Chamber and committees

Sorry—what do you mean?

No. Again, that would completely undermine everything that I have said about co-development. I am not the expert on what should be in a sustainable and regenerative farming code of practice, so it is not for me to outline it to the committee. What I can point to is what we have published in the route map, which I have highlighted a number of times today and I have read out some of its elements. However, again, that has to be developed.

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.