Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, I cannot say that—Sorry. John wants to come in.

It is not possible to put a simple definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture in the bill. As I touched on at the start of the meeting, we published in the route map a definition and an example of the overall goals of regenerative agriculture. Bearing in mind that we have not designed the code of practice yet, we cannot say definitively what will be in it, because we want to consult on it and get it right on improving animal welfare, increasing the resilience of production to climate change and capturing carbon in soils and vegetation, which is more general than the prescriptive level that you are talking about.

I would be happy to follow up on that, because I know that there are other examples of legislation that sets out guidance or asks people to refer to guidance. I would be happy to provide the committee with more information on that.

On the enhanced tier and the proposed measures as a result of that, we have tried to give examples and to show our thinking. This is not about us mandating to individual businesses in future frameworks and support that they must do this or that; it is about giving farmers and crofters the flexibility to select the measures that are right for the land type and farm business that they operate. The list of measures that we have published is not definitive by any means. It is about offering flexibility and choice to enable people to do that, not strict prescription.

I envisage that the measures that we are proposing would be considered within the broad definitions that we will potentially set out. The work that we take forward and how we develop the code will be really important.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted the question, but that is where I would expect that funding to come from.

Again, it is not possible for me to put a figure on that or set out what it could look like, because I do not know what future budgets will be. Sometimes, because this area is called tier 4, it can be seen as being at the end of the scale, rather than as something that supports everything else that happens within the framework, which is the way that it should be viewed. We want to enable that going forward.

We fund a number of schemes such as the knowledge transfer and innovation fund and the farm advisory service, and we have set out the broad envelope of what we think the direct element of the support will look like. However, it is not possible for me to set out future budgets at the moment.

I am keen to get the committee’s response on the evidence that it has heard and any particular recommendations that there might be in relation to that. I have mentioned why the objectives and their broad definitions are set out as they are.

I seek clarity on one point, convener. You mentioned “ordinary meaning”. Is that in relation to some of the terms that are used in the bill rather than in relation to the objectives themselves?

I am sorry—do you mean the definitions?

I want to hear the committee’s views on that. As I said, it is about getting the right balance. I suggest that we do not want to have a huge list, because then people might think that, if something is not on the list, it is not important. That is why the objectives are framed as they are.

ARIOB is an advisory board. Ultimately, it is down to me to take the decisions on how we move forward. The board has a wide variety of expertise, so we are able to discuss some of those matters. It is involved in giving advice and in the wider testing in some of the areas that I have talked about, including how we best take forward the whole-farm plans and conditionality. However, I should say that, in that regard, we have had separate groups to involve a wider range of stakeholders in informing our work as we move forward.

As I have said, ARIOB is an advisory board, and I very much appreciate its advice, not forgetting that where we are in relation to some of the conditions that we are introducing and some of the policy priorities that we have identified all comes back to and is based on the work of the farmer-led groups and the work that they published in 2021. We are trying to build on those measures and their reports.