³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Again, we are confusing two different things. The vast majority of the funding that we receive for this portfolio, and which goes into payments, is ring fenced by the UK Government, which has given us no certainty as to what any future budget allocation beyond next year will be, so we have no idea what is coming. Without that clarity, it is not possible for me to determine exactly what funding there will be or to make commitments about multi-annual funds that, as yet, I do not have.

That is why we set out, as I have already explained, how we can expect the overall envelopes in the budget to be allocated. However, the quantum of that funding will very much depend on the UK Government, because that is where the lion’s share of my budget comes from. It all depends on how much I get from the UK Government.

It is not possible for me to set that out at the moment. I cannot say that we would be looking to introduce other particular targets as part of the rural support plan, but we have statutory targets in relation to emissions reduction and the targets that are being looked at through the natural environment bill. Of course, we will have to consider those.

The bill will, ultimately, give us the powers to do any of those things, although we have a cap in place at the moment. The powers to enable us to manage payments are critical. I have had discussions about redistributive payments. I recognise that, quite broadly, there is support for front loading. However, I am not positioned to set out today exactly what that would look like or what form it would take, because that will be part of the consideration of what things might look like in the future framework. There will also be discussions with the people who will be impacted by that to consider how we would best progress things.

Absolutely. As I said, we have a cap in place at the moment. We do not have any businesses that are in support at the overall cap, which is just over £500,000. After that, there is tapering, at the level of 5 per cent, that applies to businesses that are in receipt of funding of more than £130,000 and 85 businesses are impacted by that. That is where things stand at the moment.

As we transition, we will set out more information. We would not change the cap or the taper or introduce front loading or redistribution without discussing that with the people who would be impacted. We would have those discussions before bringing forward such proposals.

Sorry. I used the figure of 3 hectares because that size was previously a determining factor for such support. It is not a case of my thinking being that someone who farms less land than that is a small producer and someone who farms more than that is a large producer. Obviously, it is not as simple as that, as you said.

This is about our enabling, through our measures, small producers and businesses to be supported, because we recognise how vital they are. I do not know whether John Kerr wants to come in with more information on that.

It is not possible for me to set out a timescale today. I hope that, in relation to the route map, I have been able to outline where we can expect to see changes and transition, but we still need to take forward that overall conversation.

Absolutely, and not least because we would have to undertake all the relevant impact assessments in relation to that as well. We would need to evaluate the system that has been in place to see whether it has worked and to make sure that we have the evidence base for any decisions on that.

We are considering the recommendations that have come from the DPLR Committee. I know that there were a few areas—well, another area—as well as that. Of course, we will consider that, as we will consider this committee’s recommendations, too.

What do I think about providing more of that information? It is always challenging because, as we have touched on today, in relation to some of that information, whatever we put in the bill will not be as flexible and adaptive. Throughout this period of transition, we are very much in a space where we need the ability to be flexible and adaptive. We started this discussion by talking about sustainable and regenerative agriculture. We need flexibility to look at that, because there is not one hard definition that we would be able to put in the bill. We need to be able to bring forward a basket of measures that can be used to support our producers, more than anything else, and to highlight what we mean, and we think that the code of practice is the best way to do that.

Again, I understand the criticisms that there can be, but we have tried to share our thinking as much as possible. The process is slower in its nature because co-development takes time. It takes more time for us to get it right and I appreciate that that can be frustrating for people, given the point that we are at with the bill and the need to know the detail of what future schemes will look like. That is why we have tried to articulate that as clearly as possible, at least when more information and detail becomes available. We are committed to working with people, because we want to make sure that, ultimately, we get the policies right.

In some of the other areas that you have talked about, such as emissions and biodiversity, we have statutory targets, as I have touched on, and more could well be coming down the line. That, of course, shows why we need to be flexible, so that we can take those things into consideration.

Set parliamentary procedures are obviously in place in relation to affirmative and negative instruments for the committee’s consideration.

As we have done in relation to some of the other developments that we have announced—for example, the whole-farm plan and the suckler beef scheme and attached conditions—we have set out in the route map when we will be making more information available and the process towards reaching that. We have set that out in the route map and in some of the information in relation to that that we have published already. This year, we have said that we will be setting out more information in relation to what will be considered in the enhanced tier of the framework; however, the secondary legislation would not be coming forward until 2025, by the time that it is enacted. I do not know whether Andrew Crawley wants to come in on that.