Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 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.

Sorry—what do you mean?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am content just to move to questions, convener.

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.

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.