Chamber and committees

Yes, but if we could see into the future, we would pick six numbers and we would all be millionaires. The point that I am making is that the financial memorandum shows the potential worst-case scenario. We cannot say with any certainty what is actually going to happen. If I am taking what you called a very noble approach, I will take that as a compliment, so thank you very much. However, my approach is a result of the conversations that I have had with the sector. Everybody has a genuine desire to make this work. That is how I have approached the issue right from the start, and it is how I will continue to approach it.

We will try to get through the knotty bits, which we understand are there, and we will try to find resolutions to people’s issues. However, by and large, what the financial memorandum states is based on the potential worst-case scenario.

Again, no, I do not think that that would be appropriate at this stage. The code of practice will be worked out with stakeholders and the people it will be relevant to, and then we will bring it forward. We will not have the time to do it before we get to stage 3, but, as I have stated from the outset, it will absolutely be done in consultation with stakeholders, so that we get it right.

If you put those things in primary legislation, they become primary legislation. We want them to be in the code of practice so that we have flexibility, because things might change, as we said earlier.

Putting the conditions into the bill will mean that they are put into primary legislation. I am dealing in the same way with another bill right now. If you set something out in legislation and then people want to change stuff later on because circumstances have changed, that is a whole different problem to deal with. Setting the conditions out in the code of practice gives us the flexibility to get it right.

We will just have to work on making that relationship work better. Right now, all the evidence that I am seeing and all the engagement that I have had show that, by and large, there is a good working relationship between the deer management groups and NatureScot. There will, of course, be conflict—we cannot avoid having some disputes about certain areas—but, by and large, there is a general degree of trust that I hope that we will continue to build on.

Again, that is a technical question, so I will ask George Burgess to respond.

The co-design is working, convener. There may be individuals who are not getting what they want, but that goes back to my original statement: the purpose of ARIOB, the FAST group or any other discussions is not for individuals to say, “This is what I want the Government to do, now go and do it.” It is for stakeholders to give us as much information as they possibly can in order to allow us to consider how to fit those things into our budget and policy objectives and to ensure that we keep our communities resilient. I will look again at the issues that were raised at the committee’s session last week and think about whether I believe that the criticisms are justified. If I believe that they are, they will inform my thinking and the thinking of the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands as part of the co-development and co-design process.

We have made it crystal clear from the start that this will be done only if the farming community comes with us—and it is doing that. On numerous occasions when he was the president of the NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy said, “You cannot do this unless the industry is coming with you.” I understand the frustration and that this is not all being done in one fell swoop, but if that were to happen, we would get it wrong. Therefore, we are doing this piece by piece, stage by stage and issue by issue, in order to try to get it right. As long as we continue to do that, we will get to the place where we need to be within our current constraints.

You have made a number of points and I am writing them down in the hope that I do not forget anything.

There is no doubt that it is a jigsaw, because there is no one-size-fits-all solution for any one type of semi-upland livestock farm, let alone agriculture as a whole. We need to put together a huge number of different components. Clearly, the last time that I was at committee to discuss an SSI, I did not properly articulate that we will be building the jigsaw piece by piece, bit by bit, and that the SSIs will be brought to committee having been given the fullest consideration that we can give them.

I seem to remember that the committee was of the view that, although the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 is framework legislation, we needed the full picture. At the time, we said that we could not get the full picture in one go and that we would have to build it piece by piece, therefore, it is a jigsaw—I agree with you.

The Government has created a vision for agriculture. It is out there—it is available for anyone who wants to see what it is. It is a vision of a world-leading, sustainable, regenerative agricultural practice, which our farmers and crofters are right behind as they produce top-quality food while maintaining good biodiversity on their farms. They are the custodians of our landscape. That is the vision, and I do no think that anyone will disagree with that.

Convener, I fully understand that. I sat and listened to the meeting, and I was really confused and disappointed that that is what the committee was being told.

The convener is absolutely spot on that ARIOB is not, and never was, a decision-making forum. I think that it was Beatrice Wishart who asked whether we take a vote. The answer is that, no, we do not. Ultimately, the only people who will make decisions will be me and the cabinet secretary, as the elected representatives. We were elected to do the job, so we will make the decisions and stand by those decisions, one way or the other.

On the point that ARIOB has made no tangible difference to policy direction, Mandy Callaghan has been involved with it for far longer than I have, so I will let her give examples of where ARIOB has gone through its process and that has made a tangible difference.

You are saying that ARIOB is not working, but I dispute that. ARIOB is working. That is where we have some robust, long conversations in the room. I reiterate that, if someone is in ARIOB and puts their point across, that does not mean that they get exactly what they want. We have to go away and distil the information, consider what it means, consider how it fits into the jigsaw and then determine what we need to do to achieve the vision that we have set out.

Although I am disappointed at some of the stuff that was said in your meeting last week, I give the commitment that I will ask for it to be put on the agenda for the next ARIOB meeting that we will have a discussion about whether people feel that they are disenfranchised or disengaged or that this is not working for them. We will have that conversation and work out how to take matters forward. That co-design is essential to our getting this right. It is not something that we can do ourselves. If we do, we will get it wrong. When we go back to ARIOB—I am not sure when the next meeting is—we will have it on the agenda. We will have a discussion about why people are feeling the way that they are. That way, at least we will air some of the grievances that youse iterated here last Wednesday.