³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

In relation to the important point that Andy made, I highlight that we have used either way provisions for previous instruments that we have brought to the committee. I am not aware that we have had any particular issues in relation to that. We have used such powers before.

As Andy outlined, negative instruments tend to be used for the more technical parts. We feel that those provisions in previous legislation have operated quite well—certainly, the committee has not raised concerns about that.

I hope that you will refer to the bill as a good example in the future, but time will tell.

As I outlined in my response to the previous question, it is all about transition for us: everything is not suddenly going to change overnight, with cliff edges in relation to it. Of course, we will need to introduce SSIs, not least for some of the conditions that we will introduce next year. There will then be secondary legislation that will enable us to bring forward the enhanced tier of the framework, which is expected to be in place in 2026, and the SSIs will be introduced in 2025. It will be a phased process because of the timescales that we have set out.

The SSIs are also phased, because we need to be able to undertake the work on the relevant tiers of the framework. It is critical that we get the phasing right—not least for the committee—but I appreciate your point.

I return to the point that it is in our best interests to ensure that what we bring forward is consulted on and developed in that way. Subsection 26(6) of the bill sets out that point in relation to the consultation.

To go back to the start, the code of practice is a basket of different measures, in which sense it will not be prescriptive. Perhaps we are not articulating how it will be used in the best way, but it is about the support. It is critical that we try to outline the general understanding of what those terms mean in the code of practice.

We have to review the code, and the powers are there for that to happen. Practices can change and develop, especially in this area, and we have to ensure that what we have can be updated to reflect that. We need the flexibility to do that. Section 26 mentions the consultation and ensures that we can review the code and update it as necessary.

Absolutely. I will bring in John Kerr in a moment. Throughout the process, we have been—or, at least, we have tried to be—clear. You talked about the good practice that is already happening, and a key component of our approach is that we want to recognise that good practice. Again, the code of practice is not intended to be a prescriptive document. The Government will not develop it in isolation and then land it on people. It is not in our best interests to do that. It is in our best interests to have conversations with farmers and crofters to determine what the code will look like and how it might develop. The powers on the review and consultation are important in that regard.

Yes.

Yes, we need the framework for the reasons that I have outlined. We need it to be adaptable in the future, not least because of how we see the transition going forward, as we have set out in the route map. There will be changes, particularly in the course of the next five years or so, and we need to be able to adapt and to have the flexibility to implement them.

I would have to take a closer look at some of the specific objectives that you have set out in relation to that initiative. I know that the committee will be well aware of something that I, too, see when I visit businesses across the country, which is that, at the moment, a lot of the activities that they undertake are dictated by the contracts that they are subject to. I recently had an amazing visit to Arla Foods and heard about its sustainability journey and how it is driving that, working with its farmers on improving sustainability.

A lot of the people whom I speak to are already far ahead of what we can talk about in the bill. There is no doubt that they would meet all the objectives that we have set out and are undertaking the type of practices that we want to see in the future. However, we know that things can change. New measures could become available that we are not aware of now, which we might want to incentivise or look to introduce. The ability to do that through secondary legislation and to enable that through the bill is really important.

Perhaps John Kerr wants to add something.

I have already set that out, convener. It was not clear to me that your previous question referred to the rural support plan, so I apologise if we were speaking at cross-purposes. John Kerr might want to come in.

Okay. A number of other areas of the bill are included with the intention of providing more certainty and clarity about the overall framework and the flexibility that it is designed to provide. That can be seen in the rural support plan that is proposed.

However, we cannot forget the information that we already have. We are aiming for the bill to deliver on what we set out in our vision for agriculture. We also have a route map—which I have already referenced—that sets out exactly what changes can be expected and when they will take place, and states when more information about each of the changes can be expected. We are trying to provide as much certainty as possible about when more information will come, as well as trying to give more of an idea about what potential measures for the future could look like.

There are broad definitions in the framework bill, and that is for a reason, which is that—exactly as I outlined in my previous response about sustainable and regenerative agriculture practices—they could change. We need a flexible framework so that we can respond quickly should a crisis emerge in relation to how we make payments and the type of things that we can fund. It will also enable us to make changes and adapt the definitions if there are improvements in science and technology. That is why having flexibility is so important.

I am happy to outline some of that work. As you can imagine, there are a number of strands to it. We have set out the four-tier framework, and a number of pieces of work are under way. As I and John Kerr have outlined, co-development is critical to all that because we want to make sure that we bring forward policies that will ultimately work.

I will touch on a specific example. We are due to provide an update to the route map in the first quarter of this year; we will publish it next month. It will set out more detail on the conditions, in relation to whole-farm plans, that we will introduce for support from 2025.

We have also talked about conditionality in relation to the suckler beef support scheme. Those pieces of work have involved extensive work with a number of stakeholders. As you can imagine, with the suckler beef support scheme, the various organisations and people that we have included in the consultation have been involved in the work to develop the scheme, and proposals have come from individual farmers, Quality Meat Scotland, the Scottish Beef Association and others. The whole-farm plan has been critical in all that, too.

Those are specific bodies of work, but all the work involves wider engagement and involvement in what we are doing, with wider testing to ensure that our proposals make sense and will work for farmers and crofters. Having published the most recent update to our route map after the Royal Highland Show in June last year, we issued a call for volunteers to sign up and help us with that work. From that, we have a database of between 1,200 and 1,300 people who have signed up to take part in that research.

I am looking at the other figures that we have. We have undertaken about 3,500 surveys and about 250 individual interviews with people, and there are then all the other pieces of work that we are taking forward in relation to tier 4 and the complementary support that is available there. Extensive work has been undertaken in that regard.

That is a snapshot. I do not know whether John Kerr wants to add anything, but I hope that that has provided you with a bit more clarity on the work that we are doing and on how important in the process wider involvement is.