���˿���

That illustrates well the issue that I have come across over many years. When we talk about the size of the pie, we forget about how the pie is divvied up and how organisations are responsible for divvying it up in a way that reflects the needs of the people they are seeking to serve. It is helpful that we have that on record in the committee this morning. Thank you.

I will be brief. We have already touched on human rights budgeting. Does the commission think that there is enough resourcing out there to allow effective human rights budgeting to be done? I am thinking specifically about resourcing for local authorities and about the ways that they directly resource some of our many other delivery agencies. How can we ensure that we achieve human rights budgeting within resource allocations?

One of my colleagues will ask questions about the co-design.

Before we get to that, however, do you believe that our producers, at this point in time, are able to decide what they will do with regard to regenerative practices? As you set out in your letter to us, a code of practice will not be law and will not be a legal requirement, but what payments producers are able to receive will be contingent on them adopting such practices.

Producers will be deciding how to invest and what to do between now and the code of practice coming out. Do they have enough information at the minute to be making the best decisions for the future of their farm or croft?

Finally, do you believe that that will help to ensure that there is a just transition and that we take the sector with us? Will it ensure that the sector will not come to a cliff edge in relation to accessing future payments?

I have a wee follow-on question. My concern is that, on the ground, farmers and crofters might not understand what concessions are available to them. It is about understanding the nature of the very small industry that they preside over. Is there another way for the changes to be communicated effectively? None of us would want any farmer or crofter to decide to give up and not go any further at this early stage, because, as Rhoda Grant narrated, they form an integral part of how our landscapes and our biodiversities work in many parts of Scotland.

Good morning. We cannot overemphasise how critically important a code of practice will be, especially during this transition period. Any big legislative change that we make always requires robust and comprehensive guidance to ensure that the aims are being met. In this instance, if we also think about the likelihood of wider support being contingent on the aims of sustainable and regenerative agriculture being met, it becomes critical that there is speedy delivery of the code of practice. Will the minister let us know when it is likely that the code will be published, especially given that support is contingent on our producers adhering to what is in it?

Crofts and small farms might be small, but there is no doubt in the mind of anybody on the committee or in Scotland that they form an integral part of the fabric of our country. It is important that they understand what concessions are being made for them, so communication of that information is important. If there is not already an understanding through looking at information on a township basis or on paper maps, how is the Government effectively communicating that?

It is one thing to say that they need to be aware of what is coming down the line, but the Government should be proactive in communicating what concessions have been developed for them and understanding that people do not want to pay out all the money that they get in payments in order to be able to access payments. How is that effectively communicated to them?

My last question is, do we have the assurance that the process will be iterative and that there will be periods of review as we go along, so that any code or guidance can be updated in terms of emerging practices and understanding of how regenerative agriculture actually works?

My final question is about the consultation that you have out. People might not be able to digest the findings from the two reviews and respond to the consultation effectively if they do not understand what the reviews have brought to the table.

Some of the issues that I am going to ask about have already been covered a little bit, but I would like to explore them further.

There are on-going internal reviews of the fisheries management and conservation group and the regional inshore fisheries groups network, and I would like to understand what triggered the reviews. As a committee, we have heard evidence about possible operational difficulties, how the group and network feed into each other and how those have set policy and strategic direction. How were the reviews triggered? Have they been completed? What was their scope? How will those two pieces of work feed into the IFMI programme? It is quite important that they are completed and feed into the IFMI programme as much as possible. It would be good for us to understand a bit about that.