Chamber and committees

Ideally, we would want to commit to multi-annual funding agreements, but I am not in that position today because I do not have any certainty. However, going forward, we want to make sure that we are providing as much certainty and clarity to the industry as possible. Let us face it: if we were still members of the EU, we would have had a seven-year period in which we could plan for the future and what the schemes would look like. When we had that, everybody knew what they were going to get over that period and it was all set out. We are in a very different state of affairs at the moment, so it is not possible for me to say what funding is going to look like or to make those commitments, because I do not have that information and I have not been given any of that certainty.

Precisely because it gives us the flexibility to adapt the schemes and develop them in a way in which we think will deliver against the objectives that we have set out. There have been calls for there to be a rebasing of LFASS. We want to continue with support of that type because it is so important for our farmers and crofters in the most rural parts of Scotland. We must design the schemes with farmers and crofters and develop a support system that is going to work. One of the schemes that has ultimately delivered on its objectives—I am sure that my officials will correct me if I am wrong—is the agri-environment climate scheme. We could potentially look at what some of the measures might look like, which could form part of a potential enhanced conditionality in the tier 2 measures. It is about how we design those schemes, but, ultimately, we need to design them with the people who are most impacted by them.

A number of targets are listed elsewhere, particularly in relation to emissions reduction, and we know that that is also being considered through the natural environment bill. For me, it is not necessarily about introducing new targets. What will be critical, as I have outlined in previous responses, is the monitoring and evaluation of targets. We already have statutory targets to meet, so it is about how we set out the pathway to achieving them.

I am happy to follow up with the committee on the work that we have already published in that regard, if that would be helpful.

Ideally, we would like more funding than we have at the moment. NFU Scotland has called for £1 billion-worth of funding from the UK Government, and I support that call. I listened to the NFU’s conference down south recently, and it is asking for £4.5 billion rather than the £2.4 billion that it has been given by the UK Government.

I think that we are entitled to more support than we currently receive. Considering the potential for what we can do for climate and nature, we should receive more funding than we currently do. That funding has remained static over the past few years, so we hope for and would welcome any increase to that.

Again, we are confusing two different things. The vast majority of the funding that we receive for this portfolio, and which goes into payments, is ring fenced by the UK Government, which has given us no certainty as to what any future budget allocation beyond next year will be, so we have no idea what is coming. Without that clarity, it is not possible for me to determine exactly what funding there will be or to make commitments about multi-annual funds that, as yet, I do not have.

That is why we set out, as I have already explained, how we can expect the overall envelopes in the budget to be allocated. However, the quantum of that funding will very much depend on the UK Government, because that is where the lion’s share of my budget comes from. It all depends on how much I get from the UK Government.

I hope that we have been able to evidence that through the work that we have undertaken so far and, ultimately, through all the commitments that we have made throughout the whole process about how we develop policy. We want to do this with farmers and crofters because, as I have said a number of times today, they know their own business best. It is critical that any future system provides them with the flexibility to enable them to make the choices and undertake the measures that will work for their businesses. You can see some of those measures—we have published what some of that might look like. It is absolutely built in to everything that we do and everything that we have set out as part of the route map and the information that we are providing. What we are introducing ultimately has to be deliverable and it has to work for our farmers and crofters. It is in our best interests to continue that work with them to ensure that we get this right.

The points that you touched on and that I highlighted in previous responses to Rhoda Grant, including some of the points that are set out in section 26, enable us to do that. It is about having that consultation and engagement and, of course, reviewing the code, because, as we have discussed already today, things can change and improve in this space—things are developing all the time.

Again, if the committee has any particular views on the review period, I am happy to look at that point and consider it, but I want to clarify that we have already set out our expectations for support going forward, including the minimum standards that we are expecting, what conditions will apply to support from 2025 and what support will be introduced in 2026. I just want to be absolutely clear on that. If there are any other views on the review period, I am happy to consider them.

It is not possible for me to set that out at the moment. I cannot say that we would be looking to introduce other particular targets as part of the rural support plan, but we have statutory targets in relation to emissions reduction and the targets that are being looked at through the natural environment bill. Of course, we will have to consider those.

The bill will, ultimately, give us the powers to do any of those things, although we have a cap in place at the moment. The powers to enable us to manage payments are critical. I have had discussions about redistributive payments. I recognise that, quite broadly, there is support for front loading. However, I am not positioned to set out today exactly what that would look like or what form it would take, because that will be part of the consideration of what things might look like in the future framework. There will also be discussions with the people who will be impacted by that to consider how we would best progress things.