Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry to have to come back in, but this is an important point. I am glad that you said that the arrangements are messy; I think that they are a bit messy, too.

Tiers 1 to 4 are the future. When we talk about legacy schemes, we are talking about the basic payment scheme, but we are actually transitioning that to the future, which tiers 1 to 4 model. I am assuming that tiers 1 to 4 are not just there until 2028 but that that is the model that we will run forward with until 2032. The SSIs that will be considered in the autumn are actually about the future.

I want to return to why the matter is crucially important. Let us take a practical example. You are bringing out a £20 million scheme this year using the Bew moneys, which you have replaced. John Swinney seemed to suggest that that would be about sustainable and regenerative farming, but you have not produced anything that tells us what farmers might think is the right thing to apply for under that scheme.

The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 says that the rural support plan must set out

“any measures that are intended to benefit small producers, tenant farmers and crofters”.

However, I have organisations telling me that they do not really know how the Scottish suckler beef support scheme fits them as small producers or how the whole-farm plan is going to work for a smaller-than-usual producer.

What about capping and front loading? Those questions came up during discussion of the agriculture legislation, but we still have not answered them. ARIOB is a group that you are quite proud of, but I worry about ARIOB because I do not want it to be a clique; I want it to be an expansive group that really works for the whole industry rather than for the few people who are on that group. ARIOB has been in place since 2021, so I could ask what it has been doing for almost four years. We should surely have the detail by now so that we are clear, and so that farmers across the industry are clear, about what comes next.

Finally, you suggested that you think that farmers, crofters and smallholders are clear. I think that some feel that they are clear, but the impression that I get when I go out is that that is certainly not what is thought across the industry.

It was surely your original vision that the rural support plan would have come out by now, in order for us to have all of these things ready before we start talking about the proper transition from 2026.

You said that the document is currently thousands of words long, so you hope to condense it for it to be useful—otherwise it will be a nice bedtime read, will it not? That is important. The letter that the minister sent says of the code that

“it will be fundamental to the activity required to access support”,

so it is an important document. The 2024 act says that the law can require

“regard to be had by particular persons to the guidance”,

that is, the code of practice for sustainable farming. So, the code is an important document because future payments could hinge on it. To go back to your argument about carrot and stick, do you envisage that as a carrot approach that incentivises the use of the document, rather than saying, “Do the document or a penalty will come”? You said that there would be no penalties through the code.

Thank you.

Minister, I was going to say at the end of our last discussion that I have no doubt that I, you and everybody in this room want the best for the agriculture industry; the thing is how we get there.

I just want to pick up on the convener’s point. This is a five-year plan that will run from 2027 to 2032—or, effectively, into 2031. As a result, tiers 1 to 4 will be in place until then, because that is what the law sets out, is it not? It sets out a five-year plan, as the CAP used to do. Of course, the CAP was set for seven years initially—was it not?—although I think that the last one was set for five years.

Are you saying that there will be no plans in that period to take away or change tiers 1 and 2, and that there will be direct and enhanced payments that whole time? Is what we are talking about a potential future direction, which would come in post-2031?

There have been some excellent questions about small farmers. We had a similar discussion about the Scottish suckler beef support scheme, when I asked you what that meant for small farmers. I cannot remember your exact words, but you said something like, “I hear you.” I emphasise again that we have been asked to put SSIs in place before we have a real understanding of what they will mean for smaller farmers and crofters.

The point about price is a wider one. The worry with any requirement, particularly if you cannot always do it yourself, is that the cost then gets bigger and bigger. There is a big difference between a 500-acre farm and a guy—or a woman, or anybody else—who has 20 acres and five sheep. There is no point in me asking the same questions, but I want to push that.

I want to ask about the story of how we have come to be here. Where did the idea of the whole farm plan start for you? I buy some of what you are saying; a QMS or Scottish Quality Crops farm assurance member will have been doing some of this for years now—although again, a lot of smaller farmers are not in farm assurance schemes. So, as you are talking about co-design, what is the story, from your perspective, of how we have got to the point where you feel that this is the right decision for us?

On the technical side, my understanding is that there will be no penalty in 2025 if plans are not in place and that there will just be a warning letter. Just to make sure, is that absolutely right?

My question has been covered.

Was that conference in Glasgow?

I want to clarify something. I am quite interested in national and/or localised management and what you might have learned from your desktop study about what the better approach is. I was slightly worried by what you said about the IFCAs, although I might have picked you up wrong. The scope of your review or what we are talking about surely should not be constrained by the resource allocation to the marine directorate as a whole, because what we want is the best approach. If more money is required for a different approach, we as a committee and as a Parliament can debate that later on with the cabinet secretary. If IFCAs were the perfect model for Scotland, we should use that model, even if it means that the marine directorate needs more money. Does that make sense?

I had a telephone call on Monday about it. I think that there were quite a lot of questions about issues relating to compliance, but we will move on.

I have a quick question. You are undertaking a review of penalties for fishing offences. Where are we with that?