���˿���

My amendments 202 and 203 seek to place the production of food and drink on high-quality agricultural land at the heart of the bill by ensuring that such land is retained, as far as possible, for agricultural use and not other uses.

Prime agricultural land should be reserved for the primary production of food products, and consideration of other activities such as tree planting and renewables must be given with future food security in mind. The amendments seek to prioritise those primary production activities. They are supported by the NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates.

I make it clear that Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which Food Standards Scotland adheres to, defines “primary production” as

“the production, rearing or growing of primary products including harvesting, milking and farmed animal production prior to slaughter. It also includes hunting and fishing and the harvesting of wild products”.

Agriculture is the single biggest use of land in Scotland, but half of that land is rough grassland and many areas are inactive. When you look at how that breaks down, arable agriculture makes up 8 per cent of Scotland’s total land area. We must protect that land. Improved grassland, which is limited to grass production due to circumstances such as slope, is only 18 per cent of the total area; mixed agriculture is only 20 per cent, and rough grazing, where land has severe limitations that prevent improvement by mechanical means, totals 51 per cent. We do not have an awful lot of primary production land, and, given our concerns about food security, it is important that we use that land specifically for the production of food when we can. I am interested in how the committee will respond to that issue, because it speaks to how the Government sees Scottish land use.

As I said, amendments 202 and 203 are about placing the production of food and drink on high-quality agricultural land at the heart of the bill.

I move amendment 202.

Of course.

Heather Fisken, you talked about someone who had applied for so many jobs for which they were overqualified; that sounds a wee bit like prejudice, to be honest. Is enough being done to interact with businesses to make sure that they understand the business case for not excluding disabled people?

That brings me nicely to ask Vikki Manson to speak from the FSB’s perspective about how we get the message out there and how we encourage employers to consider disabled people in the same light as everybody else. What work needs to be done to ensure that there is inclusion and that the gap shrinks?

I will come to Angela Matthews to widen that out a wee bit. Do employers understand the business case for employing more disabled people?

Good morning to the panel. I will start my questions by asking about the economic opportunity of closing the disability employment gap. Chirsty, has the Fraser of Allander Institute done any analysis of the impact on our economy of closing that gap?

I have lodged amendment 44 because I believe that it would be a missed opportunity if we did not consider how the provisions of the bill would support the objectives of the forthcoming good food nation plan. I listened to the cabinet secretary and, to me, there is an assumption that the objectives of the good food nation plan will be met by the provisions of this bill. However, my amendment would create a statutory duty for ministers to ensure that the provisions of the bill support the good food nation plan and a further statutory duty to work cross-portfolio to make sure that that is delivered.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 created a statutory duty on ministers to produce a national good food nation plan and lay it before the Parliament. There are similar relevant issues in this bill. Each part of the food system’s supply chain plays an important role in the provision of food. A sustainable food system and supply chain can contribute to the mitigation of climate change, halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity and improve animal welfare, and high-quality, nutritious and culturally appropriate food can improve people’s physical health and mental wellbeing. It is important that the food business sector continues to be a thriving part of the Scottish economy, that its supply chains are resilient and that it contributes to resilient local economies across Scotland.

My colleague Edward Mountain has proposed to shorten the period of time for the rural support plan period from five years to two years. The good food nation plan is to be reviewed every two years and revised every five years. Aligning the bill with the good food nation plan would create confidence for agricultural businesses, because it would help them to understand the Government’s long-term objectives. I find it completely illogical that there would be any chance that the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill and the good food nation plan would be at odds with each other. We need to link the Good Food Nation Act (Scotland) 2022 with the bill to support food producers by aligning the bill’s provisions with the good food nation plan.

I do not wish to ruin the cabinet secretary’s political career by saying this, but we agree on much of what is in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. However, we cannot assume that future Parliaments will look at the issue in as much depth as we have, so it is really important that the plan in the 2022 act is put in the bill to ensure that the bill and the 2022 act are aligned. There is no logic to not doing that.

I will change tack a little with my next question. Last week, the committee heard from some young people about their journeys to employment, and we heard that many young people face a number of steps before they get to employment. We asked them about their experiences at school, and many of them said that their experiences were poor or even traumatic. We also heard about their interaction with the DWP and that they did not have the appropriate skills, and some said that they got to employment through a third sector organisation. Are we joining up the dots enough? Are we supporting young people early enough? Schools and the DWP cannot provide all the skills that they will need, but are we catching them early enough to help them on that journey?

I am trying to move on from what I was asking earlier this morning about employability services. Is there an offer to reach out into the disabled community? We have heard from you and from many other organisations about the fantastic work that is being done, yet we have comparatively high unemployment in the disability community. We heard last week from some youngsters who have got into employment and have reached positive destinations. We heard about the journey. You mentioned the journey that they go on, especially those with neurological and learning difficulties. We heard about some of their difficulties at school, and some of their experiences were not great. We also heard about their experiences at the DWP with people who wanted to help but did not know quite how to do so. It was by chance that they got into a third sector organisation that was able to gather them and get them ready for employment. It is about the joined-up thinking about the journey of all our young people but very specifically those in the disability community. Are we reaching into schools enough? Are we on the journey with them from an early enough stage?

To try to draw a circle around that, would it be a fair assumption to say that you are looking for more specialist employability services in the disability community? Is that a fair assessment?