Continuing Professional Development (CPD) system in Tier 4 of the Vision for Agriculture Reform Programme: Fairer Scotland Duty – assessment

Stage 2 – Evidence

What does the evidence suggest about existing inequalities of outcome, caused by socio-economic disadvantage, in this specific policy area?

The CPD system would provide specific occupational groups in agriculture and crofting with a framework to undertake CPD and participate in a range of CPD activities. These could help them to develop personally and professionally as well as help meet the outcomes of the Vision for Scottish Agriculture and more broadly Scottish Government outcomes. The system would apply throughout Scotland.

The CPD system would provide equality of opportunity for all the occupational groups that come within it. It would provide equal access to a CPD portal on which to record their CPD activities and to a range of CPD activities. It would provide access to CPD for those that do not currently have it and have also not considered the importance or role of personal and professional development in their lives. By engaging in it, it would help to reduce socio-economic disadvantage and inequalities of outcome. It would also do so through the way the system is procured or acquired. A procurement process is subject to strict rules, including fair rates of payment, and for suppliers to adhere to them in delivering contracts.

The undertaking of CPD activities would potentially help to ensure that individuals are kept up-to-date in their knowledge and skills. This could help them to embrace further opportunities such as diversifying their income streams, secure promotion, move into new jobs and careers, or embrace new opportunities that could be made to them. This could help to reduce inequalities.

It would be up to individuals to decide what activities they want to undertake in their CPD, with the exception of any ones that are required to be undertaken. This could have an impact on how far inequalities of outcome, caused by socio-economic disadvantage, can be reduced.

Not all individuals would approach or want to use the CPD system in the same way. This could potentially have an impact on inequality of outcomes at an individual level:

• some would be well-aware of CPD and have undertaken it for many years and have used it to develop themselves personally and professionally, while others may have not and as unsure of what it is and how it can benefit them;
• some may be more ambitious in their choice of CPD activities that they undertake, participating in activities that could be a game-changer in their professional lives;
• some may not look on CPD as an opportunity but as a burden and look for the easiest ways to complete it, not recognising the benefits that it can bring;
• some who have not previously undertaken CPD may not fully understand the wide range of activities and that CPD is not just about going into a class-room to be taught in formal courses;
• some who may have disliked school education may be more reluctant to engage in CPD as they think that it may remind them of negative experiences earlier in their lives;
• some may not have easy access to particular activities, for example, as a result of lack of finance, geographical distance, lack of digital opportunities, poor connectivity, lack of support from their employer, for example to take time to participate.

New data collection

In addition to the range of data collection already noted above, there has been extensive consultation undertaken which has helped to collect new data.

Responses to the consultation Agriculture Transition in Scotland: first steps towards our national policy recognised the importance of skills and knowledge called for more high quality, relevant and specialised training for the workforce, at both beginner and advanced level. Some responders stressed the importance of creating opportunities and resources for learning which are accessible and widely available to the workforce. They highlighted the need for free or low-cost training opportunities which are either available online or require minimal travel. A few felt that CPD opportunities should be funded or subsidised by the Government.

Responses to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee consultation on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill from stakeholders made a number of points about the CPD system. This included what CPD should and should not be and what a CPD system should look like. They raised the point that there was a lot of anxiety about taking on training and learning activities, and that not only did the farmer need support but so did the other members of his / her family and community. It was noted that advisors needed to have appropriate training. There was a need to know what would be counted as CPD.

Most of the responses to the consultation did not refer to issues of CPD in terms of inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage. They focused on the importance of accessibility, ease of accessibility, and affordability of activities, to all persons using the system, which links into issues of fairness. There were a number of references to issues of disability, also a protected characteristic. This was especially for dyslexia which is generally considered to be at a higher level in agriculture than in other sectors. It can lead to for example poorer skills and attainment and lower quality, less secure and lower paid work.

Oral evidence collected by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill noted the importance of CPD and the character of the system that should be introduced. Evidence noted that the demand for CPD varied across agriculture; a “lot of employers” did not have the funds to put young employees through the training that they required; there was a need to have regard to barriers to entry into the sector; peer to peer learning and training was important for farmers and crofters learning from one another. It was noted that Dyslexia Scotland had estimated that around 25 per cent of Scotland’s farmers suffer from dyslexia to one degree or another and that this needed to be factored into the design of CPD.

During the consideration of amendments on CPD in Stage 2 of the Bill, the Scottish Government introduced amendments to extend the different groups that could be brought within the scope of the CPD system and therefore ensure their inclusion. In its discussion of the proposed amendments, it noted its intention to co-design the CPD system with a wide range of stakeholders. This would help to consider and address matters such as the formats of CPD activities, scale and scope, and who might undertake CPD and in what circumstances. It noted that it would be important to consider affordability and availability of CPD activity as well as the need to monitor, evaluate and review what worked and what could be improved in a meaningful way. It also noted its aim to formally consult on the CPD regulations.

In Stage 3 of the Bill, amendments that were brought forward and accepted included ones that related to the inclusion of exemptions from undertaking CPD for persons in particular circumstances; recognition of the importance of peer-to-peer learning; the need for the Scottish Ministers to consult before making regulations relating to the CPD system and for monitoring and evaluation of the system.

There was also continued discussion on the need for affordability and accessibility of activities, including in terms of cost to users. Importantly, this led to the inclusion of a requirement that CPD activities are to be undertaken only where it is appropriate and proportionate to do so.

The Scottish Government stated that it intended to create a CPD system that supported and empowered the individual to perform at their best without being unfair or unduly burdensome. It also noted that matters of affordability and accessibility would be considered as part and parcel of a BRIA and other impact assessments linked to the introduction of secondary legislation where appropriate.

Informal consultation on the AKIS

The informal consultation on the AKIS (November 2023-February 2024) included a number of questions about promoting diversity and generational renewal within the AKIS as well as capacity building within it. In respect of CPD it asked about the activities that should be made available in the CPD system as well as the support needed to encourage the uptake of CPD.

The evidence gathered from key stakeholders – all organisations - noted that there was a need to have a fair and equitable introduction of CPD; there needed to be accessibility for all; there needed to be recognition of the high levels of dyslexia in Scottish agriculture; there was a need to consider neurodiversity and that different people learned in different ways; that the most appropriate learning methods varied greatly from farmer to farmer and from subject to subject; crofters of all ages and regardless of their time in crofting should have the same opportunities to share knowledge and benefit from training opportunities; there should be a wide range of delivery mechanisms available; peer-to-peer learning, particularly discussions with other farmers, were seen to be the most helpful way to gather information or upskill.

The points covered included ones that had already been made by stakeholders during the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. Indeed the Bill consideration was being undertaken at the same time as the informal consultation was circulated to stakeholders.

Discussion paper on CPD for stakeholder organisations

The discussion paper asked about a number of key points for discussion with organisations in the agriculture sector about the proposed CPD system. These focused on what were the impacts of the proposals on the organisations. Specifically, we wanted organisations to start to think about what initiatives they currently provide that could help contribute towards CPD and how and what support they could provide to their members and others in the agriculture sector, and to hear about and understand the potential impacts of the key points on organisations and the wider agriculture sector.

The points included ones that had already been made in earlier consultations. Re-emphasised was the need for the system to be flexible and to consider preferred learning styles, geography, IT capability, having a CPD recording system that was easy to use (while recognising the high levels of dyslexia); there was a range of provision of activities that could help to provide CPD; CPD could provide opportunities for organisations, but there also needed to be considered the impact on organisations, on their capacity to deliver additional activities and any additional administrative impacts.

These discussions and considerations have helped to highlight the existing and potential impacts – positive and negative – that the CPD system could have on reducing inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage.

What does the evidence suggest about existing inequalities of outcome, caused by socio-economic disadvantage, in this specific policy area?

As noted, the CPD system would provide specific occupational groups within agriculture and crofting with a framework to undertake CPD and participate in a range of CPD activities. This framework would apply to all individuals within these occupational groups regardless of their geographical location throughout Scotland, their income, skills and attainment levels, and socio-economic background, amongst other factors. The CPD system would thus apply equally across all the individuals in the specific occupational groups.

The most important inequalities of outcome that could have an impact on how the CPD system is used are poorer skills and attainment and lower quality, less secure and lower paid work. These could have an impact on for example, the willingness to participate in CPD, or the choices of activities undertaken.

As noted, Scottish Ministers have not made any decisions on the CPD system.

What does the evidence suggest about possible impacts of the policy/ programme/ decision, as planned, on those inequalities of outcome?

The CPD system could have a number of benefits on inequalities of outcomes. This would be for all individuals engaged in it and more broadly for individuals within a business as a whole, and businesses. It could encourage and facilitate personal and professional development, and improvement in practices in agriculture, land management and other associated vocational fields. This could help to for example, enable individuals to keep knowledge and skills up to date, provide ongoing personal development, help them manage change and transition, help businesses remain competitive, and contribute to the professionalisation of the sector. This could help improve knowledge, skills and attainment, improve the quality of people’s jobs, make them in a better position to secure higher paid work, and encourage greater dignity and respect.

Indirectly, it could help to promote the importance of ongoing development and learning, help provide evidence to enable an individual to continue to progress in their career, provide a better career structure in the sector, and highlight how knowledge and skills can benefit a person and also more widely a business that employs a number of people.

The CPD system would not have a negative impact on socio-economic disadvantage. The intention is that the policy would apply equally across occupational groups in agriculture and crofting, such as farmers, crofters, land managers and persons who provide relevant advice to these groups of people as well as other specified persons providing advice or services in or for rural communities. It would be designed to do so in a way that is non-discriminatory in terms of what the system does, its availability (e.g. irrespective of locale) and who it applies to.

The system would not indirectly impact on persons affected by socio-economic disadvantage. As noted, the intention is that the policy would apply equally across occupational groups in agriculture and crofting that are included within the CPD system.

As noted, Scottish Ministers have not made any decisions on the CPD system.

Is there evidence that suggests alternative approaches to the policy/programme/decision?

Alternative approaches – such as not having a CPD system – have been considered. However, while they could result in some personal and professional development, this would not be undertaken in a structured or a planned way, thus resulting in fewer benefits to individuals and could cumulatively result in less change throughout Scottish agriculture and crofting.

The development of the CPD system has looked extensively at and considered the provision made for personal and professional development of farmers and the wider agriculture sector across Great Britain. While the Scottish Government does not currently have a CPD system in place, the agriculture sector has a number of them for specialist operations including sprayers and agricultural secretaries. The Welsh Government has one through its Farming Connect service. The Republic of Ireland, through Skillnet Ireland, has undertaken research that has recognised the importance of and the need to set up a CPD system. It recognised that the use of a CPD system is an important way to make agricultural education and training available, and to make changes, for example in helping farmers to improve efficiency, increase awareness of regulations, enhance their ability to access finance and provide them with better structures for recruitment and management of staff.

As noted, Scottish Ministers have not made any decisions on the CPD system.

What gaps are there in key evidence? Is it possible to collect new evidence quickly in other areas?

The evidence on socio-economic disadvantage is in general terms. There is a need to get more detailed evidence on how aspects of this disadvantage impact on the system, particularly relating to socio-economic disadvantage on knowledge and skills. This can be gathered through the consultation on the CPD system in autumn 2026.

How could you involve communities of interest (including those with lived experience of poverty and disadvantage) in this process?

The consultation activities undertaken to date have largely involved organisations with diverse memberships. Communities of interest, and those with lived experience of poverty and disadvantage could be involved during the consultation into the CPD system. This would help to understand the direct impacts of socio-economic disadvantage on it including low income and socio-economic background.