Seòmar agus comataidhean

I reiterate that the SSI has absolutely nothing to do with funding levels or the policy intention back then. It is purely to give us a mechanism to continue to make payments.

Oh, no, no—

Good morning, convener, and thank you.

We all know why I am back here. I hope that we can make some progress today with passing these crucial regulations. I note the issues that were raised last time at committee and in the recent committee call for views. Although I appreciate the interest shown, there are some issues that need to be addressed to avoid any further unnecessary confusion.

I make it clear to the committee, stakeholders and customers that, in extending the current system of payments to 2030, the regulations neither cut across nor replace the published agricultural reform route map. The route map makes it clear that there will be no cliff edges in support and that there will be a phased transition from legacy support into the new four-tier framework. It also states that Scottish rural development programme—or SRDP—schemes will continue with no change until at least 2026. Further engagement is required on how the support will be delivered from 2027.

The regulations are simple and straightforward by design. They are not about making changes to policy, outcomes or payments. That was never their intent, nor is that what was publicly committed to. All that the regulations do is extend the legal basis for continued SRDP support, at programme level—and by “support”, I mean all support, not only less favoured area support, but support for crofting, agri-environment, forestry and community-led local development, to name but a few. If the regulations are not approved, there will be no support and no phased transition, only a cliff edge.

I make it clear—and reiterate—that the extension to 2030 does not mean no change. It does not mean that every scheme will run, as is, in every year up to 2030. It means that, instead of constant cliff edges and annual visits to Parliament to extend schemes, we will instead come back here when there is a change to make or when we bring forward replacement support. The route map sets out that phased transition.

The regulations offer a pragmatic approach that provides continued assurance and a backstop. They enable us to focus our collective time and resource on the co-development of new support within the four-tier framework, using the powers in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024.

Questions have been raised about the lack of payment rate change and about why we have not rebased the less favoured area support scheme. The cabinet secretary made it clear when she said:

“However, to rebase the scheme now would be a costly and resource-intensive exercise that would deliver little in terms of benefit, and would detract from work on a future replacement. It is right that we focus collective efforts on ensuring that support for constrained areas is the most effective it can be in the new support framework.”

That situation has not changed. When I spoke to Peter Kennedy of the NFU Scotland LFA committee yesterday, he reiterated the position that neither the LFA committee, nor NFU Scotland, is calling for rebasing to take place at this point. That has been made abundantly clear in the call for views response, which also states NFUS’s complete support of the regulations.

The same reasoning applies to other legacy SRDP support, too. We can continue to attempt short-term fixes to complex legacy support or, instead, focus on the co-development of future support. We cannot do both. The route map is clear that LFASS will continue unchanged until at least 2026.

I am sure that we will discuss the call for views later, but I want to highlight two quotations that provide a good summary of the situation. NFU Scotland said:

“Issues concerning the current operation of LFASS, such as possible rebasing, are completely separate to this SSI and must not be conflated.”

Also, the Western Isles Council said that it was

“supportive of the continuation of the schemes until other suitable schemes and programmes were implemented.”

The regulations are about continuing SRDP support, removing a cliff edge, and underpinning the route map’s phased transition—that is it. Discussions about future changes and the introduction of replacement support are not for these regulations, but for the agricultural reform programme, and those discussions will continue in line with the published route map.

To be blunt, I have to say that you cannot make changes or improvements to, rebase or transition from something that does not exist. That is the fundamental issue at stake. Without these regulations, there will be no SRDP support. I hope that we can provide some assurance to our farmers, crofters and land managers today, and I hope that we pass the regulations.

I am happy to take questions.

We will come back with every single piece of legislation that we develop as we go along so that the committee can scrutinise it. I have made an open commitment that we will come back to talk to the committee and to stakeholders.

The entire point of passing these regulations is to get this bit done, because they merely provide the mechanism to allow us to make payments. They are not about what the payments look like or their size or shape, and they have nothing to do with what the payments are; they are entirely about the machine. They allow us to say, “We will have an SRDP payment for a calf scheme or a Scottish upland sheep support scheme”, or whatever it might be, and we can then put that into a piece of legislation and start to make payments as a result. These regulations are just give us the backstop so that we can get on and do the other stuff.

Is it 40 days?

The rule is 40 days for laying it, so, yes, that is a fact. However, these regulations get this done, and allow us—

No—I was refuting your comment that I am making it up.

Okay. On your point about consultation with industry, that is on-going as we speak. Those conversations are happening with farmers across the country through the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, NFU Scotland and the National Sheep Association. They are happening regularly to allow officials to bring forward the advice and the conversations that are then put to ministers. That is how the process works.

It is not the only one.

I have read through all the responses to the call for views, and everybody agrees that the SSI should be passed. Everybody is asking for more consultation—I absolutely accept that. I have read the response from Scottish Land & Estates, and I invite its representatives to speak to me so that we can have a conversation about the issues. All the other people who have written in accept that the SSI needs to be passed to allow us to have those conversations. I give an absolute commitment here and now that I will speak to every relevant organisation that wants to speak to me, and we will have those conversations.

There is nothing that I am trying to hide or delay. I cannot give you more of a commitment than that, convener.