Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 26 August 2020
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—