 Good morning and welcome to the 31st meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2023. Before we begin, can I remind all those who are using electronic devices to switch them to silent. This morning, we have an evidence session on the agriculture and rural communities Scotland Bill with the Scottish Government's bill team. We have approximately two hours scheduled for this session. I welcome to the meeting Andrew Crawley, the Rural Affairs Lead. John Kerr, Head of Agricultural Policy, James Muldoon, Head of Agricultural Support Policy Development and Ewan Scott, the bill team leader from the Scottish Government. We're going to kick off, I'll just kick off with the first very straightforward question. What is the rationale for producing a framework bill? The rationale for this bill is to provide maximum future adaptivity and flexibility to adapt to future challenges and opportunities that might occur. This is especially relevant in recent times, noting economic, geopolitical, climate and other unforeseen instances that have occurred and there's a desire there to ensure that there's future powers that are flexible to be duly deployed, as and when required, to help mitigate against some of those challenges and also to help adapt to some of the opportunities in the pursuit of supporting rural communities and producers accordingly. We've had the call for reviews for the committee and we've just, in the process of going through and trying to summarise that, but there's general support, I would say, for a framework bill. However, some are suggesting that there's insufficient detail to ensure that the bill is actually fit for purpose to deliver in the future. We do have polarised views over this, with both sides of the argument suggesting that the bill is going to deliver for them, so should we have had more detail on the face of the bill? By its nature in terms of the powers, there's significant flexibility in there to enable the potential opportunity for both elements to be realised. At this stage, in keeping with the transition period, I think that it would need to be a series of powers that are then used in accordance with the timescales that ministers have set out for the transition period to be to occur. That said, there will be an opportunity later on during secondary where that level of detail will come. Just on that, as a committee, obviously we want to scrutinise this bill as much as possible, but we're limited because most of the detail, as you said, is going to come in secondary legislation. What are the timescales for that secondary legislation coming forward and what role do you think the Parliament should have in scrutinising that? Yes, so the intention will be for secondary legislation to come forward in 2025, fitting with the published route map of using the new support model from 26 onwards, starting to phase that in. Naturally, given the circumstances of this bill, it's anticipated that the first use of the powers will be affirmative, so we'll be looking to make sure that the committee has full sighting over the draft SSIs to offer input into that. I think I'd also add that, and it's noted in the bill as well, that we'll be looking to truly co-develop these with the industry, with those who are going to be affected by it, to ensure that they are conditions and setups that we want to put in secondary that do work and do deliver towards that vision. Okay. Some would suggest that they're coming a bit late down the road and that a lot of people are still waiting and there's still a lot of uncertainty. It's 2025, not a long time to get clarity on future direction of travel. If I can come in, I think what we've done in terms of working up the detail with the industry separately in parallel with the legislative process that will support the future support mechanisms or empower it, we are also working the detail up with the industry. I presume you'll have spoken to or will be speaking to members of the industry who will confirm or otherwise that approach, but we've certainly worked hard to work up the detail, and part of the reason for having a framework bill is to provide us with the time to get that right. The implementation mechanisms need to work for our producers, so we're giving ourselves the time to do that, but also the detail that we're working through with the sector, and then the Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise that once we've worked up details. By that time, we should, hopefully, if we've all got it right, be bringing forward powers that will deliver the objectives and do that in such a way that they work with the industry. Okay, a question from Alison Allan. Thank you, convener. Much of the debate around this legislation is going to focus in, as you're well aware, on what constitutes sustainable and regenerative agriculture. So, in your view, what is your definition briefly of sustainable and regenerative agriculture as it would apply to this? In the context of the bill, it's important to note that it takes what we call its ordinary meaning from that, so that's the context of how the bill is drafted. More generally, though, I think we can note that on the Roofmap publication and interpretation, a definition of sustainable regenerative agriculture is published on that and was published back in June before the Highland show this year on there, which talks about sustainable regenerative agriculture being almost a basket of measures, a basket of practices, which focus on renewal of the soil, renewal of the health and productivity of that. So, we've given a published definition there, but in the context of the bill, it's the ordinary meaning, so there's no exact definition used in the bill context on this to allow that flexibility as views and scientific input changes over time as well. That's comprehensive, thank you, convener, unless anyone else wants to come in. Jim Fairlie. Can I just ask when you say you published a plan of what it looks like in June, but there's no requirement for it to be in the bill? Is that my understanding? Is that what you meant? In the Roofmap, we gave a definition which covered what regenerative practices are, what regenerative agriculture means. In the context of primary legislation, we are allowing it to carry its ordinary meaning and not to give an exact definition of that, so that it's not, in primary, a specific meaning of it in the event that scientific advice might change in the years ahead requiring amendments unnecessarily. I presume that that goes back to the first question that the convener had about the flexibility of the bill. Therefore, as circumstances change, you can adapt the bill to allow certain things to fit in, like Brexit, Ukraine, et cetera, et cetera. Indeed, thank you. Beatrice Wishart. No, I was just pointing out that it was on the end of the question, or supplementary. You would do want to come in. I apologise, just because on this definition, so you say there's a definition in the Roofmap, there's a definition, but in the bill it's going to be the ordinary meaning, but what is the ordinary meaning? What's the ordinary meaning of regenerative? Thank you. So, from the point of view of the glossary of terms that we produced in the Roofmap, we wanted to give, because farmers are asking the same questions that you're asking this morning, and are being asked throughout this process of what's the detail. So, we've sought to be as clear as possible with the industry, with the Parliament, in terms of what we intend to do in future. So, we produced in the glossary of terms a broad definition of what is meant by regenerative farming. Now, the specific details of that differ, depending on who you ask. So, there's a broad view about what regenerative farming means. Some people limit that to the agricultural practices physically on the ground, others extend that to include the social element of farming. And so, there's quite a complex discussion happening in the literature, if you like, about what regenerative farming means. So, we've elected not to put a definition, as James says, on the face of the bill, which would constrain us and potentially be significantly wrong in the course, in the ffumils of time, as we settle on, or society settle on, what they mean by regenerative farming. I think the key thing is that it's practices that build soil carbon, for example, and renew the growing environment, rather than depleting it. That's the principle. But how you achieve that is open to debate. The other key element is that, for different sectors of Scottish agriculture, it will mean different things. So, what you do in an arable context will be quite different from what you do in an upland context. So, having a too narrowly drawn definition on the face of the bill is potentially quite unhelpful, which is why James is saying it's the natural meaning of the phrase that's important here, and that allows us to then bring forward guidance and other potentially scheme rules about what we mean at a particular time to achieve a particular set of goals that are relevant at that moment, and that may change. So, that's the approach that we've taken, but we have sought to be as clear as we can be with the industry at this point. Okay, thank you. Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener. Morning, panel. Just on the issues of definitions, what does the Scottish Government consider to be high-quality food? Is there a legal definition for that phrase? Well, I'll take that again. It's very similar to the regenerative piece on that. In the context of the bill, it's the ordinary meaning of high-quality food production, and in the general sense, we can say unadulterated produce that comes out of the ground that is produced under the basic standards and expectations of Scottish agriculture. The general rules could be considered, in the ordinary sense, high-quality food, and I think many of us would consider it high-quality food. So, it's again in the context of the bill specifically, it's that ordinary meaning of it, and again, we can work on the general understanding that food produced to the rules within Scotland is high-quality. How does that relate to the on-going work with the Good Food Nation? In this bill, we take cognizance of the other work that's going on across Government, and we will seek to align the outcomes that we have here. The key one is high-quality food, which is how we refer to it. The Good Food Nation goes beyond the powers that we take here, which are primarily and although not exclusively to do with supporting farmers and crofters. In the context of high-quality food production, the main things that are in play there are rigorous standards that are in place at the moment through cross-compliance and statutory management requirements. Our intention is to continue the conditions with the equivalent effect, and we have the powers to do that in the bill, and build on them. We've said that we'll add things like a whole farm plan, which will include things like soil testing, which will underpin that high-quality production, which then gives consumers of Scottish food that reassurance that our farmers and crofters are supported in making sure that the way that they produce the food is of a high standard, and that is seen through our regulations. It is also important to note that the industry itself takes this matter really seriously, and most farmers are part of some form of assurance scheme. That goes beyond what we would consider to be the statutory requirements in producing high-quality food. In that sense, what is meant by the term in its natural meaning is what we intend here. From the point of view of the bill powers, we will continue to have those underpinning requirements about the quality of production practices. Can I push you a little further on this high-quality definition? What would fall foul of that definition that was produced as part of our agriculture? I do not understand why you have not just said the prediction of food. Why is it high-quality, and what would be omitted from that definition? I am not sure that I fully understand the thrust of your question. What would we not support? You are defining the food production that you would support as being high-quality. I am wondering what would fall foul of that high-quality definition. Why does it just not say the production of food for a stop? The high-quality must be there for a purpose, and I want him to understand what would fall foul of that definition. We listen closely to what the industry and other stakeholders tell us about what is important for them in terms of Scottish agriculture. Being a home of quality production is something that is important to the industry, and being seen as such is part of the reason that we have that outcome as one of our four key outcomes. Does it reflect back to the industry how it views itself, and rightly so because we have high production standards through the statutory requirements that we have and, as I said, through quality assurance schemes on top of that, the lack of that would not necessarily be excluded coming back to the specifics of your point, but in terms of who would be excluded from that definition in terms of the application of the powers, at the moment somebody who was in breach of cross-compliance regulations, so they did something to a hedge or a watercourse that was outside of the rules, then they would not be eligible for the sport because they would be in breach or they would suffer a penalty. That is how we would give effect to drawing a line around what is not considered high-quality in terms of production and therefore not be eligible for sport. Does that answer your question? It does not make a huge amount of sense to me if I am being frank. I cover areas of the country where food production is really tough. If you are looking at the quality of the production, quite often, for instance, sheep go elsewhere for finishing. If you are comparing the quality of a sheep coming off the hill going elsewhere for finishing and one that is being reared on good quality land, does that create a problem? I am concerned that the interpretation of this high quality in the future could cause huge problems for some areas. It is really important for us that we are clear that we want to support farming in rural areas that are fragile and constrained. Producing store animals for finishing elsewhere is consistent with high-quality food because they are destined to be high-quality food at the end of their production journey. The care that is taken of them and the care that is taken of the environment in producing those animals can be of high quality even though, as you say, the farming there is tough. There is no intention to exclude that type of production system through the outcome, which is quite the reverse. We see that there is real strength in our uplands in marginal areas in farmers and crofters being a key part of looking after the countryside and also producing food, albeit that, as you say, it might be finished elsewhere in terms of livestock production, but it is still of high quality. I think that we can be confident about that. I do not think that I have not fully answered the point, because I detected that you have still got reservations. I have some reservations, but I appreciate the clarification that you have just given. On the road and clarification, I understand that the high-quality food does not matter which part of the stage of that production it is. The end product is going to give that Scotch assurance or whatever other assurance, Red Tractor assurance or whatever it is, because it has gone from there to there. It may have been bred on a very high hill place that is harsh and it may look to all intents and purposes as though things are rough, but that will go through a life cycle. I am specifically talking about livestock. That will go through a life cycle that will still produce high-quality food. However, if somebody then injected lambs with something that we would not necessarily accept, I presume that that is the kind of area that you would be looking at saying that that does not qualify. Does that make sense? We have to be careful that the bill that we are bringing forward is limited in scope in that sense, so we do not deal with those sorts of supply chain issues. So I just want to be a little bit careful about giving the impression that our scope is wider than it is. Just on that, you said that it does not touch on supply chain issues, but one of the things that farmers want is clarity over earth or that they want a future agricultural policy that will allow them to produce that high-quality food but get the value, the true value for that. So the supply chain is vitally important. Why is that not included in the bill? I was specifically thinking of issues to do with food production at a processing stage, where that is not really what we were talking about. I know what you are saying, but, for example, in some countries, in France, if you produce 50 acres of carrots, whoever is buying that 50 acres has to also take responsibility for the 20% of that crop that might not be considered high-quality, but there is nothing in the bill that would address that. You are talking about high-quality. For example, 50 acres of carrots of which only 60 per cent can be considered high-quality. One of the issues in the supply chain is the supermarkets or the retailers will only take that high-quality product. There is nothing in the bill that helps to level that out, whereas in other countries I believe that there are some regulations about responsibility for production, not just for production of the high-quality to food. That is often seen as a barrier to farmers getting the right price and a sustainable, reliable price, but there is nothing that addresses that. I think that that is something that we would have to take away and give an answer back to you on, because I do not want to speak too assuredly on that, but I think that we might be verging into reserved market powers on that. Allow us to take that away and write back to you on that. Okay, thanks. I will revert back to where we were with the objectives. Can I ask what your aspirations are for on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation? The aim of our policy is to support the sector to be a world leader in sustainability and regenerative agriculture. Specifically, that policy should seek to support the sector to play its part in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the targets that have been set. However, we recognise that agriculture, as part of a biological process, is always going to produce some form of emissions. The other element that we should also highlight is that the sector or our policy seeks to support the sector to achieve nature restoration targets. Our division is working closely with colleagues in other divisions across the Scottish Government and with delivery colleagues to really understand and establish what the different habitat types are that are underpinning the biodiversity strategy at farmlands and uplands, in particular. How do you expect the bill to deal with the varying levels of biodiversity on farms? For example, we visited Galloway to look at some dairy farms. Within three or four miles, we saw some very different approaches. One that you would suggest was intensive sustainable agriculture and one that was very extensive. How are you going to set targets or policies to ensure that some of our most productive farms, which are some of the farms that maybe do not have the level of biodiversity, we start on the level playing field and how do you support very intensive, which can deliver climate change benefits, opposed to those that are very extensive? How is the bill going to deal with the difference in farming practices? Just briefly, the range of powers in the framework that we have, have that flexibility and that ability and that ties into the tiered structure, where the more nuanced can come through in terms of specific levers and specific schemes that we can adopt to generate that kind of outcome-based approach. I would probably hand over to James to elaborate more, if needed, on that sort of tier. Obviously, the powers of the bill aren't in isolation. It's in the context of the policy memo and the public policy statements from the Cabinet Secretary to date. The Cabinet Secretary has spoken clearly and we've said about how the enhanced structure goes ahead. It's about rewarding farmers for practices that benefit biodiversity. This ties a little bit to the earlier conversation on regenerative practices and that acknowledgement that for each farm, each croft, that might not mean the same bundle of measures. We've spoken about how the farmer in the croft know their land better than we sitting in Edinburgh and it is important that we, in developing enhanced, allow for the appropriate bundle of measures to be able to ensure that farmers and crofters can do their part towards dealing with the biodiversity crisis and the climate crisis, but also do so in ways that ensures that, as a business, their bottom line is maintained to ensure their contribution to thriving rural communities as well. Is that likely to be on an individual farm basis? Will the legislation set out what the national targets are or are aspirations, or will it be done on an individual farm basis or a landscape-sized basis for picking up those packages that you have talked about? One size doesn't fit all, but how granular does that get? Does it get into individual enterprises or how do you foresee that? The powers of the bill, of course, are about setting the ability to create those structures and I don't want to prejudge the work, the co-development work that's taking place through the ag reform programme more broadly where, as John mentioned, we're working very, very closely with the industry and rural partners at large to ensure that the right models and schemes and measures do come out of the other side of that. The bill itself, as you note, we aren't putting targets, specific targets, into the bill, so just to note that point that you did raise there, but it's about ensuring that this in cognisance of the climate act and our legal obligations towards that, about showing how we can contribute, how the industry is enabled rather, to contribute towards that. Thanks very much. I know all the questions that we'll ask this morning are important, but I happen to think that this one is the most important because it's about the role that agriculture plays in supporting rural communities. If agriculture, as a livelihood, becomes unsustainable, then so will life in rural communities. I was meeting with a group of farmers in Lagan of all places who were talking about the challenges that they face in terms of agriculture and making the point that the only primary school kids in the local school are the children of farmers and farm workers and so on. What role do you think agriculture will play when it comes to enabling rural communities to thrive, and what emphasis does that hold in the bill? Crucial is an easy word to use on this, but we can note on the bill of the four overarching objectives that start thriving rural communities is a core one there. That's been put into this agriculture and rural communities bill on the basis that we view agriculture as an absolutely essential industry in rural areas. Upstream activities, downstream activities stemming from that. We need to just say that at the outset. Not only on that part, but it's worth adding as well unless we have, and I mentioned the bottom line of businesses in my last answer there as well, unless we have businesses that are able to sustain and maintain, then we can't contribute towards our biodiversity targets and our climate targets also. In that other context of not taking the powers in isolation from the public policy to date, the tier one support is very much about recognising that, about recognising that in a high income nation, a high cost nation, that it's right that we support our producers in expecting the standards of course, but it's right that we support them as producers as well. So that I hope shows our commitment towards ensuring that crucial, that essential role for all those purposes that I've wrapped around into one there is very central to our thinking on this. Do you think that there might be a conflict between the four objectives that are set out? I think that the Cabinet Secretary has always been very plain on this, that there need be no contradiction between producing high quality food and doing so in ways that benefit biodiversity gain and benefit action towards climate adaptation and mitigation. Within the bill we talk about the development of a rural support plan, and that context matters here because that is about how we will seek to describe how our support ahead works towards those overarching objectives of the bill. I don't think it's right to say that there's contradiction or conflict between those, but depending upon, and this is very much on the point that you mentioned about the need for flexibility going ahead, reacting to externalities, as we've spoken about the Ukraine war etc, there might be a case that certain aspects might be advanced more than others initially, but the overarching objectives aren't hierarchical in their outcome and it's for us through that rural support plan to show how we are working towards the living upon all four. As you say, the policy will put some flesh on the bone and identify whether there is a conflict. Ultimately, we either view agriculture as an inconvenience that's fueling climate change challenges or is a solution to it, but how we lumber farmers and so on with the various requirements will either make or break it as a sustainable livelihood, and perhaps that's more of a comment than a question, but feel free to respond. It's certainly the perception that was coming through. If I can pick that up, I think it's important to note that the powers that are in the bill will allow us to bring forward this four-tier approach, which is what our stated intent is, and that should give farmers some agency about where they take their decision, about how they work their land and produce other agricultural products as well. It's not just food, but predominantly so, and the extent to which they wish to engage with some of the higher-tier elements of support in delivering other benefits as well, so the biodiversity gains, the climate mitigation. Some of that will probably require of everybody a base level of standards, but other parts of that, farmers and crofters will have agency in terms of the extent to which they engage, so there will be some tensions between the outcomes, as your question eludes to you, but Government doesn't necessarily have to be prescriptive about that because there's room for different approaches, and in doing so we can still achieve our targets. I think that that's the approach that the powers are there to allow us to take that approach, and it's our intention to bring forward, certainly in the first instance, a framework that provides that flexibility. We've just gone through, obviously, asking questions about the four objectives of agricultural policy, and I'm just going to come back to the piece around regenerative and the tensions that my colleague Kate Forbes has brought up. I struck me when I was looking at the four objectives that, if I take regenerative as the broadest brushstroke definition—well, my understanding of it—and why producers moved away from just talking about sustainable is that if we just do sustainable practice, nature has degraded so much, and we're facing massive issues around meeting our climate emissions, that to just sustain our practices is no longer possible, and what we need to be doing is regenerative agriculture. My understanding of that is that we are practising a form of agriculture that, while meeting human needs, supports the natural environment to regenerate. It's interesting to me that it's set out as a separate thing, but I would have thought that regenerative agricultural policy practices would give you high-quality food, it would give you that nature, restoration, climate and mitigation adaptations, which it did speak to a little bit, and it would support enabling rural communities to thrive. I wonder if I could hear a little bit about your thinking around regenerative. I know that you want to keep it broad for the changing of things, but circumstances in the future, but I also want to understand how you see it connected to all of those policies and underpinning it. Kate Forbes referred to sustainable in a way earlier, where it implies sustainable in terms of economic terms, but what we need to be doing is talking about sustainable regenerative in terms of what we're doing for nature restoration and climate adaptation and mitigation. We sought to be really clear about the fact that we want to have those four broad objectives and the intent of the legislation is to provide for support for all of those things. I think that those are all the sorts of things that any agricultural policy should have in them. I think that those who practice regenerative agriculture would certainly agree with you that they would deliver all of the other elements as well, and that's implicit in the broader definition in terms of, you know, you have to meet the community needs of the farmers and producers in order to have a regenerative agriculture in its broadest sense. Others who are perhaps less close to the regenerative agricultural movement wouldn't necessarily see that that way, and the perhaps more intensive producers that were spoken about earlier perhaps view it in a different way, but also want the reassurance that we're providing the support for the food production and the underpinning support of keeping economically sustainable agricultural businesses, bearing in mind that the market doesn't always provide the reward that is required for more marginal and perhaps actually some quite mainstream or larger agricultural businesses. That's why we've set the four things out. They're not necessarily in tension with each other, and as James has said, the cabinet secretary's often saying that there's no contradiction between regenerative practice and high-quality food production, that those two things go hand-in-hand, but I still think that setting out the powers in the way that we have just makes it really clear that those are our objectives. Can I just clarify? You've got your four objectives here. They're not in order of priority, are they? They are interlinked. The point that Kate Forbes was making is one of the things that has concerned me over the course of some of the pre-ledged scrutiny that we've done is that there seems to be an awful lot of weight to be put on this bill to do an awful lot of stuff, but there are other bills happening in other areas of the Parliament that will cross over. I presume, as a bill team, you will be working in conjunction with those other bills in order to make sure that this bill does what it sets out to do, which is maintain primary food production in this country. Yes. The bill sets out to do more than just maintain primary food production in the country, though it clearly does that. The bill team and my teams more generally are working with other colleagues across Government in terms of the other legislation that we're bringing forward and, indeed, how we implement those pieces of legislation, plus what we already have in terms of the Biodiversity Strategy or the Climate Change Act. We're closely working with our colleagues to make sure that those things all align and that each of the component pieces does its job, which I think is the thrust of your point. Just before we move on to the next section, we've discussed what the framework bill is, and from your responses to the four objectives, it would appear that this bill has boundless scope. There is no limits to the scope of this bill, which then just leads to completing utter lack of certainty about what it potentially could deliver. The Scottish Government have known since 2016 that we're going to have to have a replacement for CAP. The transition period finished in 2020, this framework bill could have been in place three years ago. Yet you say that we're only bringing it forward so you have time to develop secondary legislation to deliver on the policies, from what we understand the industry just finds that completely unacceptable. So why do we have a bill in front of us, which is not actually going to put any meat on the bones until 2025, when this could have been done earlier? Is there any limit to the scope of the bill? So if I can pick up perhaps one of your later points rather than that first one about scope, we'll come back to the scope. I think that the industry, I think 2016 things weren't as certain as we now understand them to have turned out. We brought forward through this Parliament an act in 2020 to allow us to continue with some stability for the industry, which is what the industry primarily was asking for at the time. I think that that was the right thing to do, and we committed at that point to bringing forward further legislation in this Parliament to then set out a Scottish policy and a Scottish set of powers to support agriculture, which is what we've subsequently done. We've worked hard with the industry throughout to make sure that they're cited on that. Throughout that period, farmers and crofters have had the certainty of that underpinning payment in a way that isn't enjoyed by all other farmers across this country, meaning the United Kingdom. It is true to say that people are asking for the detail of the future policy, but it's unfair to say that they are critical of the approach that we've taken because they have welcomed the stability of the support. In terms of scope, the bill is set the scope quite clearly in terms of supporting agriculture and rural communities. There are some things that are not covered. We've already talked about what happens to food further down the supply chain. Those things are not necessarily in scope. We are really clear about what is covered by the bill, and we've set that out in the bill itself and in the supporting documents. Other parts of government are doing other things that are relevant to land use and, indeed, to those who farm our land, but the scope here is quite clearly set. I wanted to ask about the rural support plan. What was the thinking behind the Scottish Government choosing the five-year duration for the rural support plan? I'm happy to take that. In the very general sense, it was to come to a period that allowed for further stability, and to tie it into parliamentary terms also. When we did the consultation on the events around Scotland, one of the things that was quite clearly represented to us was the welcoming of that ability to flex and not fit in with rigidity on seven-year cycles. This sounds slightly contradictory, so apologies if it does, but within that ability to flex, a desire to see from the industry some certainty offered to that. The concept of a rural support plan wasn't consulted upon, but the desire for such a vehicle was strongly represented to the consultation events. That's the rationale for it, and that's the reason why a five-year period was seen as sensible. I accept your comments about the engagement. However, looking at the responses to the consultation, the 70 responses, there was a lukewarm response to the five-year period in that it describes it in the explanatory notes as broadly coinciding with parliamentary terms. I wondered if it was done for convenience, but in terms of the response from the consultation, people are saying that farmers don't make plans over five years, they make plans over 10 years. It's important that the Government reflects on some of those responses, and I wondered if you had any comments that you'd like to make about the forward planning that farmers do practically. I think that it's absolutely fair comment to say that farming is a long-term business and people make long-term plans. The breeding of animals, the rotation of crops, those things do happen in longer cycles. Other times, farmers make relatively short-term decisions too about cropping decisions and responding to the market. We've seen that in the way that farmers respond to market signals in terms of finishing times and things like that with animals. It's unfair to characterise the industry as being a very slow-moving industry—that's not necessarily the case at all. From the point of view of setting out plans that we can realistically bring forward and then see achieved that the five-year timescale is a sensible compromise between that long-term planning need and the realities of responding to things that happen in the world and in the market. I accept your comment about people making decisions quicker or differently to what they predicted, but that's only because of the supply and demand of the market or the price fluctuation that we're seeing, perhaps with the store cattle moving at what you mentioned livestock there. Can I move on to when the rural support plan will be laid before Parliament? The root map suggests that it will be produced before the commencement of the transition. I wondered if you could give us a little bit more detail around that. The root map relates to the on-going transition and the changes that have been made through the powers of the 20 acts. The rural support plan will be, as I suggested earlier, the summation of how the support tiers operate towards those four overarching objectives. In the first instance, the first laying of this, we would look alongside the SSIs that are empowered by this bill. It would be looked to be laid alongside that in 25. We will see that detail. That's what you're saying before the transition. Can you give us a date, roughly? Without prejudging how the agricultural reform programme and the co-development work goes on that, we need the SSIs for the regulations and measures in place before 26. It would be in 25 alongside those SSIs that the rural support plan, as the summation of those, would come to Parliament. Speaking to, as you will do, to people who have an interest in this bill, whether they're farmers or other people, they are asking for a critical and urgent need for detail within that rural support plan, which is going to underpin future decisions. I just wanted to ask you another question around who decides the strategic priorities and how do you come to that point? I don't think I'm popping into the next question, am I? Who decides the strategic priorities? If farmers are tuning in right now and they were wondering how their future was going to be decided, who is deciding the strategic priorities? Do we have any influence on ensuring that perhaps they're widened? If we don't agree with them or if farmers don't agree with them, how do they influence that? Very much within the context of co-development, which was spoken before. Ultimately, decisions on Scottish Government policy for Scottish Government ministers decide what our priorities are. Going back to the consultation, one of the responses said that a lot of this is about climate change, and it refers to a climate change plan relating to agricultural forestry and rural land use. There doesn't seem to be, unless I'm missing it, any reference to food production and also the supply chains. The supply chains were mentioned earlier, so narrowing the supply chains, creating a more local approach, changing the culture of food consumption, that type of thing, and perhaps relating it to the Good Food Nation Bill, which has already been mentioned. Is this scope to expand strategic priorities and how does that happen? Coming back to the point that you made about if farmers are tuning in, who decides their future? Of course it's them that decides their future. What we are doing here is setting out what we will try to support them to do. The strategic priorities are in the purpose to which the bill is working towards. We've obviously set that out in longer terms in our vision for agriculture. The Government is intending to support sustainable and regenerative agriculture. In fact, we want to be a world leader in that, and that's our stated aim. That, in the broad terms, is our vision. It covers the range of things, all of which you've mentioned, such as quality food production communities, climate, biodiversity and all of those things. Those are set out on the purpose of the bill. That's what we're doing here, setting that out. We're being pretty clear about that, as we have been since we set out our vision a couple of years ago. Can I be clear on the parliamentary role and scrutiny of the aspect that we're talking about right now and the rural support plan? What opportunity do we get? As James said, the rural support plan will be brought forward to support that secondary legislation that we will bring forward. It's also fair to say that in terms of engagement with industry, we've already set out our plans in advance of the rural support plan powers. We've already set out our plans in terms of our route map and when we intend to change different things. We're engaging with the sector at each point in that. We've also set out how we will engage with the sector, as well as with the legislative process, engaging with yourselves here. I think that we've been really clear about our intention to be transparent with the industry. I'm going to go back to the point that Rachel Hamilton just raised in terms of the long-term planning for farming. As somebody who's been farming, you definitely think longer term, livers are going to die tomorrow and farms are going to live forever. That's the kind of mantra that you have. How can you have any clarity when the Scottish Government has no clarity of funding beyond 2025 to be able to ensure long-term funding for the Scottish system? I think that we've been quite public that from 25 onwards, we don't have a commitment from the UK Government to the level of or rather the share of agricultural funding that comes to Scotland. Presently, we are working on a political commitment from the UK Government that we receive the circa 17% share of overall UK ag funding, which is at the EU level. Post-25, we don't have that yet. I know that the Deputy First Minister raised this with the Chief Secretary of the Treasury in summer at the Interministerial Finance meeting. The Cabinet Secretary has recently written to the new Secretary of State for DEFRA on this, as well as part of a welcoming letter. It's obvious to say that it does make longer term planning more difficult, not knowing that level of funding ahead. We've got various responses, and I was trolling through them in the early hours of this morning. There are a number of asks from organisations right across the industry saying that we need a guarantee of multi-year funding going forward for at least five years. Other than the Deputy First Minister speaking to the Treasury, Taylor and Elasia, is there on-going engagement with the UK Government to make sure that we can give our family community that certainty of at least five years? It used to be seven when we were in the EU, it's now you're looking at five. As a farmer, you can make quick decisions, and I accept that. I've done it myself, but you need to know who you are in the longer term. What engagement is there with the Treasury right now? On officials' levels, we speak to civil service colleagues, and those matters have been raised and, as I said, ministers have frequently and repeatedly raised those matters. We do need a two-way conversation on it. We had Johnnie Hall here talking about if the UK Treasury runs down the value of agricultural support down in England. Even if it kept the 17 per cent of a much smaller budget, that will still reduce the budget that the Scottish Government is going to have in order to support agriculture here, unless there is a specific guarantee from Westminster that the overall quantum stays the same or more given the demands of the industry. Theoretically, yes, that's true. I'm sure NFUS has made representations to yourselves as well as they've said to us about how they are requesting additional sums into the overall UK Ag budget level to ensure that inflationary pressures are dealt with in the context of that desire for a longer-term commitment. The aspiration for long-term funding really doesn't sit here. It sits in Westminster. Rachael Hamilton. Just on Jim's point there, what is the total pot of the—what do you want 17 per cent of to achieve your vision for agriculture? What is your goal? We would like to see at least the current level of funding being maintained in real terms. That was what we asked for as a guarantee when we were taken out of the EU, where, as Mr Fairlie has said, we wouldn't have meant that we had a long term certainty over the budget through the cap cycles. That guarantee was given for the lifetime of the Parliament by the UK Government. By that, there was a guarantee for multi-year funding in terms of the life span of the Government. When was that commitment given? That was a commitment made during the time that we were discussing leaving the EU. So there was a commitment from who for multi-year funding? I don't think—so there was a commitment to maintain the agricultural budget, as it was. There was not a commitment to multi-year funding, and that is a point that we have repeatedly pressed. So I thought you said there was a for the life of the Parliament. So that would be multi-year funding. If I am a spoke, I apologise. What I meant to say was that there was a commitment to maintaining the funding at the pre-Brexit levels. For the lifetime of the Parliament? For the lifetime of the UK Parliament. So that would be multi-year funding? Yes. It was a guarantee to maintain the funding for the lifetime of the Parliament. So there was some certainty over that? There was no commitment to multi-year funding in those terms. But that is perhaps a semantic point that we can leave. The key thing is that beyond 2025 we don't know what the funding position will be. That is a point that we have sought to engage with the UK Government on and have not had the dialogue that we had anticipated. And that was when we engaged in the BURE review, that was one of the recommendations of Lord BURE, that there should be across the four nations a discussion about future funding allocations. And to date that conversation hasn't happened. So you touched on BURE, that money wasn't ring fence though, was it? So we have a ring fence budget currently, which the Scottish Government spend, BURE was over and above that. So the BURE was given over and above the funding that we previously had? Yes. Okay, that money was subsequently taken out of the agriculture budget? No, so it's being deferred forward. So last year it was removed? Yes. The cabinet secretary confirmed that it would be removed this year again. And his cabinet secretary has said here in other places that the Deputy First Minister has committed to returning that money to the portfolio at a time when we can use it best. Okay, just sticking on that topic, in the financial framework there is a cap funding future support framework set out, but it's unclear where that goes after 27-28. That's not multi-year, but we've had it. So there's still uncertainty over pillar one, pillar two payments after 27, is that right? I missed the reference to the document. Sorry, in the financial memorandum there's a table that sets out a projected expenditure, but it only gives certainty to 2027-28. Yeah, the figures put into the finance memo covered to the Scottish Government spending review period, so that's the figures that we're able to put into that. Okay, so currently there's not a commitment from the Scottish Government for multi-year funding beyond 2027. So what we've projected forward is what we either know or are forecasting, but beyond 2025 those figures are caveated by the uncertainty of funding being received from Treasury. Okay, thank you. Ariane Burgess. Thanks, convener. On the plan it says in our briefing notes that ministers may amend the plan if strategic parties change or the plan becomes inaccurate or incomplete and we've already discussed the need to be flexible in the face of climate and nature emergency, but I just wanted to hear from you and your thinking through of that need for flexibility. What kinds of things would trigger the review of a plan, just so we understand what you were thinking there? Okay, I mean I don't think we have a set criteria that would meet any particular threshold and it's easy to make a sort of summation if, for example, the cost crisis we saw as a result of the Ukraine invasion were to happen, then that might be a set of circumstance which would make it rational to revisit a plan in the immediate term by way of an example, but just to be clear there is no set criteria intended to suggest as a threshold, it's to allow that flexibility to respond to external happenings that are out of control. Just to be able to react in the moment to something occurring. Also on the matters to be considered in the plan to be the proposals and policies contained in the climate change plan which relate to agriculture, forestry and rural land use, what about transport in terms of, I think, as rural communities we need to be thinking about that kind of thing, I just wonder if we need to also be thinking about a transport aspect? In terms of thriving rural communities, I mean I think we're moving away from what the bill's scope is, so I don't know if I can give an absolute answer on that. So you've got, there's the piece about that we need to, matters need to be referred to as the proposals and policies contained in the climate change plan which relate to agriculture, forestry and rural land use but a big issue for rural workers is actually travel and that's a big issue in terms of climate. I'm just wondering if. That is certainly true but I think from my perspective officials in transport are better placed to assist the rural communities with transport policy than can be set through the policy that we would deal with here. Okay, I mean I think we need to start doing that joined up approach that's long wish for. In terms of officials being joined up, I contribute to the climate change plan process for the agriculture division's interests and transport colleagues join that discussion too, so we do hold those discussions jointly but we do have to be careful that we allow those parts of government that have the expertise to deal with these issues to be the principal mover. So I think some of those wider issues are better dealt with by transport policy than would be by agriculture policy, notwithstanding the importance of transport for our farmers or crofters and the people who work for them. Okay, I'm glad it's being considered somewhere, thank you. So on the back of that, that's again an issue about the scope. If the rural community section of the bill is to potentially address some of the rural depopulation issues that we have, transport, broadband, housing or whatever, or are all within scope, it's not quite clear exactly where the boundaries of where the legislation regarding rural communities in this bill starts and finishes. Is that a question? Yeah, I suppose what I'm asking is are these sort of things within the scope of the rural communities part of this framework bill or not, so housing, rural depopulation, broadband? So we wish to be able to support rural communities to an extent through the powers in this bill as the rural development plans that the EU had did but the scope is not so extensive as to bring in those aspects. Okay, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Can I just get some clarity on the points that Jim Fairlie was making and you were answering to in terms of the savings or reallocation of funding in the budget? What is the total? There was an article over the weekend which highlighted that there was a lot of confusion in the farming community around whether it was 45 million will be cut from the rural budget, but it seems as though it would be 60 million over two years. Can you first of all confirm how much is it a saving or a reallocation and will that money come back to the budget or is it just the view funding that you were talking about that in inverted commas is ring fence that will come back to the budget? Can you give us some clarity on this money that the finance secretary talked about? Yeah, so the sums that you refer to our last financial year 28 million pounds but that 33 million pounds of budget was deferred for future spend and the Deputy First Minister recently announced from this financial year 28 million pounds has been deferred to make it very clear that is in the context of budget being passed into future years to turn to portfolio to be spent on ensuring agriculture and rural priorities delivered. What is the additional which is an extra 45 million? I'm not the article you're referring to. No it's not an article it was announced in the statement by the by Shona Robison that there was a cut to the rural budget of 45 million. So is that on top of the 28? I'm not not cited in that Ms Hamilton I'm afraid. The announcement was for 28 million pounds to be deferred from this financial year's portfolio budget. One of the things that ministers will have to do will make a have regard and I know that is a loaded and very specifically intended phrase but to have regard to the climate change plan and other duties in law and also to align their actions to the up and coming climate change plan and biodiversity plan. Can you tell me what have regard to means to in this context or how you understand what you will have to do to comply to these to these areas of policy? Yes certainly so yeah the bill absolutely has to have regard in terms of the climate change plan as a legally standing piece so the rural support plan will have to take account of that legislative requirement as detailed in the climate change plan alongside any other legislative requirements relating to the bill when it's been drafted accordingly. I think Andy would also say that the bill can't be in conflict with anything that's already on the statute book so that's that's the point worth noting. I think John's obviously highlighted the work that we're doing at a policy level to ensure that there's that compliance and that dovetailing with the climate change plan and the biodiversity strategy as previously mentioned. It would be possible for Andy to make a clarification to an answer given a moment ago please. Yes thank you convener I should say that I'm from a legal directorate which is why I've been relatively silent so far but the question you asked in relation to the scope of the purposes in the bill in relation to rural communities that's set out in part four onwards of the schedule and our view certainly is that gives a good overview of what we can and can't do in terms of support. The question was asked in relation to internet and other similar types of supporting infrastructure and the bill does give ministers power to provide support for those types of purposes obviously depending upon decisions that are made in response to circumstances and budget being available to provide that kind of support but in principle it can be done. Questions have been asked about housing I think I would say that that is not clearly within scope certainly I don't see that the bill would enable ministers to essentially pay for the construction of rural housing that would be for housing colleagues and for other legislation to provide for. Thank you very much that that's helpful appreciate that. That is helpful thank you can thank you convener can I ask you mentioned there that the bill can't be conflict I think you're talking about not so much the bill but areas of policy couldn't be in conflict with anything on the statute book can you elaborate what it was you had in mind there that you were trying to avoid doing? No just as a general standing piece a piece of legislation can't be deemed to be in conflict with existing pieces of legislation so by virtue that we have to take account of the climate change plan we the bill obviously will have to do so. Thank you. Question now from Ariane Burgess. Thanks convener and this is still in the same area so it says that ministers have to have regard to the developments in law and policy in the European Union and I'd be interested to understand if this will facilitate alignment with the EU cap and specifically will the tier one minimum production standards to protect the environment animal welfare and fair work as referred to in the policy memorandum align with EU conditions on their base level support? So the powers within the bill do allow us to align and the decisions are for ministers the extent to which they choose to do that and this currently we are working towards alignment where that's in the interests of Scotland I would say. In terms of the specifics of the base tier remaining in alignment I think we will be aligned in principle and in particular we have taken steps to bring forward a new geek, a good environment and agricultural condition. I'll use too many conditions there. Anyway a new rule for wetlands which is in alignment with the EU's approach to that particular aspect of the base payment well base payment in our new terms basic payment in the EU terms so we will try and remain aligned we have every intent to maintain the rules as they currently protect the environment while supporting farmers and crofters and bring in new ones as appropriate for Scotland for example in support of restoration of peatland or at least maintaining the maintenance of peatland in good condition. We know that the bill confers a large number of broad powers on Scottish ministers we know there'll be secondary legislation in 2025 but how will Parliament be able to scrutinise the overall impact of the new policy that comes through the bill and through the various pieces of secondary legislation? The route map that we've set out will bring forward changes incrementally and the reason that we've taken that approach is I guess twofold firstly we want to have a smooth transition and bring the sector with us and that means co-developing the specific implementation mechanisms which teams right now are doing. We've sequenced that we don't have an infinite number of people on our side to do the work and indeed there's a limit to the extent to which the industry would want to engage with us on doing all of it in one go so we're bringing it forward in portions and that will mean that the full picture will emerge over time rather than being a single snapshot and I think in thinking about agriculture and crofting and the use of our rural land there are many aspects to that and things are constantly changing so there will never be a point where there's a well you can always take a single snapshot but the policy will continue to evolve and I think we are trying to be clear about each step rather than present it as a single unified piece which would be out of date the next again day in any case so we've sought to be as clear as possible whilst doing it in a a step wise approach over a transition period and so when if you look at it in longer term in sort of five ten years what kind of assessment might be made then in terms of of how it's developed yeah so it's important and we we're thinking about this and discussing how we will monitor and evaluate the outcomes of the policy as it progresses and we have colleagues specifically looking at how we best do that I know that this committee has discussed with the farmer led groups baselining I remember the discussion quite well on that and we've put in place tools to allow farmers to measure their baselines and we're developing those and so that should provide us with a platform to then monitor how successful the policy has been at any given point and that will help inform each of the next steps okay thank you thank you just before moving on from part one you know we've had a commitment from James Muldoon that the committee would have sight of the draft SSIs but given to bring forward policies we need to have a plan first so there's a commit there's an obligation for the the government in section one to prepare and lay a plan and published by Scottish ministers however there's no nothing within the legislation relating to scrutiny of that so is it something that you would consider that my amendment came forward that there will be a draft plan laid so this committee could scrutinise it given that the plan will be the basis for all future policies to you know to deliver I think ultimately of course that would be a decision for the Scottish ministers but I think I would note again that purpose of that plan is to be the summation of the measures we're looking to bring on board but ultimately your question would be for ministers but it would be quite helpful to have an early sight of what the on the long term plan because we know farmers are responsive but we'd prefer if they didn't have to be too reactive and certainly a sight of a draft plan prior to it being laid would be helpful in the in this parliament scrutinising that plan going forward I'll move on to a question from Alasdair Allan oh sorry just to clarify a point and perhaps to take any questions that you might have following that clarification in relation to draft secondary legislation draft SSIs that would be for my team to draft them and that's a significant resource required deliver that sort of legislation so we do not envisage that we will be sharing drafts of any secondary legislation with the committee during the passage of the bill perhaps the point is in relation to affirmative instruments that come forward during the implementation phase obviously those would appear in draft form for the committee to consider in the usual way but as I say just to clarify that point which is driven as is often the case by resource okay thank you and just to be clear there are no plans for any consultation on the plan which which is set out in section one to be consulted on the plan obviously is representative of what we'll be pulling together so co-development is at the heart of that so industry rural partners at large will be at the heart of how we how we get that okay thank you move on to question from alasdor allan one of the the tensions that you'll be more than where exists around all legislation is that people want to know the the guidance that will come with it before the there is legislation to enable such guidance to exist and that you can't produce such guidance until that you've done so but nonetheless there is a lot of legitimate interest in what guidance might look like so can you say any more about what you will be doing to try to give stakeholder a flavour of what guidance is like what shape it's likely to take as the bill progresses and how that will be managed yeah I mean I think we're getting into the the heart of the ag reform programme itself here and some of the co-development work so without without getting too detailed on that there exists within this programme an entity called the design authority and the design authority is there to ensure that we're working with partners making sure that we understand the impact on the ground in the field quite literally to ensure that the the guidance that is developed is is built upon that that customer focus methodology is it's called to make sure that it's relatable and understandable and makes sense in the most simple term so that that is at the heart of how we will develop this work how we will work with industry rural departments more broadly because that's without taking that approach not only do you not meet our own Scottish government requirements on our digital standards as it's called but we won't get the best policy and the best outcomes for this like it and finally convener specifically around the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture is there a timescale for in your minds for producing that I think it's fair to say that we would anticipate it being public before the new support model comes in play in 26 from the route map but that in itself is a great example where we specifically say in the bill that we will work with those who will be affected by that in that in that code design approach that I I gave thank you roda grant thank you convener and there are powers in the bill for capping refusing or recovering payments when those support payments would not be in the public interest when would you envisage using those powers and on what kind of occasion the the as it currently stands we already have a mechanism for capping which I think kicks in at 535,000 the reason for the ambiguity of the figures not very round is that they're expressed in euros still so I've converted them to pounds and so that's an overall cap I think nobody's actually subject to that cap so no no current farmer it receives a support payment larger than that and then and then the a reduction payment of five percent applies for payments over 134,000 so that's how it currently stands so it's fair to say that capping and degressivity as it's called are applied already so we do anticipate that there may be a reason to to continue to use those powers in order to ensure that we get the best value from the public money in terms of supporting those who most need the support and that is particularly tied to how we operate regions in future and we have committed to a review of the regions so a number of different models exist for how you could you could set payment rates across the country the more rates you set the more complex things are the more complex it is the less money actually goes to farmers because then you're spending more money on the the administration of the scheme and the supporting it that's needed to do that so it may be that we try to do something quite simple and therefore you would need a redistributive mechanism to make sure that the the money flows in a more appropriate way and that would be set out by we would have to take those decisions based on on modelling work which we have we have plans plans to undertake that as we approach the region review so there are that's why we need these powers and whether or not ministers choose to use them will will be a matter for them once we've produced the modelling and the advice to go with that so that's in relation to the the capping and moderation of payments above a certain threshold which we have the powers for in the in the bill in terms of the withholding payments from particular people i think it's important again that we spend money judiciously so there may be occasions when people can't be trusted to use the money for the purpose for which it is intended and ministers may come to a view that a person is of that is in that category and choose to withhold money from them and i think that's the reason why we have that power so for example a repeated breach of scheme rules over over a certain amount of time might give you cause to doubt their ability to meet the rules the next time so that's the reason for having those powers would recovery be in the same areas that if someone has breached scheme rules the money would be recovered yes yes so we can we would have the powers to recover moneys if conditions aren't met so in this instance the public interest means abiding by the rules or the best use of public money yes well in the example i've given yes in what other example in other what other ways could the public interest be determined perhaps i'll draw on Andy for that so trust the task perhaps we knew we needed a lawyer in relation to what we can loosely call fit and proper person that's not what the bill says but but as a shorthand for what we're driving at another example might be someone who is convicted of fraud or some kind of financial offence again which might indicate that they're not to be trusted with public money to be used for specific purposes and ministers might take the view that a person of that kind should not receive should not be essentially eligible to receive support the issue around recovery is more to do with people who were eligible to receive the money but didn't use it for the purpose or in the manner that the the rules require and they should repay that money because it's not been used for the purpose that it's been provided okay that kind of brings a huge number of other questions i mean who makes the decision if someone is not a proper person or if someone may not use the money as intended i mean that seems very broad so so ministers make the decision but if we were to go down that we would require to make regulations so the regulations would come to parland to be scrutinised in the usual way and this committee or its successor would take a view on the merits of what was intended at that time if i may make one other comment i think we need to separate out the withholding of money because they're not a fit and proper person to use Andy shorthand articulation from the issue of recovering monies where a penalty has been applied in which case you know if a rule is breached then an inspector would normally be able to take the judgment about whether that whether the mid the infringement had occurred and apply a penalty and that would be an administrative process around the ministerial decision so the two things are quite different in that regard so at the moment if you have a cross compliance breach then a penalty would apply because a clear breach had been made and therefore a recovery of money which is the penalty would be applied to that applicant for the support and the money would be drawn back and that would all be covered under a public interest test no no no that would be in there that would be separate we've separately got powers for recoveries yes that's separately that's that was the purpose for my clarification in fact okay thank you thanks i'm just following on from from rodas uh rodagrants questions around the public interest piece is is there is that in writing anywhere is there a set of criteria for what is in the public interest um no not not yet um but one of the opportunities that um the cabinet secretary is taking in introducing this bill is to be able to address issues of those kind more effectively than is currently the case under capitals um so the criteria will be developed if a need is identified again it comes back to the to the general point that this is a framework bill and we're seeking powers to be able to do these things where the judgment is made that it's appropriate could you imagine a situation then that um for example somebody applied for to a scheme and they were wanting to put in a high-level infrastructure that was animal production infrastructure that was polluting and their land was close to a river with run-off problems and given that one of the aspects of the bill is to tackle nature restoration climate mitigation etc and have the regenerative agricultural practices could you see a scenario there where that wouldn't be in the public interest uh and then um payments would be support would be refused so i think that the the construction of um of buildings farm buildings any buildings would have to go through the appropriate processes in terms of planning and um if water course pollution was an issue then sepa as a statutory um consultee would would would have something to would would prevent that so i don't think that situation should never arise in relation to support payment okay but are there other so maybe that's not the best example but what i'm trying to get at is the situation where the director of travel we need to go in is regenerative practices supporting nature and climate mitigation and adaptation so if somebody came and applied to us um um a support scheme would that that would be i would imagine that would be a criteria that would that would be part of the scheme to make sure that people are not continuing with practices that are in the opposite direction of what's trying to be achieved by the objectives i don't think that the so from my perspective the the the bill is there to set out powers to to make payments under conditions and in our route map we've set out that we'll have this four-tier structure with base payments enhanced and so on which will have criteria for them so in order to be able to access that support then farmers and crofters potentially other land managers as well will have to meet the requirements set out in those rules and so that should be sufficient to allow us to encourage sustainable and regenerative farming without recourse to the the power that we're talking about here great thanks and another thing you mentioned in your response to rhodigran a brand the commitment to review a review of the region and i imagine that's the the regional payment the payment regions is that what you were referring to so that because uh so that i think that is an important piece it was raised on our recent visit to sruc's farms in creonlaric where it was pointed out that there's you know you can have two identical land holdings in terms of land right next to each other but one receives higher payments than the other because it's had a higher headage at the time when the payment regions were established so is that what you're going to be doing in terms of the review sorting that that kind of discrepancy out so sorting that discrepancy out is a high bar and so but our intention is to revisit that and find what is a more what is the most appropriate way of supporting the different types of land that we have in scotland today given that the regions were done some time ago now and as you say they are and they are currently seem to be flawed because practice has moved from what it was at the time they were set and stocking rates were involved in setting how those payment regions were calculated at the time it would seem to be that we we need to kind of get that kind of thing sorted out if that's the base of how people are getting payments and as you say practices have changed yes yes i've got a brief on this on the back of that question there thank you just at a time we also heard that some of the land that probably required more financial assistance was receiving the lowest level of support do you see that changing in your review so the the region 3 land receives the lowest amount of support but it does have the sus scheme the sheep scheme there as a top up for the region 3 payments for those people who are carrying sheep but the very low rate applied to that land compared with the other parts of agriculture is is a point that is raised as it obviously has been with you as well so that is something that we want to have a look at yes jim fairly kind of answer i wasn't going to hold you to it but when you talked about the the simplification because i remember when from two areas to three areas or regions to change the the regions from two to three it definitely complicated things massively and i was going to ask you for an example of where without holding you to it at any point an example of what that simplification might look like and have you put some thought into it and also the point about recovery of public funds if somebody has taken on public funds to for example restore peatland but they don't get it and they never get it is that the kind of thing where you would look to be recovering funds and that i presume there will be a follow-up to those kinds of schemes where they are receiving public funds in order to restore peatland but then it doesn't get done to the extent to which it was first planned is that kind of way you're going with this so in terms of so in terms of recoveries if we take that one first they we have a duty to ensure that public money is used for the purpose for which it was given and if that's not the case then our duty would be to recover there's i don't want to speak in specific terms for for peatland restoration projects because that's actually dealt with separately under the peatland programme right but in the general sense so that wouldn't come under the that's why specifically asking about peat it doesn't come under this bill so peatland restoration as an activity could be could be supported under this bill and the protection of peatland in good conditions certainly is intended to be through the the the base program i spoke about the the geek the new geek for wetland protection right so so there is and there is significant overlap as i'm sure you're all the way out of the agricultural approach to agricultural support and other parts of of government's targets notably peatland restoration and a forestation so both of those things rely on farmers to be part of the part of the solution and the the reason i don't want to be drawn specifically into the the peatland questions i just don't know what the how we measured the success otherwise of a restoration project i did see right at the start this is a curiosity and i'm not gonna hope in terms of simplifications i think so my colleagues on the delivery side are much better placed to to deal with that and and james spoke earlier about what we've set up within our agricultural reform programme of the design authority who are specifically responsible for ensuring that what we bring forward is as simple as it can be bearing in mind what we're asking of of agriculture policy is quite a lot you know we've got four key things as miss forbes alluded to earlier there may be some tension between those outcomes and so we're asking quite a lot of the policy and that's why it's important to make it as simple as possible where we can whilst trying to also meet our objectives okay thank you thank you miff the question from rachel hamilton if i may indulging just going back to the the code of practice unsustainable and a regenerative farming can i just be clear when this will be published did you say did you give a date james spoke to that yes yes i did i the the intention would be to have it published before the new framework is in use so so i ideally um for before 26 for 26 okay so before the bill becomes an act um well i've been well we'd hope the bill becomes an act next next year yeah okay it's just that that i was speaking recently with a group of people from the tenant farmers association and they were very keen that that you know that that that it was published but does the delay in the climate change plan and the biodiversity strategy timings have any bearing on the delay possible delay in the publication of that code of practice um well i don't think there's any delay mentioned in terms of the publication of the code um the code um as we say in the bill will work with the industry to pull together practices examples of what regenerative agriculture means in in that sort of permissive sense um so just to clear we would nobody suggested any delay no no i i didn't no i suggest that either i meant the delay in the climate change plan um no because no because the this code is about regenerative practices um literally done in the field so it's about working with the industry to make sure that we get something in in in what is a permissive sense that this is agriculture um this is regenerative agriculture so it's a it's a it's a tool it's a product it's a support okay um so i actually wanted to ask um in terms of also you mentioned um you may adopt a redistribution scheme um does that mean that you the Scottish government are keen on um introducing capping so as i said earlier on we already have capping in place now so that's a current mechanism um albeit it doesn't affect very many businesses um it will be a decision for Scottish ministers about whether they implement something that goes beyond the current practice um and as i said earlier that is very much dependent on how you set set rates because if he's so mr fairly raised the point about low rates for region or one of you did low rates for region three land if we were to overnight up the rate for that land some holdings which are very large would have a windfall gain of significantly significant sums of money which won't necessarily help with outcomes and we just need to have mechanisms in place to be able to to be able to mitigate those unintended consequences of a simplification or a rate change okay so um in a previous session um we were told that the there would be a publication of the economic modelling from sruc before christmas is does that still stand as i am i i can't remember where we are with that exact issue to be honest i thought we had published um some of that information but i can we can take that away and come back and be clear about that yes please because it sounds or so you're going to be using this as the foundations or the basis to make decisions on future payments is that correct so we we have undertaken some modelling and discussed that with some stakeholders um so that that could be published and i'm not certain where we are with that what i was referring to in terms of the modelling work that we will need to do to support a region review that that's a more significant chunk of work and we have not yet done that so there isn't there isn't any data sitting anywhere um well there is data but there isn't any modelling work yet available that that is um that that's not being published so we haven't done that work yet okay so um do you think that um the scotland's future support system um will be significantly different to the rest of the UK and if so what implications may that have may that have on in terms of um i suppose disruption to UK competition or anything like that so i think the the four administrations have agreed that um this is a devolved area um and we talk regularly with our colleagues in the other administrations but we're all really clear that we're developing policies that are appropriate for our territories um south of the in england they have committed to removing um the the bps in favour of um more bespoke types of support um and we've been really clear about maintaining a base payment similar to the current bps um so the the divergence is already clear that there will be some level of divergence um i think we are much closer in terms of our approach with some of the other administrations across the UK so the extent to which we diverges is um and clear well it's clear that there will be different levels of divergence between the four territories um but it's also really clear and all the territories accept that that is a consequence of devolved policy and so far um we are respecting each other's um entitlement to do it that way um and that that may at some point uh there may be consequences of of that but at the moment those are not foreseen so obviously it's really important to play out those potential consequences how do you do that as as government officials so i think what we are doing in terms of bringing forward the powers is bringing forward powers which in our eyes best support Scottish farmers and crofters and that's our principal motivation um and the the situation with devolved government means that that's what we should do sure okay no i completely understand that i just think you know in a in a business situation one looks at a SWAT analysis and looks at the strengths weaknesses opportunities and threats and i just wondered if um you know for clarity you have you could foresee by having a different approach to a payment system which i entirely agree with because it's responding to the local needs of um scotland's farmers um and that is in the devolved competency however you know we we probably need to look at if i was being a sensible taking a sensible approach i'd be looking at um the potential sort of consequences to um you know advantages of competition because of one system over another which obviously isn't uh that isn't something that we want to see we want to see you know a sort of a seamless supply chain to allow farmers to be competitive do you see where i'm coming from so our approach is to best support Scottish farmers and crofters um to achieve the outcomes as we've set out in the bill and in our agricultural vision and to do that in the context of the the constraints and conditions that Scottish agriculture and crofting faces and so that's that's what we're doing um i think that that so we've taken the approach that that is the the principal goal um and um the support payments are not really there to influence the market they're there to support the farmers in achieving these objectives so that that point should not really arise because we're supporting Scottish farmers against Scottish conditions okay thank you it's just done it on a specific one so we've heard a lot about the internal market act and subsidy control so with the likes of subsidy control i believe at the moment it's a intervention worth more than 500 000 pounds is that correct it would kick in subsidy control legislation we could can do you expect any agricultural businesses in Scotland to be receiving more than 500 000 pounds is it likely that that would trigger that yeah i think in the context of the capping answer that john gave presently i don't and we we can certainly double check the figures on this but i don't believe we have any businesses getting that level presently and that that would go into our present capping thresholds and it would be a decision for ministers in the future about what the capping thresholds would be on that okay so it's currently you don't foresee any issues in relation to the subsidy control rules the UK subsidy control rules i think we're always aware of the UK subsidy control rules and it's always going to perform part of considerations of advice received by ministers grant thank you that's helpful alasar allen i suppose to look at the last couple of questions and from a different angle i suppose i wonder in the SWAT analysis is it where in the preparations that you're making as officials um do you do you do you scenario plan the threats that might be associated with divergence being frustrated in any way um by the legislation that we're referring to there so i'm thinking for instance of johnny hall from NFUS who told us that with the subsidy control bill coming into place as well as the internal market act i'm convinced that it will not be long before certain agricultural producers in england who are more aligned to the type of agriculture that we have in scotland people in northumberland and cumbria down the pennines in the west country will see the support payment in the way which scotch government is underpinning and deriving you outcomes from scotish agriculture as being more advantageous than what they are being given from defra does that scenario is that something that you have to plan around the possibility that these pieces of legislation might be used to frustrate the intentions of the scotch government in these areas our discussions with um other officials do not give us the um if do not give rise to concern that um that government south of the border or in other territories has the intention of using the legislation in that way so in other words there is a respectful approach to devolved policy in this area we the government um did resist the legislation and in particular sought that the agriculture would just treated like agriculture isn't in all other territories rather than be included in the substantive control in the way that it has been so that that was our position and it would continue to be so um so those there is attention there that we don't feel is is needed but we also don't envisage it being used as a vehicle to frustrate devolved policy but um you know that do we do we have to take cognizance of that yes we do I suppose but we are approaches that we um respect the rules in terms of substantive control as as set out um particularly in the w2 agreement on agriculture that's that's our um something that we're all looking to honor and powers in the bill are certainly in line with that you would recognize that voices within the sector have raised concerns about these scenarios yeah it's certainly that what you've wrote what you've said um that johnny said that the nfus in the form of johnny hall said to you we've discussed with them too so that there's clearly there's clearly an opportunity for that sort of frustration to be made we don't we don't anticipate that any governments in the uk administration's doing so at this time thank you sorry jim thank you um i'm just falling up in the the point that alasdair allan's just made if the scottish government are supporting with base payments we're talking 50 percent of the tier one tier or eight percent of tier one tier two the uk internal does that not cross over the uk internal market act because as johnny hall alluded to that would give theoretically scottish producers a market advantage to the price that they could look for putting it on the marketplace i think i think miss phaila can only echo what john kerr has said in this in relation to the uk internal market act we have not identified any issues of the kind that you describe now that doesn't mean to say of course that someone will not come forward in the future and to claim that there is an issue but that's no different from any other area of government activity ministers intend to abide by the law and that includes relevant uk legislation so i separately in relation to subsidy control which is a different thing again we haven't identified any issues which are causing us concern that might change in the future in the same way as anything else might change but as matters stand we think that what is proposed can be delivered within the law including applicable uk laws post bixit subsidy control and uk internal market thank you thank you that's very reassuring caron adam thank you convener and good morning to the panel i want to thank you for your contributions as far as being very helpful i'd like to ask a question in terms of the sunset clause that is in the 2020 act why that will not be included why you think that's not appropriate for this bill i'll maybe start and hand across i think so that at the time that the 2020 act was going through the parliament there was a concern that we would just stop there and continue with the retained eu law indefinitely that that was the articulation of the concern at the time and so we arrived at the sunset clause in the 2020 act in order to encourage the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation which we had committed to to bring forward in this parliament and we have now done so so in that regard the the clause in the 2020 act has largely already done its job because we now have the the bill before parliament and that said the bill that that clause does have consequences for on-going schemes which are not helpful in terms of managing our transition which is why we now propose to repeal it so our view is that the the clause has done its job because it's ensured that we've brought forward a new approach to supporting Scottish agriculture and crofting through this bill and that so we've we've we've done what we said we would do and now we need to remove the repeal that clause to get rid of some of the more difficult implications that it has for us which i'm sure Andy can expand on if yeah i was going to ask what would those an idea of what those difficult implications would be just some examples well i think i have two comments really in relation to this question which obviously we anticipated the the first is that sunset clauses are unusual this committee will of course know scrutinise is a great deal of legislation and sunset clauses are not common and they're not common for a good reason which is that they create cliff edges and sometimes that means that we need to come back and use up parliamentary time to deal with the consequences of a sunset clause but that's a general point we don't normally include sunset clauses in legislation the the second part of your question relating to how that might create an issue well that follows from our proposals in relation to a transition from current cap based schemes to future rural support and the the intention of managing that transition over an appropriate period i've been able to be flexible about what that period is in response to changing demands and circumstances and to the extent that we will continue to run cap based schemes we consider it's it's appropriate essential indeed that we're able to modify those schemes to reflect current circumstances and not being able to do so would be if you like neglecting our duty duties in relation to good governance so we expect that some cap based schemes will continue to run after 2026 which is when the sunset clause kicks in and if the sunset clause is not repealed we wouldn't be able to simplify or improve those schemes and that in our view would be would be unwise because it would mean that the schemes were not fit for purpose and they were not delivering what farmers and land managers expect of us in terms of a good transition and good administration so we generally speaking we avoid sunset clauses because they create problems and the specific problem that this sunset clause has created is that we wouldn't be able to simplify and improve legacy schemes after 2026 when it might well be very advantageous to do so The policy memorandum sets out the workings of assimilated rules and sunset clauses but can you say something about whether the retained cap rules well at some point need to be replaced with new regulations or how that will be achieved and how they will be kept maintained into the future I'm happy to answer the technical question in relation to how we would deal with cap schemes that are whose purpose is spent we're taking powers and the bill essentially to turn them off that we would make regulations that would revoke them and of course they would come to Parliament to be scrutinised in the usual way I think in terms of the general non-technical answer would be that through the the bill we're taking the powers to replace all of the cap schemes and at the end of the transition journey we anticipate having done so with new legislation that enabling legislation that then sets out the new schemes as we as we work through the transition period Thank you Kimmel So following on from that and this is probably a legal question section 19 gives the Scottish ministers power to restate cap legislation which mirrors the provision in the retained EU law act so why have you chosen to replicate these powers rather than use the rule act and why are they not time limited as they are in the retained EU law act Well with some hesitation in respect of speaking for UK Government they of course know why they've decided to time limit the powers in UK legislation I come back to what I said earlier about sunset clauses being unusual and obviously UK Government has a very different view of the merits and disadvantages of Brexit and they are not shared by cabinet secretary or Scottish Government generally so as a point of principle we don't see a need to time limit powers of this kind and that's why we're not seeking to do it and the more specific question in relation to restating we do see the advantage of the approach that UK Government have taken in relation to modifying retained EU law we think it is sensible to be able to restate and the bill does set out some of the ways in which restatement can can can be progressed including responding to technological changes where we might want to take advantage of that it might be for example I speak hypothetically but ministers might take the view as part of the transition that we would want to make a single set of regulations which included both cap rules and new rules in which case we would be able to do that because we would have the restatement power and that's the kind of issue that used to come up when we were EU members and the powers in section 2 of the European Communities Act which worked very very wide enabled us to do those sorts of things but we want to be judicious in our approach we're not looking for sweeping powers to do anything we want we're trying to focus on the things that we think would ensure that the schemes that we develop are clear and understandable and helpful to farmers and land managers and that's why we're seeking those types of powers but we see no need to time them at them because we have our own views on the transition and we think obviously the cabinet secretary will defend them when she gives evidence okay thank you that's that's helpful a question in from Ariane Burgess are we are we skipped forward a bit okay so this is about cpg we've skipped forward and i'd be interested to understand how the Scottish Government anticipates using the powers in relation to cbd with the move to regenerative agriculture nature restoration and climate mitigation adaptation there's going to be farmers and crofters who will need training peer-to-pea knowledge exchange and other support in order to meet the higher standards in tier two three and four so i'd also be interested to hear what the thinking is and i know it's maybe beyond the scope of the bill but around the sufficient funds allocated to the cpds to ensure that we've got that transition to the new framework and that it's a just transition so in terms of continuing professional development i think it's important for me to to say that farmers and crofters are already very skilled highly skilled individuals you know they can do working with heavy plan in terms of really fearsomly large harvesting equipment all the way to to acting as a midwice for our farm livestock so the range of skills there and the conditions in which they have to use those skills is something that is acknowledged by the government and the cabinet secretary has had first hand experience of that in terms of seeing it and some of us had first hand experience of in terms of doing it as well so that that that can't that shouldn't be underestimated our acknowledgement of that but as you say the climate is changing so we have to help farmers to adapt to that and public expectations of what farmers should deliver for the money that the support money that they receive is also changing and so we see an advantage in supporting them with continuing professional development and in fact that's one of the this is one of the areas of the bill which has been most pressed by the sector in terms of supporting learning for those in our rural communities and has come out of the rural learning review as well so these powers have been brought forward because the industry has essentially asked for them and they're going to be deployed for exactly the purposes that you set out in the question okay and are we going to see sufficient funding for that? Oh sorry the budget question so we it would be the view of the the team who support that work that adequate budget should be allocated to it of course budget decisions are not for officials if for ministers but I think the we're very we're very alert to the argument around the need for a well trained and responsive sector particularly given we're going through a transition it's a relatively modest share of the budget at the moment so an increase to it has rather less of an impact to the other elements of the budget than perhaps some things would do that we've already discussed today so I would be optimistic that we'll be able to deploy a reasonable amount of money to it you could probably say there's never enough but we also need farmers to engage with that of course and they do but yes thanks very much thanks convener thank you Rachel Hamilton thanks just a supplementary on that point on cpd in the explanatory notes it says compliance with relevant cpd requirements may be a condition of certain support schemes is that the case that farmers will get their money taken off if they don't comply so we're working through how we would use those whether and how we would use those powers in terms of ensuring that if we are if we truly want to be world leader in sustainable and regenerative farming then we need to upskill our sector to be able to to for that to be true the extent to which that needs to be compulsory versus voluntary is something that we're working through with the sector at the moment but we we have the powers there should we decide that some element of compulsion is is required for some elements of support okay thanks I suppose in the back of that you know there's quite an extensive section on cpd within on the face of the bill so why have you got such an extensive policy regarding professional continued professional development if ultimately you will not use that as a a stick to withhold payments in certain schemes if cpd isn't undertaken or or whatever and given that there's not the detail of how penalties might be applied at the moment is it reasonable for us as a committee to or the parliament to pass powers that might mean that in the future you might have to have a green card style qualification to actually farm and draw down any payments so it's already the case that some farming activities require a particular qualification so for example the application of plant protection products and you know one or two other things like that so it wouldn't be new to require a particular qualification for a particular thing however as I said in answer to the earlier question it's the team are working through what is appropriate for that then what we want to do with this policy is take the industry forward with the industry with us we don't want to use sticks if we can avoid doing so okay thank you beat us wish it thanks convener this the government consulted on modernising tenancies and ensuring fair work conditions are applied to all Scottish agricultural workers why was that not why were they not explicitly included in the bill and how will these changes be pursued on the modernisation of agricultural holdings and and tenancies of large we announced in the programme for government that that will be placed in the land reform bill that was a decision made by ministers and echoed the the previous work on that in 2016 as well so that that land reform bill was viewed as the most appropriate vehicle to take that forward on fair work policy I think it's important to be clear that the fair work is a Scottish Government policy it's as ministers have said very plainly the expectations for public support are adherence to the the fair work outcomes and the cabinet secretary indeed was was was quite clear on that speaking last month to the NFUS as well at their event very simply the reason it's not on the face of the bill is because it's been a judge just now that the administrative solution through looking at eligibility criteria for future support is the most effective way of delivering those fair work outcomes through the industry thank you Ariane Burgess It's on the fair work piece there will meeting fair work standards including paying the agricultural living wage be a possible condition for support under the new scheme? So on that one I just just to sort of reiterate that point fair work of course applies to the real living wage and we're very very aware of the the work and the important elements that the agricultural wages board does which looks at issues unique to agricultural employment beyond fair work matters so there's no intention just to say that to look at the ag wages board in this context but the the Scottish Government's position is is quite clear that adherence to fair work conditions is a prerequisite for for public support in going ahead. Thanks very much. I haven't really covered the animal health and welfare part of the bill in terms of standards and requirements and I think in looking at it seems always an afterthought in a way because we've got so much to cover but the BVA had responded to the consultation responses and said that the relationship between vets and farmers is absolutely integral and their ask of the Scottish Government is to allow the veterinary sector to play a part in shaping this bill and it seems to so they are disappointed so far that their intervention or their part hasn't been considered in this and I just wondered if that's something you might consider. So I haven't personally spoken to the BVA and I'm sure colleagues in animal health and welfare will have done. I'm surprised that they're disappointed but that's something that we would look to address so thank you for flagging that to us. I think in terms of the powers we're taking here and the work that we're doing in the ag reform programme animal health and welfare is a key component of that and the chief vet and other members of the industry are working together to bring forward the proposals which should reflect the input from vets on the ground and that's certainly our intention so if they feel that they have been overlooked then we can look to address them. I've got a little follow-up on that just briefly. We talked a lot about modelling. I think it's important that we are able to look at the outcomes that we're trying to achieve here and then work out how we get to that point and for me the feedback is that it's not clear what the outcomes are in terms of that part of the section of the bill so I think obviously it's at the end perhaps we always consider it as one of the last points but I think it should be integral because it actually ensuring that we have standards that are met across the agricultural sector will actually improve our, reduce our carbon footprint, improve our climate change targets. It's really important those efficiencies in production as you will be well aware of it's just a comment I wanted to make. Rhoda Grant Given some of the evidence that we saw on our visit on Monday, is there anything in the bill that would stop people getting funds to buy equipment that was shared? We saw some great equipment on the visits but looking at small-scale farming and crofting it would seem to be that that equipment would only be available affordable jointly and I'm wondering if there's anything in the bill that stops Grazing's committees or co-ops coming together to apply for funds for shared equipment and would that have an impact on their ordinary applications for funding for agricultural purposes? Subject to future budget considerations naturally, the bill powers would enable for such scenarios. Should ministers wish to take it forward as you describe? I've got one final question and I'm going to go back to the scope and how wide the scope is. You'll be aware that when we come to stage two as a convener, I've got the discretion to decide whether amendments are within scope of the bill. When I look at part four on the rural communities and economy, it clearly states that assistance can be given to people who live, work or operate in a rural area or assist others to encourage others to do that and also as wide as assisting a person to start a business. Now there's one of the criteria that's related to agriculture but the other one is just otherwise in or for a rural area or area of community. So as you can see, it's very wide and it does talk about housing or to live, which we suggest housing. So there isn't any limit really to the scope within section four on rural communities and economy. It is incredibly wide. There are no parameters on the face of the bill that would constrain amendments coming forward for any development, economic or social in rural areas. Just your comments on that. So in terms of the way that we draw on the bill at present, I think it's important to recognise that we did not want to diminish any of the powers in this area, which ministers have, that were conferred by the previous policy set out by the EU, which should have a rural development programme. However, the amount that can be achieved by those powers is of course limited by the allocation of budget to it and the rural development programme was relatively modest in the overall share of the budget. So that comes from my perspective of why it's drawing the way that it is. In terms of the reach, I don't know whether Andy wants to say anything specific on the technical side. I think I'll decline to be drawn into a discussion about whether a particular amendment is within scope. Obviously, we would take a view as an administration, which the community may or may not agree with. I would like to thank you for your participation in our session today. That's been hugely helpful. That concludes our business for today, and I formally close this meeting.