Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Official Report 1446KB pdf

---

Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Our second agenda item is our final evidence session on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. I also welcome her supporting officials from the Scottish Government: John Kerr, who is the head of the agriculture policy division; Ewen Scott, who is the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill team leader; and Andrew Crawley, who is a solicitor.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

I am content just to move to questions, convener.

Okay. Thank you very much.

As you know, we have taken evidence on the bill over four months and we undertook pre-legislative scrutiny prior to that. One of the topics for discussion was the selection of the four objectives. What are your reasons for selecting the four objectives that are in the bill and for not including others?

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the committee. I know that the committee has received and heard in person quite a lot of evidence in relation to the bill, because—quite rightly—it is of great interest to a lot of people, as you can see from the evidence that you have taken.

On the objectives that we have set, the overall intention is to have broad objectives and not to be too specific, because we want to ensure that we have objectives that will ultimately work in alignment and do not conflict with one another. Trying to do that when setting objectives is always a fine balance. We could put a lot of objectives in the bill, but then the focus would be on the things that have potentially been missed.

We believe that, given the broad nature of the four objectives, we will be able to capture the key aspects and main priorities of what we seek to achieve through the bill. It has been really interesting to hear the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to that and the different viewpoints that have been expressed.

As we know, the objectives are very high level. As a result, people’s understanding of what they mean differs quite broadly. We heard from your officials at a previous evidence session that they should be interpreted according to their “ordinary meaning”. There is some confusion about what that means and how that might be defined in the future. How will the objectives help stakeholders to understand what the broad aspirations and general policy direction are, and how will they be measured? Will you further define the objectives and what their expected outcomes will look like? If so, when?

I am keen to get the committee’s response on the evidence that it has heard and any particular recommendations that there might be in relation to that. I have mentioned why the objectives and their broad definitions are set out as they are.

I seek clarity on one point, convener. You mentioned “ordinary meaning”. Is that in relation to some of the terms that are used in the bill rather than in relation to the objectives themselves?

I was referring to the terms in the objectives. Take the objective on regenerative and sustainable agriculture for example. How might that be defined?

There could be issues further down the road because of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 or something else, and there could be an argument about what the ordinary description is. That could be solved by being more specific about what the objectives mean in practice.

In the example that you highlighted, about sustainable and regenerative practices, the problem with being any more specific in the bill is that those could potentially change in the future, so we do not want to be too prescriptive. The words “sustainable” and “regenerative” can also mean different things in different contexts. However, I appreciate the need for further clarity and definitions about what we mean. The code of practice is hugely important in setting that out.

We highlighted a broad definition in the route map and the information that we published, particularly in relation to regenerative agriculture. We said that, ultimately, it is a collection of different practices, and we also outlined what the goals of regenerative agriculture include.

The code of practice is important, because it can be broader in setting out what the basket of measures looks like. We appreciate that everybody works on a different land type and has a different type of business, and we know that regenerative means different things in different contexts. We want to ensure that we capture that. However, critical to that is involving people in the process. No doubt, we will come on to that at some point during the session, or perhaps you want to cover the code of practice and how we intend to implement it in detail now. The code of practice is important in relation to regenerative and sustainable practices.

We will talk about the code of practice later.

There is a general understanding that it needs to be a framework bill—an enabling bill—and that that is necessary now. However, there has been criticism that the bill is less detailed and specific than one might expect, based on other legislation. Concerns have been raised that the bill is excessively vague and permissive without currently providing adequate guidance to stakeholders or assurance of scrutiny or control over implementation in the future. Would you consider putting a little bit more meat on the bones at stage 2 about the parameters within which you intend the legislation to work?

I am sorry—do you mean the definitions?

Yes.

Okay. A number of other areas of the bill are included with the intention of providing more certainty and clarity about the overall framework and the flexibility that it is designed to provide. That can be seen in the rural support plan that is proposed.

However, we cannot forget the information that we already have. We are aiming for the bill to deliver on what we set out in our vision for agriculture. We also have a route map—which I have already referenced—that sets out exactly what changes can be expected and when they will take place, and states when more information about each of the changes can be expected. We are trying to provide as much certainty as possible about when more information will come, as well as trying to give more of an idea about what potential measures for the future could look like.

There are broad definitions in the framework bill, and that is for a reason, which is that—exactly as I outlined in my previous response about sustainable and regenerative agriculture practices—they could change. We need a flexible framework so that we can respond quickly should a crisis emerge in relation to how we make payments and the type of things that we can fund. It will also enable us to make changes and adapt the definitions if there are improvements in science and technology. That is why having flexibility is so important.

I am sure that we will come on to talk about flexibility when we discuss other sections of the bill.

On Monday, we had a fantastic session with farmers and crofters. It was insightful to talk to folk who are doing the work on the ground. One point that came up in the conversation was that farmers make something that, at the other end of the process, gets sold on to businesses that are considering their scope through emissions.

In your thinking about the objectives, how much consideration did you give to things such as the Sustainable Markets Initiative? I am not sure whether you are aware of it, but it has an agribusiness task force of Fortune 500 companies, which, globally, has decided on five metrics—greenhouse gases, water use, the efficiency of nitrogen and a couple of others. I realised that the committee had not talked about that, but it came up on Monday.

How much have you thought about the fact that we are using public money to support farmers and crofters to become more sustainable, yet some of them sell into global markets? Did you take that into account in thinking about the need for flexibility in the bill? Is that why you think that the bill needs to be a framework bill?

09:15  

Yes, we need the framework for the reasons that I have outlined. We need it to be adaptable in the future, not least because of how we see the transition going forward, as we have set out in the route map. There will be changes, particularly in the course of the next five years or so, and we need to be able to adapt and to have the flexibility to implement them.

I would have to take a closer look at some of the specific objectives that you have set out in relation to that initiative. I know that the committee will be well aware of something that I, too, see when I visit businesses across the country, which is that, at the moment, a lot of the activities that they undertake are dictated by the contracts that they are subject to. I recently had an amazing visit to Arla Foods and heard about its sustainability journey and how it is driving that, working with its farmers on improving sustainability.

A lot of the people whom I speak to are already far ahead of what we can talk about in the bill. There is no doubt that they would meet all the objectives that we have set out and are undertaking the type of practices that we want to see in the future. However, we know that things can change. New measures could become available that we are not aware of now, which we might want to incentivise or look to introduce. The ability to do that through secondary legislation and to enable that through the bill is really important.

Perhaps John Kerr wants to add something.

To pick up on the specific point about the Sustainable Markets Initiative, we are aware of that. As we do the policy development work, we take account of market initiatives such as that. You mentioned five specific metrics. Other market initiatives articulate things slightly differently, so there is a danger in being too specific and aligned to one initiative, as opposed to having the flexibility, as the cabinet secretary said, to accommodate things in the round.

We want to be able to support farmers, however they choose to interact with the market, because there is a broad range of different outlets for agricultural produce. We are aware of and take account of the metrics that are being developed, but we keep in mind that, from a Government point of view, we need to keep things sufficiently broad to be able to support the broad range of markets that our farmers and crofters supply to.

Sticking with the metrics piece, something else that came up was an anecdote from a farmer who has to do a carbon footprinting audit for one part of their business and a different one for another part. When the farmer shared that information, it spawned input from a whole lot of other people, so there is something there that we need to look at. How do we align that? Farmers are having to look one way to meet the needs of one company or industry and then another way for another. Other things came up around alignment with environmental metrics and biodiversity accounting and audits. Somebody said that they felt that, if they invited different companies to come and do their biodiversity audit, they would get different answers. How do we get to a place where there is clarity across the piece as to measurements and how we track things such as that?

You have touched on a really important point. We have had that discussion a number of times, particularly in relation to carbon audits, in which more than 60 different tools are available for people to use. It is not possible for us to mandate that or to say which particular tool they should use. As John Kerr has outlined, different markets expect producers to use different tools. It is about us having the flexibility so that we can recognise those different schemes in the future.

That is what we have tried to do through the preparing for sustainable farming scheme. It is about enabling businesses to get their individual baseline of information. Biodiversity is really challenging, in that regard. We have been working with NatureScot on what a biodiversity audit might look like, because that can be more challenging in certain circumstances.

You will be aware that there are concerns about there being only four objectives in the bill. Will you consider adding to the list of objectives? We have heard concerns that there is no reference to a range of priorities, including small-scale farming and crofting, animal welfare and health, productivity, resilience, land reform and generational renewal. Are you minded to consider increasing the number of objectives by potentially introducing new ones at stage 2?

That is why the evidence sessions that the committee has undertaken are so important, and it is why we go through this process. Only by doing that are we able to flesh out more points and ideas. I am not coming here with a hard-and-fast approach to what we will introduce, because I want to hear the committee’s views.

I have set out why we have broad objectives. That is by no means meant to exclude all the other areas, which are hugely important. Our intention is to capture them all without necessarily listing them. A number of areas are already covered in other legislation and strategies. It is not that we consider any of those areas not to be important, but they will be captured in the broad definitions. However, I am happy to hear the committee’s views on that.

So, you would be open to amendments that would increase the number of objectives.

I want to hear the committee’s views on that. As I said, it is about getting the right balance. I suggest that we do not want to have a huge list, because then people might think that, if something is not on the list, it is not important. That is why the objectives are framed as they are.

How do we separate the important but distinct objectives relating to rural policy and agricultural policy? How do we ensure that they are not conflated? How are they related? How do we attach priority to them?

That is why it is important that we have introduced the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. I do not see the objectives being in conflict with one another. The bill recognises the importance of agriculture, the wider supply chain and food production to our rural communities as a whole.

As we have emerged from the European Union, we have continued with the common agricultural policy—direct payments and the LEADER programme are examples of that. I know that members will have plenty of examples from their constituencies of that fund being hugely important in supporting rural development. I see the objectives as being hugely important, and we will continue to drive forward with them as we further develop our plans.

In relation to the LEADER programme and rural development, community-led local development has continued to be important. We have, over the past few years since leaving the European Union, looked at what we can learn from that. We have tried to take the best of what the LEADER programme offered and to tailor our system in a way that works for our rural and island areas. We are trying to see how we can make the system work best for rural communities. The proposed powers in the framework will, ultimately, allow us to develop a scheme that works for our rural areas, and we will work with rural communities as we do that.

That leads neatly to my next theme, which relates to what should be on the face of the bill—we have heard that phrase being thrown around in committees and elsewhere. We would have some very long legislation if everything was “on the face of” every bill.

We have had some discussion about the rural support plan. Are you content that there is enough in the bill to define its meaning and aims?

We wanted to bring that forward, because I understand that there can be frustrations with framework bills. This is the second framework bill that I have discussed with the committee.

I understand that the bill does not necessarily provide all the clarity and detail that people want. I have outlined already why the flexibility of a framework is so important and why we would look to provide the detail in secondary legislation—which is not least because of all the changes and potential issues that could arise, which we need flexibility to adapt to.

The rural support plan is key because it is about providing more certainty in a flexible framework. The intention is that the rural support plan will build on what we have set out in, and are looking to achieve through, our vision for agriculture, and that we will use the bill to deliver that. We have also set out the route map to the future transition and have said what it will look like.

All of that will be brought together in one place to provide more clarity, within the flexibility of the legislation.

On that, we have heard from many stakeholders that a little bit more certainty is needed. Given that the bill is a framework bill, the rural support plan could actually be the bill, because it will set the direction of travel for five years, 10 years or whatever.

One of the overriding calls was for the rural support plan to be available sooner rather than later. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee suggested that it should come before stage 3, and the majority of stakeholders suggested that it is needed before we start to develop secondary legislation.

I cannot find the quotation right now, but we heard in an earlier meeting that nine tenths of what will be in the rural support plan has already been developed through the two policies that the cabinet secretary has touched on. If nine tenths of it has been developed, why can we not have a commitment to have that rural support plan now rather than sometime in 2025, when the committee will have limited ability to scrutinise it?

The first point to clarify is that we need the powers that are in the bill before we can formally bring forward the rural support plan.

However, I understand what the convener has set out in relation to the proposal by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I would like to take more advice on that to see whether, and when, we might be able to bring forward at least a draft of the plan. I am happy to follow up on that with the committee and provide more information on when we could provide an initial draft of the rural support plan.

When would you prefer it to come forward?

We have said that we need the new powers in the bill in order to introduce the plan and that we intend to introduce it in 2025.

You do not need the powers to produce a draft rural support plan, do you?

As I just outlined in relation to the proposal by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I want to consider the issue further and take advice on it. I will then follow up with the committee on when we could provide an outline of what the plan will include.

It is important to remember that co-development with farmers and crofters is critical to absolutely everything that we are doing in the bill and to all the secondary legislation that we will bring forward, including the detail of the enhanced measures and the tiers of the future framework. A just transition is critical to all of that as well.

We want to develop schemes that we know will work and that will deliver the objectives that we have set out in the bill, but we want to do so in a way that works for farmers and crofters. We want to develop that with them. The detail that comes from doing that, and from following what we have set out in the route map about when information will become available, will, ultimately, populate the rural support plan. I like to think that, by the time the plan comes forward, it will not be a surprise to anyone, because we have outlined in the route map when different parts of the information about the future framework will be published and become available.

We have also heard about the on-going concerns of the Finance and Public Administration Committee in relation to the increase in the use of framework bills. We know about that issue, which the Conveners Group has also discussed. There is also the point about the co-design process that takes place during and beyond the passage of primary legislation. What is your response to that?

I am sorry, but I do not know about the particular point that was raised in relation to the co-design process. I think that Ewen Scott was at the committee; I am not sure whether he or John Kerr wants to come in on that. The co-development aspect is absolutely critical.

I know that there is general criticism of framework legislation, but I think that I have outlined why having that flexibility is so important. We have to ensure that we have the transition over the next few years, for all the reasons that I have outlined. We also need flexibility in order to adapt, in a way that we cannot at the moment, to possible future challenges. That is why it is so important. Although I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about a framework bill, it is exactly what we need to enable us to move forward and have the transition that we have set out. John Kerr or Ewen Scott might have more to add.

09:30  

The final paragraph of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s letter says that the approach that you are taking

“presents significant challenges for effective scrutiny of cost estimates associated with legislation”,

and it goes on to say that the committee’s concerns in that area are set out in its December 2022 report and correspondence on the national care service. Two committees in Parliament are raising concerns about the lack of detail in the bill and co-design being done after primary legislation has been passed. Is that not something that you take seriously?

Of course we take it seriously. We also take seriously any recommendations that come from a parliamentary committee.

We provided a substantial response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on the concerns that it had expressed. We have had a response to that in relation to some of the powers that we have set out, and I think that there are a few outstanding areas where the committee has recommended a different procedure for those powers, in particular.

Again, I have set out quite clearly why the framework approach is so important. I do not know what the converse of that argument would be. If we were to put all the detail of secondary legislation in the bill, that would tie us to it in a way that would be a lot harder to change.

That is not what has been suggested. We are talking about the rural support plan, not the framework bill.

We also heard one of your bill team tell the Finance and Public Administration Committee that

“the vision for agriculture, combined with our route map, is nine tenths of our plan.”

I presume that that refers to the rural support plan. They went on to say that

“Some of the extra elements that will go into that are in development right now.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 6 February 2024; c 25.]

Although you will look at what the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have suggested about bringing the plan forward, that quotation would suggest that it is almost there. The stakeholders have repeatedly said that we need to see it sooner rather than later.

Why are you waiting to get advice on the recommendations from two other committees before you do what the majority of stakeholders are asking, which is to see the rural support plan? This is not about what is in the framework bill—we all accept that flexibility is needed—but to give the Parliament some confidence that we are not just giving the Scottish Government carte blanche and a cheque book to do whatever it wishes. The support plan will set out far more detail: your officials have said that it is almost there, so why do you not make the commitment to publish it before 2025?

I have already set that out, convener. It was not clear to me that your previous question referred to the rural support plan, so I apologise if we were speaking at cross-purposes. John Kerr might want to come in.

I suspect that the comments that you are referring to were ones that I made at the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The point that I was trying to make—perhaps I have articulated it too specifically—was that the rural support plan will emerge from what we are currently doing in co-development of our policy. We have set out our vision, which clearly sets out the objectives that we want to achieve with agricultural policy in Scotland.

The bill is part of that, but it is not the only part of it, because we have to develop the detailed support mechanisms with farmers or they will not work, and that will take time. We know that we have to take the time to do that, but we also know that we need underpinning legislation and the powers to implement the support once we have done the work.

The rural support plan is based on the vision and our route map. We have some decisions to make—they are not mine to make, but are for ministers—about the other things that we want to put in the support plan. The evidence that you have taken will inform that, and we have been listening to it very carefully. I perhaps misspoke if I said that the plan was nine tenths there, because there are options about what exactly we put into the plan, and the drafting work still needs to be done. If this is an opportunity for me to correct that, I thank you for it.

Thank you. Emma Harper and Rachael Hamilton have supplementary questions. We will then move on to questions from Rhoda Grant.

I am a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which that committee is considering, is a framework bill, as well. We had a stushie in the process because of what is not in that bill but will be developed in co-design.

The technology is developing really quickly. Scotland’s Rural College, which does research and development and works on the science, welcomes the framework bill because it will allow adaptations for whatever we do in the future, such as emissions reduction in ruminants and things like that.

I am interested in engagement in the co-design process, given that there are a lot of parallels between the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the bill that we are discussing, as they are both framework bills. I am interested to hear how the co-design process is being done with land users, farmers and crofters in order to give people confidence and give the process stability.

I am happy to outline some of that work. As you can imagine, there are a number of strands to it. We have set out the four-tier framework, and a number of pieces of work are under way. As I and John Kerr have outlined, co-development is critical to all that because we want to make sure that we bring forward policies that will ultimately work.

I will touch on a specific example. We are due to provide an update to the route map in the first quarter of this year; we will publish it next month. It will set out more detail on the conditions, in relation to whole-farm plans, that we will introduce for support from 2025.

We have also talked about conditionality in relation to the suckler beef support scheme. Those pieces of work have involved extensive work with a number of stakeholders. As you can imagine, with the suckler beef support scheme, the various organisations and people that we have included in the consultation have been involved in the work to develop the scheme, and proposals have come from individual farmers, Quality Meat Scotland, the Scottish Beef Association and others. The whole-farm plan has been critical in all that, too.

Those are specific bodies of work, but all the work involves wider engagement and involvement in what we are doing, with wider testing to ensure that our proposals make sense and will work for farmers and crofters. Having published the most recent update to our route map after the Royal Highland Show in June last year, we issued a call for volunteers to sign up and help us with that work. From that, we have a database of between 1,200 and 1,300 people who have signed up to take part in that research.

I am looking at the other figures that we have. We have undertaken about 3,500 surveys and about 250 individual interviews with people, and there are then all the other pieces of work that we are taking forward in relation to tier 4 and the complementary support that is available there. Extensive work has been undertaken in that regard.

That is a snapshot. I do not know whether John Kerr wants to add anything, but I hope that that has provided you with a bit more clarity on the work that we are doing and on how important in the process wider involvement is.

It is useful to have that clarity and that update on the work that you are doing with stakeholders in that co-development. Thank you for that.

However, I disagree with Emma Harper. We have heard that, although people want flexibility, they absolutely want clarity, too, and they understand the potential difficulties with the framework bill. I think that the key point is that the people from whom we have heard evidence are asking for the funding to be allocated and for a breakdown of it to be known before the bill is passed. That has been a strong theme throughout the evidence sessions.

As well as what you have just shared with us, I am keen to know what role the agriculture reform implementation oversight board has in shaping the piece that John Kerr talked about in relation to the vision and the route map—which is really just a wish list—and how that will shape clarity about the funding underpinning them.

ARIOB is an advisory board. Ultimately, it is down to me to take the decisions on how we move forward. The board has a wide variety of expertise, so we are able to discuss some of those matters. It is involved in giving advice and in the wider testing in some of the areas that I have talked about, including how we best take forward the whole-farm plans and conditionality. However, I should say that, in that regard, we have had separate groups to involve a wider range of stakeholders in informing our work as we move forward.

As I have said, ARIOB is an advisory board, and I very much appreciate its advice, not forgetting that where we are in relation to some of the conditions that we are introducing and some of the policy priorities that we have identified all comes back to and is based on the work of the farmer-led groups and the work that they published in 2021. We are trying to build on those measures and their reports.

John Kerr mentioned in a previous session—the session at which we initially took evidence—that the SRUC was doing some economic modelling that would be published. I am sure that, at the time, he said that that would be published around December. Is there any movement on that?

Some of the economic modelling that we are doing in support of the work has informed the papers, including the evidence pack, that accompanied the bill that we introduced to Parliament. However, we have work on-going with the SRUC and others to inform policy development and the secondary legislation and to help design our future schemes. It is an iterative process; we might choose to publish some of that work, but we might also choose to take forward other work in discussion with stakeholders without necessarily publishing it. The principal aim is to develop the policies in the right way and to inform our next steps in the agricultural reform programme.

On that point, I believe that the group has an important scrutiny role. We are not seeing that work, because the Government is choosing whether to publish it. That does not allow us to do our job.

Rhoda Grant will look at that a little bit more closely.

I totally get what the cabinet secretary is saying about the difference between the bill and the plan. The bill has to be wide, but it is the rural support plan that could make or break businesses and which will show the direction of travel for agriculture. That is why people want to see a draft of what the Government’s thinking is. It does not need to be nailed down at this point, but it is why we are getting so many representations on it.

The bill does not really provide for much scrutiny of the plan. Where is the consultation? Where is the monitoring and evaluation? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny? If people knew that the plan was going to be scrutinised—not in the same way as the bill, but still scrutinised closely—it would give them a degree of comfort that they would be able to feed in their views. If the first iteration was not right, people could go back to the drawing board. The real fear is that, in 2025, it will be a case of take it or leave it.

In terms of overall support, I hark back to the route map, which is where we have set out as much information as we can about the future direction. I understand the concerns and criticisms that you have heard about the lack of detail and the need to know the future direction for business planning, which I know is vital to businesses. That is why the detail that we have set out on when that information will be available is so important, as is the list of measures that we have published.

That list was published in order to set out our thinking on what could become a condition or part of the enhanced tier in a future framework and to show examples of how that could work in different business units in different areas. There was a particular focus on that in the measures that we produced in relation to livestock, because we know that that is where the largest emissions come from.

09:45  

I raise that point because I do not want us to forget about the information that already exists and what we have already set out. It is important in providing as much certainty as we can and in setting the direction of travel for the future, as well as providing information on what the transition will look like. We do not want anybody to face any cliff edges, and particularly not in 2025. We have been strong on that commitment and have tried to make that clear throughout the process. It is neither in our interests nor in the interests of farmers and crofters for that to happen. We must ensure that there is a just transition throughout, and that is what we have tried to map out.

We genuinely hope that that is the Government’s intention, but, unless the bill guarantees us that scrutiny will take place, the committee might not be able to see a draft of the plan. I suppose that I am asking for a commitment that the Government will lay a draft, that the committee will have time to scrutinise it and that Government will listen to the feedback that we gain from speaking to stakeholders about it.

We seriously consider all the feedback that we have heard, which is why all the evidence sessions that the committee has undertaken are important to us. I look forward to seeing the committee’s recommendations in relation to part 1 and the other parts of the bill.

I will not make a commitment on the member’s suggestion today, as I am here to listen and engage. It is important that we hear those points, and then we can take the matter forward once we have considered the committee’s view on the issue.

I said earlier that I would follow things up with the committee. I want to take a bit more advice on what we would be able to set out in advance. I am happy to reaffirm that, and I will follow that point up with the committee.

I want to press home this point, because all the communication that we are getting from the industry is that it does not know what is going to happen. The longer that people wait, the more fearful they become.

I absolutely appreciate that, but that is where what we have set out in the route map comes in. I am not focusing on the rural support plan at the moment because, as John Kerr has outlined, a lot of what is in the route map will be part of that. There is information there, and more information will be coming along the timeline that we have set out. The rural support plan will not change what we have in the route map; it is about bringing together the different pieces and showing how we will deliver on the vision and against our objectives.

Another important point that you have raised, but which I have not touched on, relates to monitoring and evaluation against the objectives that we have set out. That will be built into how we move forward, because we need to know that we are improving and to find a way of measuring and evaluating that so that we know that we are delivering on the bill’s objectives. That will, of course, be embedded in the work that we are taking forward.

I reinforce the points that Rhoda Grant has made. What we have heard loudly and strongly is that farmers and crofters are in a holding pattern. They are holding off from making investments, including quite big investments, and that will have knock-on consequences for the supply chain and our rural communities. The sooner that farmers and crofters have the clarity and certainty that they have been crying out for, the better.

Again, I absolutely appreciate that point. I emphasise that we have tried to communicate as much as possible. I am sometimes concerned that people are not aware of the information that we have already published. More information is coming all the time. As I have said, we are due next month to publish the update to our route map, which will provide more information on the conditions that we set out last year, the whole-farm plan and the suckler beef support scheme, as well as other aspects. More of that clarity and direction is coming, and it will be coming in accordance with the timeline that we have published.

Sticking with section 3 and the matters to be considered in the plan, I know that you have said that, if you create a list, the areas that are excluded can be highlighted. However, should there be additions to the matters to be considered under section 3?

Again, I do not know whether the committee has any particular comments or suggestions to make on that. I believe that the matters to be considered, which we have set out in section 3, cover what we need that to do, but, again, I ask the committee whether its members have any particular suggestions to make or whether they feel that anything is missing from the list that should be considered but has not been.

There is a long list of additional suggestions of things to which regard should be had, including the good food nation plans, crofting law reform, common grazings, the biodiversity strategy, the river basin management plans, the rural development plan, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill and the proposed human rights bill. We have had a huge range of suggestions from stakeholders, and I presume that you will be open to suggestions about how section 3 could be amended to ensure that it covers their concerns.

I also want to touch on the importance of monitoring and evaluation of the rural support plan. We have heard that, in 10 years’ time, we could be asking ourselves whether the rural support plan delivered what it set out to do. Did it improve soil health, mitigate climate change, increase resilience and enable rural communities to thrive? Those are all suggestions that Professor Dave Reay made on what the rural support plan should do. How do we articulate that? How do we ensure that the bill provides for the monitoring and evaluation necessary to ensure that we are heading in the right direction and that we are not waiting until the end of the plan’s five-year period?

I want to address your first point about the list of matters to be considered and highlight and emphasise the fact that all the areas that you have mentioned are hugely important. More policies and legislation are coming down the line that are closely interlinked with agriculture and the future framework that we will have. I want to reassure the committee that we are considering all the policies that you have outlined, some of which are mentioned in the policy memorandum. The fact is that we must adhere to legislation that is already in place, and our rural support plan proposals are not being developed in isolation, without any consideration being given to those areas, given that, as I have mentioned, so many of them are integral to what we are doing.

I am sorry—what was the second matter that you raised?

It was the issue of monitoring and evaluation. I do not want us to wait until the end of the five-year period of the plan before deciding whether soil health has improved or whether the plan has had a positive impact on climate change or rural communities.

I come back to the point that I made to Rhoda Grant. Monitoring and evaluation will be vital, because we must ensure that we deliver against the outcomes, not least our emissions targets, but also in relation to nature restoration. We will undertake work to identify the best way of doing that.

Of course, it is a complex process, because we are dealing with things that are difficult to measure. For example, someone who undertakes measures on their farm or croft might not see the benefits—say, the biodiversity benefit—for another 10 or so years down the line. In addition, someone who has taken action to achieve a specific outcome might not get the results that they expected as a result of a weather event or some other incident. Ultimately, the issue is how we take all that into consideration. Measuring progress will be quite a complex process, but it will be fundamental to what we do as we go forward.

I do not know whether John Kerr has anything to add.

I do not have anything to add specifically on monitoring and evaluation, but I re-emphasise the cabinet secretary’s point about the matters to be considered in relation to the rural support plan. We have set out quite a broad set of things that must be considered, especially in section 3(2)(c), where we refer to all the other statutory duties that must be taken account of. We make it very clear in the bill that, in the development of policy, we will take account of the other Government policies that are in statute at the time; indeed, we will perhaps take account of non-binding Government policies, too.

In our policy development, we are working very closely with colleagues in the environment directorate and our delivery bodies to make sure that we are able to help farmers and crofters deliver in relation to the wider interests of the Scottish public and what they would expect of people who are in receipt of support. We are absolutely committed to doing that. Making sure that we have got that right is part of our normal operation in the civil service.

I am sorry, but, before we move on, I am going to jump back to section 3, on matters to be considered in relation to the rural support plan and the Scottish ministers needing to “have regard to” certain matters. There are questions about whether we need that section at all. What is the purpose of it? On the reference to ministers needing to

“have regard to ... any other statutory duty”,

I presume that they would be required to have regard to those issues whether or not they were set out in the bill. You touched on having a list. Why is there a section 3 at all, given that the Government has to pay regard to statutory duties whether or not they are set out in the bill? Given the list of other considerations that you have said are really important, but which are not in section 3, why have we got a section 3 at all?

It is important to have it for exactly for that reason. It is about ensuring that we are looking at those matters and that they feature as part of the rural support plan.

If we look at the matters that are set out, we see that we have our objectives, the climate change plan, agriculture, forestry and rural land use. From the evidence that you have taken and from some of the discussion that we have had today, we know that there are very specific things that people would like to be included in there. Of course, we take a lot of those matters into consideration—and we have to, where that is legally binding and where we are working across other areas of policy. However, it is important for us to at least set out the matters that we would be looking to include as part of the plan rather than not do that.

However, I presume that you have a statutory duty relating to other legislation that you do not have to repeat in this section.

Andy Crawley, do you want to come in on that one?

Yes. The convener is quite right to say that statutory duties apply regardless of anything that appears in this bill. I would suggest that the way to understand the issue is, as the cabinet secretary says, in relation to how we shape the plan, how the plan has been developed and how we might want to put into the plan material relating to how those other statutory duties have been taken account of.

Although we do not have to have section 3(2)(c) and we could drop it, that might mean that the plan would not develop in a way that is helpful for people who would be looking to the plan to understand how support would develop over that five-year period. It is about clarity and transparency as much as it is about legal change and legal effect.

Would that not be more clearly set out by having a more specific, tailored framework for what the rural support plan might look like? Rather than having to make assumptions about what is covered by the phrase

“ministers must have regard to”,

what if there was a section of the bill that made it clear what was to be included within the rural support plan? Would that not achieve that in a far more transparent way?

Different duties might be engaged in different ways at different times. Again, it is all about flexibility and being able to frame the plan accordingly, because circumstances will change—we know that—and new duties will arise as new legislation is enacted.

Thank you. That is helpful.

I will go back to my original question. Notwithstanding the arguments that you make about the flexibility of a framework bill, what is holding civil servants back from issuing a draft publication of the allocation of funding within a rural support plan? Is it resource or capacity?

In relation to your point about the draft allocation of funding, in particular, just in recent weeks—as you will be aware—we have provided an overall outline of what that budget split might look like, to provide some of that clarity.

What holds us back from allocating budgets and from budget certainty is that we do not have budget certainty going forward. It is not possible for me to set out what the envelopes might be against that when I do not have that information.

Okay. I think that there are questions relating to that point later on.

You said that the 70 per cent allocation to tiers 1 and 2 was announced just a week ago. Has there been any consideration of the ring fencing of certain levels of that funding or of providing funding through multi-annual funding agreements?

10:00  

It is not possible for me to make a commitment on multi-annual funding when I have absolutely no clarity on our allocation from the United Kingdom Government beyond next year. It would be irresponsible of me to make commitments around that when I do not know what that quantum of funding will be. We have set out what the overall broad spectrum of the envelopes might look like across the tiers, but it is not possible for us to do that in detail.

What analysis did you use to come to the conclusion that you wanted to allocate 70 per cent of direct payments in tier 1 and 2 if you did not have foresight or knowledge of future allocations?

We set that out more broadly because it covers what we currently fund by direct payments and how that is split across the future tiers of the framework. As we have set out, tiers 1 and 2—the base-level support and the enhanced tier—will be the direct element of that funding. When we introduce the enhanced tier in 2026, we will be able to drive a huge amount of the change that we want, including more measures on reducing emissions and enhancing nature.

We want to give our farmers clarity and certainty about what to expect, which is why we said that we have committed to maintaining direct payments now and into the future and to maintaining that base level of support. We want to continue to support food production, and we want to be able to use the quantum of funding that we have to do more through that enhanced tier.

For clarity, what is the total funding that you envisage in the 70 per cent of direct payments?

Sorry—what do you mean?

We currently have £621 million from the UK Government. What is that in tiers 1 and 2? You said that you wanted clarity on future funding. You have allocated 70 per cent in tier 1 and 2. What are you basing those figures on?

That is the overall quantum of funding, not the figures. As I have said, that aligns with what we have in direct payments at the moment, so the direct payments would include that. NFU Scotland advocated for 80 per cent of the overall funding, including the less favoured area support scheme, which would not be part of pillar 1 support. We are considering what that support will look like.

If you are pressing me for figures, I do not know what funding there will be from 2025.

What would you like the funding to be? What figure would the Scottish Government like to deliver the vision and the route map in relation to that envelope?

Ideally, we would like more funding than we have at the moment. NFU Scotland has called for £1 billion-worth of funding from the UK Government, and I support that call. I listened to the NFU’s conference down south recently, and it is asking for £4.5 billion rather than the £2.4 billion that it has been given by the UK Government.

I think that we are entitled to more support than we currently receive. Considering the potential for what we can do for climate and nature, we should receive more funding than we currently do. That funding has remained static over the past few years, so we hope for and would welcome any increase to that.

On the back of that comment, would you make a plea to the Cabinet for further funding for the top-up, beyond what you already allocate?

Again, we are confusing two different things. The vast majority of the funding that we receive for this portfolio, and which goes into payments, is ring fenced by the UK Government, which has given us no certainty as to what any future budget allocation beyond next year will be, so we have no idea what is coming. Without that clarity, it is not possible for me to determine exactly what funding there will be or to make commitments about multi-annual funds that, as yet, I do not have.

That is why we set out, as I have already explained, how we can expect the overall envelopes in the budget to be allocated. However, the quantum of that funding will very much depend on the UK Government, because that is where the lion’s share of my budget comes from. It all depends on how much I get from the UK Government.

If you had the same funding, would you want to ring fence that funding and commit to multi-annual funding agreements?

Ideally, we would want to commit to multi-annual funding agreements, but I am not in that position today because I do not have any certainty. However, going forward, we want to make sure that we are providing as much certainty and clarity to the industry as possible. Let us face it: if we were still members of the EU, we would have had a seven-year period in which we could plan for the future and what the schemes would look like. When we had that, everybody knew what they were going to get over that period and it was all set out. We are in a very different state of affairs at the moment, so it is not possible for me to say what funding is going to look like or to make those commitments, because I do not have that information and I have not been given any of that certainty.

The Scottish Government’s supporting evidence and analysis report was critical of a number of the previous CAP schemes. For example, the greening and less favoured areas support scheme was found not to deliver as effectively as possible on the stated objectives. How will the new payment scheme address those issues?

Precisely because it gives us the flexibility to adapt the schemes and develop them in a way in which we think will deliver against the objectives that we have set out. There have been calls for there to be a rebasing of LFASS. We want to continue with support of that type because it is so important for our farmers and crofters in the most rural parts of Scotland. We must design the schemes with farmers and crofters and develop a support system that is going to work. One of the schemes that has ultimately delivered on its objectives—I am sure that my officials will correct me if I am wrong—is the agri-environment climate scheme. We could potentially look at what some of the measures might look like, which could form part of a potential enhanced conditionality in the tier 2 measures. It is about how we design those schemes, but, ultimately, we need to design them with the people who are most impacted by them.

Do you intend the rural support plan to contain any targets?

A number of targets are listed elsewhere, particularly in relation to emissions reduction, and we know that that is also being considered through the natural environment bill. For me, it is not necessarily about introducing new targets. What will be critical, as I have outlined in previous responses, is the monitoring and evaluation of targets. We already have statutory targets to meet, so it is about how we set out the pathway to achieving them.

So, there is nothing new, then.

It is not possible for me to set that out at the moment. I cannot say that we would be looking to introduce other particular targets as part of the rural support plan, but we have statutory targets in relation to emissions reduction and the targets that are being looked at through the natural environment bill. Of course, we will have to consider those.

The committee had a useful session on Monday with small-scale producers. It was clear that they do not get a huge amount of Government support, especially those with properties that are under 3 hectares. They told us that they are sequestrating carbon. A lot of them are carbon negative and get nothing for that. Although they do not want carbon trading, they are very keen that the work that they are doing is supported, especially when considering things such as local food networks. How will you support the small operations that are putting an awful lot back into their communities and helping with our environmental targets?

Smaller-scale producers are the lifeblood of a lot of our rural and island communities, and support for them is hugely important. That is where I see benefits from this legislation and the schemes that we will be able to design going forward. Producers who have properties that are under 3 hectares have not been included in any of the existing payment schemes because the administration and costs for those smaller producers would not be worth it, which is why we have tried to develop a bespoke scheme to help small producers.

Previously, funding was allocated against the small farms grant scheme, which was very difficult to spend. Small producers, who probably have fewer resources than anybody else, were expected to jump through hoops in order to access support in a way that was inherently unfair and, ultimately, did not work and locked them out, and that is why we undertook work with the small producers pilot to see what sort of support would be the most beneficial and useful. That has been a really important piece of work, with funding being allocated for a few specific projects to trial that support. Support is being provided for a couple of abattoir projects, and there is a website and online resource for small producers. The process has been about listening to small producers and what support they would find most helpful, and about how we can develop and build on that. The pilot is really important as it will enable us to learn lessons, which we can use to inform what future schemes will look like.

It is great to hear that there is a small producers pilot fund, which I understand to be worth about £1 million. However, there are 40,000 small producers—people who operate at the scale of a croft, on under 3 hectares, and sell at market gardens—who really need support. How do you define small producers? What size of land being farmed are you talking about? We need to be really clear about that. I have talked to people who call themselves small producers but have 70 acres.

Sorry. I used the figure of 3 hectares because that size was previously a determining factor for such support. It is not a case of my thinking being that someone who farms less land than that is a small producer and someone who farms more than that is a large producer. Obviously, it is not as simple as that, as you said.

This is about our enabling, through our measures, small producers and businesses to be supported, because we recognise how vital they are. I do not know whether John Kerr wants to come in with more information on that.

At present, those who are farming or producing food on fewer than 3 hectares are eligible for some of the forms of support that we offer. Obviously, an area-based payment will always result in a small payment for somebody with a small area of land. The efficiency of distributing money on an area basis to very small units is an issue for everybody and one that we would want to be alert to.

However, I just want to be clear that we currently support small producers, although not many access that support. In the small producers pilot, we are specifically working through how best to get the types of support from which those producers would really benefit. I am talking about support such as networking, training and access to market. Those are not really about an area-based payment; they are about other forms of support.

I just want to make the point that the 3 hectares size is not the most important thing for that group. Getting a package of support for small producers, whether they are below or above that threshold, is important, irrespective of the area-based payment. There is a danger of that becoming the main issue when it is not. To be fair, that was not the way in which you asked the question.

No, it was not.

I thought that providing some clarity around that would be helpful.

Okay—thanks. On Monday, we spoke to a crofter. Jo Hunt is an economist turned grower and vegetable-box producer. He worked out that support could be extended to the 100 market gardens in Scotland, with no actual additional demand on the public purse, by redistributing the basic payments. Currently, 68 per cent of basic payments go to 10 per cent of farms. Will you outline your current thinking about the capping, tapering and front loading that could help to redistribute payments in the future payment framework?

John Kerr was at a previous meeting when we looked at the bill with the bill team. He brought to my understanding the Government’s thinking that the money allocation is not fixed; it is a process because it is part of the just transition and will be evolving.

The bill will, ultimately, give us the powers to do any of those things, although we have a cap in place at the moment. The powers to enable us to manage payments are critical. I have had discussions about redistributive payments. I recognise that, quite broadly, there is support for front loading. However, I am not positioned to set out today exactly what that would look like or what form it would take, because that will be part of the consideration of what things might look like in the future framework. There will also be discussions with the people who will be impacted by that to consider how we would best progress things.

When do you intend to set out the approach on capping? That is important for stakeholders to hear about.

Absolutely. As I said, we have a cap in place at the moment. We do not have any businesses that are in support at the overall cap, which is just over £500,000. After that, there is tapering, at the level of 5 per cent, that applies to businesses that are in receipt of funding of more than £130,000 and 85 businesses are impacted by that. That is where things stand at the moment.

10:15  

As we transition, we will set out more information. We would not change the cap or the taper or introduce front loading or redistribution without discussing that with the people who would be impacted. We would have those discussions before bringing forward such proposals.

Do you have a timescale for having those discussions?

It is not possible for me to set out a timescale today. I hope that, in relation to the route map, I have been able to outline where we can expect to see changes and transition, but we still need to take forward that overall conversation.

I am really confused. We know what the status quo is. The committee will have to comment on and, ultimately, amend the bill that is in front of us. The level of the cap that you foresee being in place in the future will be critical to our larger farms and, as we have heard, to some of our smaller producers. When will you make it clear exactly what your position is on capping, top slicing or front loading? We are now at the business end of the bill process. We know where we are at the moment, but we need to know where we will be in two or three years’ time. Surely you can give us some indication of whether it is your intention to extend the capping powers or to retain them at the level that they are at just now.

You are right that the status quo exists until such time as we make transitions through the route map, as we have set out. We do not want any cliff edges in relation to support. We are not intending to surprise anybody with anything that comes forward. What is important is that we have the powers under the framework to enable us to consider such issues.

I do not know whether John Kerr wants to say anything else on that.

In the route map, we have said that we will bring forward new conditions in 2025, and the cabinet secretary has said that the areas that we are considering will be announced really soon. The route map also says that, in 2026, we will bring in our enhanced tier—tier 2. Doing that work will give us time to consider the other elements.

From my perspective, the plan would be to look at the capping and tapering process as part of the base project, which is scheduled at that time. Of course, plans might change but, as we have set out, we anticipate the status quo lasting until 2026 or thereafter, depending on how the conversations go once we get into the detail.

Cabinet secretary, you must understand the committee’s concerns. You keep telling us that it is fine for the Government to have these powers. Our concern is that we will pass a bill that will give the Government broad powers but we have no indication of your intention when it comes to capping. We will be giving the Government those powers but we do not know what the limits will be, what criteria will be used or how extensively the powers will be used.

I understand the committee’s concern about that. That is why we are taking an overall framework approach to the powers that we are taking. Ultimately, we need to have those powers, otherwise we would automatically rule out being able to do, discuss or take forward a lot of things. That speaks to the changes that we are looking to introduce. We have talked a lot about the route map and setting out some of the information.

I hope that I have been able to emphasise and illustrate throughout the meeting the importance of co-development—working with our farmers and crofters—in developing all of this. It is not in our interests or in the interests of the wider industry for there to be any surprises or cliff edges. We are categorically committed to not providing that for our farmers and crofters. Ultimately, as I have set out, we want to design the system with them and to see what mechanism will work best.

I will just add two points in support of what the cabinet secretary has already said. Any sensible policy on capping and tapering would want to maintain the flexibility for future ministers to take a different decision based on the facts in front of them at the time—for example, what the overall budget is. The other point is important from the point of view of scrutiny. Such issues will be part of the secondary legislation that would have to be introduced to bring the policy into existence legally, which will be scrutinised by the Parliament when it is introduced, so there will be a further opportunity for that scrutiny.

Absolutely, and not least because we would have to undertake all the relevant impact assessments in relation to that as well. We would need to evaluate the system that has been in place to see whether it has worked and to make sure that we have the evidence base for any decisions on that.

This is the last thing that I want to say on the issue. The DPLR Committee asked for additional information to be provided by the Scottish Government, but it

“remains concerned about how this power”—

the capping power—

“might be used by future administrations, whose intentions cannot be known and therefore recommends that the procedure be upgraded to the affirmative procedure.”

Are you supportive of that?

We are considering the recommendations that have come from the DPLR Committee. I know that there were a few areas—well, another area—as well as that. Of course, we will consider that, as we will consider this committee’s recommendations, too.

This relates to my previous question about what should or should not be in the bill. You have already given information about the number of stakeholders who have fed into the process—you said that it was about 1,300—and about people who have volunteered to participate in looking at policy development as we go through. How do we make sure that people who will benefit from any rural funding engage with the process, feed into it and are part of it? It is not just farmers. As I heard at the meeting on Monday, where there were farmers, crofters, land users and community development people, creating thriving communities is part of the discussion.

Going back to the bill, which is what we are talking about, there are stakeholders who think that a clearer direction of travel or key parameters for future support are needed in the bill. What do you think of that? Again, I am going back to engagement with stakeholders, because in looking at the bill and the information in front of me, there could be clearer information about biodiversity, regeneration, sustainable farming and emissions reduction. I would be interested in hearing what you think about that.

What do I think about providing more of that information? It is always challenging because, as we have touched on today, in relation to some of that information, whatever we put in the bill will not be as flexible and adaptive. Throughout this period of transition, we are very much in a space where we need the ability to be flexible and adaptive. We started this discussion by talking about sustainable and regenerative agriculture. We need flexibility to look at that, because there is not one hard definition that we would be able to put in the bill. We need to be able to bring forward a basket of measures that can be used to support our producers, more than anything else, and to highlight what we mean, and we think that the code of practice is the best way to do that.

Again, I understand the criticisms that there can be, but we have tried to share our thinking as much as possible. The process is slower in its nature because co-development takes time. It takes more time for us to get it right and I appreciate that that can be frustrating for people, given the point that we are at with the bill and the need to know the detail of what future schemes will look like. That is why we have tried to articulate that as clearly as possible, at least when more information and detail becomes available. We are committed to working with people, because we want to make sure that, ultimately, we get the policies right.

In some of the other areas that you have talked about, such as emissions and biodiversity, we have statutory targets, as I have touched on, and more could well be coming down the line. That, of course, shows why we need to be flexible, so that we can take those things into consideration.

Part of this is about allowing for the flexibility and ability to incorporate whatever science, technology or research delivers, in order to support the whole process. It is about allowing flexibility to be built in, in relation to a further support plan down the line.

Absolutely. We can take some of the measures that we published last year as an example of that. When we published the measures, which was just over a year ago, I think that methane inhibitors were on that list. However, at that time, we did not have the approval for Bovaer, which has since had that approval.

That highlights how we know that such technology is coming down the track and could be used as a measure as part of an enhanced tier. It also highlights how, especially given the way that things develop in this space, we need to make sure that we can update and add measures as more become available and offer that full flexibility.

Ultimately, we want to ensure that farmers and crofters have a variety of measures that they can use to suit their circumstances. They know their land and business better than anybody else and we want to make sure that we have flexibility for them in the future framework.

I appreciate that time is wearing on, so I will make a brief point. It is a technical point, but I hope also an important one.

There will be a lot of secondary legislation on the back of this bill, and there is a concern to ensure that the balance is right in how that is scrutinised. What are your plans for parliamentary scrutiny around secondary legislation, particularly in relation to getting the balance right with regard to negative procedure for secondary legislation?

Set parliamentary procedures are obviously in place in relation to affirmative and negative instruments for the committee’s consideration.

As we have done in relation to some of the other developments that we have announced—for example, the whole-farm plan and the suckler beef scheme and attached conditions—we have set out in the route map when we will be making more information available and the process towards reaching that. We have set that out in the route map and in some of the information in relation to that that we have published already. This year, we have said that we will be setting out more information in relation to what will be considered in the enhanced tier of the framework; however, the secondary legislation would not be coming forward until 2025, by the time that it is enacted. I do not know whether Andrew Crawley wants to come in on that.

I do, cabinet secretary.

I will make a point of clarification around scrutiny. A lot of the discussion is about whether instruments should be affirmative or negative. We gave that question close consideration when drafting the bill. We recognise that, because it is a framework bill, different sets of regulations will have different import, and therefore different levels of scrutiny might be appropriate and would be welcomed by the Parliament. That is why the main regulation-making power in section 13 is what we call an either way power, so that where regulations merit a higher degree of scrutiny—a debate—they would be affirmative. If they are relatively minor and technical, they would be negative.

As is always the case with scrutiny arrangements of that kind, the Parliament will, of course, have a view on whether we are bringing forward the right kind of instrument, which will inform decisions that are made later about the level of scrutiny that the Parliament expects for the types of regulations that we are making.

We want to get this right, and we have tried to frame the bill in such a way that we will be able to get it right.

In relation to the important point that Andy made, I highlight that we have used either way provisions for previous instruments that we have brought to the committee. I am not aware that we have had any particular issues in relation to that. We have used such powers before.

As Andy outlined, negative instruments tend to be used for the more technical parts. We feel that those provisions in previous legislation have operated quite well—certainly, the committee has not raised concerns about that.

I think that my supplementary question has been answered.

Okay.

I want to get some clarity on what Andrew Crawley said. Part 2 of the bill includes various sections, but the section that he talked about—section 13—is about eligibility criteria, payment entitlements, amount, conditions, enforcement and administration in relation to support. Those are technical things, but the fact remains that part 2 in total is subject to the negative procedure. Cabinet secretary, are you saying that you would be open to amendments that separate the sections of part 2, which would allow some technical amendments to be subject to the negative procedure and others to be subject to the affirmative procedure, based on the committee’s recommendations?

10:30  

We will take seriously any recommendations that the committee makes in that regard, but we have also had correspondence with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee about the powers that we are taking and the instruments that we are looking to use in relation to them. We have touched on a couple of areas in which that committee had recommendations, including moving from the negative to the affirmative procedure or reconsidering one of the other instruments, but the committee was broadly content with the responses that we gave in relation to the powers there. As it stands, I am content with where we are on the basis of what the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has expressed to us.

It is absolutely worth putting on the record again that, when the DPLR Committee looked at the “Power to provide support”, its recommendation was:

“In light of the absence of detail, and the fact that this power is a Henry VIII power, the Committee recommends that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

It is important to put it on the record that negative procedures might not be adequate to allow this Parliament to scrutinise future legislation that is yet to be understood, or even yet to be developed.

However, the particular power that you have referred to involves a specific power for a very specific purpose. We responded to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on that issue. In fact, the power is similar to another power that was taken in, I think, the Environmental Protection Act 1990; Andy Crawley might have more information on that. We thought that, because the proposed power was broadly similar to the power in the 1990 act that is also subject to the negative procedure, it could be done in the same way. The proposed power in the bill is not as broad as the power in the 1990 act and is for a very particular purpose.

I am keen to distinguish what I would characterise as the main regulation making power in section 13 from the power in section 4 to modify the schedule—we view that as having a much narrower focus. Although it might be characterised as a Henry VIII power, my personal view is that it is only a Henry VIII power in the most narrow and technical sense. Under the power in section 4, we would be modifying payment purposes in the schedule, which we need to be able to do in order for the framework to work and to be flexible. As the cabinet secretary said, the equivalent power that we looked to is subject to negative procedure, and that is why we thought that it was appropriate. But, of course, as with all else, we will consider carefully the recommendations of the DPLR Committee on that issue. However, from our perspective, they are two separate powers with different issues.

Some of this has been covered already, but I will pick up on comments that were made by stakeholders about the purposes in schedule 1. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is quite sympathetic to the idea of future proofing any legislation. A number of specific comments, which I will not go into in detail, were made about areas where there was an element of prescriptiveness that may or may not miss out things that might become relevant later.

For example, questions were asked about why certain sectors have been omitted and about why certain things have been included. People asked why eggs, poultry and pork have been omitted. One comment was about the need for sufficient flexibility to account for future circumstances, such as changes in climate or cropping patterns having an effect. Are you sympathetic to that? How do you balance being prescriptive—there will be pressure on you to be prescriptive—with being broad enough to allow for change?

We are now at the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were when we were talking about the broad objectives of the bill. I appreciate your point and the points that stakeholders have raised.

We believe that the bill is still broad enough that some of the areas that you have mentioned would not necessarily be excluded. However, as we discussed earlier, if we create a list, it can look as though something that has not been included is seen as being less important or something that cannot be supported.

I am happy to consider the committee’s recommendations, and I am open to considering other matters that the committee feels should be in the schedule that are not there at the moment.

We have already touched on this a little bit. New EU regulations require member states to allocate at least 10 per cent of direct payments to complementing redistributive income support for sustainability. I would like to understand why you have not chosen to include a similar requirement in the bill at this point.

You have to bear in mind that we are not comparing like with like. Our vision for agriculture sets out the overall objective that we want to broadly align with the EU where it is practicable for us to do that. That is where we generally look at the 10 objectives that have been set for the CAP.

The EU is, of course, in a different situation, because it sets out its multi-annual frameworks at the start of a session and it then has however many years to deliver on those. We are in a different position and are coming from a different starting point.

As we have talked about today, we must ensure that we have the flexibility to do what is right for Scottish circumstances, so we need to have a conversation with our farmers and crofters to see what the best mechanism is and what it might look like. As I touched on in one of my previous responses, there tends to be broad agreement about what front loading can do and what impact it can have, so we might want to consider it further. However, I would not want us to tie ourselves to a certain position in relation to that, because we need to go through the co-development process first.

Great—it is staying connected to the CAP. We might already have touched on that.

Do you intend to bring forward entirely new regulations to govern the new schemes, or new versions of schemes, under the proposed tier system? Will the existing CAP regulations eventually be repealed when legacy schemes are fully obsolete? Is any specific end date envisaged for the CAP legacy schemes? Will you set out the expected use of the powers in the rural support plan—our favourite topic?

There is a lot in that, so forgive me if I miss anything.

You can come back to it.

You can correct me if I get anything wrong. Are you asking about the later parts of the bill, where we talk about the continuation of the various schemes?

Yes.

We have set out in the route map what our transition will be and for how long we expect current schemes to stay in place. The powers in the bill will ultimately enable us to do that.

You touched on the sunset clause. It is felt that it is unusual for an enabling power to have a sunset clause attached to it, so that is why we want to repeal the sunset clause. It is just not all that helpful. It would be better for us to repeal it and ensure that we have the time through the transition than for us to set a firm end date for when we should have used it by. Again, it is about providing flexibility and enabling the transition that we have set out in the route map.

Okay, but do you have any sense of the timing? You do not want a certain date, but will it be within a certain number of years or a certain—

The route map goes up until about 2027, when we expect some schemes to get there. Depending on where we are in the development of a certain scheme, there could come a point at which it might make sense to continue beyond a specific point that we have mentioned. Of course, I cannot predetermine any decisions that might be taken further down the line or what could come up during the process, but it is important that we have the ability to continue those schemes until such time as we have made the transition. Ultimately, that is why those powers are in the bill.

I might not have picked you up correctly, but part of my question was about new schemes or new versions of schemes. I guess that this touches on Alasdair Allan’s question, which was about the SSIs. Is it your intention to create entirely new regulations to govern those schemes? If so, how will the powers be set out and how are you going to use them in your work on the rural support plan?

Yes, the bill would allow us to create new schemes. As we set out, 2026 is when we would be looking to have in place the enhanced tier of the framework, which is going to be new and different from what we have at the moment.

In the route map, we have set out that some schemes are going to continue, but they could well change. One of those is AECS, and we have LFASS as well. Some of the other supports will continue through that period until we transition to the new parts of the framework, and we have set out broadly when we expect the new tiers to come into effect within that.

I hope that I articulated that well. Is there anything that you want to add, Andrew?

I will add a minor clarification. Ariane Burgess asked about legacy schemes and CAP schemes. We envisage that they will be turned off—repealed. In effect, we will be tidying up the statute so that future schemes will be drafted as Scottish legislation. Hopefully they will be a lot easier to read and understand than the CAP rules are.

That would be very welcome. The clear message that I get is that we need to pay strong attention to the route map, because that is telling us where we are going.

It will give information on the transitions that can be expected as well, but the route map broadly sets out when we expect the new parts of the framework to come into effect.

On the introduction of new legislation and secondary legislation, it is quite clear that the conveners of committees across the Parliament have concerns about framework bills and the additional workload that committees will have in dealing with the related SSIs. What work or process planning have you done on secondary legislation?

We have seen some bad examples. There is a suite of instruments regarding deer management, but we get to consider only one or two SSIs in isolation although they form a far bigger policy. Have you planned how you will introduce secondary legislation? Will it be grouped so that there are suites or packages of SSIs that deliver on certain policies, or is the committee going to see two years’ worth of SSIs? That would make it very difficult for us to see the big picture. What work have you done on that?

I hope that you will refer to the bill as a good example in the future, but time will tell.

As I outlined in my response to the previous question, it is all about transition for us: everything is not suddenly going to change overnight, with cliff edges in relation to it. Of course, we will need to introduce SSIs, not least for some of the conditions that we will introduce next year. There will then be secondary legislation that will enable us to bring forward the enhanced tier of the framework, which is expected to be in place in 2026, and the SSIs will be introduced in 2025. It will be a phased process because of the timescales that we have set out.

The SSIs are also phased, because we need to be able to undertake the work on the relevant tiers of the framework. It is critical that we get the phasing right—not least for the committee—but I appreciate your point.

Okay. Thanks. The next question is from Beatrice Wishart.

Sorry, convener—which question are we on? Have we moved on to question 15?

Yes.

Right—that is fine. I thought that we had missed something earlier.

My question is about the code of practice. Stakeholders have highlighted unknowns around the code. They want to know how prescriptive it will be, what the timeline will be for bringing it in and whether compliance with the code will be enshrined in regulations under section 7. Could you say a bit more about the Government’s intentions when producing the code and using its section 7 powers?

I hope that the code will be a helpful document for farmers and crofters. It is to be used as a support rather than as an alternative mechanism—I want to make that clear.

As we touched on at the start of today’s discussion, sustainable and regenerative agriculture means different things to different people. It is about a basket of measures, and the code is really important in helping to outline some of those. We want to make sure that we get that right in how the code is used. The list of measures also refers to any consultation that needs to take place and how we raise awareness of the code.

I have talked a lot today about co-development and getting that right. The code is designed to be a tool for, and a support to, farmers and crofters as opposed to anything else.

10:45  

One of the stakeholders said that the code is envisaged as being more of a manual that can be referred to. Is that how you envisage it?

We have to make people aware of it. If we want to be a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture and deliver on our vision, we have to explain what that means to people and what that might look like. For me, it is about the measures that we will introduce and expect people to undertake. Everything will have to tie back to that and will involve looking at where we ultimately aim to be. It is about providing support for people—it is a manual in that sense—that we can refer them to and say, “This is what we are considering, and this is the basket of measures included in that definition.” That is how the code is meant to be used.

Given that the code of practice could potentially—you have not ruled it out—play a big part in cross-compliance, which would ultimately have an impact on basic payments, what scrutiny by Parliament should there be? Should Parliament have an overview or should there be a requirement to consult it on the code? The code could ultimately form the basis for cross-compliance.

Again, it is not the intention that the code is to be used in that way. As I hope I have outlined, we intend the code of practice to be helpful to our farmers and crofters rather than a tool for cross-compliance or anything else.

The code is part of the overarching aim of the bill, but it is a tool, so it is not prescriptive—is that what you are saying? How will you achieve the overarching aim of the bill if the code is not prescriptive?

Again, I cannot say that—Sorry. John wants to come in.

The code of practice should set out broadly what constitutes sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Effect will be given to it by what we put in the conditions for the different tiers. For example, we intend to use the whole-farm plan as a baselining tool. When we have the enhanced tier 2, certain conditions will be attached to the support that you get for that. That is how we will reach the outcomes in our vision that you are referring to.

Okay. That means that the code is prescriptive. Will it be laid before Parliament? Where is the oversight? Who will be involved in its development? How will it be monitored and evaluated? Where is the consultation on what it contains? It appears to me that there is no subordinate legislation governing this at all. It is important enough that it should be subject to at least the affirmative procedure.

I have perhaps not been sufficiently clear. The code of practice will be a tool, as discussed with Ms Wishart, for setting out broadly what sustainable and regenerative farming is, so it will not be prescriptive. The choices for farmers will be in what support they access, and that support will have conditions attached to it. In our current agri-environment schemes, if you want to draw down support for particular things, you have to undertake certain management practices to gain access to that support. That will also be the case for the different tiers of our support in the future, and that is separate from the code of practice.

So, drawing down any support, even in tier 1 and tier 2, could be subject to compliance with the code of practice; therefore, it is prescriptive.

No.

Would you allow somebody who did not comply with the code of practice to draw down funds under the scheme?

They would have to comply with the scheme’s rules.

Which would be the code of practice. We are going round in circles. The code of practice is important.

The code of practice will set out in general terms what sustainable and regenerative agriculture could be. As the cabinet secretary said, that may be different things in different places. It cannot be prescriptive in relation to the management practice of any particular farm accessing any particular scheme. That would have to be part of the conditions of the base tier, then tier 2, tier 3 and so on. The code of practice sits beside that as a document that explains what sustainable and regenerative agriculture is in general. The scheme rules will determine specifically what each farmer will need to do.

It is not possible to put a simple definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture in the bill. As I touched on at the start of the meeting, we published in the route map a definition and an example of the overall goals of regenerative agriculture. Bearing in mind that we have not designed the code of practice yet, we cannot say definitively what will be in it, because we want to consult on it and get it right on improving animal welfare, increasing the resilience of production to climate change and capturing carbon in soils and vegetation, which is more general than the prescriptive level that you are talking about.

Cabinet secretary, you are not really giving us any reassurance on this incredibly important issue. I think that we all understand why you have not put a definition in the bill, but what you are saying would sway us towards having a definition in the bill. You are saying that the definition in the code of practice will not be scrutinised but that it should and would underpin the future development of how people access funding.

I ask again, how will the code of practice be consulted on and overseen? From what I can figure out from the bill, it will be laid before Parliament for no other reason than for information. Should the definition be scrutinised by Parliament much more thoroughly?

I return to the point that it is in our best interests to ensure that what we bring forward is consulted on and developed in that way. Subsection 26(6) of the bill sets out that point in relation to the consultation.

To go back to the start, the code of practice is a basket of different measures, in which sense it will not be prescriptive. Perhaps we are not articulating how it will be used in the best way, but it is about the support. It is critical that we try to outline the general understanding of what those terms mean in the code of practice.

Looking at it from the other point of view, stakeholders have expressed concerns about why the code of practice is there at all and what it actually means. How will the Parliament scrutinise its direct or indirect benefits and its impact on climate change targets? The Government sets the rules. If farmers are being told to comply with conditions set by the Government, and if they are unable to access funding if they do not comply, surely all the power is held by the Government, even if the direct or indirect impact of the code of practice is being scrutinised to see whether it is working.

We have to review the code, and the powers are there for that to happen. Practices can change and develop, especially in this area, and we have to ensure that what we have can be updated to reflect that. We need the flexibility to do that. Section 26 mentions the consultation and ensures that we can review the code and update it as necessary.

What if the Scottish Government uses its powers in such a way that it gets this wrong? We know that farmers are already doing stuff. What if what they are doing does not fit in with the Government’s rules, with the result that they become non-compliant? I completely get where Rhoda Grant is coming from. The way in which the bill is being interpreted is that the code will be prescriptive and farmers will have to follow it, because, if they do not, they will become non-compliant. How will they know whether what they are doing is right, given that it is the Government that sets the rules? Farmers need to be confident and to have clarity.

Absolutely. I will bring in John Kerr in a moment. Throughout the process, we have been—or, at least, we have tried to be—clear. You talked about the good practice that is already happening, and a key component of our approach is that we want to recognise that good practice. Again, the code of practice is not intended to be a prescriptive document. The Government will not develop it in isolation and then land it on people. It is not in our best interests to do that. It is in our best interests to have conversations with farmers and crofters to determine what the code will look like and how it might develop. The powers on the review and consultation are important in that regard.

It is important that we are clear that the code of practice is set out in the bill as a guidance document—in other words, it is not prescriptive. If, as is likely to be the case, we have prescriptions in our schemes that sit in the different tiers, they will be taken forward through secondary legislation. That legislation will be scrutinised, so the Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the rules that are in force for how people can obtain support under each of the tiers, or however we introduce the schemes. That scrutiny will be there at the point at which the prescription bites, which is not in the code but in the rules associated with drawing down the support payment. Everyone would expect there to be a compliance regime around the receipt of public funding.

The important point is that there will be scrutiny of the secondary legislation.

The code of practice has been promoted as underpinning how the Scottish Government foresees that sustainable and regenerative agriculture will be delivered. On that basis, stakeholders have suggested that it will be ingrained. The intention is that the code of practice will be ingrained in every piece of secondary legislation. That is really important. The code will inform every piece of secondary legislation, which means that it will be prescriptive.

There are concerns about the code, which the Government has said will underpin the future delivery of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Therefore, it will be absolutely critical. I simply put that out there. Perhaps you could give us an example of what will be in the code and how it will play out when it comes to secondary legislation.

I would be happy to follow up on that, because I know that there are other examples of legislation that sets out guidance or asks people to refer to guidance. I would be happy to provide the committee with more information on that.

It is important that we are clear that there is not a prescriptive link that flows from the code of practice into the schemes, which is the impression that is perhaps developing from this conversation. That is not right.

That is what we are hearing from stakeholders. One of the principles of the bill—

In that case, this is a useful opportunity for us to correct that misinterpretation.

Can you give us an example of how the code would be used? In itself, it has no powers. What is the benefit of having provisions for a code of practice in the bill?

One of the important elements of sustainable and regenerative agriculture is how farmers and crofters maintain their soils in good condition. It is possible to set out in a code, in broad terms, how that can be achieved. It can be done through cover cropping or by having permanent pasture that is not grazed for a certain period. Such measures will protect soils. However, that would not be prescriptive. An arable farmer in East Lothian will not necessarily use rotational grazing to protect their soils—they might use cover cropping. Those are the kinds of conditions that would apply to the tier 2 support that a farmer might get for the good management of their land. The conditions will be different for different types of farming.

Surely, when you are developing secondary legislation, you would pay close attention to what the code of practice, which the Government would pull together, says when it helps you to define and deliver secondary legislation. Therefore, the code of practice will be ingrained in secondary legislation.

11:00  

On the enhanced tier and the proposed measures as a result of that, we have tried to give examples and to show our thinking. This is not about us mandating to individual businesses in future frameworks and support that they must do this or that; it is about giving farmers and crofters the flexibility to select the measures that are right for the land type and farm business that they operate. The list of measures that we have published is not definitive by any means. It is about offering flexibility and choice to enable people to do that, not strict prescription.

I envisage that the measures that we are proposing would be considered within the broad definitions that we will potentially set out. The work that we take forward and how we develop the code will be really important.

Okay. Thank you.

The policy memorandum states:

“The recommendations in the Code of Practice are expected to underpin good agricultural and environmental practice, as set out in conditions for area-based support for farmers.”

That is the crucial bit. People have to comply with the code of practice to get area-based support. It might not be said that everyone must do everything to the letter in the code of practice, but they will have to follow the code of practice as it pertains to their land to access area-based payments. That means that it is crucial that people understand what is contained in the code of practice and that they agree that it is practicable, otherwise they will not get their area-based payments. That is big.

We have set out the basic standards that we expect people to meet in relation to good agricultural and environmental conditions and extra conditions in relation to the whole-farm plan and starting to build the foundations and baselining for individual businesses. More information will be published in the update to the route map relating to the whole-farm plan that is coming. That will set out what we expect, so that people can access that support.

What you have said about involving people and their needing to know what is in the code of practice is exactly right. That is why we want to consult on it and ensure that what we set out in the code is right.

I go back to the points that we touched on earlier. The code is not prescriptive, because we have to enable the future tiers of our framework. We have set out as our objective that, ultimately, we want to be a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. We have also set that out in our vision. A host of flexible measures can be part of that, but the co-development in that work will be critical in ensuring that we get it right.

I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. The issue is about who will oversee that, what scrutiny is available, and what changes can be made to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. I do not think that the very light touch in the bill is sufficient.

I disagree in the sense that I do not think that there is a particularly light touch in the bill. It mentions the reviews that we would have to undertake of the code and the consultation. However, if the committee has particular views on that, we will, of course, consider them in the stage 1 report. We are happy to take away from this conversation any particular views that the committee has. However, I would not want there to be a misinterpretation of the basis of the approach and what the code of practice would mean.

I am a bit breathless listening to all this. Section 26 of the bill has paragraphs on the code of practice and on what is “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”, as well as on what the Scottish ministers must do to

“review and, if they consider it appropriate, revise and publish the code”.

Scottish ministers must come to Parliament before publishing the code. Also, the

“Scottish Ministers must, in preparing or reviewing the code, consult such persons as they consider likely to be interested in or affected by it.”

After hearing what Rhoda Grant said about the policy memorandum, it seems to me from reading that section that the bill does not suggest that anything is going to be foisted on farmers; rather, this is about engaging with them. Cabinet secretary, you have talked about co-design and about all the people who have been invited to participate and to give input on their role in relation to sustainability and regenerative farming, whether they are wheat producers, big arable barley growers or whatever. I am interested in hearing how we make sure that people understand that nothing will be foisted on them, because this is partnership working, which is what co-design is all about.

I hope that we have been able to evidence that through the work that we have undertaken so far and, ultimately, through all the commitments that we have made throughout the whole process about how we develop policy. We want to do this with farmers and crofters because, as I have said a number of times today, they know their own business best. It is critical that any future system provides them with the flexibility to enable them to make the choices and undertake the measures that will work for their businesses. You can see some of those measures—we have published what some of that might look like. It is absolutely built in to everything that we do and everything that we have set out as part of the route map and the information that we are providing. What we are introducing ultimately has to be deliverable and it has to work for our farmers and crofters. It is in our best interests to continue that work with them to ensure that we get this right.

The points that you touched on and that I highlighted in previous responses to Rhoda Grant, including some of the points that are set out in section 26, enable us to do that. It is about having that consultation and engagement and, of course, reviewing the code, because, as we have discussed already today, things can change and improve in this space—things are developing all the time.

I am just wondering whether the five-year review timeframe is too long in terms of consultation. Obviously, we hope that, in the future, farmers will be paid annually by the Government. If farmers cannot access funding because of non-compliance, because they are not meeting your definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture, it will take them a very long while to put in place what is necessary to meet that definition. We are talking about many different farming contexts here; we are not talking about one size fits all. I think that the Scottish Government could consider whether a five-year process is just too long.

Again, if the committee has any particular views on the review period, I am happy to look at that point and consider it, but I want to clarify that we have already set out our expectations for support going forward, including the minimum standards that we are expecting, what conditions will apply to support from 2025 and what support will be introduced in 2026. I just want to be absolutely clear on that. If there are any other views on the review period, I am happy to consider them.

One of the main concerns that I have, and which I hear from other stakeholders, is that the term “sustainable and regenerative” could be interpreted in different ways by different groups of people, whether they be food producers or environmental lobbyists, for example. It is difficult, because “sustainable” could also incorporate a fair work agenda or other areas that are not related to the environment or animal welfare, for example.

It would be useful to understand that. From the policy point of view, I do not know at what point in the whole process of this transformation you will allow the committee to understand what you mean by “sustainable and regenerative”. That understanding would take away the fears about non-compliance that Rhoda Grant and the convener were talking about.

That is what I have tried to illustrate by talking about some of the definitions that we have put out there. You are absolutely right that the term can mean different things to different people. As I set out at the very start, it is a collection of different measures. I have also made the point that you just made, that every business is different and we need flexibility to be able to adapt to that.

The code is not something that we will conjure up ourselves, suddenly introduce and expect everyone to comply with. It is about working with people to develop a code of practice that works for everyone. It is not in our best interests to exclude, for example, the 18,000-odd businesses that are currently part of our agricultural payment system. We do not want to lock people out—it is a journey, and it is about taking people with us on that journey, which is why we have made the commitments that we have made. I want to be clear that it is certainly not the intention to lock people out.

To close off this session before moving on, I will ask whether you foresee the code of practice having animal welfare and succession planning as part it.

No. Again, that would completely undermine everything that I have said about co-development. I am not the expert on what should be in a sustainable and regenerative farming code of practice, so it is not for me to outline it to the committee. What I can point to is what we have published in the route map, which I have highlighted a number of times today and I have read out some of its elements. However, again, that has to be developed.

Given that there is a suggestion that the code may not come forward until 2026, the committee would appreciate hearing about early work that has been done and getting an idea of whether elements such as animal welfare and fair pay and work conditions might play a part. It would certainly be helpful to give us an idea of what to expect.

I am happy to follow up with the committee on the work that we have already published in that regard, if that would be helpful.

That is very helpful, thank you. Last, but not least, I call Elena Whitham.

I think that I have learned my lesson about not volunteering to go last. I will be as brief as I can be.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned a just transition for our farmers and crofters, which is really important, especially when we are looking for them to redevelop their skills and practices, as we have just been speaking about. A big part of that will be continuing professional development. The committee has heard in evidence that there needs to be a massive culture shift in how our farmers and crofters take up such opportunities. We have to be cognisant of certain groups, such as female farmers, new entrants or younger farmers.

Although stakeholders and respondents are broadly supportive of CPD, they have raised a number of questions about how it would be implemented and what the Scottish Government’s intentions are for those powers. I am thinking about measures to compel versus measures to incentivise. When can we expect to see any regulations in that area?

Thank you for that question. CPD is an important part of the framework, because we do not have the powers to implement a CPD regime at the moment. Therefore, the ability to take those powers through the bill is really important. It was interesting to go through all the evidence that the committee has heard on the issue, because it came across that this would be interpreted as a stick to force people to undertake CPD, which is not what is intended at all. If there is CPD that could be considered essential, or that a person must undertake in order to undertake another activity, it is important that we have the powers and flexibility to enable us to require that.

There are examples of that in relation to plant protection products, where people need to undertake specific training before they can undertake that activity, which is reasonable. However, the provisions are about facilitating CPD in the first place and building a system that enables continued learning and personal development.

11:15  

Another thing that came through strongly in the evidence was the importance of peer-to-peer learning and the support that is available on that. We want to facilitate and encourage that as much as possible as well as providing other opportunities for learning through that process. I hope that that is helpful, at least in clarifying how we intend to establish the powers and enable that aspect.

Another element that goes alongside that is knowledge transfer and what will be called the agricultural knowledge and innovation service, which presents different opportunities. An awful lot of work has been undertaken so far on that and on what will become the future tier 4 support.

John Kerr will know when that will be implemented. I think that the new part of the framework will come in from 2027 onwards.

We will try to bring forward the CPD support and the other parts of the tier 4 support as quickly as we can, because it will, we hope, be an evolution of where we currently are with our farm advisory services and the networks of farms, including the monitor farms. The women in agriculture work has been mentioned, and we continue to maintain and build on that. It is an evolving situation.

The timeline for that is slightly separate from the timeline for the other work, because we have a discrete team working on that and much of that work is delivered with different delivery partners in the advisory services on the ground. We will be developing that as soon as we can.

Thank you.

Can you say something about the budget for CPD? How will CPD be supported?

Again, it is not possible for me to put a figure on that or set out what it could look like, because I do not know what future budgets will be. Sometimes, because this area is called tier 4, it can be seen as being at the end of the scale, rather than as something that supports everything else that happens within the framework, which is the way that it should be viewed. We want to enable that going forward.

We fund a number of schemes such as the knowledge transfer and innovation fund and the farm advisory service, and we have set out the broad envelope of what we think the direct element of the support will look like. However, it is not possible for me to set out future budgets at the moment.

There will be some support for it.

Yes—it is a critical element, and we support similar schemes now. As the schemes evolve and we transition into what will become the formal tier of the new framework, I fully intend to support that.

We are not looking for specific figures, but we know that the budget that is set out in the financial memorandum is about £840 million. Will the cost of delivering the CPD come from that budget, or will it pull on budgets from other sectors?

Again, it is not possible for me to set out at this stage what that might look like. Also, we have undertaken—

You have a financial memorandum, so you must have done work to decide what it is based on. We will have 70 per cent of the funding in basic payments, and we will have tier 2 and tier 3. It is a simple question: do you foresee that the CPD funding will come out of the £840 million that you expect to be the budget up until 2028?

Within the overall quantum of what we have in the portfolio funding, I would expect us to fund the CPD.

I am sorry, but can I just clarify that that was the question?

It was. Will the CPD funding come out of the £840 million pot that is identified in the financial memorandum?

Yes.

Okay. I think that that was the crux of the question from Beatrice Wishart.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted the question, but that is where I would expect that funding to come from.

Cabinet secretary and officials, we appreciate your time this morning—it has been hugely helpful. Thank you for attending. I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.

11:19 Meeting suspended.  

11:27 On resuming—