Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is simply not the case.

I believe that, if the people behind the system who are employed to do the job are giving me the reassurance that it can deliver, then it is value for money. At any time, if they have concerns about it, they will bring the issue to me.

Could you let me finish answering the question?

I go back to the point that I made earlier. You are saying that there are glaring mistakes. They will not necessarily be mistakes, however. If they are, I will be more than happy to go back and say, “Okay, maybe we have got that wrong, and we will change it.” That was the whole purpose of making the legislation a framework bill. I absolutely accept that we will not get everything right. As we start to implement things, if we need to change something—and we have the ability to do that through secondary legislation—we will do so. We could not have done that if everything had been set out in the bill itself, as was constantly demanded by the committee.

If there are things that become a real issue, I am more than happy, as minister, to look at them and ask whether we are getting things right and how we can change them. In fact, I think I gave that commitment at my previous evidence session, when I said that we will look at things as we develop the policy. The 2025 single application forms will come in, we will see what happens with them, and that will allow us to ask whether the processes that we are implementing, which we are asking people to be part of, are working. If they are not, why is that? What do we need to do to make them work? Do we need to change them?

That is part of the co-development of policy. I am repeating myself but, if we had told the committee and the industry, “There’s your policy. Get on with it,” we would have got it wrong. We have seen how it is possible to get it wrong—all you need to do is look south of the border.

I agree that that would have been the ideal scenario. As I stated at the time, I did not understand why we were getting pushback at the very late stages—but, for whatever reason, we did. If concerns were raised, they were taken into consideration. There was an awful lot of official engagement at the grass-roots level to make proposals about how to make the measures work and to ask if everybody was on board with that.

I accept that the crofting situation is slightly different. I have given you a commitment that the force majeure provision will be in place this year, and it will be a matter of looking sympathetically at any issues that crofters in particular or people farming in the most remote areas have, particularly concerning smaller herds. I have given that commitment before.

If the policy is not working, I am prepared to take another look at it. I have given that commitment before, too. To me, that is part of co-development and getting it right. If we try something and it is not working, we will consider how to change it. Does it still achieve the policy objective?

I spent my weekend travelling round the crofting counties for exactly the reason you are talking about: if there are things that we are not picking up in one forum, I want to go to another forum. I went round Lewis, Harris and Skye, and I met large numbers of crofters. Our discussions were largely on the proposed crofting bill, but we also touched on other things. That engagement and level of interaction is exactly what will allow us to develop the policy.

I get that it is frustrating. I understand that. However, we cannot make a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation and say, “Here it is,” because that will not work. We want to make sure that we do it in a way that gets to the end of the route map that tells us what the policy looks like. Even once we get to that, policy will continue to change and evolve as circumstances change. That was the beauty of using a framework bill.

I think that you are asking me whether I am hearing them or simply listening to them. Every time I have such conversations, I take them away, chew them over, rack my brains and think, “How do we make that work? Is that gonnae work for them? If this is gonnae be a problem, how do we mitigate that?” That is the job. That is what we have to do.

We will not always get it right. We will not always be able to say, “You know what? We can fix that,” because we cannot always fix things. However, I will do my utmost to hear what people are saying and to work out how I can make that fit into what we are trying to do and how the system will allow them to be a part of that process. That is in my thinking all the time. It is not easy.

On the convener’s question about why QMS was not included in 2008, I do not know. I do not think that my officials understand why it was not included in 2008.

The convener also made the point that QMS has an internal complaints procedure, which is absolutely correct. However, that does not give a complainant a second body to go to if they are not happy with the procedure that has been carried out by QMS. The ombudsman gives the complainant—whoever they may happen to be—the opportunity to go to an external body and say, “I’m not comfortable or happy with this, and I’d like you to have another look at it.” That is the reason why QMS is being included as a body under the ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

There were a couple of points in there. I will bring in Mandy Callaghan on how ARIOB was designed and its function.

Those decisions will be made by me and the cabinet secretary after we have been in consultation with the stakeholders. We will bring those policies forward in SSIs, as we have done before, as we build the jigsaw puzzle that Rhoda Grant mentioned. We will bring those SSIs to the committee, and you will get time to scrutinise them and to take evidence. You will then be able to have me in front of the committee, giving answers on any of the specific areas of policy that we are going to develop.

That is a fair point. I will turn to George Burgess to explain how we measure that.

Now that you have asked me that question, I remember being on this committee when we were concerned about the number of people who were taking up the schemes, because that was not happening quickly enough. I distinctly remember the convener, in particular, saying that people were not taking up the schemes, which meant that the message was not getting out.

We now know that the numbers have risen exponentially, which is a measure of whether our message is getting out. I do not know whether there is a technical thing that we do to measure engagement—I honestly cannot tell you that—but I do know that we get the results of the things that we are putting out and how that transfers into people taking action. A huge number of people are now getting involved in the things that have been made available to them, which is in stark contrast to where we were 18 months to two years ago, when I sat on this committee.