Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, we need the framework for the reasons that I have outlined. We need it to be adaptable in the future, not least because of how we see the transition going forward, as we have set out in the route map. There will be changes, particularly in the course of the next five years or so, and we need to be able to adapt and to have the flexibility to implement them.

I would have to take a closer look at some of the specific objectives that you have set out in relation to that initiative. I know that the committee will be well aware of something that I, too, see when I visit businesses across the country, which is that, at the moment, a lot of the activities that they undertake are dictated by the contracts that they are subject to. I recently had an amazing visit to Arla Foods and heard about its sustainability journey and how it is driving that, working with its farmers on improving sustainability.

A lot of the people whom I speak to are already far ahead of what we can talk about in the bill. There is no doubt that they would meet all the objectives that we have set out and are undertaking the type of practices that we want to see in the future. However, we know that things can change. New measures could become available that we are not aware of now, which we might want to incentivise or look to introduce. The ability to do that through secondary legislation and to enable that through the bill is really important.

Perhaps John Kerr wants to add something.

I have already set that out, convener. It was not clear to me that your previous question referred to the rural support plan, so I apologise if we were speaking at cross-purposes. John Kerr might want to come in.

Okay. A number of other areas of the bill are included with the intention of providing more certainty and clarity about the overall framework and the flexibility that it is designed to provide. That can be seen in the rural support plan that is proposed.

However, we cannot forget the information that we already have. We are aiming for the bill to deliver on what we set out in our vision for agriculture. We also have a route map—which I have already referenced—that sets out exactly what changes can be expected and when they will take place, and states when more information about each of the changes can be expected. We are trying to provide as much certainty as possible about when more information will come, as well as trying to give more of an idea about what potential measures for the future could look like.

There are broad definitions in the framework bill, and that is for a reason, which is that—exactly as I outlined in my previous response about sustainable and regenerative agriculture practices—they could change. We need a flexible framework so that we can respond quickly should a crisis emerge in relation to how we make payments and the type of things that we can fund. It will also enable us to make changes and adapt the definitions if there are improvements in science and technology. That is why having flexibility is so important.

I am happy to outline some of that work. As you can imagine, there are a number of strands to it. We have set out the four-tier framework, and a number of pieces of work are under way. As I and John Kerr have outlined, co-development is critical to all that because we want to make sure that we bring forward policies that will ultimately work.

I will touch on a specific example. We are due to provide an update to the route map in the first quarter of this year; we will publish it next month. It will set out more detail on the conditions, in relation to whole-farm plans, that we will introduce for support from 2025.

We have also talked about conditionality in relation to the suckler beef support scheme. Those pieces of work have involved extensive work with a number of stakeholders. As you can imagine, with the suckler beef support scheme, the various organisations and people that we have included in the consultation have been involved in the work to develop the scheme, and proposals have come from individual farmers, Quality Meat Scotland, the Scottish Beef Association and others. The whole-farm plan has been critical in all that, too.

Those are specific bodies of work, but all the work involves wider engagement and involvement in what we are doing, with wider testing to ensure that our proposals make sense and will work for farmers and crofters. Having published the most recent update to our route map after the Royal Highland Show in June last year, we issued a call for volunteers to sign up and help us with that work. From that, we have a database of between 1,200 and 1,300 people who have signed up to take part in that research.

I am looking at the other figures that we have. We have undertaken about 3,500 surveys and about 250 individual interviews with people, and there are then all the other pieces of work that we are taking forward in relation to tier 4 and the complementary support that is available there. Extensive work has been undertaken in that regard.

That is a snapshot. I do not know whether John Kerr wants to add anything, but I hope that that has provided you with a bit more clarity on the work that we are doing and on how important in the process wider involvement is.

As I just outlined in relation to the proposal by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I want to consider the issue further and take advice on it. I will then follow up with the committee on when we could provide an outline of what the plan will include.

It is important to remember that co-development with farmers and crofters is critical to absolutely everything that we are doing in the bill and to all the secondary legislation that we will bring forward, including the detail of the enhanced measures and the tiers of the future framework. A just transition is critical to all of that as well.

We want to develop schemes that we know will work and that will deliver the objectives that we have set out in the bill, but we want to do so in a way that works for farmers and crofters. We want to develop that with them. The detail that comes from doing that, and from following what we have set out in the route map about when information will become available, will, ultimately, populate the rural support plan. I like to think that, by the time the plan comes forward, it will not be a surprise to anyone, because we have outlined in the route map when different parts of the information about the future framework will be published and become available.

The first point to clarify is that we need the powers that are in the bill before we can formally bring forward the rural support plan.

However, I understand what the convener has set out in relation to the proposal by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I would like to take more advice on that to see whether, and when, we might be able to bring forward at least a draft of the plan. I am happy to follow up on that with the committee and provide more information on when we could provide an initial draft of the rural support plan.

We have said that we need the new powers in the bill in order to introduce the plan and that we intend to introduce it in 2025.

I absolutely appreciate that, but that is where what we have set out in the route map comes in. I am not focusing on the rural support plan at the moment because, as John Kerr has outlined, a lot of what is in the route map will be part of that. There is information there, and more information will be coming along the timeline that we have set out. The rural support plan will not change what we have in the route map; it is about bringing together the different pieces and showing how we will deliver on the vision and against our objectives.

Another important point that you have raised, but which I have not touched on, relates to monitoring and evaluation against the objectives that we have set out. That will be built into how we move forward, because we need to know that we are improving and to find a way of measuring and evaluating that so that we know that we are delivering on the bill’s objectives. That will, of course, be embedded in the work that we are taking forward.

I hope that we have been able to evidence that through the work that we have undertaken so far and, ultimately, through all the commitments that we have made throughout the whole process about how we develop policy. We want to do this with farmers and crofters because, as I have said a number of times today, they know their own business best. It is critical that any future system provides them with the flexibility to enable them to make the choices and undertake the measures that will work for their businesses. You can see some of those measures—we have published what some of that might look like. It is absolutely built in to everything that we do and everything that we have set out as part of the route map and the information that we are providing. What we are introducing ultimately has to be deliverable and it has to work for our farmers and crofters. It is in our best interests to continue that work with them to ensure that we get this right.

The points that you touched on and that I highlighted in previous responses to Rhoda Grant, including some of the points that are set out in section 26, enable us to do that. It is about having that consultation and engagement and, of course, reviewing the code, because, as we have discussed already today, things can change and improve in this space—things are developing all the time.

Again, if the committee has any particular views on the review period, I am happy to look at that point and consider it, but I want to clarify that we have already set out our expectations for support going forward, including the minimum standards that we are expecting, what conditions will apply to support from 2025 and what support will be introduced in 2026. I just want to be absolutely clear on that. If there are any other views on the review period, I am happy to consider them.