³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is the commitment that we have set out, because we realise the importance of the issues.

There is a project board, which has been overseeing the full cost recovery. My officials will probably be able to tell you who is on that board, but I know that there are stakeholders from each of the Administrations on it.

Farmers and crofters have known that the policy is coming and, because of the engagement that has been undertaken by APHA, we do not expect a significant impact. We have been overcharging in some areas and undercharging in others, which is why the phasing in of increased charges is important. We will introduce a 50 per cent uplift this year and will increase that to 100 per cent full cost recovery next year. Phasing that in, rather than doing it in one fell swoop, is a way of recognising concerns about charges.

I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that the only exception is in relation to work at border control posts, where there will be 100 per cent cost recovery this year.

As far as I am aware, no concerns in relation to that have been expressed.

As I said in my initial response, we will introduce the agriculture bill this year. Earlier this year, we published our route map for reform, in which we are looking to introduce conditions in 2025 and then to phase the transition to the new framework over the years from 2025 onwards. We therefore need to introduce legislation to extend the provisions in the 2020 act. I cannot give a definitive timescale for that at the moment, but we need that transitionary piece of legislation to allow us to continue with the various schemes that we have at the moment so that we can ultimately implement the route map that we have set out. I will, of course, keep the committee informed as we look to introduce that.

Our route map sets out information about when we are looking to publish information on conditionality, which we hope to be in a position to do very soon. It also sets out some of the areas in which we could apply conditionality in the basic payment scheme, whether that be on greening, the good agricultural and environmental conditions requirements, cross-compliance or potentially elements of a whole-farm plan. That was all listed in the information that we published. We also mentioned potential conditions for voluntary coupled support. We will announce the detail around what we published in the route map shortly.

I will go back to your question relating to NFU Scotland’s calls and the budget splits. The discussions are on-going. I know that that is the NFUS’s position, but other bodies have different views on that. We have committed to a policy of co-development in relation to how we develop our agriculture policy, so we will continue to have those discussions with the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, the NFUS and other stakeholders before setting out a position.

Horticulture is a vital sector to Scotland in respect of the fruit and vegetables that we produce. We know that a number of issues affect the sector at the moment, but we want and encourage people to become involved in horticulture.

We also have various schemes. There are various projects, including a few in my constituency, that look at community-supported agriculture, and we have supported various schemes through those that are really important, because all of that is about strengthening and shortening our local supply chains. That, of course, also meets the objectives that we want to set out in the good food nation plans that we will produce.

We would have the requirements for tier 2 in the new legislation. The measures to be included in that would be set out in secondary legislation. Ultimately, that allows for flexibility in the future so that we do not have to go back and amend primary legislation every time. That also means that we can adapt, add to or change those measures if there are innovations in agriculture, for example. That provides us with the flexibility and the adaptive framework that we will need for the future, so that we have more flexibility than we have through the current schemes.

Yes, I am more than happy to do so. With regard to track 1 of the national test programme, I think that the last time that I appeared before the committee, we were looking at fairly low figures for the carbon audits and soil tests that had been undertaken. I think that I said then that, anecdotally, we were hearing that more people were intending to claim, but I think that the final figure for the tests that had been undertaken by the time that the claims window closed was more than 1,000. There were just over 500 carbon audits, with the rest made up of soil tests.

That means that more than £1 million in funding had been allocated to that, and that is not to mention the 500 carbon audits that had already been undertaken via the Farm Advisory Service.

For track 2 of the programme, we undertook a widespread survey, which got about 1,000 responses, to understand more the knowledge about and uptake of sustainable and regenerative practices across the industry. We were quite pleased with the response rate to that.

The survey showed that the majority of people had undertaken an action such as a carbon audit or nutrient management planning. It was also important in helping us to identify people’s motivations for undertaking actions, as well as in identifying barriers or what was preventing people from undertaking specific actions. Getting those views from the survey was really helpful.

I was glad that the figures increased towards the end of the claims window, which we had expected. We want as many people as possible to take the support that is there to undertake the actions, but we know that a lot of farmers and crofters already undertake soil testing and carbon audits. We are trying to incentivise that as much as possible.

It was the programme’s first year, and we will run it for the next couple of years, so I hope that it will continue to build and that interest will build, so that more audits and tests come through. We really encourage that, because that will give businesses their baseline, which they can make improvements from.

We want to build on the test programme and to continue to support carbon audits and soil testing. We have added support for animal health and welfare plans this year, and we hope to add biodiversity audits to the programme as we move forward.

The actions and measures that people undertake will be critical to that. That is where it will be important to get feedback on some of the measures that we have outlined and what we are looking at for potential inclusion in a future framework. It is where track 2 of the testing programme comes in, because there will be detailed and in-depth work with farmers and crofters, which will allow us to see how those measures work together and understand the improvements.