Seòmar agus comataidhean

Nick Downes will speak to the technical aspects in a moment, but I can assure you that it is not the computer that decides policy, which was what was implied at last week’s meeting.

George has just made a really fundamental point. The roadshows that Jonnie and Martin did have been incredibly valuable for exactly that reason. If farmers hear a Government minister such as me sitting here, talking about policy, policy, policy and what that means for them, they go, “That’s just the Government,” but when their president and their—I do not actually know what Jonnie Hall does—

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to introduce this draft Scottish statutory instrument. The draft instrument amends the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 by adding the Scottish pubs code adjudicator and Quality Meat Scotland to schedule 2, which lists bodies that may be investigated by an ombudsman. The instrument also removes five organisations that no longer exist. The Tied Pubs (Scotland) Act 2021 seeks to rebalance the relationship between pub-owning businesses and tied pub tenants. The act requires ministers to publish a Scottish pubs code and appoint a Scottish pubs code adjudicator who has responsibility for overseeing and enforcing the code.

The Scottish pubs code will come into effect on 31 March 2025, and the adjudicator has already been appointed. The adjudicator has published an internal complaints procedure. As it is another significant national body, ministers consider it appropriate for the adjudicator to be added to schedule 2 of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, giving individuals and businesses a means of escalating complaints and giving the ombudsman the ability to investigate cases, if that is required.

It transpires that, at the time of its creation, in 2008, Quality Meat Scotland was not added to the list of organisations in schedule 2 of the 2002 act. We do not know the reason for the omission. Quality Meat Scotland has a complaints procedure, but we consider it appropriate for QMS to now be covered by the 2002 act, and we are looking to correct the omission through this instrument.

We are also taking the opportunity to tidy up the legislation further by removing the names of five organisations that are listed in schedule 2 but that no longer exist. I believe that the changes to the 2002 act are appropriate and proportionate and that they will contribute to the effective governance and oversight of public bodies in Scotland. There is no requirement to consult on the changes to schedule 2. However, we have liaised with the adjudicator and Quality Meat Scotland, and they are aware of our intentions. As is required by the 2002 act, if the instrument is approved, it will be signed by the Privy Council rather than by Scottish ministers. We understand that it has a meeting scheduled in early April.

I am happy to take any questions.

George Burgess will answer on the technical side of that.

On that—

We are taking those concerns on board.

I cannot remember who it was that said it, but somebody said something last week—forgive me if I misheard or I am misquoting—about how the system is more focused on delivering on time than on developing the new system. I find that curious, because I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the funds get into farmers’ bank accounts on time. I clearly remember—as anyone who was involved in agriculture at the time will—that, when we transitioned from the previous single-farm payment to the basic payment scheme, there were massive delays, which caused mayhem in farmers’ bank accounts and cash flows. The critical point is that we continue to make payments on time.

The fact is that the Government has made a rod for its own back in when those payments are made. They were made earlier and earlier when they could have been made much later, and we could have given ourselves more time, but we got so good at it that the payments came in earlier. That became the accepted norm for farmers, when, in reality, the payments could have been delayed until much later in the season.

The delivery of payments is one of the most fundamental things to ensure that we get right every time. The team that is in place is doing a phenomenal job, and I want to ensure that it continues to do that job.

FAST was established in 2022 and, since then, engagement has been on-going at various in-depth levels. The type of engagement depends on where we are at any given time.

As a minister, I am not an expert on every single thing that comes across my desk by any stretch of the imagination. I like to have policy teams on this side and stakeholders on that side and listen to the arguments of the different voices around the room, so that we can then say, “What does that actually look like if we are going to try to develop that into a policy?” That is the right way for me, because if I allow people to have arguments, I can pick out the bits that I do not understand or that I fundamentally disagree with, which forms the thinking around how we develop a policy going forward.

That process is not going to happen overnight. It will take us time, but, if we do it right, we will get the right results in the end.

You will be aware of the phrase, “You can take a horse to water, but you cannae make it drink.” We are providing as many opportunities as we can for farmers to engage in the process. If there is a farmer who does not know that a process is on-going, I do not know where they have been, because it has been talked about since the decision was taken to leave the European Union. It has been talked about and discussed, and we have been going through the process, so farmers are bound to have noticed that things are happening. There is a certain amount of responsibility on individuals to ask, “What does this mean for me and my business?”

You are absolutely right about the diversity in the numbers and types of farms. When I was on a hill farm, I had 2,200 hill yowes and 75 cows, and the breed had a very specific purpose. Three miles down the road, there was another livestock farmer, and the breeds that he was using had a completely different purpose. There is massive diversity among the sectors in the whole agricultural scheme in Scotland, so we are gonnae have to do it in this way, but there must also be a degree of responsibility on the part of the individual businesses and the individual farmers to ask, “What does this mean for me, how do I get the knowledge that I need and how am I going to make the new system that is being developed work in my favour?”

Agricultural shows are a vital part of our ability to communicate with folk, because that is when a farmer might say, “Do you know what? That’s been bothering me. I’ve got 10 minutes—I’ll just pop in.” If that gets them reading our leaflets and they think, “Oh, I need to get more involved in this,” the process is doing its job. However, we can only ensure that we make the information available to people; they then have the responsibility to pick it up and act on it in the most appropriate way for them.