Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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

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.

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 am sorry—do you mean the definitions?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.