Seòmar agus comataidhean

Part of the problem is that it feels a bit like a jigsaw puzzle. No one sees the full picture that we are aiming for and it is all very piecemeal. SSIs on various bits are lodged at committee, but when we highlight issues raised by farmers and crofters, you say, “Oh, but that was discussed at ARIOB and they never said anything.” When we go back farmers and crofters, we discover that they have said things at ARIOB that they have then relayed to committee members in order to try to raise their concerns, which turn out to be huge issues when we are looking at the statutory instruments. Obviously, something is not working. I think that you would agree that some of the issues that have been raised by the committee about the statutory instruments were crucial and should have been sorted out earlier.

If the ARIOB process was working, stakeholders were being heard at those meetings and the department was listening to what they say, we would have overcome the issues. It seems to me that ARIOB is not working and that there is no vision for agriculture in five or 10 years’ time, so people feel as though they are running around like headless chickens, trying to see how their business fits into the various piecemeal aspects of legislation. Surely, that is not the way to work. What can we do about ARIOB to ensure that it works? Is there another mechanism that we can use? What is your vision for agriculture? What will be happening in the sector in five or 10 years’ time?

Can I—

My question follows on from Tim Eagle’s question about the computer system. Last week, we heard real concerns that the computer system was a blocker on policy and that the policy was designed around the system rather than the system being designed around policy. How much of a blocker is it, and what is being done to make sure that it is not?

Okay.

But if ARIOB was working, this would not be the case. Take the instrument on calving intervals—the Rural Support (Improvement) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. That gave rise to an issue for rural areas and islands, and you have admitted that. You have said that you will look at that again. That was discussed at ARIOB, yet we got an instrument that created real concerns in the industry. If ARIOB was working, those concerns should have been ironed out there, and we should have got a piece of legislation that nobody commented about.

Before we get the views of the other witnesses, I will come back on that point. We see that our cattle and sheep numbers are falling, but if our imports will increase to fill that gap, we will—while our balance sheet might look a bit better—be importing something that is not fed on grass, which is a carbon store. How do we get the balance right in that regard? We are not an island on our own in all of this.

No one is arguing that payments should not be made on time. The big issue is that we cannot change what we pay. If you want to increase screening and put more into the system to change the direction, the computer system will not work. Are we really saying that we need a new system? I remember when the system came in. It was a disaster. I sat in committee sessions looking at what went wrong. At that point, it was clear that it could not be put right. Are we really in need of a new system? We have to keep the current one in order to make the payments, but, if we are going to change what we do and move away from the CAP, we need a new system that will do that.

If there are glaring errors in that jigsaw, and if your explanation to us for that is that the matter was not mentioned at ARIOB, but we go to the members of ARIOB and they say, “Yes, it was,” then that is not working. If members of ARIOB are pointing out things that you appreciate, from talking to us, are issues, but you are not hearing it from them, then the arrangements are not working.

I do not want to hog the session, but I have more questions.

To me, that is an indication that ARIOB is not working. The committee is not part of that co-production—maybe we would like to be a part of it—but we are supposed to scrutinise and vote on legislation. It is surely not right that things that are discussed with the industry end up before us as issues.

On the vision, to go back to the jigsaw analogy, most of us look at the picture of the finished thing as we put the bits in place, but in this instance, no one sees that picture as the bits are being placed. That is creating uncertainty in the industry. People do not quite know what the finished product will be.

For instance, we hear a lot about emissions from beef and dairy animal rearing. People who are involved in such rearing do not know what the Government is going to do or what it will encourage, so numbers in animal breeding are falling, which means that we are importing meat from other countries that do not have anything close to our ability to offset carbon.

How can people work with that? Everyone is happy that there is no cliff edge, but they need at least to know the direction of travel so that they can move in that direction. That is missing.

I want to push a little further on that. I totally get where animals are being fed, but a lot of our animals are grass fed—they are on the hill. That is not arable ground; it is different. They are there, and they are providing a nature benefit as well. We have seen that, where livestock numbers have crashed, that has had an impact on the natural environment. How do we get the balance? At some level, having animals grass fed on the hills is providing a nature benefit. What happens if we lose that? There is always a balance between carbon and nature and what we do to protect both.