Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that it is.

Again, that is a technical question, so I will ask George Burgess to respond.

The co-design is working, convener. There may be individuals who are not getting what they want, but that goes back to my original statement: the purpose of ARIOB, the FAST group or any other discussions is not for individuals to say, “This is what I want the Government to do, now go and do it.” It is for stakeholders to give us as much information as they possibly can in order to allow us to consider how to fit those things into our budget and policy objectives and to ensure that we keep our communities resilient. I will look again at the issues that were raised at the committee’s session last week and think about whether I believe that the criticisms are justified. If I believe that they are, they will inform my thinking and the thinking of the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands as part of the co-development and co-design process.

We have made it crystal clear from the start that this will be done only if the farming community comes with us—and it is doing that. On numerous occasions when he was the president of the NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy said, “You cannot do this unless the industry is coming with you.” I understand the frustration and that this is not all being done in one fell swoop, but if that were to happen, we would get it wrong. Therefore, we are doing this piece by piece, stage by stage and issue by issue, in order to try to get it right. As long as we continue to do that, we will get to the place where we need to be within our current constraints.

You have made a number of points and I am writing them down in the hope that I do not forget anything.

There is no doubt that it is a jigsaw, because there is no one-size-fits-all solution for any one type of semi-upland livestock farm, let alone agriculture as a whole. We need to put together a huge number of different components. Clearly, the last time that I was at committee to discuss an SSI, I did not properly articulate that we will be building the jigsaw piece by piece, bit by bit, and that the SSIs will be brought to committee having been given the fullest consideration that we can give them.

I seem to remember that the committee was of the view that, although the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 is framework legislation, we needed the full picture. At the time, we said that we could not get the full picture in one go and that we would have to build it piece by piece, therefore, it is a jigsaw—I agree with you.

The Government has created a vision for agriculture. It is out there—it is available for anyone who wants to see what it is. It is a vision of a world-leading, sustainable, regenerative agricultural practice, which our farmers and crofters are right behind as they produce top-quality food while maintaining good biodiversity on their farms. They are the custodians of our landscape. That is the vision, and I do no think that anyone will disagree with that.

Convener, I fully understand that. I sat and listened to the meeting, and I was really confused and disappointed that that is what the committee was being told.

The convener is absolutely spot on that ARIOB is not, and never was, a decision-making forum. I think that it was Beatrice Wishart who asked whether we take a vote. The answer is that, no, we do not. Ultimately, the only people who will make decisions will be me and the cabinet secretary, as the elected representatives. We were elected to do the job, so we will make the decisions and stand by those decisions, one way or the other.

On the point that ARIOB has made no tangible difference to policy direction, Mandy Callaghan has been involved with it for far longer than I have, so I will let her give examples of where ARIOB has gone through its process and that has made a tangible difference.

You are saying that ARIOB is not working, but I dispute that. ARIOB is working. That is where we have some robust, long conversations in the room. I reiterate that, if someone is in ARIOB and puts their point across, that does not mean that they get exactly what they want. We have to go away and distil the information, consider what it means, consider how it fits into the jigsaw and then determine what we need to do to achieve the vision that we have set out.

Although I am disappointed at some of the stuff that was said in your meeting last week, I give the commitment that I will ask for it to be put on the agenda for the next ARIOB meeting that we will have a discussion about whether people feel that they are disenfranchised or disengaged or that this is not working for them. We will have that conversation and work out how to take matters forward. That co-design is essential to our getting this right. It is not something that we can do ourselves. If we do, we will get it wrong. When we go back to ARIOB—I am not sure when the next meeting is—we will have it on the agenda. We will have a discussion about why people are feeling the way that they are. That way, at least we will air some of the grievances that youse iterated here last Wednesday.

I thank the committee for inviting me back to discuss agricultural reform following last Wednesday’s evidence session with key stakeholders.

Our message to Scotland’s agricultural businesses and to the wider industry is very simple: the Scottish Government is fully committed to supporting the sector. Agricultural businesses are the bedrock of our rural communities—they underpin thriving rural communities. As we confront the twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, we stand united with our farmers and crofters in striving to ensure that the sector has a prosperous and sustainable future.

We have seen from the experience in England what happens when decisions on future support are poorly thought through and rushed. Therefore, we are taking our time to make the right decisions, making progress now and engaging with communities and stakeholders on our future direction.

Change is never easy, and I am determined that we get it right for Scotland. Active farming and sustainable food production remain at the core of our agenda. That is underpinned by our commitment to maintaining direct payments, which offer stability in an increasingly volatile world and enable our farmers to produce food sustainably. In return for public investment, we are asking farmers and crofters to join us in doing more for the climate and nature.

As I outlined in February, our approach focuses on delivering five key outcomes and delivering reforms that balance those requirements. Those outcomes are high-quality food production, thriving agricultural businesses, climate change mitigation and adaptation, nature restoration and support for a just transition, and they will ensure that we move towards a sustainable and greener economy in a way that protects the industry, supports communities and, just as important, leaves no one behind.

We are dedicated to modernising the way that we work by driving efficiency and creating an intuitive, seamless information technology experience for farmers and crofters. They need a modern, user-friendly service that allows them to focus on what they do best: farming in a way that protects our environment, boosts our efficiency and helps their businesses to thrive.

By working with the sector, we will use this opportunity to deliver a truly bespoke solution that is tailored to the unique needs of Scotland’s agricultural community. Achieving that vision will require a comprehensive organisational redesign and a revamping of systems, processes and capabilities to build a future-ready framework. In the immediate term, we are using the tools that are currently at our disposal. We are simultaneously deeply engaged in co-developing the future operating model and transition plan with stakeholders.

That collaborative approach has been undertaken in all our proposals. For example—to name just a few—it has been undertaken in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, the enhanced greening scheme and the code of practice. Just this week, my officials met with the food and agriculture stakeholder task force group. As part of that process, we have planned follow-up meetings in May and a list of other stakeholder engagements.

Each time we have those conversations, they lead to a refinement of policy proposals, additional detail and analysis, which all feeds into the advice that I receive and the decisions that the cabinet secretary and I then take.

Let me be clear: profitability and sustainable farming do not have to be opposing forces. With the right support at the right time, and while safeguarding our planet, we can get this right for the sector, the planet and the resilience of our food supply.

Those five outcomes are interconnected and require a delicate balance, but I know that success relies on farmers and crofters being economically viable to deliver the vision for agriculture. I will continue to work as hard as I can, and I will ensure that there is regular engagement not only at the official level but at the ministerial level as well. We will continue to develop our thinking, which will provide practical solutions to all the challenges that we face.

We will not get everything right, and folk will not get everything that they want. However, I will stretch every sinew to get it as right as I can for as many people as I can. I hope that the industry continues to engage and becomes even more engaged to help us to fulfil the ambitions that we have set out for ourselves.

A number of different schemes that are going to be or have been absolutely catastrophic have been brought in because people have just not bothered to get involved. I am giving the committee an example of how we are trying to co-produce a policy system that will allow every farmer in the country to engage. I am also giving an example of what happens when that is not done in a way that absolutely takes on board the views of the industry. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we avoid making the mistakes that are being made down south, so I make no apology for making that comparison.

The farmer-led groups were not completely ignored—that is absolute nonsense. The farmer led-groups gave their views on what was right for their sectors—that is what they were looking at.

For example, the beef sector looked at the beef sector. I think that I am right in saying that Jim Walker said, “This is what we do for the beef sector,” and he probably presented a brilliantly comprehensive programme of work for the beef sector, because he is an incredibly clever guy who knows exactly what he is doing and how that will benefit his business. However, he added, “But you’ll need to pick up another policy of some kind and give that to the crofters.” Well, we are not in the business of making crofters an afterthought. Crofters are part of our agricultural and community set-up just as much as beef farmers are.

It is not that the farmer-led groups were ignored; the information that was taken from those farmer-led groups has fed into ARIOB, into our engagement with other stakeholders and into my thinking about going and speaking to the crofters in Lewis, Harris, and Skye. However, I will go back to my point that you are not gonnae get everything you want; you are gonnae get a balanced policy that will fit within the policy objectives that we, as a Government, and this Parliament have agreed to and within the budget that this Government has available to it.

Again, I fundamentally disagree with you.