Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely, and not least because we would have to undertake all the relevant impact assessments in relation to that as well. We would need to evaluate the system that has been in place to see whether it has worked and to make sure that we have the evidence base for any decisions on that.

We are considering the recommendations that have come from the DPLR Committee. I know that there were a few areas—well, another area—as well as that. Of course, we will consider that, as we will consider this committee’s recommendations, too.

What do I think about providing more of that information? It is always challenging because, as we have touched on today, in relation to some of that information, whatever we put in the bill will not be as flexible and adaptive. Throughout this period of transition, we are very much in a space where we need the ability to be flexible and adaptive. We started this discussion by talking about sustainable and regenerative agriculture. We need flexibility to look at that, because there is not one hard definition that we would be able to put in the bill. We need to be able to bring forward a basket of measures that can be used to support our producers, more than anything else, and to highlight what we mean, and we think that the code of practice is the best way to do that.

Again, I understand the criticisms that there can be, but we have tried to share our thinking as much as possible. The process is slower in its nature because co-development takes time. It takes more time for us to get it right and I appreciate that that can be frustrating for people, given the point that we are at with the bill and the need to know the detail of what future schemes will look like. That is why we have tried to articulate that as clearly as possible, at least when more information and detail becomes available. We are committed to working with people, because we want to make sure that, ultimately, we get the policies right.

In some of the other areas that you have talked about, such as emissions and biodiversity, we have statutory targets, as I have touched on, and more could well be coming down the line. That, of course, shows why we need to be flexible, so that we can take those things into consideration.

Set parliamentary procedures are obviously in place in relation to affirmative and negative instruments for the committee’s consideration.

As we have done in relation to some of the other developments that we have announced—for example, the whole-farm plan and the suckler beef scheme and attached conditions—we have set out in the route map when we will be making more information available and the process towards reaching that. We have set that out in the route map and in some of the information in relation to that that we have published already. This year, we have said that we will be setting out more information in relation to what will be considered in the enhanced tier of the framework; however, the secondary legislation would not be coming forward until 2025, by the time that it is enacted. I do not know whether Andrew Crawley wants to come in on that.

In relation to the important point that Andy made, I highlight that we have used either way provisions for previous instruments that we have brought to the committee. I am not aware that we have had any particular issues in relation to that. We have used such powers before.

As Andy outlined, negative instruments tend to be used for the more technical parts. We feel that those provisions in previous legislation have operated quite well—certainly, the committee has not raised concerns about that.

I hope that you will refer to the bill as a good example in the future, but time will tell.

As I outlined in my response to the previous question, it is all about transition for us: everything is not suddenly going to change overnight, with cliff edges in relation to it. Of course, we will need to introduce SSIs, not least for some of the conditions that we will introduce next year. There will then be secondary legislation that will enable us to bring forward the enhanced tier of the framework, which is expected to be in place in 2026, and the SSIs will be introduced in 2025. It will be a phased process because of the timescales that we have set out.

The SSIs are also phased, because we need to be able to undertake the work on the relevant tiers of the framework. It is critical that we get the phasing right—not least for the committee—but I appreciate your point.

I return to the point that it is in our best interests to ensure that what we bring forward is consulted on and developed in that way. Subsection 26(6) of the bill sets out that point in relation to the consultation.

To go back to the start, the code of practice is a basket of different measures, in which sense it will not be prescriptive. Perhaps we are not articulating how it will be used in the best way, but it is about the support. It is critical that we try to outline the general understanding of what those terms mean in the code of practice.

We have to review the code, and the powers are there for that to happen. Practices can change and develop, especially in this area, and we have to ensure that what we have can be updated to reflect that. We need the flexibility to do that. Section 26 mentions the consultation and ensures that we can review the code and update it as necessary.

Absolutely. I will bring in John Kerr in a moment. Throughout the process, we have been—or, at least, we have tried to be—clear. You talked about the good practice that is already happening, and a key component of our approach is that we want to recognise that good practice. Again, the code of practice is not intended to be a prescriptive document. The Government will not develop it in isolation and then land it on people. It is not in our best interests to do that. It is in our best interests to have conversations with farmers and crofters to determine what the code will look like and how it might develop. The powers on the review and consultation are important in that regard.

Yes.