Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to clarify something. You said that there is potential flexibility with regard to retargeting or choosing to support new entrants. You have already said that that is part of the potential future plan, so that the matter is not just pigeonholed—so that the issue of rebasing is not just kicked into the long grass.

Thank you.

I am conscious of the time but, as the convener said, the portfolio is pretty wide and diverse. In the regulatory impact assessment, there is the payments framework, food and drink, climate and nature, genetics, animal health, welfare, forestry, knowledge, skills, innovation and training—there is loads.

I will focus on the tier 1 through tier 4 framework. We know that we have to balance food production and food security with biodiversity and environmental sustainability. We had evidence from the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society about tier 3 and tier 4 not becoming the poor relation to tier 1 and tier 2. Can you give us some affirmation about tier 1 through tier 4 and that tier 3 and tier 4 will not be forgotten?

Thank you.

Thanks.

Our committee papers say:

“The policy note states the extension of SRDP would allow for a phased transition away from the SRDP over the coming years as post-Brexit Scottish agricultural policy comes into effect.”

Minister, you said that this will take us up to 2030. I am thinking about Rachael Hamilton’s comments about active farmers and attracting young farmers and new entrants by supporting them in our less favoured areas, including in my patch in south-west Scotland. At present, Government resources are involved in the work on future policy and active planning. Will the policy remain as it is up to 2030? Is there an opportunity to alter the proposals and allow the rebasing and retargeting of support to continue to support active farmers and, in particular, new entrant farmers?

I am seeking assurances on how you will give farmers the confidence that the SSI will not fail to support less favoured areas and new entrant farmers. How can we convey that the Government’s interest is in continuity, stability and certainty—all the words that we have been hearing—to deal with the Brexit cliff edge? What is the best way to convey to farmers that the regulations will just continue the current situation so that there is no cliff edge?

I have a couple of questions about the creation of a national chief social work adviser and a national social work agency. The Care Inspectorate seems to support the approach that is being taken by the Scottish Government, saying:

“We believe placing the role of the National Social Work Agency and National Chief Social Work Adviser on a statutory footing recognises the unique role of social work and will ensure it is given due parity and prominence within the National Care Service.”

I know that Social Work Scotland will be giving evidence as part of the next panel of witnesses, but I am interested in your views on those proposals. What role do you envisage those bodies playing in support of the profession and social work services?

Would a national social work agency address issues that the previous panel of witnesses raised about how we need to work not just with social workers but with allied health professionals, occupational therapists and physiotherapists? We had a conversation about reablement the last time that we spoke. How would a national social work agency help to develop better partnerships and relationships with our allied health professionals?

Would that be the difference between an executive agency and a non-departmental public body?