, forestry and renewables. It is simple: because tourism, forestry and renewables are not mentioned in amendment 21, those people could raise an action of judicial review in which they could say that there was no legal basis for providing financial support for any of those things, despite the fact that every member in this chamber agrees that they all play an essential part.

I will take an intervention from Mr Mundell.

Oliver Mundell

Perhaps if the cabinet secretary worked less on angry rants and more on reading the wording of the amendments, he would see that many of the things that he has mentioned are expressly covered. I find it hard to see how forestry is not covered by, for example, subsection (2)(a) of the new section that amendment 21 seeks to insert in the bill, and I do not understand how tourism does not form part of farm diversification and resilience.

Fergus Ewing

The words “forestry”, “tourism” and “renewables” are not mentioned in amendment 21. Therefore, people who do not like renewables—some spend their whole lives campaigning against wind farms—could go to the Court of Session to seek a judicial review, as many have before them. It is simple.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I think that Mr Finnie wanted to come in first, so I give way to him by the droit du seigneur.

John Finnie

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention.

Mr Mundell covered the point that I wanted to make, which was about diversification. Lots of words are not in amendment 21; the important thing is that the cabinet secretary cannot take offence at the words that are in it.

Fergus Ewing

If Mr Finnie thinks that it is sensible to pass legislation that foreseeably opens the door to judicial challenge, I respectfully disagree with him. That would move the debate from Parliament into the courts. The ultimate outcome could be to prevent the improvement of the current CAP scheme or the testing of new schemes. Surely not one member here thinks that that is anything other than a very stupid thing to do.

Rhoda Grant

Is the cabinet secretary seriously saying to us that tourism, renewables and forestry are not part of “delivering flourishing rural communities”? If he is, he is in the wrong job.

Fergus Ewing

Of course they are essential; that is precisely my argument. Why are they not mentioned in the amendment? [Interruption.] They are not in the amendment—that is a fact. I will move on.

A further technical issue would arise from the effect of amendment 21. The Scottish ministers could make regulations under part 1 of the bill only if they contributed to one or more of the prescriptive and complex objectives that are listed in subsection (2) of the new section that amendment 21 seeks to insert in the bill, while at the same time not undermining any of the other objectives. All of that means that amendment 21 would set up what is, at best, a difficult balance to strike and, at worst, a completely unworkable requirement.

I understand that farmers and crofters are eager to see the direction of travel for farming policy. However, they know that our document “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period” sets the scene and the course until 2024, which is further forward than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

As Mr Rennie quite rightly argued, that debate is not for this bill. We need to allow the work of the farming and food production future policy group—which was set up by this Parliament—to conclude, and must then consider its advice at the appropriate juncture. This is not it. Parliament mandated us to set up the group. It obviously needs the opportunity to complete its report, which we will then debate.

Ultimately, the proposed purpose clause is not what farmers and crofters want. I began by saying that, and I conclude by informing members that NFU Scotland opposes it; the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association opposes it; the Scottish Crofting Federation opposes it; the Scottish Beef Association opposes it; and the sheep associations have confirmed to me that they oppose it. Some of those organisations may have already written to members, too.

Therefore, anyone who votes for the purpose clause that is proposed in amendment 21 will be going against the express wishes of just about every reputable professional organisation that represents our farmers and crofters. Members should have nothing to do with it.

The Presiding Officer

I call Colin Smyth to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment.

Colin Smyth

A number of predictable criticisms have been made of amendment 21, none of which is convincing, particularly the cabinet secretary’s rambling fantasy.

The cabinet secretary always has vague concerns about the implications of the wording of amendments but, throughout this process, he made no attempt whatsoever to engage with me or any other parties to raise concerns or consider a different approach.

It was made clear at stage 2 that I and others would return to the issue—indeed, the wording of the amendment was shared with the cabinet secretary and the Government in draft form before it was lodged. However, at no point was there any engagement from the cabinet secretary; at no time did he bother to seek to explain what he thought was wrong with the wording.

Despite the Government’s lack of engagement, a great deal of work has been done to find wording that strikes the right balance between clarity and flexibility. I say to the cabinet secretary that, if he had spent a bit more time engaging with members instead of being on the phone to stakeholders in the past 24 hours, begging them to rubbish the purpose clause, we might have got wording that built a level of consensus.

The reality is that the cabinet secretary did that because he was scared that there was strong support for the purpose clause and he wanted to come to the chamber to throw about a few names of organisations that are opposed to it. They are opposed to it only because he tried to press them into opposing it. [Interruption.] As a result, amendment 21 has strong support—[Interruption.] The cabinet secretary says that he has been speaking to organisations. He left it to the last two days to do so. I wonder why.

As a result, the amendment has support from multiple political parties and a range of stakeholders who are often very opposed in their views on certain issues.

Willie Rennie talked about listening to stakeholders. He seemed to claim that anyone who supports amendment 21 does not support the views of stakeholders, but the reality is that every environmental group that submitted views on the purpose clause supports it.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Does the member not take into consideration the views of Patrick Krause of the Scottish Crofting Federation, who has said that the proposed purpose clause, which was introduced at the last minute, could have very negative consequences and could lead to significant delays in enacting the legislation, whereas members have been asking for it to be introduced quickly? He has also said that it could have a negative consequence for crofting, should the Scottish Government be minded to redistribute support to areas of natural constraint, which, as other members have said, could be challenged by the big landowners, who might suffer a relatively small loss of income. Are we really seeing the Labour Party and the Greens supporting the big farmers on the Tory benches?

Colin Smyth

Maureen Watt needs to reflect on why she has not read the detail of the submission from the Scottish Crofting Federation, which had no concerns about the purpose clause and did not engage in the process at all. The cabinet secretary lobbied the Crofting Federation in the past 24 hours to produce a submission at the last minute. The reality is that the Government was scared by the level of support for the purpose clause. [Interruption.]

Willie Rennie says that we should listen to the submissions from different groups, and Maureen Watt said the same. I have made the point that every environmental group wanted to support the purpose clause; they made that absolutely clear. The fact that Fergus Ewing is less progressive on the environment than the Conservatives is no surprise to anybody, but the fact that Willie Rennie is less progressive on the environment than the Conservative Party must be a worry—it would appear that he is more Donald Trump than Greta Thunberg.

Willie Rennie and Fergus Ewing have suggested that amendment 21 pre-empts the work of the farming and food production future policy group in relation to future agricultural policy. Frankly, that is nonsense. The amendment applies to changes that are made over the next four years; it would not create an entirely new system, which is what the group has been tasked with considering and which would, ultimately, require new legislation.

Of course any principles should not contradict the long-term direction of the sector, which is why amendment 21 was carefully drafted with the group’s work in mind. Had the group’s long-awaited report been published on schedule, it would have been possible to align the amendment even more closely with the group’s recommendations. More than a year after the Parliament agreed to establish the group, its report has, unfortunately, been delayed yet again.

Amendment 21 has been drafted to a high level and is entirely consistent with the themes and priorities that are set out in the group’s remit. The group was tasked with developing detailed proposals based around the themes of sustainability, simplicity, profitability, innovation, inclusion and productivity, and it was to look at priorities such as addressing the global climate emergency, moving to net zero emissions faster, maintaining populations in rural areas, promoting inclusive growth, developing a low-carbon economy and tackling poverty and inequality. My amendment reflects those priorities entirely, but it in no way pre-empts the group’s more detailed work. It is intended to complement that work.

Crucially, the bill is about the changes that are made during the transition period. Amendment 21 is the only opportunity that the Scottish Parliament will have to provide any meaningful direction to policy changes that are made during the next few years. The sunset clause in the bill, which was agreed to at stage 2, means that no regulations can be made beyond May 2026, so further legislation will still be required on long-term agricultural policy.

The choice that we have today is whether we simply hand the Government a blank cheque to propose whatever changes it wants, which I know is what the cabinet secretary wants, or we provide some direction of travel based on a shared set of principles that has widespread support in the sector, which is what any meaningful Opposition party would want to provide.

I am happy to press amendment 21.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

As this will be the first division of the afternoon, we will suspend for a short technical break to ensure that all members are on board on the voting app.

The Presiding Officer

We now move to the division on Colin Smyth’s amendment 21. Members may cast their vote now.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 21 disagreed to.

Section 2—Power to simplify or improve CAP legislation

The Presiding Officer

We come to group 2, on regulations and procedure. Amendment 2, in the name of Willie Rennie, is grouped with amendments 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17 and 18.

Willie Rennie

There has been such passion so far this afternoon; let me see if I can change that. [Laughter.]

Amendments 2, 8 and 12 in my name change the scrutiny for regulations made under sections 2, 5 and 6 from negative procedure to an “either way” procedure, by which I mean that the Scottish ministers will be able to decide whether regulations that they propose to make are to be subject to affirmative or negative procedure. Is everybody following so far?

There has been much debate at stages 1 and 2 about the adequacy of the parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the powers in the bill, particularly when it comes to the power to simplify or improve common agricultural policy legislation in section 2.

In its stage 1 report, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended

“that consideration is given to having a choice of procedure available in relation to this power so that the negative procedure can be used for ‘housekeeping’ matters and the affirmative procedure can be used when there are policy implications.”

In its stage 1 report, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee said:

“The Committee endorses the concerns expressed by the DPLR Committee and some stakeholders regarding the blanket use of the negative procedure for the exercise of powers conferred by section 2 of the Bill. It therefore believes that any measures introduced using these powers that have wider policy implications should be made subject to the affirmative procedure and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to this effect.”

I am aware that the cabinet secretary changed the procedure for regulations made under section 8, and I note his amendments 17 and 18, which seek to do the same for section 10. I welcome that, and I intend to support those amendments.

Although it is important that, as parliamentarians, we assert our and the Parliament’s right to scrutinise Government policy and legislative changes, we need to be proportionate in that, not least so as to manage our own workload and so as not to use up valuable parliamentary time unnecessarily in scrutinising minor and technical regulations and changes to CAP schemes that the DPLR Committee described as “housekeeping” matters.

My amendments 2, 8 and 12 deliver exactly what Parliament sought through the recommendations of both the DPLR Committee and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee at stage 1, specifically in relation to section 2.

In my view, the same arguments apply to the power in section 5 to modify the law on public intervention and private storage aid and to the power in section 6 to modify the law on aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations. Those would therefore become “either way” powers as well.

I hope that members across the chamber will agree with me and support my amendments. They represent a sensible compromise that will ensure that, when Parliament needs to spend more time considering substantive changes to current CAP schemes, that can be provided for.

I hope that members will also agree that there is now no need for Oliver Mundell’s amendments 3, 9, and 13, which seek to change the procedure to affirmative for sections 2, 5 and 6 of the bill. I appreciate that Oliver Mundell will want to speak to those amendments but hope that he will now not move them.

I move amendment 2.

Oliver Mundell

Mr Rennie does himself a disservice; that is one of the most passionate speeches I have heard him make in this Parliament. To double down on the insult, his has to be one of the most Lib Dem solutions to a problem that I have ever heard.

I would like to press ahead with my amendments. We support Willie Rennie’s amendments because they are an improvement on the current position in the bill, but the choice of whether things should be brought forward under the affirmative procedure or the negative procedure should not be a choice for the Government. In such matters, it is important that Parliament does that scrutiny work. Given the central role of farm support to Scottish agriculture and rural communities, there is nothing better that this Parliament could waste its time doing.

Throughout the process, we have heard the Scottish Government say that many of the changes would be minor and technical but, at this time, when farmers are desperately looking for clarity and to determine the future direction of travel, it is especially important to take our time and do that scrutiny because there is no doubt that farmers the length and breadth of the country are going to pore over every decision that is taken during the transition period to work out whether it is a short-term change or whether it will form part of a longer-term trend.

There is no downside to going with the affirmative procedure. When consensus has been built, the affirmative procedure does not take up a huge amount of time in Parliament. A Government that is confident in its proposals should be happy to go down that route and build consensus. A Government that is unwilling to subject important changes to such scrutiny is not a Government that can trot out lines about power grabs and lack of respect for Parliament. At the very worst, we will spend time talking about important changes and giving farmers the time they deserve.

Fergus Ewing

Amendment 17 changes the procedure for regulations made under section 10 from negative to affirmative. Amendment 18 is a consequential amendment.

At stage 2, I listened carefully to the arguments that John Finnie made in support of his own similar amendment, and I thank him for not pressing that at the time because it gave me the necessary time to consider the full consequences of making such a change, which I am happy now so to do.

Changing the procedure from negative to affirmative creates helpful alignment with the change that I made for section 8 at stage 2. The regulation-making powers in sections 8 and 10 are needed to allow for the alignment of our marketing and classification schemes with those in the rest of the UK, or with EU regimes, when that is in Scottish interests. Any such change is not likely to be time sensitive—there are unlikely to be any changes made in the near future—and therefore allowing for fuller parliamentary scrutiny is feasible.

I hope that Parliament will support my amendments 17 and 18 unanimously, respecting the will of Parliament as expressed at stage 2.

I also hope that Parliament will support Willie Rennie’s—or should that be Willie “Passion Killer” Rennie’s—amendments 2, 8 and 12, as I will do.

During the debate at stages 1 and 2, I was clear that I acknowledge the need to allow Parliament the opportunity to fully scrutinise any real and substantive changes to current CAP schemes being made by regulations under this bill. However, there are two other considerations.

It does not seem appropriate to use valuable parliamentary time and energy on a lengthier parliamentary process for regulations that seek to give effect to technical or housekeeping measures. Willie Rennie has made that argument.

However, there is a convincing argument to allow for such scrutiny of more substantive changes. That applies to regulations that would be made under sections 5 and 6. As the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended, in particular, the amendments allow for the so-called “each way” procedure to be adopted, and will enable ministers to choose the appropriate procedure, depending on the content of regulations to be made under sections 2, 5 and 6. That provides an appropriate level of flexibility. Accordingly, I encourage members to reject amendments 3, 9 and 13.

In relation to the procedures that should be applied to regulations that are made under sections 2, 5 and 6, the second consideration is of timescale. As I set out in the stage 2 debate, these are not normal times. The impact of coronavirus and the impact of Brexit are putting extra pressures on Parliament. Amendments 3, 9 and 13, if agreed, would unnecessarily add to that pressure, with no real gain. By making all changes made by regulations under those three sections subject to affirmative procedure, those amendments would require the use of more parliamentary time, no matter how minor the content. [Interruption.] I will just press on, if I may.

Some regulations will have to be laid and approved before 2021, including those that may be required in order to allow CAP payments to be made during that year. Plainly, one of the most important things that we have to do is to avoid any delay to farm payments. I believe therefore that this technical argument is important.

I have some sympathy with Oliver Mundell’s argument. Farming is, of course, important. However, I do not think that farmers would expect us to waste time on technical matters. They want us to get to the meat and the heart of the issues. Therefore, I cannot support Oliver Mundell’s amendments 3, 9 and 13.

I ask members to vote for amendments 17 and 18 in my name, and I encourage them to vote for Willie Rennie’s amendments 2, 8 and 12.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Unusually, Willie Rennie brings absolute sense to the debate. He and I were educated at the same institution, so he is bound to get things right from time to time—as I hope that members think I do, too.

I will address briefly the amendments in Oliver Mundell’s name, under the headings of scrutiny, effect and consistency.

I am an outlier in that, in the opportunities for scrutiny of secondary legislation, I do not see any difference between negative and affirmative procedure. On the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s agenda this week were an affirmative instrument, a negative instrument and an instrument that required no procedure. There was equal opportunity to consider them. Similarly, negative and affirmative instruments go to the three committees on which I serve. It will be no different elsewhere.

The only additional parliamentary time that is required for an affirmative instrument, over that of a negative instrument, is the 30 seconds at decision time, when we conclude whether we will support the instrument. However, that is neither here nor there.

Oliver Mundell would have us support amendments 3, 9 and 13. Amendment 3 relates to improving CAP legislation. To “improve the operation” might or might not involve a significant improvement; I do not know. However, it might be a matter of some urgency, and if we make it subject to affirmative procedure by law, and without the option of negative procedure, we could delay important improvements that might arise because of circumstances.

On amendment 9, issues of public intervention and private storage aid may involve a significant degree of urgency, and that is also the case with amendment 13, in relation to fruit and vegetable producers. By mandating that the procedure has to be affirmative, with the associated timetables, we would bind ourselves into an unfortunate corner.

On the matter of consistency, I note that, in clause 9(4) of the UK Agriculture Bill, the Conservatives in Westminster are saying:

“Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure”.

So the Tories in Edinburgh are saying that we should bind the hands of the Government, and the Tories in London are saying that we should give unfettered power over agriculture to the Government there. Once again, the Tories are doing what they always do: giving a free ticket to Westminster and trying to bind the hands of the Scottish Administration.

I am happy to oppose the Tory amendments and to support the amendments in Willie Rennie’s name.

Colin Smyth

Labour will support all the amendments in the group, but particularly amendments 3, 9 and 13 in the name of Oliver Mundell and amendment 17 in the name of the cabinet secretary.

The bill introduces wide regulation-making powers, and those enabling powers are being introduced with very little clarity over what they will be used for or the principles that will guide their use. Although I recognise the need for many changes to be made through secondary rather than primary legislation, I do not believe that that should be achieved through the widespread use of the negative procedure.

I am happy to support Willie Rennie’s amendments 2, 8 and 12, which would at least remove the blunt requirement to use the negative procedure, but I do not think that they go far enough, as they fail to set out specifically when the affirmative procedure should be used. In short, they still give ministers the power to decide, which is a theme running through much of the Liberal Democrats’ approach today.

For that reason, my strong preference is for Oliver Mundell’s amendments, which would simply change the procedure for all regulations that are made under the relevant sections to the affirmative. That would ensure that all changes receive parliamentary scrutiny, at least to the level that secondary legislation receives scrutiny. All the sections of the bill allow changes that are significant enough to deserve the use of the affirmative procedure at all times.

If the changes are minor, that will be reflected in the amount of time that Parliament gives them. I think that Stewart Stevenson said that the extra time for a parliamentary vote would be around 30 seconds, which I do not think is a burden at all.

I am happy to support the amendments.

John Finnie

We will support the cabinet secretary’s amendments 17 and 18 and Mr Mundell’s amendments 3, 9 and 13. Mr Mundell gave the rationale as to why we will not support Willie Rennie’s amendments 2, 8 and 12: it should not be for ministers to decide the procedure by which scrutiny takes place.

I have heard Mr Stevenson eloquently lay out his views on secondary legislation before, and I will not take issue with them. Colin Smyth touched on the issue of its taking 30 seconds to vote on what we were told could be important changes. If they are important changes, they should be subject to the maximum scrutiny. Mr Stevenson said that Oliver Mundell’s amendments would

“bind the hands of the Government”,

but Parliament has a role, particularly in a unicameral set-up, to ensure maximum scrutiny.

We will support Mr Mundell’s amendments.

Oliver Mundell

I felt compelled to come back in, because Scottish National Party MSPs have got a brass neck to come to the chamber and lecture us on the potential for farm payment delays. The past fiascos that we have seen under the Government are precisely why it is important that Parliament oversees the technical mechanisms that are used to get payments out. I do not think that the affirmative procedure will cause the delays that have been talked about. It is important that the Parliament has the final say.

The Presiding Officer

Mr Rennie is ready to wind up, so I encourage members who have left the chamber to return. I anticipate a vote—although I might be wrong—so I encourage members not to refresh the voting page, but to open it up. I call Willie Rennie.

Willie Rennie

At the risk of triggering a frenzy, I have no more contributions to make to this debate.

Members: Oh!

The Presiding Officer

I am still grateful for your concision, Mr Rennie.

I see that the cabinet secretary would like to come in. Willie Rennie lodged the first amendment in the group, so normally he would get to conclude. However, if you wish to make a late statement, cabinet secretary, you may.

Fergus Ewing

I just want to inform Mr Mundell that, far from Scottish farmers and crofters not getting their money on time, on 1 September, 11,885 farmers and crofters will receive £296 million, and they will receive the money three months before farmers in England get anything.

The Presiding Officer

I am not sure that that was entirely an argument about the amendments. However, it has given members a chance to return to the chamber and open the voting app. I will just pause to find out whether anyone’s voting app says that no votes are currently open; I will check with members online, too.

There are no issues. The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 116, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 58, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

We move to group 3, on regulations: consultation. Amendment 4, in the name of Oliver Mundell, is grouped with amendments 5 to 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15.

Oliver Mundell

I rise to speak in support of the amendments. Members will be relieved to know that I do not plan to repeat the arguments that I made in relation to group 2.

The amendments in this group are straightforward and are designed to make it a requirement that the Government consult on any changes. I suspect that we will hear that it plans to do that anyway. However, if that is the case I do not see any issue with making it a requirement of the legislation. These are important issues, and if sensible proposals are made, around which consensus can be built, the cabinet secretary should have no fear of subjecting them to consultation.

I ask members to support the amendments in this group.

I move amendment 4.

Colin Smyth

I am happy to support the amendments in this group, which all seek to ensure that regulations that are made under the bill are subject to appropriate consultation. Many of the changes that are proposed in the relevant sections of the bill could have a huge impact on those who are directly affected, and it is critical that the Government consult and seek agreement on them.

At stage 2, the cabinet secretary raised concerns about consultation delaying the implementation of these regulations. However, ideally, the bill should have been introduced with more than enough time to allow for comprehensive consultation.

However, even with those tight constraints, I do not think that these amendments are burdensome enough to cause problems. They do not specify what form the consultation should take or who, exactly, must be consulted; they simply state that it should take place. Frankly, that should happen regardless, and the Government’s refusal to put it in the bill should send warning signals to all MSPs. Therefore, it would be deeply disappointing if any Opposition party shared the Government’s opposition to these amendments.

Fergus Ewing

I have already given commitments on consultation, on the record, at stages 1 and 2, and those commitments stand. I said that we will take steps to ensure that there is sufficient consultation of those who are closely involved with the impact of any proposed changes or measures in draft regulations. I also said:

“We will not make major changes without appropriate consultation and engagement. We always do that. We come to Parliament and we are constantly held to account by this committee.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 15 January 2020; c 26.]

That is rightly the case.

In their stage 1 reports, both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the REC Committee indicated that they were satisfied with the assurances I gave—on the record—on consulting with stakeholders and Parliament. Indeed, similar amendments were considered and defeated at stage 2.

For reasons that are similar to those that I have already set out in relation to the amendments in group 2, I hope that members might accept my voluntary undertakings and resist all the amendments in group 3.

As I explained at stage 2, my main reluctance to accept Oliver Mundell’s amendments stems from the potential impact that a statutory requirement to consult would have on the timescales for making regulations. The Government’s approach to consultation provides for a standard 12-week period for submissions to be made and for all appropriate submissions to be published and analysed before the Government sets out its response. There are occasions on which timescales can be reduced. However, we are usually looking at a minimum of six months for such a process. Applying the spirit of any statutory requirement to consult would mean using that consultation method, and I very much doubt that we would be able to lay any draft regulations in 2020.

That is not what farmers want; they want us to do things. Yes, they want us to debate things. However, they ultimately want us to be able to do things and not endlessly debate them. Let me give you one example: under section 4, we need to introduce regulations to provide for a ceiling for 2021 direct payments. Those regulations need to be in force by the beginning of the claim year, which is 1 January 2021. That will be technical legislation rather than legislation containing policy proposals, and it will largely be dictated by the UK Treasury, which will provide the funding. In essence, there is unlikely to be much to consult on, as we will not be able to take into account stakeholders’ views, however much we might agree with them. The affirmative procedure will already apply, and that will give Parliament adequate opportunity to scrutinise what is provided for by the Treasury.

I appreciate the desire to ensure that there is a more substantive role for Parliament and stakeholders. However, we cannot do either—never mind both—and be confident of passing regulations by the end of this year that will allow changes to be made to the current CAP schemes timeously or, indeed, provide for the continuity that will be needed under section 3 of the bill. I do not believe that that is what farmers or crofters want.

I hope that the undertakings that I have given satisfy members and that Mr Mundell does not press his amendments. If he does, I invite members to vote against them.

Oliver Mundell

I am going to press my amendments. I do not think that the cabinet secretary has accurately reflected what they say. They would give him and ministers wide discretion to choose whom it would be appropriate to consult. I also think that he misrepresents the views of farmers. My impression is that they very much want to have their say on these changes. They want to be consulted and are increasingly concerned that the Government is trying to take these decisions behind closed doors and is not being transparent about what the future of farm support in this country will look like.

I press amendment 4.

The Presiding Officer

There is going to be a vote. This is the danger of my trying to anticipate votes—sometimes I seem to be encouraging them. Before we come to the vote, I ask members to ensure that they have the voting page open. They need not refresh it—just open the page and wait.

Before I call the vote itself, I want to ensure again that all members have the page open and that it says, “No vote currently open.” If any member does not have that message, I ask them to raise their hand.

We are just waiting for a few members who are online. I am told that their issues have now been resolved, so we will move to the question.

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 3—Power to provide for the operation of CAP legislation beyond 2020

Amendment 6 not moved.

Section 4—Power to modify financial provision in CAP legislation

Amendment 7 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on a statement by the Scottish ministers under section 4. Amendment 1, in the name of Peter Chapman, is the only amendment in the group. [Interruption.] Mr Chapman, you will have to wait until your microphone comes on—it is not on yet. Is your card in properly, Mr Chapman? Please check it and push it further into the console. [Interruption.]

We will have a short suspension so that the seats can be cleaned before members change places and so that we can try to resolve the technical difficulty.

The Presiding Officer

We can now resume proceedings on group 4. Amendment 1, in the name of Peter Chapman, is the only amendment in the group.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I remind the chamber of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

Before I start, I should say that everyone around me has said that what I am about to say had better be good, given all the palaver. However, I will leave members to judge that.

Amendment 1 is simple, practical and uncontentious, and I hope that it will receive support from across the chamber. The amendment does exactly what it says on the tin. It would ensure that any money that is saved as a result of changes to support mechanisms is recycled and remains within the agriculture portfolio.

We know that the support mechanisms for Scottish agriculture are about to change, and we also know that the capping of single farm payments is a real possibility. However, I only wish that, instead of me speculating about what those changes might look like, Fergus Ewing would at last come forward with his plans for the future and give our farmers some security and the ability to look ahead positively.

However, it is vital that all funds are retained to continue to support agriculture and are not siphoned off into other areas. I remind the chamber that more than 70 per cent of farms make a loss, when support payments are taken out of the balance sheet. I cannot overstate how important those payments are.

I move amendment 1.

The Presiding Officer

I call Stewart Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson

Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.] I am afraid that some works are taking place next door. I hope that that does not affect the sound too much.

I have attended 978 committee meetings since I was elected to the Parliament, and 211 of them have been to do with rural issues. Every month, we get financial reports on how money is being spent to support farmers. No other portfolio issues such reports. The information that is provided about the support that is given to our agriculture sector is already precise, consistent and comprehensive, and I very much welcome that.

I want to look at the wording of the amendment that Mr Chapman would have us support. It talks about “improvements to any payment”. I have no idea what an improvement to a payment is. It might be an improvement if we raise the payment that is given to a farmer but, from the Government’s point of view, it might be an improvement to reduce it, because the Government would then have more money to spend on another policy area, in agriculture or not. I simply have no idea what the amendment means when it talks about

“improvements to any payment or expenditure”.

More fundamentally, the difficulty is that we are introducing a process that would slow down, once again, the way in which things operate. Mr Chapman has suggested no reason why there is a requirement to do things in a way that is different from what has gone before in an area that is already reported on to a greater extent than any other part of Government.

I am extremely reluctant to contemplate supporting the amendment. We do not need it and it would remove flexibility from the way that we can deploy money; it simply would not work. The scrutiny and reporting is there, so there is no problem with that. It is unnecessary and would be potentially restrictive in an area where restriction would be most unwelcome to all stakeholders.

Colin Smyth

I am disappointed that Stewart Stevenson is not coming live from his local Honda garage, as he usually does.

I am happy to support amendment 1 from Peter Chapman, which calls for the Government to produce an accompanying statement when setting a cap on payments. It would help to provide some useful clarity for all interested parties. I am sure that those directly affected by any potential cap would be keen to know what the money was intended for, and stakeholders across the board have made it clear that they are keen to know what to expect from new projects and pilot schemes during this period. The pilot schemes trialled during the transition will be key to developing a strong and effective new support system, but we will still have almost no information on possible content, scale or even basic aims.

I support proposals to bring in a sensible cap on payments to help fund those new pilot schemes; I am sure that everyone agrees that the money must be well spent and amendment 1 would provide some accountability in that regard. If it is the Government’s intention to do that anyway, there is no harm in clarifying it in the bill to provide some reassurance, rather than literally giving the Government a blank cheque.

Oliver Mundell

I start by pointing out to Willie Rennie that amendment 1 has the strong support of NFU Scotland and, having previously pulled me up for not supporting its position, I hope that he will be consistent and back Peter Chapman this time round.

We have heard Fergus Ewing say that another amendment is the most important of the day but, arguably, amendment 1 is the most important, because it asks the SNP Government and the Scottish Parliament to make a firm commitment to the principle of ring fencing the agricultural budget. Everyone is open to the potential of making the farm support system better and doing things differently, but that cannot and must not be an excuse for diverting money saved away from agriculture.

I was therefore disappointed to hear through other parliamentarians that at the 11th hour the cabinet secretary and his helpers had technical concerns about the amendment. If that was the case, given that amendment 1 was lodged in good time, would it not have been wise and courteous to have approached the member, or indeed with the resource of the Government to hand to have proposed a workable amendment, rather than simply turning up to vote it down? Those kinds of games are disingenuous and they do farmers a disservice; they will do nothing to address the fears of farmers the length and breadth of the country that the central belt-dominated SNP will siphon off money at the first chance it gets when the power is returned from Brussels.

I urge members to support Peter Chapman’s amendment and send a strong message that the Parliament will not tolerate an SNP rural budget grab. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please.

John Finnie

I did not approach the member to tell him that I was not going to support the amendment and would be encouraging my colleagues not to support it, because that has been our position for some time. The language from the proposer, such as “siphoning off”, is a concern. Mr Mundell talked about being open to the potential of doing things differently as we need flexibility, but I do not know whether Mr Chapman would be a strong supporter of money being directed to forestry, for instance. I am happy to take an intervention if he wants to make one.

Peter Chapman

I am very happy for money to be spent on forestry. I have always been an enthusiast of increasing our forests in Scotland, and I continue to be absolutely in that vein—I support forestry.

John Finnie

It is welcome that we have that comment from Peter Chapman about payments on the record. We need flexibility, but we also need to recognise that there are opportunities to scrutinise policies and legislation as they come through. The amendment would just create more paperwork and there is no need for it. If we do our jobs, we will be following the money anyway, so we will not support the amendment.

Fergus Ewing

I listened carefully to Mr Chapman, as I did when he lodged the very same amendment at stage 2. That amendment was defeated and we are debating the issue again.

Mr Mundell’s comments about my not engaging are completely irrelevant, given that I made my views clear at stage 2. He will not be surprised to learn that they have not changed, because the amendment is simply not needed. It is not necessary for the reasons that we heard from Stewart Stevenson and because we already have a parliamentary process to provide such information.

Any regulations that are brought forward under the section of the bill in question will almost certainly require a business and regulatory impact assessment, or BRIA, to be conducted. We have supporting documents for the bill, and any money resolution would require a BRIA. The point of a BRIA is to look at the implications of the regulations.

In addition, the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament already has the opportunity to scrutinise in detail any proposed modification of the financial provision. I think that Mr Finnie pointed that out. I associate myself with his remarks.

Any BRIA would accompany the draft regulations when they were laid before the Parliament and I suggest that that already serves the purpose. Moreover, like Mr Stevenson, I cannot think of any other portfolio that provides more information regularly and periodically to the relevant committee—in this case, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee—in order to inform members.

Oliver Mundell

Will the cabinet secretary give us a simple yes or no? Does the Scottish Government plan to take money out of the rural budget when changes are made?

Fergus Ewing

I think that the question is perhaps not the one that Oliver Mundell meant to ask. Of course we will take money out of the rural budget to pay to farmers and others who want it. I can try to answer the question that Oliver Mundell should have asked, but politics is not supposed to work like that, as many members know pretty well.

Oliver Mundell

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fergus Ewing

The member had a chance and he blew it. So there we are.

I will make one further, serious point. Mr Chapman is seriously making the argument, and I accept that it is a serious argument. However, if we agreed the amendment, we would have to use the money for the purposes that we had set out. We would tell the Parliament, “We will use the money to do this.” What would have happened if we had done that in February, before Covid came along, and then we decided that we urgently needed to use that money for Covid-related emergencies? We would not have been able to do that, because we would have had to come back to the Parliament, as Mr Finnie said, and have a whole fresh debate and process. Meanwhile, the people waiting for compensation to survive in business would not have got the money. That is not very smart.

For all those reasons, although I understand Mr Chapman’s good intentions, I do not think that it would work out as he planned. I hope that he will vote against his amendment.

The Presiding Officer

We will move to our final speaker in this group of amendments, so, without anticipating whether we will have a vote, I urge members to return to the chamber and to open their voting apps. Peter Chapman will wind up and press or withdraw amendment 1.

Peter Chapman

Frankly, I am amazed and deeply worried that the cabinet secretary will not commit to supporting the amendment. If, as he has said, there is already ample scrutiny in the Parliament, he has nothing to fear. However, he has cited technical reasons. I do not understand what they are, and I certainly do not understand Stewart Stevenson’s nonsense. Nothing in my amendment speaks about improvement to support mechanisms; it speaks about changes.

As I said, the cabinet secretary cited technical reasons. I say to every Scottish farmer that the vote on the amendment is absolutely among the most important that we will have today. If Fergus Ewing and his SNP MSPs vote against the amendment, they will be setting the scene to be able to steal the money of Scottish farmers, cap their single farm payments, or take money from other schemes. They can then siphon that off—I use those words again—to pay for some other policy that is not within agriculture.

Our farmers are watching the cabinet secretary. I will press my amendment.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, colleagues. Before we vote on amendment 1, can I confirm that all members have the voting app open and that they can see that no vote is currently open? If that is not the case, please raise your hand or notify us online.

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members may cast their votes now.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Section 5—Power to modify CAP legislation on public intervention and private storage aid

Amendment 8 moved—[Willie Rennie].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a one-minute division. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, colleagues—we have an online point of order from Stewart Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am working from the timed “Groupings of Amendments for Stage 3”, which lists the amendments in debating order. The version of amendment 1 that we have just voted on and that is before me refers to

“modifications or improvements to any payment or expenditure”.

However, I have just heard Peter Chapman claim that the word “improvements” was not in his amendment. I wonder whether I have been misled and there is a later version of the amendment. Perhaps I should have been working on a reprint of the amendment, about which I made the assertion that it included the word “improvements”. Can you advise me whether there has been a reprint that excludes the word “improvements”, as claimed by Mr Chapman? Thank you, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer

That is not a point of order for me to rule on. It is a point of accuracy, which the member has pointed out. His comments are on the record and I am sure that members will have taken that on board. It is a debating point.

We will move to the vote on amendment 8. There will be a one-minute division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 117, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 57, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Amendments 10 and 11 not moved.

Section 6—Power to simplify or improve CAP legislation on aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations

Amendment 12 moved—[Willie Rennie].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the decision is: For 116, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 57, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Amendments 14 and 15 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

As members may have noted, we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate on group 4 to finish. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow debate on the group to continue beyond the agreed time limit to avoid unreasonably curtailing the debate.

Section 8—Marketing standards

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 5 on marketing standards: compatibility with UK standards and internal market. Amendment 16, in the name of Oliver Mundell, is the only amendment in the group.

Oliver Mundell

The arguments around amendment 16 have been well rehearsed in the Parliament in recent weeks. Nonetheless, it is important to make again the point that the UK internal market is crucial to Scottish agriculture, which is why we must do everything in our power to enhance the opportunities that flow from that market, not junk it or seek to disrupt it for narrow political purposes. The truth is that the SNP does not want the UK or Brexit to work and is happy for farmers to pay the price.

Amendment 16 offers a protective guarantee that none of the changes that would be brought about by the bill would be used to weaken the links between Scotland and its most important market, which is the rest of the UK. Members can choose either to trust the SNP, which has already made clear its plans to adopt EU regulation without question, or to make it clear to farmers that the financial interests of our rural communities will always come first and that the many jobs that they support are just too important for political games.

I move amendment 16.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 16 raises an important issue. The UK is by far Scotland’s most important market, particularly for agriculture. Maintaining the integrity of the single market is absolutely critical. The bill introduces regulation-making powers in a range of areas where significant divergence from the rest of the UK market could cause real problems. I understand the desire to clarify the need to prevent that in legislation, particularly with regard to marketing standards. However, I am not convinced that amendment 16 is the best way of delivering that as it would introduce a requirement for legislation in Scotland that does not exist elsewhere in the UK. That risks creating an uneven playing field that may unintentionally undermine genuine collaboration.

I believe that the development of a UK-wide common framework is still the most appropriate way to achieve the important intent behind the amendment. The apparent lack of progress on that front is incredibly worrying.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will provide an update on the progress of common framework negotiations and give a clear guarantee that it is not the Government’s intention to use the regulation-making powers to create any unnecessary and harmful divergence from the rest of the UK market.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

Amendment 16 seeks to restrict the power to make regulations under section 8, which is on marketing standards. It is remarkably similar to an amendment that the REC Committee voted against at stage 2, which had been lodged by one of the Conservative members. I am not sure why the Conservatives want to push the issue again. In fact, I am not sure why the Scottish Tories do not want to protect marketing standards and the high-quality standards in food production and processing in Scotland, and in turn protect Scottish farmers and food producers.

Standards matter, and high standards matter. I have raised that issue many times: in the debating chamber, in committee work and, last week, at an online event where experts Joe Stanley and Colin Ferguson put forward their case for why standards matter.

I am concerned, given that the current UK Trade Bill looks to open up the UK food supply chain and the UK market to products that are produced and processed using increased levels of antibiotics, leading to antimicrobial resistance; given the use of hormones, not just in beef cattle but in pigs and dairy kye as well; and given the recent deregulation of the USA’s chicken processing.

Oliver Mundell

Will the member take an intervention?

Emma Harper

I will, if Oliver Mundell can tell me that he is content to eat chicken that has had avian leukosis tumours cut off it that remain in the UK food supply chain.

Oliver Mundell

The member makes completely fictitious points that seek to doom-monger and cause unnecessary fear, and which are irresponsible. They expose the fact that this Government has nothing good to say about its own plans for farmers.

Does Emma Harper agree that being able to sell our produce—our high-standard Scottish produce, of which we are proud—to the rest of the UK is vital for Scottish farmers? Will she oppose the wholesale adoption of EU regulations that might prevent Scottish farmers from being able to sell their produce?

Emma Harper

I want to protect and promote the provenance of our produce in Scotland. That is crucial for us.

The US Food and Drug Administration also has a handbook on the acceptable level of defects in food. The Conservatives laughed at me when I spoke about rat poo previously, and I will not dwell on that today. However, the NFU has said that marketing standards are better dealt with by common frameworks than by primary legislation.

Amendment 16 seeks to restrict the Scottish Government’s powers to protect its own marketing standards. Why would we want to relinquish powers to the UK Government? I will vote against the amendment, and I encourage members to do the same.

Fergus Ewing

It is disappointing that, despite being roundly defeated on a similar amendment at stage 2 by members of every other party, the Tories have brought this issue back again. I again make it clear that this Government is committed to doing its very best for Scotland’s rural economy, and I will avoid any changes to marketing standards that would cause problems for Scottish businesses trading with the rest of the UK and beyond, or which would impact on the protection that the standards provide for consumers.

Mr Mundell did not mention any of the following, because in speaking to the amendment he did not cover any of the points in it whatsoever. Nonetheless, if one reads the amendment, one can see that it seeks compatibility with corresponding provisions in equivalent UK legislation, yet its central premise goes completely against that principle.

The UK Agriculture Bill sets up three separate regimes for marketing standards in the rest of the UK, and this Scottish bill completes the picture by establishing a similar regime in Scotland. The UK bill does not impose on any of the other Administrations restrictions that are similar to those in amendment 16. Although he did not make them in substance, if Mr Mundell’s arguments were correct, the UK Government would have imposed those restrictions on the other devolved Administrations to prevent them from doing what Mr Mundell is afraid of.

The amendment is completely unnecessary, because his argument is, in every way, flawed. Amendment 16 would result in the unwelcome situation in which the Scottish Government’s powers would be different from those elsewhere in the UK. Arguably, it would make it harder for our farmers and food producers to trade across the UK than at present. Every other Administration will have freedom to act; under the Tories’ amendment 16, only Scotland would be restricted, despite the matter being devolved.

With regard to trade at the moment, farmers and crofters are worried about a free pass for importation from other countries of, for example, beef that is not produced to the same exacting and—correctly—high standards that we have here. Michael Gove said that that issue would be dealt with in legislation, in the form of a trade bill. That promise, which Mr Gove made to me at a ministerial meeting, has not been fulfilled. The real issue is the importation of cheap food produce undermining Scottish and British producers. What a shame that the Tories refuse to address the real issues.

The Presiding Officer

I call Oliver Mundell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 16.

Oliver Mundell

I will not take lectures from the cabinet secretary on addressing the real issues, when, every time he comes to the chamber, rather than setting out his plans for Scottish farmers, he seeks simply to air his tired old grievances about the UK Government. Let us be clear: if we are going to talk about low-standard produce, the only thing that Scottish farmers have to fear is the suboptimal chicken that is sitting in the cabinet secretary’s chair, refusing to take the big decisions that will allow our farmers to take advantage of the opportunities—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Order! I am sorry, but in that case, the member used a metaphor, not a personal insult.

The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills (John Swinney)

We will remember that.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Swinney; your comment is noted.

Oliver Mundell

I thank the Presiding Officer for that ruling. I will get back to the substance of the amendment.

John Swinney

We will remember that when it is appropriate to use it against you.

Oliver Mundell

Presiding Officer, I enjoy the fact that the SNP members always shout from their seats when they are unhappy, yet when it comes to standing up and saying something positive about farming, they are found wanting.

Amendment 16 is important, because it makes the case for continuing frictionless trade between Scotland and our most important market. Farmers will see past the politicised nonsense and recognise that the most important thing is being able to sell their own produce at market.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. [Interruption.] I recognise that the argument is heated; let us not get overly personal. Mr Mundell’s comment was borderline, but it was part of the debate. [Interruption.]

If Mr Swinney had been present throughout the rest of the debate—

John Swinney

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not regularly raise points of order, but the comment that Mr Mundell made was inappropriate in a parliamentary context. I look to you to establish what is acceptable and unacceptable; as a long-serving member of this institution, I fear that that type of comment is well below what is acceptable and leads to a lowering of standards in the national Parliament of Scotland.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. I am acutely aware of comments that fly back and forth across the chamber; I listen out for them all the time. When arguments are heated—today’s has been a passionate but, for the most part, good-natured and good-humoured debate—there is some leeway. I suggest that Mr Mundell’s remark was nothing like as personal as some of the remarks that are exchanged, for example, at First Minister’s question time. I try to let debate go on as much as possible. I recognise that members are passionate about what they believe in. Occasionally, they overstate their case, but I allow that, because I allow them to be passionate; that is a good thing. In this case, I accept that the comment was borderline, but I thought that, in the nature of the debate, it was acceptable.

I hope that that discussion has allowed members the chance to open their voting app, and that their screen shows the text “Vote not open”. I ask that anyone who does not see that to raise their hand. Very good. We now move to the vote.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer

Can we have that after the vote, if that is okay, Ms Ewing?

Annabelle Ewing

But I cannot vote.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Annabelle Ewing

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to vote. I would have voted no, not least because of the language that Mr Mundell used against my brother in calling him a suboptimal chlorinated chicken. My 12-year-old niece would be hugely unimpressed with Mr Mundell.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. The point is noted, and the member’s comments about how she voted are on the record.

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that Ms Ewing’s vote did not affect the overall balance of the vote. However, members have not been able to cast their vote and follow our democratic process at yesterday’s stage 3 and at today’s stage 3 because of technical issues. Surely in any stage 3, irrespective of whether the result is clear, every vote should be logged, registered and counted.

I seek your reassurance that, if a member cannot vote, the vote will be aborted and rerun. Surely that is the right thing to do for stage 3. The vote on amendment 16 was not narrow, but we will get to votes at stage 3 in which one or two votes will decide on legislation. Surely it is unacceptable not to have all members’ votes cast and counted.

The Presiding Officer

I recognise that point. We have discussed the issue at length in the Parliamentary Bureau and in the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The member is right that all votes count, and it is important that members have the right to vote and the confidence that they can rely on the voting system.

I assure the member that the voting system is working, that it is robust and that every member’s vote has been accounted for. There have been occasions—one yesterday, one this morning and perhaps a second earlier—where there have been issues. In that situation, it is always the member’s right to draw attention to the fact. It is then the chair’s decision whether to rerun the vote. In this case, it was very important for Ms Ewing to get her vote on the record, as I believe Mr Doris or another member did yesterday.

Rachael Hamilton

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not have confidence that my vote was cast, because the screen is exactly the same as it was when I trying to vote. In the past, the screen has cleared, which indicates that the vote is closed.

The Presiding Officer

It is a very new voting system, and there is no doubt that we are all coming to terms with it. There is an issue, which is our lack of familiarity with the system. That is why we are pausing before votes and letting the voting time run for longer. I assure members that we are monitoring every member who is logged on to the system and whether every member has voted.

It might be that some members have not voted. If I was to think for one second that that would alter the outcome of a vote, I assure members that the vote would not stand and it would be rerun. So far today, all the votes have been accounted for, so it is not the case that members’ votes have not counted. In fact, we have been voting in far larger numbers than normal. More than 120 members are voting all the time.

Although there is some anxiety, I ask members to be patient and to trust that we are very much accounting for all members. We are ensuring that members in the chamber and on the system are using their votes. Every time a member’s vote is not recognised, we query that, chase it up and take note of it. I hope that members will accept that assurance.

Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I firmly believe that members have been extremely patient and that staff have been trying their level best to ensure that we adopt all the guidelines that have been issued.

This has been going on for five months. You have just described the process as robust. I could not disagree more—it is not robust. We are having constant problems when voting. The issue has been discussed at meetings of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and several times at meetings of the Parliamentary Bureau. At the moment, I am afraid that members do not have confidence in the system.

The Presiding Officer

I am not sure that that is the case. The system has been in place for only two weeks, not five months. Before the summer recess, we used reduced voting numbers following a political agreement. We then developed a system that clearly was not going to work, so we spent the summer developing another system.

That system is two weeks into operation. This is only the second day that we have used it to run a series of votes. Despite some of the technical difficulties that we experienced yesterday, I assure members that, so far, the system appears to be very reliable, robust and secure. There will be an opportunity not just for members to feed their views back but for the bureau and the corporate body to look at the system in detail. Given that we are working in a hybrid situation, because some members are not able to come to the Parliament—if we did not have a voting system, those members would be disadvantaged and disenfranchised—the system has huge advantages, and it has been approved by the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

It is clear that the system is working at the moment. All the evidence from this end shows that it is working. I appreciate that there is some frustration and a lack of familiarity with it, but I assure members that, so far, none of the votes should be questioned in any way. The names align with all the votes.

Richard Lyle

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I thank all the parliamentary staff. The only thing that I cannot do is shout “Yes”, “No” or whatever, virtually, from my house. We should thank every member of staff, because I think that the system is brilliant. They have done an excellent job. That is my personal view.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you very much for that point of order.

I suggest that we move back to the stage 3 proceedings, because we are running slightly behind time.

Section 10—Carcass classification

Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

We have lost some time, so I ask Graeme Dey to move a motion without notice under rule 9.8.5A to extend the time available for amendments by 30 minutes. The business managers have consulted on the issue, and the suggestion is that we extend the time by 30 minutes.

The Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans (Graeme Dey)

Before I do so, Presiding Officer, to be clear, the business managers are looking to curtail the debate on the bill, to bring back some of the time for the benefit of members.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time available for amendments be extended by 30 minutes.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Section 16—Purposes for which information may be required and processed

The Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on the purposes for which information may be required or processed. Amendment 22, in the name of Maureen Watt, is grouped with amendments 23 and 24.

Maureen Watt

I thank Colin Smyth for raising the important issue of food security at stage 2. Given the ever-increasing challenges that our society is facing, the need for an accessible and affordable food supply is becoming more acute. Colin Smyth’s stage 2 amendment was too imprecise, so I welcome the fact that he allowed us all more time to think about what might be useful in that regard.

Amendment 22 seeks to achieve precision and to create greater alignment with the provisions in clause 17 of the UK Agriculture Bill, which requires the UK Secretary of State to provide a report on food security in the UK every five years and states what that report might cover. We will now be able to feed into that process any Scotland-specific data on a similar topic, should we wish to do so.

I note, too, that the cabinet secretary has helpfully set out in writing that there are existing powers to collect data on food safety and consumer confidence. I welcome the fact that he will now discuss with ministerial colleagues how we go about using all the data collection powers that are available to get a full picture of all the issues relating to food security.

Amendment 22 will extend the list of permissible purposes for which information may be required or processed under part 2 of the bill to include

“monitoring or analysing supply sources for food”

and/or

“household expenditure on food”.

Given that the proposed provision is more specific than the term “food security”, I think that it provides the clarity that we need about exactly what data can be collected, while still ensuring that the powers cover key areas of concern.

It is important to make it clear that amendment 22 would not require consumers to tell the Government anything, as the provision is restricted by clause 13(3) of the UK bill. However, the information that we need could be collected from other persons in or closely connected with the agrifood supply chain.

On amendments 23 and 24, I am happy to listen to Colin Smyth and other members, and will give my views when summing up.

I move amendment 22.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 23, in my name, allows for the collection of data for the purposes of preparing the national food plan, and amendment 24 provides a brief definition that broadly clarifies what such a plan should cover.

A national food plan could serve a range of roles by bringing together various elements of food policy into a single cohesive strategy and introducing targets and monitoring mechanisms.

From extreme weather, to the challenges of Brexit and coronavirus, if recent years have taught us anything, it is that we need a more comprehensive strategic approach to food policy. A national food plan would have a key role to play in improving resilience and food security in Scotland, thereby ensuring that we are equipped to withstand a crisis. The Government recently dropped the good food nation bill, which means that such resilience and security have become more important than ever before. The good food nation bill would have made an invaluable contribution at this time, and I very much hope that it will be on the legislative programme early in the next parliamentary session.

During stage 1 of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, I made a plea that we look at what legislation was passing through the Parliament to determine whether the bill could be expanded to incorporate key elements of the good food nation bill. However, I accept that it became clear that the Government did not have an appetite for such an approach, so I have not sought to take that approach during stages 2 and 3. My amendments today are strictly within the scope of the bill, and do not attempt to replace the good food nation legislation. However, my amendments lay some groundwork and support existing Government commitments on those issues.

Amendments 23 and 24 serve two purposes. The first is to put down a marker for the need for an ambitious national food plan in the future. I appreciate that the Scottish Government has now committed to publishing a non-statutory food policy, and I absolutely welcome that commitment, particularly given the delays to the good food nation bill. I look forward to seeing what is produced. However, I do not agree with the argument that that means that there is no need for a robust statutory national food plan further down the line. Indeed, the Government has itself made it clear that it believes that such a plan should be statutory. My amendments help to deliver that.

The second purpose of my amendments is a practical one. Amendment 23 simply allows data to be collected for the purpose of preparing a future national food plan. A huge amount of data that would be needed for a national food plan is not currently collected, such as data on food and feed imports and food price differentials between areas. If we want to have a national food plan, or indeed if we just want to keep that option open, we need to be able to collect the necessary data from across Government to inform that. That is what amendment 23 allows.

I will support amendment 22 from Maureen Watt, which is coincidentally very similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 but did not move, at the request of the cabinet secretary, when I made it clear that I was happy to work with the Government on a way forward. Unfortunately, the cabinet secretary did not take me up on the offer.

However, amid the sudden barrage of documents from the Government on the issue in recent days, after I had lodged my amendments for this stage, the cabinet secretary said that he would lodge amendments on the issue—coincidentally, after the Government had been sent a draft of my amendment. The fact that amendment 22 was lodged by one of the cabinet secretary’s back benchers suggests that the Government missed a deadline for its own amendments, so it may have been a bit of an afterthought.

The issue of food poverty and food insecurity shames Scotland. Taking every action possible to tackle it should be a priority for the Parliament. Proper monitoring of both food supply and expenditure can provide us with a better understanding of the nature and extent of the issue, which will be invaluable in developing a policy to address it. That is exactly what my amendments seek to do.

Oliver Mundell

We will be supporting the amendments in this group. We believe that, in the absence of Scottish Government legislation, they will provide and allow for important data to be gathered and used to benefit both the industry and public health. As other members have said, we have seen in recent months just how important food security is. My colleagues, most notably Brian Whittle, never tire of pushing the importance of local procurement of food in the public sector.

The Parliament still has much work to do on those issues, and the amendments in this group can only help to inform and encourage this debate.

Fergus Ewing

The recent Covid crisis demonstrates the critical role that farmers, crofters and everyone in the food industry plays, and we should all thank them for their work during lockdown to keep Scotland fed. Food security and insecurity are key issues for society, and Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic highlight the importance of an adequate, affordable and accessible food supply for all.

I thank Mr Smyth for agreeing not to move his stage 2 amendment to allow further consideration of this issue. I welcome Maureen Watt’s amendment 22, which augments and improves the data collection powers in part 2, as she has set out.

I want to highlight why we have not replicated clause 17(2)(e) of the UK Agriculture Bill, which covers

“food safety and consumer confidence in food.”

It is because similar powers already exist in Scots law, under the Food (Scotland) Act 2015. Members will have seen an exchange of correspondence on the matter between me, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing and the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government. We are agreed that it would not be sensible to try and cut across the existing powers.

I hope that members will also note that we intend to work together across Government to consider how we might use all our available powers and resources to gather data on all aspects of food security so as to help inform future policy development.

Richard Lyle

Can the cabinet secretary advise whether, once the ministerial group has developed a statement on food policy, stakeholders will be consulted and Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment?

Fergus Ewing

Yes, I am happy to give the assurance that there will of course be parliamentary involvement at the appropriate time, as there always is. I am happy that Mr Lyle has enabled that to be clarified.

I am grateful to Mr Smyth for initiating this activity with his stage 2 amendment. However, I cannot support amendments 23 and 24, for three key reasons.

First, we cannot pass measures in this bill to make up for the fact that, because of Brexit, we did not have parliamentary time to deliver the good food nation bill. Secondly, we have not debated or considered any evidence on a national food plan, either at stage 1 or stage 2 of this bill. Mr Rumbles has repeatedly made the point that we should not be debating at stage 3 or indeed stage 2 new and important matters of principle when we have not had proper input and consultation from stakeholders. It is a point of principle about the procedures in this place and, maybe because Mr Rumbles and I are both long in the tooth, if he does not mind me saying that in his absence, we both think that those principles should be adhered to. Bringing in important new issues at stage 3 is not sensible and it carries with it the risk of legislating in haste and repenting later at leisure.

However, I have acted to deliver one of the measures that were contemplated for the good food nation bill, which is to develop and publish a statement of policy on food. The Government is absolutely committed to achieving our vision of Scotland as a good food nation, where everyone has ready access to the healthy and nutritious food that they need. The decision to pause the good food nation bill was not one that I took lightly but, because of Brexit, there was simply not enough parliamentary time. That is the reality.

At stage 2, I offered to consider what more we might do to give effect to the core premise of the good food nation bill, to develop a statement of policy on food. Last week, I announced that the ministerial task force on food will now reconvene, with the involvement of a number of cabinet secretaries and ministers from across Government, to develop and publish such a statement. I am happy to give a further undertaking today that, as part of that work, we will include consideration of the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) that amendment 24 would insert in section 16(5).

In light of all that, I invite Colin Smyth not to move amendments 23 and 24. Should he do so, I encourage members to vote against them.

Maureen Watt

I welcome members’ support for amendment 22, and I am pleased that we have been able to influence the bill positively. Amendments 23 and 24, however, would take us beyond the principal aims of part 2 of the bill.

I was also disappointed when the good food nation bill had to be shelved earlier this year. However, with responding to the Covid-19 crisis and making preparations for the end of the Brexit transition period to contend with, I accept that many things had to be dropped from Parliament’s legislative timetable.

As other members have said, we cannot insert such elements into this bill. Amendments 23 and 24 simply do not work. There is no national food plan. There is not even a plan for such a plan. There was no intention to provide for such a thing in the draft good food nation bill, nor have we heard any evidence about it. We cannot shoehorn in such commitments to the final stages of a bill that is effectively about a discrete set of issues that are specific to agriculture. Moreover, the cabinet secretary indicated at stage 2 that he would take away the matter to see what might be done to act on the legislative intentions in the bill. I therefore welcome that. Rather than waiting for the opportunity to legislate for a statement on food policy, the Scottish ministers are simply getting on with the task of developing one, as was set out in the answer to last week’s Government-inspired question. That is a better way forward and I will not support Colin Smyth’s amendments 23 and 24. I urge members to support amendment 22 in my name.

The Presiding Officer

Before I move to the question on amendment 22, in this case I ask all members, including those who are attending online, to refresh the voting app. They should not just open the page; they should refresh the app. You can either pull the screen down or press the refresh button, which is a little arrow in the top right-hand corner on the web browser. Members who are attending online should also refresh their app and not just open it. There should be a little circular arrow in the top right hand corner; you should press that. In some screens, you can pull the screen down and let it go back up again.

Before we come to the vote, I check again: if you do not have open the page which says “Vote not open”, put up your hand to attract attention.

Thank you. I ask you again to verify that you have the page that says “Vote not open”. We move to the vote on Maureen Watt’s amendment.

The question is, that amendment 22—[Interruption.] We will wait for Ms Grahame.

Thank you, colleagues.

The question is, that amendment 22, in the name of Maureen Watt, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

Are we agreed?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

We are agreed. [Laughter.]

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Colin Smyth.]

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 57, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.

Amendment 24 not moved.

After section 20

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on the requirement for a new Scottish agricultural policy. Amendment 19, in the name of Oliver Mundell, is the only amendment in the group.

Oliver Mundell

As NFU Scotland states in its briefing, amendment 19

“is an important inclusion which, whilst not requiring the implementation of any new policy, would ensure appropriate reporting mechanisms on the projected implementation of that new policy at such a time that it is deemed appropriate and deliverable.”

I have set the last date for doing so as 31 December 2024, and I sincerely hope, for the sake of Scottish agriculture, that it is possible for the Government to set out clearly the future policy direction by then.

Amendment 19 provides an important safeguard, holds ministers’ feet to the fire and puts this Parliament at the heart of the process. I hope that members will support it, because if providing stability and simplicity is to be a meaningful aspiration, the Government and the cabinet secretary must be able to provide a clear sense of direction and a definitive timeline for any changes that are coming.

Farming is a long-term industry, and in this moment of significant change and opportunity we can ill afford to make the big decisions behind closed doors and put off sharing that information with farmers.

I move amendment 19.

John Finnie

I have found myself today in the unusual position of sharing the same voting intentions as Mr Mundell. I commended him in the debate on the very first amendment this afternoon—amendment 21, on the objectives of secondary legislation—when he was very happy to see workers’ rights respected. Sadly, that is not replicated in his interests when it comes to amendment 19.

In the debate on Mr Chapman’s amendment 1, I said that I am not a fan of reports. On-going scrutiny is what is important. I note that Mr Mundell wants to know about productivity and profitability, but, as I said, improving the conditions of workers in the sector has been dropped, so for that reason we will not support amendment 19.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I declare an interest in that I am in a family farming partnership. I have been farming for more than 40 years, and I have been giving advice to farmers for a similar period.

I have followed the bill during its progress through the Parliament, not just as a member but as the convener of the REC Committee. I watched it go through stages 1 and 2—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, it is difficult to talk when members are talking and not listening. If they do not want to listen to me, may I ask for silence, please?

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Mountain. Order at the back of the chamber, please.

Edward Mountain

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Farmers need some process, which is what the bill is about—I have accepted what the cabinet secretary said about the bill being about process. Farmers also need policy if they are to be able to deliver on all the requirements that the Government has of them.

At stage 2, some good amendments were lodged not only by members of my party—members would expect me to say that—but by Colin Smyth for the Labour Party and by John Finnie for the Green Party. They were all defeated by an SNP and Lib Dem alliance. That unholy alliance was negotiated by Mr Rumbles so that he could get his proposed sunset clause through. That was all that he wanted. It was a little bizarre, if I might say so, because if he had bothered to speak to the other members of the committee he would have been able to get a sunset clause agreed to that met the requirements of all the other parties and that might have got the support of the cabinet secretary.

We have seen that alliance continue during stage 3, which means that amendment 19 will probably be defeated. That would be a huge mistake, because farmers need to know where they are going. They need to see a cabinet secretary, whoever it is, come before the Parliament and lay down a policy that they can see and follow in the future. Amendment 19 would get the Government to agree a timescale in that regard.

Farmers need amendment 19, the Parliament needs it and Scotland needs it. To vote against it would be an act of vandalism. Therefore, I urge members of all parties to support the farmers who have supported them so well and so diligently over the past six months and for many years before that.

Colin Smyth

Labour will support amendment 19. The development of not just an agricultural but a rural support system over the next few years is an urgent priority for the Government, and farmers, crofters and growers in rural communities across Scotland are desperate for clarity on what lies ahead. A requirement to report on progress will provide for accountability and ensure that the Government sticks to the proposed timescales and develops such a policy.

Like John Finnie, I would have liked the report that is proposed in amendment 19 to have had more content. However, it would be better than no report at all. Amendment 19 proposes an extremely generous timeframe and makes no unreasonable demands; it would simply guarantee in law a process of scrutiny and accountability that we would expect anyway and that should be underpinned in law. I am happy to support amendment 19.

Fergus Ewing

During stage 1, I set out how I update the Parliament regularly on the steps that are being taken to develop future policy on farming and food production. Most committees accepted my explanation. Indeed, the REC Committee said in its stage 1 report:

“the Committee is satisfied that there is no need for a statutory requirement on periodic reporting to the Parliament to be included in the Bill.”

At stage 2, I made a similar commitment to keep the Parliament updated, in response to amendments in Rachael Hamilton’s name.

However, I am aware that some members and stakeholders would welcome more certainty around the process for establishing new policy proposals for rural support beyond 2024. Until then, the paper “Stability and simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period” provides exactly what its title says—stability and simplicity for farmers and crofters—and, broadly speaking, is welcomed across those communities.

Although I have some concerns about the binding and specific nature of the requirements in relation to the contents of the report for which amendment 19 makes provision, and although I have some sympathy with Mr Finnie’s points about what the report is not asked to cover, on balance I can support amendment 19 in the spirit of co-operation for which I hope that I am renowned. I encourage members to support amendment 19.

Oliver Mundell

Given that unexpected support, I will press amendment 19 and simply sit back down.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Abstentions

White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 114, Against 6, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

After section 22

The Presiding Officer

Our last group is group 8, on Crown application. Amendment 20, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.

Fergus Ewing

Amendment 20 is a technical amendment that inserts a new section into the bill on Crown application.

The provisions in the bill, including any offences created under sections 8 or 10, will by default bind the Crown. However, it is a matter of general policy that the Crown should not be liable to prosecution for committing any such criminal offence. Instead, any non-compliance by the Crown is to be enforced through the civil courts.

Accordingly, amendment 20 inserts a standard provision that exempts the Crown—excluding persons in the service of the Crown—from being held criminally liable for any non-compliance with a regulatory provision made using the powers in this bill. As an alternative means of enforcement, it provides for the Lord Advocate to apply to the Court of Session for a declaration that the Crown has acted, or failed to act, in a way that is unlawful.

I urge members to vote for this technical amendment.

I move amendment 20.

John Finnie

The cabinet secretary describes this as a technical amendment that is standard practice. Let us be quite clear about what proposed new subsection (1) says. It says that

“Nothing in or under this Act makes the Crown criminally liable.”

The reality is that any individual or body that acts in a criminal way should face the consequences. If this amendment were to pass, the Crown will join 18 other groups or organisations that have been given immunity since 2009, including European Union military staff, the European Police College and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation. I ask the cabinet secretary—noting his comments about stage 3—whether the Scottish Government was approached by the Crown seeking criminal immunity, or whether he consulted the Crown on this.

The Presiding Officer

No other member has indicated that they wish to contribute, and the cabinet secretary is indicating that he does not wish to make any concluding remarks, so we will move straight to the vote.

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

I will just double-check that members have the voting app open again and that the page says, “No vote is currently open”. We will wait for a few seconds for that to happen. If it does not happen in the next 15 seconds—[Interruption.] I am being advised to remind members that voting is not open yet. Members should not have to refresh their screens—just open the app and then wait about 10 seconds. Do not refresh—just open the app, which should show a page that says, “No vote is currently open”. If any member does not have that page, they should raise their hand. We are just waiting for one member who is online.

I thank members. We are all ready to go now. Voting on amendment 20 will open now. This will be a one-minute division. [Interruption.]

I apologise to members. I am afraid that that attempt stopped mid-vote, so we will have to rerun the vote. That was not the fault of members—it was us. There will be a short pause while we reset the vote.

I again ask members to ensure that their voting app is kept on. We are about to run the vote again. Does everyone have a page that says, “No vote is currently open”?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

Good. In that case, we will run the vote again. The vote is on amendment 20, which is in the name of the cabinet secretary. Members may vote now. This will be a one-minute division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 115, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That ends consideration of amendments—thank you for your time and understanding.

As members will be aware, at this stage in the proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision in the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system or the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. As the bill does no such thing, it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

I have checked with business managers, and all the main speakers want to press on with the stage 3 debate. There will be a short pause before we do so. Decision time will be 45 minutes after we start the debate.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-22514, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.

I call the cabinet secretary to signify Crown consent to the bill and to open the debate.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing)

I am delighted to present the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill to Parliament for its stage 3 debate. First, I will deal with an important formality.

As members know, it is a requirement of standing orders that I signify Crown consent to the bill, when that is needed. Therefore, for the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

I thank farmers and crofters for the work that they do for Scotland, especially during this Covid pandemic, when they are working so hard to ensure that there is food on the table. I want to make it clear that this Government is committed to continuing to support them in the production of high-quality food, as custodians of the countryside and as pillars of our rural and island communities. That is why it has been my determination to ensure that support payments are received by farmers and crofters as quickly as possible, so I confirm today that the first of our loan-payment runs this year has been completed. It will see 11,885 farmers receive £296 million on Tuesday 1 September.

Scotland was the first United Kingdom paying agency to make advance payments again this year, and those payments will reach the bank accounts of farmers in Scotland a full three months ahead of payments to farmers in England. That is very important, because it means that at a time of real financial pressure in the rural community, that money will be used and circulated to make payments to other leading businesses in rural Scotland.

My aim for the bill is set out in the “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period” consultation. It is that it should provide farmers, crofters and land managers with as much certainty as possible in the current climate, while we develop our longer-term rural policy, which will apply beyond 2024. It is a technical bill about mechanisms and process rather than about policy change. Indeed, at stage 1, I said that it was

“a tool in the box—a spanner that enables us to do a specific task”—[Official Report, 5 May 2020; c 77.]

We need the powers in part 1 of the bill to allow the common agricultural policy schemes to be rolled over into retained European Union law to continue beyond the end of this year. I can confirm that we will use the powers in the bill to ensure that the CAP schemes will continue in 2021.

However, the measures in part 1 will also enable us to modify existing CAP schemes and rules by making appropriate simplifications and improvements to meet our needs and interests. There are some simplifications and improvements that I want to introduce next year; regulations will need to be laid and passed before the end of this year to achieve that.

I have listened and have given undertakings to consult and engage stakeholders and Parliament, as I would always do and have always done, and I have accepted the compromise of the each-way procedure applying to the use of the key powers in sections 2, 5 and 6. I am grateful to Mr Rennie for moving the appropriate amendment, to Mr Rumbles for moving the amendment on the sunset clause, and to both for the constructive roles that they have played throughout the passage of the bill.

The provisions in part 2 are also technical in nature; they update existing powers for the collection of agricultural and agrifood supply-chain data, making those more transparent and clearly linked to the principles of the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

The bill was not intended to change or to formulate future substantive policy on farming and food production beyond 2024. That work is under way through a different process, as we have heard today, and I expect to receive, in the relatively near future, a report from the farming and food production future policy group.

However, we need this technical bill—

Members rose.

Fergus Ewing

I will not take an intervention because I am approaching the close of my speech in order to try to curtail these proceedings, which have lasted quite some time, as we have been debating again matters that we debated extensively at stage 2.

We need this technical bill to be passed in order to allow CAP support to continue, and to provide farmers, crofters and land managers with as much certainty and stability as possible. The bill is fundamentally about them and for them.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank members, including those on the front benches, who have allowed their timings to be truncated, and those who have withdrawn from the debate to allow it to finish at a reasonable time.

Oliver Mundell (Dumfriesshire) (Con)

Agriculture is the beating heart of our rural economy and we must never tire of promoting farming as a good, in and of itself. To break or weaken the connection between farming and our rural communities is to accept as inevitable rural depopulation and a managed decline in our countryside.

In that context, farm and rural support payments remain central to the future not only of Scottish agriculture but of rural Scotland. It is disappointing, as we enter the final stage of this legislative process, that the bill does little better than scrape over the low technical bar that was set for it.

It is doubly disappointing that that is combined with the fact that we have not yet seen the future policy group’s report, which I feel today joins a long list of missed opportunities for the Scottish National Party Government to chart a course for rural Scotland. Fortunately though, for the cabinet secretary, the clock is ticking and we agree that the bill must be supported—but not without some regret.

We think that the bill and the cabinet secretary fail to recognise that policy and process are often linked, which is why we have heard heated discussion about some amendments today. Rather than enabling ministers to take key decisions later, we could have been setting a clearer direction of travel and giving our farmers the stability and security that they are looking for.

At stage 3, Parliament and the many voices that it represents should have been considering matters through the prism of the report of the farming and food production future policy group. I will give up some of my speaking time if the cabinet secretary can give a firmer indication of when we expect to see that long-awaited report.

I do not think that there will be an intervention.

Without that report, we are left with little choice but to hand powers to ministers to kick the can a little further down the road. I hope that they have the energy and commitment to use those powers well. For example, as I said during the stage 3 debates on amendments, we share the fear of farmers that a future SNP Government might well siphon money out of the rural budget to support other projects.

Farmers deserve clarity on what any capping of individual payments would look like. Like NFU Scotland, we are absolutely crystal clear that any funds that are saved through capping must remain within the agriculture portfolio. I would welcome the cabinet secretary standing up and making that guarantee, rather than twisting my words, because that guarantee is sadly lacking.

To use the new powers to cut back on rural funding would represent an unforgivable betrayal of our rural communities. It is alarming that the SNP Government was not able to support Peter Chapman.

It is fast becoming clear that, rather than the manufactured grievance of a UK power grab, the biggest risk of Brexit is an SNP budget grab that would mean that Scottish farmers would be the losers.

The power to set a ceiling on individual payments dispels another myth that we hear too often in the chamber. That is just one example of the many serious decision-making powers that are returning to Scotland from Brussels. Indeed, the very need for the bill in the first place should confirm that we are getting a power surge.

There is nowhere left to hide. The big choices and the big decisions that lie ahead will be taken in Scotland. It does a disservice to the Scottish Government for it to suggest otherwise.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Colin Smyth to open for Labour.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

There is probably more that could be said about what the bill fails to do and should have done than there is to say about what it does. Labour will support it, and I welcome the fact that it provides certainty on agricultural payments in the short term, but it is deeply disappointing that the SNP, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, has gone out of its way to ensure that the bill and the debate have focused on little more than that.

Every piece of legislation that goes through the Parliament is an opportunity to change things for the better, but the aim of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats appears to have been to try to avoid changing very much. That is particularly frustrating when the pressure on parliamentary time means that many important pieces of legislation, from the good food nation bill to the crofting bill, have been dropped.

I appreciate that the purpose of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill is to provide continuity, but that should not have come at the expense of using the bill to give direction on the important but largely ignored powers that it provides—namely, powers to allow changes to be made to existing payment schemes.

The Scottish Government has committed to introducing an entirely new system of agricultural and rural support to replace the common agricultural policy by 2024. It remains to be seen whether that will happen. That will be an opportunity to make some much-needed improvements to how support is allocated and to what that support delivers, but it will be a significant change for the sector. It is critical that the four short years between now and then are used to lay the groundwork for that change and help the sector to prepare. However, within and outwith the bill, the Government has refused to set out its plans in any meaningful way for the transition period, let alone its vision for what will follow after that.

In the absence of any clarity or leadership from the Government, Opposition parties, with the support of a range of stakeholders, sought to provide in the bill some policy direction for the next four years, but that was ignored. We urgently need to see a different, more constructive and more ambitious approach from the Government if we are to build a consensus on the future of agricultural and rural support.

Time and again, we have come to the chamber and asked the Government to set out its plans, even in the most high-level terms, but it has failed to do so. The cabinet secretary has justified that by eventually establishing the farming and food production future policy group and insisting that any hint of leadership whatsoever from the Government would undermine the group’s work.

That is not to dismiss the group’s vital work—its expertise and insight are invaluable and should be at the heart of any policy making in the future. The problem is that, for the cabinet secretary, setting up such groups seems to be his only answer, and now the publication of the long-awaited report has been postponed. Meanwhile, across Scotland, farmers and crofters are waiting for information on what could be the most drastic overhaul of support for decades, unable to prepare or plan.

The sector faces ambitious targets in 2030 for both productivity and carbon reduction but it remains reliant on a support system that fails to properly support either. The message that I get from the sector over and over again is that it is ready and willing to change but is being held back by a support system that is not fit for purpose and is unsure whether, when or how that system will be changed.

Whatever the details of the new system, it is likely to be—and indeed should be—a significant change from the CAP. A new agricultural support system has the potential to deliver a huge range of benefits in addition to those already provided by the CAP. It can do more to support our environment, our economy and our rural communities, and it can distribute funding more equitably. There is broad consensus on the way forward and on the need for a support system that better incentivises sustainability and innovation, delivering clear public good for public money.

Although that will be to the sector’s advantage in the long run, it is bound to require significant adjustment, and the only way to minimise disruption is to allow preparations to begin as far in advance as possible, ensuring a smooth transition. Back in 2018, the Government made a commitment to introduce the new system in a short period of time. Two years later, we are no further forward on what the new system looks like but we are now just four years away from its implementation. A long-term sector such as agriculture needs advance planning, but that becomes increasingly difficult the more time it takes the Government to get its act together.

As we look to the future, I am optimistic that, whatever challenges the sector faces, it will do its best to meet them in the same way that it has met the challenge of the current Covid pandemic. However, ultimately, the bill will be remembered—if it is remembered at all—as a testament to the Government’s lack of ambition or imagination in relation to the future of agriculture. The Government has no vision for the future of agricultural support and seems in no rush to develop any, having even delayed the publication of the group’s report.

If the cabinet secretary spent half as much time developing that vision as he seems to have spent running around in the past 24 hours desperately trying to drum up support for his opposition to amendments that were lodged today, the sector would have had more of an idea about what the bill would mean for it in the next few years. The clock is ticking on the need to meet our climate change commitment and deliver a sustainable agricultural sector. The stakes are far too high for any more dithering. The sector needs clarity on what lies ahead, and it needs that clarity now.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Scottish Green Party will support the bill. The cabinet secretary describes it as technical—it is about mechanisms and process. The tension that is apparent in relation to what might seem a fairly innocuous piece of legislation is because expectations were built up that it would be much more. Those expectations were there because—but I see the cabinet secretary shrugging. He is well aware of the frustrations that exist about where we are going. We are facing a climate emergency and a nature emergency. The consensus that was built around the first amendment that was discussed today was an opportunity to at least do something, but there was no meaningful discussion regarding the important provisions in that amendment.

The bill gives powers to simplify and improve the operation of any part of the CAP. Millions of pounds are involved. Are they spent properly at the moment? Do they reflect the emergencies that we are facing at the moment? What discussion is there about how they will be spent in the future? It might not be the case that money will come out of the rural sector, as Mr Mundell said; there is a strong case for more money to go into the rural sector.

I have consistently congratulated the cabinet secretary on some of the things that happen in my region—the crofting house grant, for instance. Those are the things that should have featured in the bill if we were interested in sustaining communities. Sadly, the Lib Dems seem to be closely connected to the Scottish Government, including in relation to all that happened at stage 2.

Mention has been made of payments and reports and it is important to congratulate the rural payments and inspections division staff. I think that they have a fine system and they have done a fine job of late, and we get regular updates on that. We must move forward; we cannot go back to previous problems that have been resolved, and I certainly welcome the significant moneys that have gone into doing that.

We all want an efficient system, we know that the simplification task force recommended changes and we are all familiar with the groups that have been set up, such as the farming and food production future policy group.

The first four proposals covered by the first amendment discussed today were:

“(a) land management and food production ...

(b) supporting the transitions required to meet ... net-zero emissions target ...

(c) increasing the resilience of the agricultural sector”

and

“(d) encouraging innovation, productivity, profitability and resilience in agriculture”.

Tremendous work has taken place in Scotland during the pandemic on facilitating local food supply chains, which all the parties have been involved in, and resilience for island communities. The pandemic has shown how important those aspects are and it is important that we understand that food security is a huge issue, given the climate and nature emergencies. However, as many people have said, it is therefore unfortunate that the good food nation bill is not going ahead.

Delivering flourishing communities, improving working conditions within the sector and maintaining and enhancing animal welfare are all important, but there are huge frustrations that—sadly—we do not get rational debate on many matters in the chamber because we divide on constitutional lines. I do not know of anyone, including our colleagues on the Conservative side of the chamber, who want reduced animal welfare standards—I see agreement on that. We must be aware of unintended consequences. That is another point that could have been picked up for the debate in future.

Sadly, the bill has left a lot of people frustrated. Those who are not familiar with the parliamentary process will see its title and regard it as an opportunity or vehicle through which to prosecute their interests. There is much common ground and little division on the main issues, and there is a recognition that we need to keep coming back to the issue of the climate and nature emergencies.

If I heard him correctly, the cabinet secretary said that the bill is a technical mechanism and a process, but there are other mechanisms and processes. We must have a process to do more; it cannot simply be about payments. If we are going to have any future with regard to—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please conclude.

John Finnie

I beg your pardon?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I said, “Please conclude”, Mr Finnie. You have spoken for four minutes, which is your allocated time.

John Finnie

I was not told what time I had. I will leave it there. We will support the motion on the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. That is very kind. It is hard on members who have sat through the entire debate to hear that instruction, but there we go.

I call Willie Rennie to open for the Liberal Democrats. For the avoidance of doubt, he has four minutes.

Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

I, too, thank farmers and crofters for the work that they have done throughout the pandemic to put food on the table. While we were in lockdown, they were in the fields and on the hills. They deserve our appreciation.

The cabinet secretary referred to the constructive role of the Liberal Democrats and to Mike Rumbles’s role in particular. That approval surprised us, because it does not happen too often in the chamber. Certainly, I acknowledge the valuable contribution of Mike Rumbles, who did a great degree of work on the bill to ensure that there will be future policy on food and farming production. That work is on-going and we will watch it closely to make sure that it delivers.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The Liberals voted against nearly every amendment during stage 2, including an amendment to include a timescale for farming policy. I am bemused at Mr Rennie thanking Mr Rumbles for voting for it, when he clearly voted against it. Maybe that is the unholy alliance.

Willie Rennie

It is unhelpful on any occasion to talk about unholy alliances, particularly when people in different parties are trying to agree on what is valuable. Mike Rumbles made a significant contribution to the early part of the wider debate about future policy. It is right that, once we have set up a group of experts and advisers from different parts of society, we allow them to do their work, rather than try to second-guess them before they publish their work. That work will make a valuable contribution, and I thank Mike Rumbles for persuading the cabinet secretary to set up that group.

I also thank Oliver Mundell, Colin Smyth and Peter Chapman for their stage 3 amendments today. Although we did not support them, they helped to shape the debate in the chamber to allow for future discussion on creating a more rounded policy. I want a good food nation bill, and I want support for farmers to be protected; in fact, I want to see whether that support could also be enhanced. Most important, I want food and farming policy to be considered in the round and a mature policy to be developed. The amendments helped to focus minds, and I thank those members for that.

The bill is technical and it aims to make sure that farmers will continue to be paid in the interim. It should not have been necessary in the first place. We were told that leaving the European Union was going to make life easier. I do not think that this debate has been easy; it has plunged us into a great degree of uncertainty. The process was supposed to be less bureaucratic, yet we are just about to agree to another law and more regulations, and we will bring in negative and affirmative instruments as we progress. That will not make life easier. The claim that Brexit was to be good for our farmers and our future has fallen at the first stage.

I also thank the clerks and the members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for all their hard work on the bill.

It has been a testy afternoon. We have managed to explore many of the issues that are important to the future of our countryside, because the first and most important thing is to make sure that the food and farming sector, which makes a huge financial contribution to our country, is supported in every way possible. We should not lose sight of that as we debate technical matters.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

I am pleased that we are at the stage of the final speeches for the bill at last. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, it seems to me as though we have been considering the bill for many months—and we have, but we have to accept that much of the delay has been due to the pandemic disrupting the work of the Scottish Parliament.

The need for the bill is entirely a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, which was not supported by the people of Scotland at the time of the referendum and is still not supported now, given how much more we know about the disastrous effects that it will have on our economy, especially with Covid-19 and the economic crash on top of that.

During the debate and in the amendments to the bill, it has been interesting to see how the Tories have abandoned food production as the main activity of farming. The Scottish Government must prepare to take the necessary powers to continue to support our farmers and crofters. Interestingly, we have legislated for Brexit faster than the UK Government has done but, unfortunately, that has been at the expense of the inshore fisheries bill and the good food nation bill. Without that primary legislation, the Scottish ministers would not be able to simplify or improve retained EU law. The Scottish Government chose—rightly, in my view—not to take powers through the UK bill and not to recommend legislative consent, as there are concerns that it could impose unwanted policies and rules on Scottish farmers in areas of devolved competence. Agriculture is devolved and legislation for devolved policy is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

The current EU CAP schemes run from 2014 until only 2020. The bill gives the Scottish ministers the power to vary payment ceilings and financial provision in CAP schemes once they become domestic law. It allows for the continued operation of current CAP schemes and policies for a transition period up to 2024 if needed and allows those measures to be progressively improved and simplified. The bill is urgent because not only do we need it to be passed, we also need the secondary legislation that will fall under it to be in place by the end of the year so that we can continue to make payments to farmers. That means that time is critical.

Throughout the passage of the bill, NFU Scotland has supported the Scottish Government’s approach, in that the bill is focused on frameworks as opposed to policy. The NFUS agrees with the Scottish Government that the primary purpose of the bill is to enable a stability and simplicity approach, rather than enacting a future agricultural policy for Scotland.

The bill will also ensure that the Scottish Government has the ability to replicate changes that are made elsewhere in the UK, if that is what is best for Scotland. Those include avoidance of barriers to the movement and sale of goods within the UK after EU exit, and the adoption of UK-wide frameworks, which are beneficial in areas of pesticide regulation and animal health and welfare, as long as they are not imposed without our consent.

In closing, I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the very prompt distribution of farm payments, given the problems that we had with farm payments in the recent past. This bill is needed, and it is needed now. It is urgent, and I am pleased and relieved that it will pass this evening.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

I begin by thanking farmers and crofters for ensuring that our country is well fed and watered. They have played a significant part in keeping the UK’s food supply going. This bill should herald a new dawn, in which producers are appreciated and valued and receive their fair share in the supply chain. I also thank Scottish Land & Estates, Scottish Environment LINK, WWF, NFU Scotland and others for their input at all stages of the bill, as well as the committee clerks and the legislative team for their hard work.

The bill is important, and we will support its final passage today. It provides for the vital continuation of farm payments to Scottish farmers. We cannot overestimate the importance of agriculture. A staggering 70 per cent of land in Scotland is used for agriculture, and that is why we must respect farmers and crofters across Scotland who want clear direction.

We have a chance to ditch an outdated common agricultural policy system, which serves every country from the Arctic to the Mediterranean with impractical demands, such as the three-crop rule and unnecessary red tape. However, that requires a Government that is willing to embrace positive change and willing to invest in increasing efficiency, driving up productivity and helping farmers promote environmental—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry to interrupt, Ms Hamilton. In a very quiet chamber, we can hear everything that is being said at the back. It is very impolite to talk when the member is making a speech.

Rachael Hamilton

Shaping new policy that is informed by pilot schemes and trials will be key to determining the future direction of a system that is based on a principle of public good for public money. During the entire passage of the bill, there has been a lack of policy direction from the Scottish National Party Government. We have yet to see the farming and food production future policy group report, which was intended to be launched in June at the Royal Highland Show. Those with an interest in the future of farming are quite rightly concerned at the lack of detail. I ask the cabinet secretary not to leave Scotland behind.

Moving on to the amendments, I note that one of the saddest parts of stage 3 was that Mike Rumbles and the other Lib Dems had been courted by the SNP—there was a backroom deal for a sunset clause that jeopardised all the other amendments, and all for a cheap bottle of Chianti. Sadly, despite the Scottish Conservatives lodging an amendment with a purpose clause at stage 2, it was not agreed to. Today we missed an opportunity to strengthen the law, support farmers and take greater action on food security, nature and the climate.

There have been minor flaws in the bill, which I believe have still not been addressed. I fear that the bill lacks the consultation power, and it goes without saying that organisations such as the NFUS agree with my party and have been extremely vocal that agricultural stakeholders should have a say in reform. I am grateful that the SNP has agreed to lay before Parliament a report on progress towards a new Scottish agricultural policy.

It is also concerning that the Government could make drastic shifts in funding between the two pillars. The cabinet secretary has not provided enough of a guarantee that funds will stay in the agricultural portfolio. Ministers change, and promises are not kept. We need clarity from the Government.

I will finish where I started. Farming has a vital role to play in addressing climate change, driving productivity and making farming more efficient.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Claudia Beamish to close for Labour.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

The cabinet secretary’s approach seems to be no answers and no ambition. That complacency does not reflect this decade’s countdown to 2030, by which time we must have reduced our emissions by 75 per cent, along with making many other serious shifts that are needed in the agriculture and land use sector. This is the decade for heavy lifting. The Government needs to show us that the time between now and 2024, when the new support system is promised, is being well spent.

More detail must be given on the pilot schemes. What are their overarching aims? What will be their scope? How will they prepare farmers for the upcoming changes? When will those details be shared? We ask so many questions, but there are so few answers about that, let alone about a vision for the long-term CAP replacement scheme.

Labour shares the consensus that the system should work for the environment and climate and to bolster the productivity of the sector. Farmers, land managers and, importantly, agricultural workers are at the forefront of the challenge of climate change; they are tasked with mitigating the sector’s heavy emissions, while adapting practices and businesses to a new future. I see that as a positive shift, but it will take Government intervention, support and direction, for which we wait and wait. In the view of Scottish Labour, the bill is a missed opportunity.

I commend my colleague Colin Smyth for his amendments throughout the bill’s proceedings. I share his frustration at the Scottish Government’s lack of engagement on many of the issues, once the Lib Dems came on side. The Labour amendments found support from other parties in the chamber and from many stakeholders, because the simultaneous transitions for the sector of Brexit and moving to net zero are significant and require conscientious yet transformative strategies. Colin Smyth’s amendment 21 would have created a pathway of markers on equity and environmentalism for any future scheme.

Although leaving the EU is very worrisome, the opportunity to create purposes that are fit for climate and environmental emergencies and for Scottish farmers should have been seized. Colin Smyth’s list of objectives describes an agriculture that I and many people in the chamber and beyond need to see—many Scottish citizens would agree. The list describes a resilient, inclusive, productive, fair, safe and local farming sector that stewards our environment and respects biodiversity and animal welfare.

Many of the cabinet secretary’s concerns about the amendments are a puzzle to me, because those objectives should underpin any future developments in the agricultural and land use sectors.

Similarly, amendment 24, which laid the groundwork for a national food plan, would have been invaluable, and the stakeholder backing from Scottish Environment LINK, Scottish Land & Estates and, importantly, the Scottish Food Coalition, indicates that.

It can be said that food is a mixture of need, emotion and science. Of course, we respect the fact that there has been Covid, but as a reason for delaying the good food nation bill it seems implausible. Again, this has gone on for far too long; Government should have supported it, and we need to get it right, because the issue has such an impact on the day-to-day lives of people in this country. Given the loss of the good food nation bill, amendment 24 would have gone some way towards addressing those issues, as will my colleague Elaine Smith’s member’s bill on enshrining a right to food for us all.

To sum up, along with my Scottish Labour colleagues, I will support the bill, due to its necessity in our sad disentanglement from the EU. I urge the Scottish Government to listen today to the calls for ambition and vision and to give Scottish crofters and farmers, on whom we depend, the certainty, security and future opportunity that they need; it will not come from this bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. I call Edward Mountain to close for the Conservatives. I am afraid that you may speak for only three minutes.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I know, Presiding Officer, and the good thing is that I will do it in less time than that.

First, I remind Parliament of my entry in the register of interests. I thank Willie Rennie for being so polite to the committee about the hard work that was put in, especially by the people behind the committee, such as the clerks who support us and enable the work to go ahead.

Farmers in Scotland just need direction. I have always found that, if we give them the direction, farmers find the solution. All that they want to do is produce quality food and produce. They want the highest possible standards. I agree with Mr Finnie: I have yet to meet a farmer who wants to reduce animal welfare; they all want to keep it up.

They never need a prompt to go to work. Most of them were somewhat surprised on 21 May this year, when the First Minister told them that they could go back to work. They had been working non-stop, 24 hours a day, to get their crops sown and keep Scotland fed.

We now have a bill on the table, which, to my mind, could have been a lot better. It could have held the Government to more scrutiny. It could have stopped funds being siphoned out of rural budgets and into other areas.

However, I am pleased that the Government supported amendment 19. It is good news that there will be a policy on the table by 31 December 2024. We need to move forward, and I give the Parliament an assurance that I will make sure that that policy is on the table and that Scotland’s farmers are supported as they need to be.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you very much. True to your word, you finished before your allocated time.

Fergus Ewing

I thank all the stakeholders and individuals who contributed in any way to the bill. Whether they agreed with me or with other members, I thank them for participating in the process. I hope that all can see that we have listened and considered carefully all suggestions for changes and improvements to the bill’s measures.

I think that it is fair for me to point out that we have responded to Parliament, and to the views that were expressed to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in particular.

We have responded by agreeing a sunset clause, after discussion with Mr Rumbles and after taking into account all the views expressed by the committee. We have changed our tack, listened and acted. We have changed our position on the statutory instrument process, as we have on issues relating to the good food nation policy. Even though that is not directly relevant to the bill, we nonetheless listened and responded, and we have acted today, as I said at stage 2 that we would seek to do.

Lastly, we responded to the Conservative amendment requiring us to report by 2024. We will be reporting long before then—it is impossible to leave things until 2024, if we want to implement change.

The fact is—I am being quite frank in saying this—that the CAP legislation and rules are highly complex. Any change is an extraordinarily complex matter; it is not really consistent with high-level debate and a list of things that are worthy and desirable in and of themselves. Change is far more complicated than that and we must pay attention to the detail to get it right. Much of that work is done in committee, as it was this morning when the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee discussed a legislative consent motion, for example.

The challenge is to work through the changes that farmers and crofters want, particularly in the short term. My assessment is that there is a special desire for reform and improvement on the penalties and inspections regime. I say that as someone who, like the REC Committee convener, has been around for quite a while and has represented farmers and crofters, some of whom have suffered extraordinarily high penalties—tens of thousands of pounds—for possibly relatively small administrative errors. That is quite shocking, and a real concern to those involved. I was passionately determined to get that right and now I have the opportunity to do that. Why? We have created through the bill the lever to do that.

The challenge is to work through what farmers and crofters want. Another thing that they want is certainty about continued income, as they are in essence running businesses. More than half of farmers and crofters in Scotland are dependent on that income for their livelihood, so it is essential that they get their money. I am delighted that they will get it three months ahead of those in England. That great achievement is thanks to the rural payments and inspections division staff, who have worked during Covid and done so well for the farming community. I pass on my sincere thanks to them.

I am determined to ensure that our hill farmers continue to receive the support to which they are entitled, not just for producing food, but as the custodians of the landscape at the heart of rural Scotland.

My discussions with farmers and crofters, such as the Lochaber group, which Donald Cameron, I think, brought along not so long ago, showed that they are far more concerned about the continuity of basic financial support than they are about having a purpose clause. Not a single farmer or crofter in this country has ever mentioned a purpose clause to me.

Members rose.

Fergus Ewing

I really have not got time—I am very sorry. Why Opposition members think that that is important really defeats me, because the bill is about passing legislation for a necessary purpose; it is not about substantive policy. The approach of Opposition members is entirely up to them, but I am not sure that it is doing them any good.

We did not vote to leave the EU. We are here because Brexit is being foisted on us, but we are determined to mitigate its impacts in every way. It is my intention to continue to do that by providing certainty, confidence, continuity of income, payment to farmers ahead of our friends down south, and stability and simplicity for the next four years, which is not guaranteed in other parts of the country. The bill will help us to achieve those objectives.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

We turn to decision time. Before we take the first question, which will be on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, I want to make sure that all members have their voting app open, and that it says, “No vote currently open”.

I thank colleagues—including colleagues online—for their patience. We were just waiting for everyone to open the app, and it is now open.

The first question is, that motion S5M-22514, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Members should vote now.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 113, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

As the motion is agreed to, the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill is passed. [Applause.]

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-22531, in the name of Graeme Dey, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 101, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Tax Rates and Tax Bands) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 (SSI 2020/215) be approved.

The Presiding Officer

I propose to put a single question on 17 Parliamentary Bureau motions. Does any member object?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that motions S5M-22530, S5M-22532 to S5M-22544 and S5M-22545 to S5M-22547, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to.

Motions agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 10) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/236) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Care Homes Emergency Intervention Orders (Coronavirus) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/201) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Aberdeen City) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/234) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/209) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/221) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/224) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/229) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/233) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 8) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/235) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/190) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/199) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/210) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 8) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/211) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 9) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/232) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Health and Sport Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the legislative consent memorandum in relation to the Medicines and Medical Devices (Scotland) Bill.

That the Parliament agrees that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the supplementary legislative consent memorandum in relation to the Agriculture Bill.

That the Parliament agrees that the Finance and Constitution Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the legislative consent memorandum in relation to the Trade Bill.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.