Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are all members content to recommend approval of the instrument?

Members: No.

Before we move to Emma Harper, I seek some clarification. What detail is there in the route map beyond 2027?

That completes our consideration of the instrument and of the agenda items for the meeting. I thank the minister for joining us this morning, and I wish everybody a good recess.

—to scrutinise them.

There are certainly plenty of quotations to choose from out of the 19 responses that we received. We need to make it clear that—and I think that I speak for the committee—we do not believe that there is any desire to reach this cliff edge. That is not what the committee wants, nor is it something that we would consider happening.

However, real concerns have been expressed about a lack of proper and broad industry consultation up until now. After all, it has been quite some time since we left Europe. Although NFU Scotland says that LFASS going on until 2030 will allow for “thorough consideration”, frustration and impatience are building across the agricultural industry at the fact that there appears to be no pace when it comes to replacements for LFASS and the schemes.

We are concerned—I certainly am—about the 2030 date. As the minister knows, throughout the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, there was a focus on Parliament’s role in scrutinising the secondary legislation. The idea that this committee would be put out by having to look at legislation to extend schemes is ill placed; in fact, the committee would welcome that and would not see it as a waste of time.

One of the committee’s main issues is with the 2030 deadline. Why is the Government not being more ambitious and accelerating the development of plans so that 2030 does not have to be mentioned? We could be looking at a three-year extension to the 2024 deadline.

I absolutely refute the idea that this is a waste of time, because it is giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise what the Government is doing. Having an earlier deadline than 2030 allows the committee to get you and your officials in front of us to carry out proper scrutiny, whereas, if we pass these regulations, there will be no opportunity, legally, to bring you back—

Please continue.

As long as it is short. I want to bring in Emma Harper.

I do not think that there is a misunderstanding about what the SSI will do. There is absolutely no misunderstanding among committee members, nor in the responses that we got. We understand exactly what the SSI will do. It is a payment mechanism—that is all.

The concern is about how the 2030 date fits in with the route map, because there is no ambition with a 2030 deadline. I know that you are saying that the date allows for flexibility, but it does not fit in with your route map, because 2030 is well beyond when you need to deliver.

There are real concerns about the pace at which cross-industry discussions will take place regarding retargeting and rebasing. The SSI raises a range of concerns, but I make it absolutely clear that there is no misunderstanding about what the instrument itself will do.

Okay.