Official Report 823KB pdf
Rural Support (Improvement) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [Draft]
Our next item is consideration of an affirmative instrument. I welcome back to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and his officials.
I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you for making time to consider these draft regulations today. The regulations were laid using the powers that are conferred by the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020, which enable us to improve the operation of the assimilated EU law that applies to our common agricultural policy legacy schemes. They will do so by introducing the foundations of the whole-farm plan as a condition of the basic payment scheme. The whole-farm plan approach was co-developed with the industry and will support our farmers and crofters to take a holistic view of their farm or croft so that they will be clear about what they are doing and the impacts of that. They will have the information that they need to be more productive and profitable while reducing the impacts on climate and nature.
In 2025, businesses are being asked to undertake two plans and audits from a list comprising an animal health and welfare plan, a habitats report, a carbon report an integrated pest management plan, and a soil report. They are free to make their selection based on their business practices. I intend that, over time, businesses will undertake all the plans that are relevant to their activities, and I will work with them to that end.
The whole-farm plan provisions contribute towards the Scottish Government’s green conditionality objective for 2025 for essential conditions to ensure climate, biodiversity and efficiency conditions for payments, as set out in the vision for agriculture.
The regulations have been drafted to come into force on 5 March 2025, so that farmers and crofters can set out in a single application form which two plans they will prepare for this year. The single application form window opens on 15 March and is expected to close on 15 May.
This marks a significant point in our progress towards becoming a world leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Failing to bring the regulations into force would undermine our progress and the efforts and work of many of our farmers and crofters who are already committed to making those improvements.
I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.
Thank you very much, minister.
You said that farmers need to select two plans from a list that includes a carbon plan and a habitats report. Is there enough support in place for them to undertake those plans? Will you describe that support?
Yes. A lot of support is available via the farm advisory service, the rural payments and inspections division area offices and the route map. Farmers can look to a number of areas.
We have already provided financial support for carbon audits and soil sampling. A lot of information is available to farmers as they work out what they want to do in relation to their farms.
I want to ask about soil reports. I understand that not all farmers take soil samples. A while ago, the committee discussed that aspect of the national test programme. Has uptake increased? We are transitioning to regenerative agriculture, of which soil is a critical part. I want to make sure that enough support is in place that farmers understand how to engage with that programme, that there is uptake and that we are moving towards analysing soil biology, not just chemical testing.
The numbers that I have in front of me show that 3,255 farmers and crofters have carried out soil testing and 2,718 have carried out carbon auditing as part of the programme.
Bear in mind that there are farmers who already do those things as part of their normal practices and the process is about bringing everybody into the system. Amy Geddes—I spoke about her earlier—has, like a number of people, been doing it for years.
I reiterate that this is the start of the process of bringing everybody into the system, which will allow us to have a much better understanding of what we are doing.
I just wanted to be reassured that there is enough support for farmers who are going to move from, primarily, chemical testing towards analysing soil biology, as is set out in the 2024 act.
Yes, support is in place. As people move into the system, they will develop what is suitable for their farms.
Is the minister aware of the significant concern among crofting communities about the SSI? They say that, financially, they are disproportionately affected and are not clear of the upside and what will balance out the negative impact on crofting. Do you accept that the SSI has issues with regard to crofting?
11:00
No, I do not, because the crofting community has been a part of the conversation since day 1. Donald MacKinnon was part of the steering group that helped to develop the legislation. It has been discussed at ARIOB. However, I go back to my earlier point: Donna Smith has written to me and I will ask her to come in and outline what those concerns are.
We are trying to give people as much help as we can in order to fulfil our aims. There are thousands of crofters, and they have to be a part of the process. We will do as much as we can to bring them with us, and we will provide as much help and support as we can. I feel that we have done the work with them, through consultation, but I am more than happy to continue that conversation in order to get us to a place where they feel that they are part of the system.
Might all the support that you are willing to provide include making available extra payments to offset the extra costs that crofters will have to bear?
They can do free of charge a lot of the things that we are asking. They do not necessarily have to pay out money. They can do things themselves. Recently, I spoke to a crofter who had been to his local RPID office and had asked, “This is what’s coming. How do I go about it?” He was given help and support by that office. There are lots of things that crofters can do independently; they do not have to do the financial bits that will cost them a lot of money. However, we want them to be a part of the process.
The Scottish Crofting Federation has put a number of questions to you. Have those been answered?
Yes. I have given some written responses but, as I said, I am more than happy to sit down with Donna Smith to go through them.
An article in The Crofter magazine went through all the things that we are asking people to do and what those mean for the crofting community. A very positive response came back from that, because most of the things that we are asking crofters to do are—I am trying to think of the right words—simple, relatively easy and not cost burdensome.
The crofting community has the information. However, if Donna Smith wants to talk to me about it, we will have that conversation about how we make it as simple as possible.
Is it not too late for that conversation if the SSI is passed today?
No, it is not. The SSI will allow us to get the whole-farm system to move forward. The crofting community is part of that conversation. It is certainly not too late.
One important question that was asked in the federation’s correspondence was whether a business and regulatory impact assessment had been carried out. What was the answer to that?
Off the top of my head, I cannot remember. I think that you have been sent a copy of the letter. However, I think that a BRIA was done. I am pretty sure that that is correct.
A lot of the concerns that the federation is raising are based on research that Scotland’s Rural College carried out last year. Was the Government aware of that research and what it said about the impact on crofters?
Yes. As I said, Donald MacKinnon was part of the group that helped us to develop the legislation in the first place.
What was the response to the research?
What do you mean?
Did anything change as a result, or were any approaches taken—
Something will be specifically outlined somewhere in my briefing pack. Any changes that we make will be impact assessed at the same time.
There are concerns about the proposals. I do not think that anyone is against what you are trying to achieve. However, if, for instance, a crofter gets a payment of £2,000 but pays out most of that on help and advice to meet the criteria, that will put them out of business. Can you guarantee that the costs will be met either through full cost recovery or through the RPID office completing forms for crofters, bearing in mind that many are in areas in which they cannot get online and they do not have broadband? It needs to be either done for them or paid for.
No, I cannot guarantee that that financial cost will be met. I can guarantee that there is help and support to ensure that the crofting community has the tools that it needs. As I have just stated, a lot of that is already free and the crofters can do it themselves.
I grant that this is anecdotal, but, as I have just recited, a crofter I know went to an RPID office. The staff did not fill out the form for that person but told them how to do it—they gave that help and advice. The support is available.
We are not trying to corral people or force them to do things that they do not want to do, but they have to be part of the system. Culturally, economically and community-wise, they are a vital part of what we are trying to do, so they have to be part of the system. That will allow us to ensure that we are recognised as one of the leaders in this area and, at the same time, ensures that those rural communities are supported. We will give that support.
It really does not feel that way, given that it follows on from the suckler cow premium. It feels as if there is no understanding of what crofters are about. We were told when the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill passed that the measures would be proportionate, but we have a one-size-fits-all scheme that does not take account of the age demographic and, if the form is online, whether people have access to IT. That rules out many crofters from doing it themselves. All I am asking is that you put in place the support to ensure that it is affordable for them to apply and that the cost of doing so does not come out of the payments that they receive.
My real fear is that all these things will put people out of business and make them give up. That will impact not only on them but on the environment, because a lot of that land management practice is good for the environment and nature. You need to protect that, because, frankly, if you do not, you will be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I do not dispute in any shape or form the benefits that the crofting community brings to Scotland. I do dispute the idea that we are not taking consideration of the circumstances in which crofters live and work. I have been extremely diligent in talking with my officials and with the crofting community—that is why I have invited Donna Smith to speak to me—so that I have a proper understanding of what is required to make this work for them.
I am not going to give you financial guarantees. I will sit down and have the conversation with Donna Smith and with any other crofter who wants to talk to me about it. I will ask them what their concerns are and how we can make this work for them in a way that allows them to be part of the system.
What I do not want is people opting out. You might be telling me that you are hearing that people will do that, and if that is what Donna Smith tells me, that is fine—I will have that conversation with her. I do not know how much clearer I can be in saying to you that I am taking the issues that have been raised with me very seriously. This is not something that we are trying to beat a community with. It is meant to get them into a position where they can take part in these schemes and enable us to help them to be part of the schemes.
The schemes are designed for people who get tens of thousands of pounds in support rather than those who get minimal support, and the support that the latter people get will be spent on trying to qualify for that support. It is just logical that they would stop.
I will ask Iain Carmichael to come in. He has been dealing specifically with this issue.
We have already introduced some concessions for crofters. For example, carbon audits can be produced on a township basis and, similarly, animal health and welfare plans can be produced for a township that has a QMS membership. We now accept those so that townships are able to comply with the whole farm plan without individual crofters having to suffer any additional costs.
On the point about access to IT, we have introduced a non-IT version of the habitats and biodiversity review. That can be either a paper map that is coloured in, with an index, or even just a list of the crofter’s field numbers indicating the habitat within them.
We have introduced those additional measures, as well as the free tools that are there to help everybody—not just crofters—to complete the components of the whole farm plan at no additional cost.
Does that not highlight the fact that co-design is not working? We hear from Mr Carmichael that things are in place, but that is obviously not feeding through if the chief executive of the Scottish Crofting Federation is raising concerns. It appears that co-design is a one-way street.
I disagree, convener. As I said, there was a crofter on the whole farm plan steering group and there was a discussion about having exemptions based on size, but that idea was rejected by that group, on which the crofting community was represented. Conversations are being had and I am more than happy to continue having them, but I can assure you that it is definitely not a one-way street. I sit on ARIOB, and points of view are put across.
Rhoda Grant said to me that it is a one-size-fits-all policy, but it is not. The whole point of the plans is that they create an opportunity for people to get involved at any level, and they do not necessarily have to pay to get the points that they need in order to be part of that scheme—I do not mean points as in points 1, 2 and 3; I mean the bits that they are required to do. It is certainly not a one-way street and it is certainly not one size fits all.
If there is no cost involved, surely you could give a guarantee that there will be support to allow people to do that. If we take into account demographics, access to equipment and so on, that support would not be a lot. There will be people who are perfectly capable of doing that themselves, but there will be others who are not.
There are facilities within each RPID office so that farmers and crofters can come in and use IT equipment and our staff will be around to give people information about what they are required to do.
There is physical, IT and community support. Although I said that I am not giving you a financial commitment, that support could be taken as a financial commitment because it costs money to provide it. The support is there and is being discussed, and I am more than happy to continue that conversation.
I endorse what Rhoda Grant has been saying, which is exactly what I have been hearing. If there is going to be a cost, or if it is going to take time, people will opt out rather than engage, and people opting out of the system will mean that we will lose a lot of what we are trying to do for nature and biodiversity.
I reiterate to you the point that I made to Rhoda Grant. I will do everything that I can to encourage as many people as possible to get involved, and we will put in place the help that they need to do so. The members of the group were quite clear that they did not want an exemption for crofters.
Emma Harper has some questions.
Iain Carmichael has basically answered my question about the differences between crofters and bigger beef farmers, and I think that I understand that there are exemptions for conservation grazing or for small herds. I want to clarify that there is no one-size-fits-all policy but that there is engagement with everybody about how they will manage their plans for small crofts.
That is correct.
There have been some excellent questions about small farmers. We had a similar discussion about the Scottish suckler beef support scheme, when I asked you what that meant for small farmers. I cannot remember your exact words, but you said something like, “I hear you.” I emphasise again that we have been asked to put SSIs in place before we have a real understanding of what they will mean for smaller farmers and crofters.
The point about price is a wider one. The worry with any requirement, particularly if you cannot always do it yourself, is that the cost then gets bigger and bigger. There is a big difference between a 500-acre farm and a guy—or a woman, or anybody else—who has 20 acres and five sheep. There is no point in me asking the same questions, but I want to push that.
I want to ask about the story of how we have come to be here. Where did the idea of the whole farm plan start for you? I buy some of what you are saying; a QMS or Scottish Quality Crops farm assurance member will have been doing some of this for years now—although again, a lot of smaller farmers are not in farm assurance schemes. So, as you are talking about co-design, what is the story, from your perspective, of how we have got to the point where you feel that this is the right decision for us?
11:15
The process started long before I became a parliamentarian, let alone a minister. It started with farmer-led groups. As I mentioned in the earlier session, they agreed with the Government that they wanted and needed to change the way things were going. They knew that the systems would change. So, those farmer-led groups were established and what we are working on now came from that. I was not involved in all the iterations of the story, but that is how we got to this place.
The baselining that Rhoda Grant touched on is something that will help businesses; it will help their profitability. What we are trying to do is make this better for everyone.
So, the story for me is as follows. We came out of the EU against our will, we are now in a position where we have to develop processes and systems that will allow us to continue to support our agricultural and crofting communities, we are working in co-design—I push back on the suggestion that the conversation is a one-way street, because I do not think that it is; I think that it is very much a two-way street—and we are getting to the point where we will get things done. We are going to start making things happen.
As I said in the earlier session, I understand that people do not want to be doing things that they did not have to do in the past, but huge amounts of public money go into farming and crofting every year, and we have to be able to justify that. One thing that I want from this is to get us to the point where we can answer anyone who asks us, as the Parliament, or the farming industry, why we are justified in paying so much money.
We are already seeing that conversation happening on the inheritance tax that was proposed by the United Kingdom Government. It creates a division. It creates a “them and us” situation, and I am trying to get to a point where we are not in that position and where the public funding that we put into agriculture and crofting is accepted as doing something and delivering for the people, as well as for the communities, that receive it. That is the purpose behind this, as far as I am concerned.
So, if you ask me what the story is, I say that it started a number of years ago with the farmer-led groups, and it got us to the current position whereby we are trying to do everything that we can to support our farming rural communities with public funding.
In fairness, I think that Rhoda Grant said at the very beginning of her question that none of us doubts the outcome that we are trying to get—which is incentivising business, helping us to be more sustainable and so on—and that it is just about how it works in practice and making sure that it becomes not a burden to the agriculture industry but, rather, a positive thing. It is important to monitor that all the way through.
Yes—absolutely.
On the technical side, my understanding is that there will be no penalty in 2025 if plans are not in place and that there will just be a warning letter. Just to make sure, is that absolutely right?
That is correct.
I also want to check whether the online map system for the biodiversity audits is up and running so that farmers, crofters and so on can do their own mapping online through the RPID system.
I will ask somebody else to answer that one.
Yes—the online mapping systems can be used through the RPID land parcel identification system.
Just for the record—I think that you nodded—will you confirm that there will definitely be no penalty in 2025 and that there would just be a warning letter.
Yes.
Excellent.
I want to come back in on the letter from Donna Smith of the Scottish Crofting Federation. It has been mentioned before, but something about trust is coming up for me, because we had the beef suckler scheme calving interval SSI, which was quite a last-minute thing; lots of information came up at the last minute, and then we had to vote in the chamber on it.
Minister, you said that you wished you had heard from the Crofting Federation sooner on the issues that it is raising. So, for me, there is something about trust and a question about what you can do. I know that you will meet Donna Smith, but it seems that there needs to be something built in for the long term, because it is not the first time that more proactiveness on the part of the Government in reaching out to the Scottish Crofting Federation and the crofting community has been needed. I am sure that you try to reach out until you are blue in the face, and I am sure that you do site visits to crofting communities to see what it is like on the ground and to understand the challenges that we learned about, such as those around bringing a bull in if the ferry does not work, so that you really have that understanding in the co-design phase.
However, for me, it is about trust. I feel that trust has been broken and I want to understand what you think you can do. You will have that first meeting with Donna Smith, we hope, but we need to not be in this position again, being concerned that small producers are being overlooked. That engagement must be on-going.
I absolutely agree with you on your first point, that we should not be having such conversations at the last minute. As I said, I am surprised that I got the letter when I did, because my understanding was that everybody understood where this is going. I got a letter with 16 questions and could not understand why it had taken so long. I absolutely agree with you, and I will be doing everything in my power to ensure that, as we take matters forward, we do not get sudden last-minute requests for a load of information that I had understood had all been dealt with and put to bed. I completely take that on board.
I do not necessarily agree that there is a lack of trust or that trust has been broken. It has certainly been stretched, and I will do everything that I can to repair that, because it is important. We will have to work out how we, as the Government, reach out as much as possible to the people who need to be heard.
However, that must be a two-way street—they need to be aware of the changes that are coming. In a previous meeting, I think that I said, “Please take this as notice that things are changing,” but I still got a letter within a week or 10 days of our laying the SSI. That is not a position that I want to be in, and it is not a situation that anybody else here wants to be in. I absolutely understand that Rhoda Grant, Emma Roddick and Beatrice Wishart have concerns around why the letter came at that stage.
I will do everything that I can to ensure that we get engagement far sooner, so that, when I come to committees with SSIs, we have an agreed position and everybody knows what is coming. They might not like it, but they accept that that is where we are going. That is the position that I would like us to be in. As I said, I am disappointed that we are here now with that letter from Donna Smith, which is why I made a point of reaching out as soon as I could to say, “You need to come in to talk to me—let’s get this sorted.”
There is something to be done in the development of SSIs. You heard the convener ask that we get plenty of notice ahead of the work that we will be doing in the autumn and the winter. I imagine that it is hard for small organisations that do not have a lot of resource to track what is coming. It is about letting people come in early on in the process.
I agree—but the opportunity exists for them to come in early on in the process. I am trying to find my list of what we have coming up. There is a list of opportunities for engagement across all sectors, so I encourage people, if they are watching this meeting, to pay attention, please, to what is happening and what is coming so that they can engage as early as possible and we do not get to the position that we are in currently.
Thanks.
Crofts and small farms might be small, but there is no doubt in the mind of anybody on the committee or in Scotland that they form an integral part of the fabric of our country. It is important that they understand what concessions are being made for them, so communication of that information is important. If there is not already an understanding through looking at information on a township basis or on paper maps, how is the Government effectively communicating that?
It is one thing to say that they need to be aware of what is coming down the line, but the Government should be proactive in communicating what concessions have been developed for them and understanding that people do not want to pay out all the money that they get in payments in order to be able to access payments. How is that effectively communicated to them?
Iain Carmichael is the best person to answer on all the work that we will do, because he is very much part of the system that is doing the consultation.
Over the winter, I have been working with the SCF, attending its online webinars for crofters and explaining in detail each element of the whole-farm plan to them. The SCF has arranged for the Scottish Government, as well as experts from across the advisory sector, to be there to explain to crofters each part of the whole-farm plan, how they can comply with it and the importance or benefit of each part for them.
At a Government-wide level, we have written to all our farmers and crofters to make them aware of all the changes that are coming in 2025, there have been publications in The Scottish Farmer on all the changes that are coming in, and we are working with FAS and other stakeholders to get publicity out there. So far, we have done fairly extensive communications on the changes that are ahead.
I have a wee follow-on question. My concern is that, on the ground, farmers and crofters might not understand what concessions are available to them. It is about understanding the nature of the very small industry that they preside over. Is there another way for the changes to be communicated effectively? None of us would want any farmer or crofter to decide to give up and not go any further at this early stage, because, as Rhoda Grant narrated, they form an integral part of how our landscapes and our biodiversities work in many parts of Scotland.
RPID is quite lucky in that we benefit from our local area offices being in local communities. People in those offices go out and about to speak to farmers and crofters, attend shows and so on, so they get the message out to individuals. Local farmers and crofters see RPID as the first port of call—they can pick up the phone or pop into the local office and they get help and support through our local RPID office network.
One thing frustrated me when we started talking about the calf scheme—I think that I reiterated this point when I was last here. When I was farming, if I got a letter from the NFUS, the National Sheep Association or an organisation like that, I put it on the pile to read on a wet day. However, if I got a letter from the Scottish Government, with a Scottish Government heading, I read it that day, because I knew that the Government was trying to tell me something. If we are talking about what we are learning, I insisted that, as a result of that learning, such letters get sent out to inform people that changes are coming. We tell people to please pay attention to the changes and to get help and support through local offices and roadshows in order to find out what is coming. I want to ensure that people have the right information in front of them and are able to get involved in the schemes that we are trying to deliver.
Minister, you have referenced surprise at the correspondence from the Crofting Federation—
And from you.
Yes, I was just going to say that I had written to you in November, so issues have been flagged not just in the past 10 days or so. You will recall that I asked whether there would be a lighter-touch scheme to give small producers the confidence to apply for support.
The response that I sent you at the time set out all the things that I am reiterating to you today. The crofting community accepted that it wanted to be part of the scheme because it played a role in it, and we will continue to provide that community with as much help and support as we can so that it can get involved. We will continue to have those conversations with it.
If you are asking me to take the crofting community out of the scheme, I do not think that it wants that or that we want to do that through the SSI. We want to get everybody involved in the system as much as we can.
Just to be clear, I am not asking for that. My point is that it should not come as a surprise that there is concern at this stage.
Okay. I will take your point on board.
11:30
Beatrice Wishart has been flagging that point since last year. The answers are there; you have said that on the record. All those things have been discussed, agreed and put to bed, so, if there is no issue, why was that information not communicated before this point?
On the calving intervals SSI, the trust issue is that you gave guarantees that you would take into account the issues that island and crofting communities face, but, to date, you have not put on the record what the derogations and supports will be. You can understand why there is a lack of support when you say to people, “Yes, of course we are taking cognisance of this,” but you do not give the information. I feel as though we have dragged information out of you today about the fact that this can be delivered with no cost and will not be detrimental to people. Had that been made clear, I do not think that we would have had this communication. We are all trying to get to the same place, so why is there reluctance to give the guarantees that people need?
There is no reluctance at all—I refute the idea that there is any reluctance to give you the information. Iain Carmichael has spent his winter going around crofting communities to speak to people and be part of the conversation.
When we were on the earlier agenda item, I think that I said that some people do not want to do this because, previously, receiving the money did not depend on doing these things. However, that has changed. There will be a requirement to be part of the scheme, and that will require people to do certain things. That has been communicated by the Government. We have sent out letters to every crofter and farmer in the country—they should have those letters. Iain Carmichael and his team have engaged widely across the communities, and there has always been the opportunity for people to feed back.
I accept that Beatrice Wishart wrote to me previously, but my understanding up to this point was that we were in a comfortable place, that people understood what was coming and that they were on board. We were then not in the right place, but that does not mean that we had not done an enormous amount of work to get us to the point at which we thought that we were in the right place and that people were all on board. Perhaps Iain Carmichael would like to add to that.
As the minister said, we worked closely with the working group of stakeholders, which included the Scottish Crofting Federation, on the requirements and the minimum standards of each of the whole-farm plan audits. We worked through those in such a way—taking on board comments from the federation, in particular—to ensure that the minimum standards do not require third-party input to carry them out at cost. All the audits and plans, with the exception of soil analysis, which has to be done by a laboratory, can be done by farmers and crofters, and it is in the guidance that was published in June last year that farmers and crofters can undertake the audits and plans themselves. That has always been the case. We have worked closely with the working group on the minimum standards of each of the whole-farm plan audits, and that is where some of the surprises have come from and where concerns are just now.
Minister, you have said a number of times that what is going on is change: farmers and crofters will have to change. You described having to look through the paperwork, and we have heard that you have made adaptations to address the challenges around digital access—for example, there still being paper for people who do not want to use digital.
I am interested in change that can be challenging for people’s mental health. We touched on that a little bit in the earlier discussion. People have a routine and a way of doing something, and then suddenly they have to change. This is not directly related to the whole-farm plan, but, overall, are you taking into account mental health and the support that farmers and crofters will need as the changes come into their lives? Sometimes, people do not want to face change, so they do not look at it. Do you recognise that soft-skill support is needed for those people?
The only word that I disagree with in what you have said is “suddenly”, because we are not suddenly asking people to do this; we have been trying to get people into the mindset that change is coming. However, I agree 100 per cent with everything else that you said.
We have just announced an extra £75,000 for the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution. I am acutely aware of mental health issues in the farming community. I take the issue seriously, and I am glad that the First Minister has committed to investing that money. This needs to be—to use an oft-used phrase—a just transition. People need to feel that they are taking part in the process, rather than it being done to them.
As the debates and discussions that we have had today have shown, there is an element of disagreement on whether we have done enough. I firmly believe that we have, and we have taken on board the views of the group that was set up to look at the issue in the first place, but I absolutely take the point that I need to find a way to get people to engage with me far sooner, so that I understand what the issues are, long before we get to the stage where I am sitting in front of you with members of the committee telling me that they want to discuss matters that have been raised with them in letters. That is not where we need to be. I want us to be in a much more practical and better place than we currently are with regard to the situation that we are in.
We have looked at the calf scheme, discussed rebasing and heard about the whole-farm plan, and it is quite clear that co-design is not working in the way that you would like it to work, as you have said that you wish that people had come forward to raise concerns sooner. It is all very well communicating a decision, but co-design is a lot more than that.
The Government is not good at co-design. We see the same issues arising in relation to things such as inshore fisheries and the Clyde cod box. Do you have any plans to review how co-design is currently working and how it can be improved?
I would dispute your characterisation, convener.
You just said that you are going to have to look at ways in which you can operate better. Is that not a review of co-design?
No. I am going to look at why people are not coming back to us with their concerns sooner, when they have told us previously that they are content to do something. That concerns me. When an organisation that has said, “We have had the conversation, we have listened to the evidence, we know what you are trying to do and we are comfortable with that” and then sends me a letter, two or three weeks before the start of an initiative, that says, “We are not comfortable with any of that,” I want to understand what is going on, and I will pursue that. However, I absolutely push back on the suggestion that we have not co-designed things.
We have spent an inordinate amount of time—rightly—speaking to all the stakeholders that are involved in trying to get Scotland to be a world leader in regenerative agriculture, which allows us to produce food and do all the things that all of us in this room have agreed that we want to do. I will pursue why the situation that I described is happening at those stages, because that is not where I want to be and it is not conducive to having the right kind of conversations here.
On future policy, you have stated again that this is just the start of the journey that will lead to the whole-farm plan being a condition of receipt of direct payments. Currently, land managers need to complete only two of the components—for example, soil testing and carbon audits. When do you intend to extend the requirement to the full menu of five components? What is the direction of travel on that?
We would be looking for that to be the case by 2028.
By 2028, all those elements in the whole-farm plan would be mandatory in order to receive support.
They would all be relevant, yes.
Tim Eagle, did you want to come back in?
I possibly did at one point, but not any more.
I have received a letter that backs up what other members have been saying. It was sent to me by an agent who normally deals with the integrated administration and control system. It says:
“Many thanks for sending me the IACS 2025 letter, but, as we discussed over the phone, I am confirming that I won’t apply for Farm Payments this year because it wouldn’t be worth it for me to jump through the Audit hoops ... This probably leaves me up the creek without a paddle, but as I don’t have a canoe the lack of a paddle is neither here or there. I have decided that this is the positive way to view the situation. Also, it is something of a relief that RPID will no longer have my arm up my back”.
That is one of four such letters that that agent has received in the past couple of weeks.
Have you done an assessment of the number of people who will opt out of the single farm payment process and not take payments, which will potentially put those businesses at risk? Have you assessed how many businesses might be in that position?
You are asking me about a specific letter, but I have no idea of the background. As far as I am aware, no one has told us that they are not prepared to take part. However, please send the letter to my office and we will have a look at it to work out what is happening. Without understanding the size of the farm in question, what type of farm it is or anything else, I am afraid that I simply cannot comment on what you have just put to me.
I appreciate that, minister. Has a risk assessment been done on the number of farm holdings, regardless of their size, that might take the decision to opt out of support payments because of the additional requirements that will be placed on them?
No specific risk assessment has been carried out in relation to the issue that you asked me about. However, I reiterate that the baselining exercise represents an opportunity for farmers to make better decisions about the profitability of their farms. If people are opting out, I would like to know why. As I said, I do not know the background to the letter that you read out. If that is happening, please let me know and we will have a look at that. As I have stated many times, the purpose is to get the industry up to speed so that it continues to have public support and a reputation as a global leader.
Thank you. As there are no further questions from members, we will move on to the next agenda item, which is formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-15912.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Rural Support (Improvement) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]
Motion agreed to.
Is the committee content to delegate to me the authority to sign off a report on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes our consideration of the instrument. I thank the minister and his officials for attending today’s meeting. Rather than suspend the meeting, I will pause for a few moments to allow the minister and his officials to leave.
Little Loch Broom Scallops Several Fishery (Variation) Order 2025 (SSI 2025/7)
Our next item of business is consideration of a negative instrument. Do members wish to make any comments on the instrument?
Members have no comments to make on the instrument. That concludes our proceedings in public.
11:44 Meeting continued in private until 12:08.Air ais
Future Agriculture Policy