���˿���

You made the point about only communities being able to buy land. I want to ensure that we are not mixing up the pre-notification process with the lotting proposals, which allow for more diverse ownership. I hope that I have been able to set out today the fact that we looked at those other options—I think that some of that information is also set out in the policy memorandum. The only way that we could feasibly introduce the public interest test was at the point of transfer, taking into account the various things that we have talked about today in relation to the aim of the test, which concerns the diversity of land supply. I touched on examples from elsewhere in relation to looking at that and potential tests for buyers. However, it is not possible for us to do that, and, as Andy Proudfoot outlined, it would actually be more restrictive. That is why we have taken this approach.

Ultimately, the latter will allow more detailed engagement to take place to ensure that we get the model lease right in the first instance.

I will hand over to Fiona Leslie, who might be able to provide more information on that.

The proposals are based on consultation of small landholders. According to the agricultural census, there are around 59 small landholders in Scotland, and their preference was to be aligned more with the agricultural holdings legislation rather than to become crofts. Applications can already be made by the landowner to the Crofting Commission in the crofting counties, should they wish that to take place.

Fiona Leslie may have more detail as she has been involved in many of the immediate discussions that have taken place with small landowners.

That discussion will be familiar to Rhoda Grant and me, particularly through the consideration of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, which was passed before the summer last year. Definitions of “sustainable and regenerative agriculture” were raised during evidence sessions on that bill. That is why we set out as part of that bill, which is now an act, that we would bring forward a code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture, because it includes a wide variety—a basket—of measures that can be used.

An awful lot of work is being undertaken on producing that code and the various iterations of consultation that have been under way before it is due to be published. I appreciate that there is no definitive definition of “sustainable and regenerative”, but that is the specific reason why. A basket of measures is included that can look different in different pieces of land and in different farming systems across Scotland. That is why we developed the term in the way that we did for the 2024 act and why we are taking the work forward in that way.

We would have to consider whether it was necessary for the bill to refer to the code of practice. Again, that work is largely being taken forward through the agricultural reform programme.

That largely comes down to the engagement that took place with small landholders and how they wanted to proceed. The legislation needs to be modernised, but what we produced and proposed was largely based on small landholders’ suggestions.

That is the thing. As Fiona Leslie outlined in her earlier responses, some small landholders might have wanted to do that or, at least, would have liked it to be considered. Fiona took part in direct discussions with small landholders. In broad terms, that was the direction of travel that they wanted to go in. Is that correct?

I hope that he can help, if I cannot.

I am happy to do that. I will break down the overall funding that is available in the agriculture reform programme. I think that the delivery costs of the programme are staying at the same level, which is £5 million. On the national test programme, importantly, we now have capital available over the course of the year contributing to that. Previously, when we have had higher amounts allocated to the national test programme, we have not been able to fully utilise that funding.

In previous meetings, we have talked about the level of claims that have come through for the preparing for sustainable farming—PSF—scheme. We have allocated an amount that we believe will be fully utilised by the claims that are coming through. In a year in which we will make some requirements for the whole-farm plan mandatory, such as those on carbon audits, soil sampling analysis and animal health and welfare plans, it is important that we continue to provide support for that. That is a reflection of the greater level of spend that we have been able to undertake over the past few years.

You are absolutely right. It is very similar to the conversation that we have just had on forestry. Peatland restoration is still a relatively young industry. We want to see it continue to build and grow, and we need that confidence to enable that to happen. That means that we must continue to provide funding to enable growth to take place and, exactly as you have said, to ensure that we build the skills, career opportunities and training opportunities. I believe that the funding that we have available in the budget this year puts us in that positive space, where we are able to restore more and, I hope, continue to build confidence in the industry.