Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are working with the commission on that.

So, it would perhaps be more correct to say that we do not have the priorities yet and that that is part of the dialogue that is going on.

That is understood.

We have had a period in which the relationship between the commission and the sponsoring division has not worked all that well. We hope that that has been rectified and that we now have in place a good solid process. Will there be, after a suitable period, a review of how the new—or, at least, revamped—relationship is working and of whether it is delivering what is necessary?

I presume that that is because it simplifies the payroll process and the terms and conditions.

Is there any real disadvantage to that format?

Those staff could therefore go back into the main body of the civil service.

My next question has been answered in a general way, but I would like a simple assurance that the framework document sets out the roles and responsibilities of those who are involved in the governance of the commission, particularly the board’s responsibility for strategic, as opposed to operational, decision making and the chief executive’s accountability to the board for performance. Is that adequately sketched out in the framework document?

In discussions with the commission, it became clear that it is entirely staffed by Scottish Government officers—I am not clear about whether they have been seconded or permanently transferred—and there is no direct recruitment outside of that particular pool of available staff. That formula is not common. What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? Is it particularly efficient?

When we met the representatives of the Crofting Commission, I took away a strong impression of complacency and a very strong feeling that that was all in the past and had been sorted. There was a sense of, “What’s the problem?” and, “There’s nothing to see here; move on.” I found that to be disturbing. I have found there to be a slight whiff of that again this morning in one or two of the comments that have been made. I will address my questions to Roy Brannen first, but I ask others to comment if it is appropriate.

I would like reassurance about how seriously this is being taken. Section 22 reports are a serious issue and usually reflect serious problems, which is why this committee becomes involved. I would like an assurance that the Crofting Commission is taking it extremely seriously and that there is no element of complacency.

Would I be correct in saying that there has been clear prioritisation of the steps that the commission requires to take and that there is no additional funding required beyond the additional staffing, which has already been absorbed?