���˿���

Thank you for that question. CPD is an important part of the framework, because we do not have the powers to implement a CPD regime at the moment. Therefore, the ability to take those powers through the bill is really important. It was interesting to go through all the evidence that the committee has heard on the issue, because it came across that this would be interpreted as a stick to force people to undertake CPD, which is not what is intended at all. If there is CPD that could be considered essential, or that a person must undertake in order to undertake another activity, it is important that we have the powers and flexibility to enable us to require that.

There are examples of that in relation to plant protection products, where people need to undertake specific training before they can undertake that activity, which is reasonable. However, the provisions are about facilitating CPD in the first place and building a system that enables continued learning and personal development.

Another thing that came through strongly in the evidence was the importance of peer-to-peer learning and the support that is available on that. We want to facilitate and encourage that as much as possible as well as providing other opportunities for learning through that process. I hope that that is helpful, at least in clarifying how we intend to establish the powers and enable that aspect.

Another element that goes alongside that is knowledge transfer and what will be called the agricultural knowledge and innovation service, which presents different opportunities. An awful lot of work has been undertaken so far on that and on what will become the future tier 4 support.

John Kerr will know when that will be implemented. I think that the new part of the framework will come in from 2027 onwards.

Yes—it is a critical element, and we support similar schemes now. As the schemes evolve and we transition into what will become the formal tier of the new framework, I fully intend to support that.

I hope that the code will be a helpful document for farmers and crofters. It is to be used as a support rather than as an alternative mechanism—I want to make that clear.

As we touched on at the start of today’s discussion, sustainable and regenerative agriculture means different things to different people. It is about a basket of measures, and the code is really important in helping to outline some of those. We want to make sure that we get that right in how the code is used. The list of measures also refers to any consultation that needs to take place and how we raise awareness of the code.

I have talked a lot today about co-development and getting that right. The code is designed to be a tool for, and a support to, farmers and crofters as opposed to anything else.

I am content just to move to questions, convener.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the committee. I know that the committee has received and heard in person quite a lot of evidence in relation to the bill, because—quite rightly—it is of great interest to a lot of people, as you can see from the evidence that you have taken.

On the objectives that we have set, the overall intention is to have broad objectives and not to be too specific, because we want to ensure that we have objectives that will ultimately work in alignment and do not conflict with one another. Trying to do that when setting objectives is always a fine balance. We could put a lot of objectives in the bill, but then the focus would be on the things that have potentially been missed.

We believe that, given the broad nature of the four objectives, we will be able to capture the key aspects and main priorities of what we seek to achieve through the bill. It has been really interesting to hear the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to that and the different viewpoints that have been expressed.

You have touched on a really important point. We have had that discussion a number of times, particularly in relation to carbon audits, in which more than 60 different tools are available for people to use. It is not possible for us to mandate that or to say which particular tool they should use. As John Kerr has outlined, different markets expect producers to use different tools. It is about us having the flexibility so that we can recognise those different schemes in the future.

That is what we have tried to do through the preparing for sustainable farming scheme. It is about enabling businesses to get their individual baseline of information. Biodiversity is really challenging, in that regard. We have been working with NatureScot on what a biodiversity audit might look like, because that can be more challenging in certain circumstances.

In the example that you highlighted, about sustainable and regenerative practices, the problem with being any more specific in the bill is that those could potentially change in the future, so we do not want to be too prescriptive. The words “sustainable” and “regenerative” can also mean different things in different contexts. However, I appreciate the need for further clarity and definitions about what we mean. The code of practice is hugely important in setting that out.

We highlighted a broad definition in the route map and the information that we published, particularly in relation to regenerative agriculture. We said that, ultimately, it is a collection of different practices, and we also outlined what the goals of regenerative agriculture include.

The code of practice is important, because it can be broader in setting out what the basket of measures looks like. We appreciate that everybody works on a different land type and has a different type of business, and we know that regenerative means different things in different contexts. We want to ensure that we capture that. However, critical to that is involving people in the process. No doubt, we will come on to that at some point during the session, or perhaps you want to cover the code of practice and how we intend to implement it in detail now. The code of practice is important in relation to regenerative and sustainable practices.

That is why the evidence sessions that the committee has undertaken are so important, and it is why we go through this process. Only by doing that are we able to flesh out more points and ideas. I am not coming here with a hard-and-fast approach to what we will introduce, because I want to hear the committee’s views.

I have set out why we have broad objectives. That is by no means meant to exclude all the other areas, which are hugely important. Our intention is to capture them all without necessarily listing them. A number of areas are already covered in other legislation and strategies. It is not that we consider any of those areas not to be important, but they will be captured in the broad definitions. However, I am happy to hear the committee’s views on that.

I am sorry, but I do not know about the particular point that was raised in relation to the co-design process. I think that Ewen Scott was at the committee; I am not sure whether he or John Kerr wants to come in on that. The co-development aspect is absolutely critical.

I know that there is general criticism of framework legislation, but I think that I have outlined why having that flexibility is so important. We have to ensure that we have the transition over the next few years, for all the reasons that I have outlined. We also need flexibility in order to adapt, in a way that we cannot at the moment, to possible future challenges. That is why it is so important. Although I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about a framework bill, it is exactly what we need to enable us to move forward and have the transition that we have set out. John Kerr or Ewen Scott might have more to add.

Smaller-scale producers are the lifeblood of a lot of our rural and island communities, and support for them is hugely important. That is where I see benefits from this legislation and the schemes that we will be able to design going forward. Producers who have properties that are under 3 hectares have not been included in any of the existing payment schemes because the administration and costs for those smaller producers would not be worth it, which is why we have tried to develop a bespoke scheme to help small producers.

Previously, funding was allocated against the small farms grant scheme, which was very difficult to spend. Small producers, who probably have fewer resources than anybody else, were expected to jump through hoops in order to access support in a way that was inherently unfair and, ultimately, did not work and locked them out, and that is why we undertook work with the small producers pilot to see what sort of support would be the most beneficial and useful. That has been a really important piece of work, with funding being allocated for a few specific projects to trial that support. Support is being provided for a couple of abattoir projects, and there is a website and online resource for small producers. The process has been about listening to small producers and what support they would find most helpful, and about how we can develop and build on that. The pilot is really important as it will enable us to learn lessons, which we can use to inform what future schemes will look like.