���˿���

Absolutely. We can take some of the measures that we published last year as an example of that. When we published the measures, which was just over a year ago, I think that methane inhibitors were on that list. However, at that time, we did not have the approval for Bovaer, which has since had that approval.

That highlights how we know that such technology is coming down the track and could be used as a measure as part of an enhanced tier. It also highlights how, especially given the way that things develop in this space, we need to make sure that we can update and add measures as more become available and offer that full flexibility.

Ultimately, we want to ensure that farmers and crofters have a variety of measures that they can use to suit their circumstances. They know their land and business better than anybody else and we want to make sure that we have flexibility for them in the future framework.

We are now at the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were when we were talking about the broad objectives of the bill. I appreciate your point and the points that stakeholders have raised.

We believe that the bill is still broad enough that some of the areas that you have mentioned would not necessarily be excluded. However, as we discussed earlier, if we create a list, it can look as though something that has not been included is seen as being less important or something that cannot be supported.

I am happy to consider the committee’s recommendations, and I am open to considering other matters that the committee feels should be in the schedule that are not there at the moment.

You have to bear in mind that we are not comparing like with like. Our vision for agriculture sets out the overall objective that we want to broadly align with the EU where it is practicable for us to do that. That is where we generally look at the 10 objectives that have been set for the CAP.

The EU is, of course, in a different situation, because it sets out its multi-annual frameworks at the start of a session and it then has however many years to deliver on those. We are in a different position and are coming from a different starting point.

As we have talked about today, we must ensure that we have the flexibility to do what is right for Scottish circumstances, so we need to have a conversation with our farmers and crofters to see what the best mechanism is and what it might look like. As I touched on in one of my previous responses, there tends to be broad agreement about what front loading can do and what impact it can have, so we might want to consider it further. However, I would not want us to tie ourselves to a certain position in relation to that, because we need to go through the co-development process first.

The route map goes up until about 2027, when we expect some schemes to get there. Depending on where we are in the development of a certain scheme, there could come a point at which it might make sense to continue beyond a specific point that we have mentioned. Of course, I cannot predetermine any decisions that might be taken further down the line or what could come up during the process, but it is important that we have the ability to continue those schemes until such time as we have made the transition. Ultimately, that is why those powers are in the bill.

Yes, the bill would allow us to create new schemes. As we set out, 2026 is when we would be looking to have in place the enhanced tier of the framework, which is going to be new and different from what we have at the moment.

In the route map, we have set out that some schemes are going to continue, but they could well change. One of those is AECS, and we have LFASS as well. Some of the other supports will continue through that period until we transition to the new parts of the framework, and we have set out broadly when we expect the new tiers to come into effect within that.

I hope that I articulated that well. Is there anything that you want to add, Andrew?

We have to make people aware of it. If we want to be a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture and deliver on our vision, we have to explain what that means to people and what that might look like. For me, it is about the measures that we will introduce and expect people to undertake. Everything will have to tie back to that and will involve looking at where we ultimately aim to be. It is about providing support for people—it is a manual in that sense—that we can refer them to and say, “This is what we are considering, and this is the basket of measures included in that definition.” That is how the code is meant to be used.

We have set out the basic standards that we expect people to meet in relation to good agricultural and environmental conditions and extra conditions in relation to the whole-farm plan and starting to build the foundations and baselining for individual businesses. More information will be published in the update to the route map relating to the whole-farm plan that is coming. That will set out what we expect, so that people can access that support.

What you have said about involving people and their needing to know what is in the code of practice is exactly right. That is why we want to consult on it and ensure that what we set out in the code is right.

I go back to the points that we touched on earlier. The code is not prescriptive, because we have to enable the future tiers of our framework. We have set out as our objective that, ultimately, we want to be a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. We have also set that out in our vision. A host of flexible measures can be part of that, but the co-development in that work will be critical in ensuring that we get it right.

I disagree in the sense that I do not think that there is a particularly light touch in the bill. It mentions the reviews that we would have to undertake of the code and the consultation. However, if the committee has particular views on that, we will, of course, consider them in the stage 1 report. We are happy to take away from this conversation any particular views that the committee has. However, I would not want there to be a misinterpretation of the basis of the approach and what the code of practice would mean.

Again, it is not possible for me to set out at this stage what that might look like. Also, we have undertaken—

Within the overall quantum of what we have in the portfolio funding, I would expect us to fund the CPD.

I am sorry, but can I just clarify that that was the question?