Chamber and committees

I will put words in their mouths, but I think that Donald MacKinnon and Vera Eory were talking about the value of low-intensity agriculture in terms of the legislation that defines sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. My question might be aimed at Donald MacKinnon. Can you explain where crofting fits into that picture of low-intensity agriculture and what crofters are already doing to achieve the aims of regenerative agriculture?

Is there a good time?

Liz Barron-Majerik mentioned the benefits of sending policy signals—to use a phrase that Kirsty Jenkins used—about some of the issues, such as five-year funding for agriculture. I appreciate that you might not like me making this point, convener, but the Scottish Parliament does not know from month to month what its income will be next year, never mind in five years, not only on agriculture but on any other portfolio. Given some of what we have heard today, would it be worth another try to get a UK agriculture minister to come and explain that situation, given that the previous one told us that he was unavailable indefinitely?

Ministers will have to have regard to—I know that that is a loaded and specifically intended phrase—the climate change plan and other duties in law, and they must align their actions to the forthcoming climate change plan and the biodiversity plan. Can you tell me what “have regard to” means in this context, or what you understand ministers will have to do to comply with those areas of policy?

Is there a timescale in your minds for producing the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture?

But you recognise that voices in the sector have raised concerns about such scenarios.

Much of the debate around the bill will focus on what constitutes sustainable and regenerative agriculture. What is your definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture as it applies to the bill?

That is comprehensive. Does anyone else want to come in?

Yes, it is. Ewen Scott, you mentioned that areas of policy in the bill could not be in conflict with anything on the statute book. Can you elaborate on what you had in mind that you were trying to avoid doing?

The policy memorandum sets out the workings of assimilated rules and sunset clauses, but can you say something about whether the retained CAP rules will, at some point, need to be replaced with new regulations? How will that be achieved, and how will things be maintained into the future?