���˿���

You are saying that ARIOB is not working, but I dispute that. ARIOB is working. That is where we have some robust, long conversations in the room. I reiterate that, if someone is in ARIOB and puts their point across, that does not mean that they get exactly what they want. We have to go away and distil the information, consider what it means, consider how it fits into the jigsaw and then determine what we need to do to achieve the vision that we have set out.

Although I am disappointed at some of the stuff that was said in your meeting last week, I give the commitment that I will ask for it to be put on the agenda for the next ARIOB meeting that we will have a discussion about whether people feel that they are disenfranchised or disengaged or that this is not working for them. We will have that conversation and work out how to take matters forward. That co-design is essential to our getting this right. It is not something that we can do ourselves. If we do, we will get it wrong. When we go back to ARIOB—I am not sure when the next meeting is—we will have it on the agenda. We will have a discussion about why people are feeling the way that they are. That way, at least we will air some of the grievances that youse iterated here last Wednesday.

I thank the committee for inviting me back to discuss agricultural reform following last Wednesday’s evidence session with key stakeholders.

Our message to Scotland’s agricultural businesses and to the wider industry is very simple: the Scottish Government is fully committed to supporting the sector. Agricultural businesses are the bedrock of our rural communities—they underpin thriving rural communities. As we confront the twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, we stand united with our farmers and crofters in striving to ensure that the sector has a prosperous and sustainable future.

We have seen from the experience in England what happens when decisions on future support are poorly thought through and rushed. Therefore, we are taking our time to make the right decisions, making progress now and engaging with communities and stakeholders on our future direction.

Change is never easy, and I am determined that we get it right for Scotland. Active farming and sustainable food production remain at the core of our agenda. That is underpinned by our commitment to maintaining direct payments, which offer stability in an increasingly volatile world and enable our farmers to produce food sustainably. In return for public investment, we are asking farmers and crofters to join us in doing more for the climate and nature.

As I outlined in February, our approach focuses on delivering five key outcomes and delivering reforms that balance those requirements. Those outcomes are high-quality food production, thriving agricultural businesses, climate change mitigation and adaptation, nature restoration and support for a just transition, and they will ensure that we move towards a sustainable and greener economy in a way that protects the industry, supports communities and, just as important, leaves no one behind.

We are dedicated to modernising the way that we work by driving efficiency and creating an intuitive, seamless information technology experience for farmers and crofters. They need a modern, user-friendly service that allows them to focus on what they do best: farming in a way that protects our environment, boosts our efficiency and helps their businesses to thrive.

By working with the sector, we will use this opportunity to deliver a truly bespoke solution that is tailored to the unique needs of Scotland’s agricultural community. Achieving that vision will require a comprehensive organisational redesign and a revamping of systems, processes and capabilities to build a future-ready framework. In the immediate term, we are using the tools that are currently at our disposal. We are simultaneously deeply engaged in co-developing the future operating model and transition plan with stakeholders.

That collaborative approach has been undertaken in all our proposals. For example—to name just a few—it has been undertaken in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, the enhanced greening scheme and the code of practice. Just this week, my officials met with the food and agriculture stakeholder task force group. As part of that process, we have planned follow-up meetings in May and a list of other stakeholder engagements.

Each time we have those conversations, they lead to a refinement of policy proposals, additional detail and analysis, which all feeds into the advice that I receive and the decisions that the cabinet secretary and I then take.

Let me be clear: profitability and sustainable farming do not have to be opposing forces. With the right support at the right time, and while safeguarding our planet, we can get this right for the sector, the planet and the resilience of our food supply.

Those five outcomes are interconnected and require a delicate balance, but I know that success relies on farmers and crofters being economically viable to deliver the vision for agriculture. I will continue to work as hard as I can, and I will ensure that there is regular engagement not only at the official level but at the ministerial level as well. We will continue to develop our thinking, which will provide practical solutions to all the challenges that we face.

We will not get everything right, and folk will not get everything that they want. However, I will stretch every sinew to get it as right as I can for as many people as I can. I hope that the industry continues to engage and becomes even more engaged to help us to fulfil the ambitions that we have set out for ourselves.

A number of different schemes that are going to be or have been absolutely catastrophic have been brought in because people have just not bothered to get involved. I am giving the committee an example of how we are trying to co-produce a policy system that will allow every farmer in the country to engage. I am also giving an example of what happens when that is not done in a way that absolutely takes on board the views of the industry. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we avoid making the mistakes that are being made down south, so I make no apology for making that comparison.

The farmer-led groups were not completely ignored—that is absolute nonsense. The farmer led-groups gave their views on what was right for their sectors—that is what they were looking at.

For example, the beef sector looked at the beef sector. I think that I am right in saying that Jim Walker said, “This is what we do for the beef sector,” and he probably presented a brilliantly comprehensive programme of work for the beef sector, because he is an incredibly clever guy who knows exactly what he is doing and how that will benefit his business. However, he added, “But you’ll need to pick up another policy of some kind and give that to the crofters.” Well, we are not in the business of making crofters an afterthought. Crofters are part of our agricultural and community set-up just as much as beef farmers are.

It is not that the farmer-led groups were ignored; the information that was taken from those farmer-led groups has fed into ARIOB, into our engagement with other stakeholders and into my thinking about going and speaking to the crofters in Lewis, Harris, and Skye. However, I will go back to my point that you are not gonnae get everything you want; you are gonnae get a balanced policy that will fit within the policy objectives that we, as a Government, and this Parliament have agreed to and within the budget that this Government has available to it.

Again, I fundamentally disagree with you.

You are saying that there has been no progress. We have already said that we are gonnae have four tiers. Tiers 1 and 2 will take up 70 per cent of the budget—

I do not have the figures just now, but we will bring those to the committee. We will bring the detail to the committee as we build the jigsaw puzzle so that people will know what is coming their way. We have already done that with whole-farm plans and with the calf schemes, and we will do it with greening. We will do it with every bit of the jigsaw as we put it back together.

As I have said to you before, we will do this bit by bit in order to get the complete picture, and people will be able to feed into that as they are affected by it. We have done the co-development. We are talking to the groups. The convener can shake his head as much as he likes—you might not like it, but that is the process that we are in. It is that process that will deliver the policy that will allow us to achieve the vision for agriculture that we have all agreed on. That is how it will develop.

If we are gonnae talk about the IT system, I will let Nick Downes and Mandy Callaghan deal with it.

I cannot remember who it was that said it, but somebody said something last week—forgive me if I misheard or I am misquoting—about how the system is more focused on delivering on time than on developing the new system. I find that curious, because I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the funds get into farmers’ bank accounts on time. I clearly remember—as anyone who was involved in agriculture at the time will—that, when we transitioned from the previous single-farm payment to the basic payment scheme, there were massive delays, which caused mayhem in farmers’ bank accounts and cash flows. The critical point is that we continue to make payments on time.

The fact is that the Government has made a rod for its own back in when those payments are made. They were made earlier and earlier when they could have been made much later, and we could have given ourselves more time, but we got so good at it that the payments came in earlier. That became the accepted norm for farmers, when, in reality, the payments could have been delayed until much later in the season.

The delivery of payments is one of the most fundamental things to ensure that we get right every time. The team that is in place is doing a phenomenal job, and I want to ensure that it continues to do that job.

I would challenge that. When Jonnie Hall and Martin Kennedy of the NFUS did their roadshows, they were doing what Neil Wilson spoke about last week. They were gathering voices, concerns and information as they went along, and they told us that, by and large, people were buying into this and thinking,“Okay—I can get behind this. It feels okay and we’re comfortable with what’s coming down the road.” That is part of the co-design. If they had done 15 roadshows and come back and said, “Look, this is an absolute disaster. We cannae get people tae buy intae this,” we would have had to stop and think, “Okay. What do we do now?”