���˿���

This is my final question on the point. The pre-2024 approach that NatureScot took is the one that garnered the most support. Is the minister saying that he does not support the approach that best suits the organisations that apply for such licences?

How do you get numbers without doing a survey?

If it was allowed to issue licences pre-2024—you have just put it on the record that it was not illegal for it to do so—why could it not continue to do that for the 2026 nesting season?

I am sorry, but may I just finish this point?

But it is just on that point.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary.

It is important that we get that paper before the Christmas recess, which means that it will be next week. However, I do not think that it will go to the heart of what Rhoda Grant was asking for, as my amendment does. If I am wrong, I will be very happy to accept that, but will the paper provide individual reasons for individuals who were deemed ineligible? That is what we are looking for. A 100-page statement might satisfy the Government, but it will not satisfy crofters and farmers if it does not give them the reasons for their being deemed ineligible, to ensure that they can correct that in the future. Will it go into the sort of individual detail that is needed and which will be available through these amendments?

Amendment 336 was lodged after the committee’s previous deliberations did not conclude. It is an opportunity for the committee, and, I hope—if it is agreed to—the Parliament, to look in detail at what happened with the future farming investment scheme.

At the outset, I want to say that it was very welcome that a large quantum of money was allocated by the Scottish Government and that a scheme was developed to get that money to farmers. I had hoped to be able to say that it had gone to priority groups in particular, but it is clear that that has not happened. It is almost unique to have such widespread support for a scheme but so much disappointment and cross-party concern. The Labour MP for the Western Isles, Torcuil Crichton, has spoken about this a great deal in the media and in the House of Commons, and Liam McArthur has raised concerns about the issue in the islands. From the Conservatives, I, Jamie Halcro Johnston and others have raised it, and, if I remember correctly, Ariane Burgess also raised concerns when there was a topical question on the scheme in the chamber.

The scheme attracted more than 7,500 applications, but almost half of them were not rejected but deemed ineligible. I raised the matter with the minister in the chamber. I cannot fathom why Government ministers are not trying to get to the bottom of that and why they seemingly just want the issue to go away, because it is clear that there has been a major issue. Yes, people will be disappointed and will think that they deserved the award more than others—that is the nature of such schemes—but the problem is that no one knows why they received an award, why they did not receive an award, or, crucially, why they were deemed to be ineligible. I am very keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s understanding of the matter. She might share that when she is winding up, but I would be happy to give way.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of how much time the Government spent considering the applications? There were 7,500 applications to go through. Does the cabinet secretary know how much time was spent on each application, given their importance? I will not put her on the spot.

I ask because we have had a response to a freedom of information request that shows the number of officials who were working on this and the period for which they were working on it. The outcome of that is that it was six minutes per application—six minutes for what were sometimes quite detailed and complex applications, for a fund of more than £20 million. All the applications were very important to the individuals who submitted them. I wonder how any group of officials can work at that rate. I am being generous in saying that it was six minutes per application. That would mean officials going from one to another to another, with very little time to stop, pause for breath, eat or have comfort breaks.

Does the cabinet secretary think that that is likely to reassure farmers who are annoyed that they were not successful or were deemed ineligible? Does she accept that it will reinforce the concerns that many people have that computer systems, if not artificial intelligence, were used to determine many of the applications? I cannot think of another reason why so many were automatically thrown out or discharged for being ineligible, rather than for not meeting the criteria.

There were very clear criteria for the priority groups, but many of the individuals who were unsuccessful were in the priority groups. One of the priority groups was tenant farmers. Today, I received an email from a constituent in Moray who is a tenant farmer and who applied for a borehole but was unsuccessful. His friend who owns his farm also applied for a borehole and was successful. Without further information, I just do not understand how that calculation was made. I do not understand how someone in a priority group, with a project that is clearly supported by the Government—given that someone else benefited—was not successful, yet others were.

I would be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on the scheme and how it was run. On 30 October, her official said:

“Ms Gougeon has noted and appreciates the update. She would like to pass on her thanks and appreciation to you and the team for the design and delivery of this scheme which has been received so well by industry.”

I genuinely want to know whether the cabinet secretary stands by those words. Has she looked at the media coverage of the issue, be it in The Press and Journal, The Scottish Farmer or other farming news, which is extremely critical. The Scottish Crofting Federation has said that the rejection rates for ineligibility were as high as 94 per cent in some areas. NFU Scotland, which was involved in designing the scheme, has said:

“Initial feedback from our members has focused around perceived inconsistencies”.

That does not marry up with the cabinet secretary telling officials that

“the design and delivery of the scheme ... has been received so well by the industry.”

I am sorry, but it has not. That is why we are here today, seeking amendments to the bill to get answers.

I know that some people might think that it is not appropriate to use the bill for one scheme. I understand from a letter that I received on Monday from Jim Fairlie that it is not the intention to have further rounds of the scheme, but the Government must learn from mistakes, and there have been mistakes.

I want to quickly read out an email that I received from a constituent in the Highlands and Islands who is an agent and who has been working on many of the applications. She said:

“The biggest red flag and huge concern to the industry is the 3,537 applications that did not meet the eligibility criteria—we need more information on this, and we need it whilst the civil servants who have dealt with this scheme are still in their current jobs.”

She went on:

“I simply do not believe that 47% of applications were ineligible—I do not believe this possible, I do on the other hand believe that the people (or possibly AI—although this has been point blank denied in parliament) doing the scoring did not have the correct training or information available to them to make these assessments. We need a break down of why each ineligible application was ineligible—and if the government refuse to provide this then that raises greater concerns on transparency and the accuracy of the assessment system.”

I could not put it better myself, and my amendment 336 would simply do what that agent is calling for. It simply asks the Government to carry out a review of how the scheme operated and to inform people why they were unsuccessful or ineligible. Although the scheme might not be repeated in the future, other schemes will be. If people fell foul of ineligibility in that scheme, there is no guarantee that they will not face the same consequences in future schemes, so they need to know what they need to change and improve to be successful for future funding. That is why it is really important that the committee supports amendment 336, in my name.

If such reviews are done fairly regularly, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, would there be a problem with making that a bit more formal and having a review now that would also include and involve the Airtask staff, who felt totally disengaged from the decision making. They felt that the was decision taken very quickly and without prior consultation. They could be involved in the review. If the review says that the Government got it right and made the correct decision, there would be more buy-in. Instead, staff were told, “This is the decision,” by the marine directorate and the Scottish Government without that buy-in. That is the biggest problem.

Amendment 336 would also require the Government to provide information to those who are ineligible. They do not know why they are ineligible, and they are sat at home just now wondering why that is. We are talking about 50 per cent of applicants. Does the cabinet secretary understand, not just as cabinet secretary but as someone who represents a rural constituency, how frustrating it is for farmers, crofters and others not to know why they have been dismissed by this Government? They deserve to know.

Okay. If that is all that we are going to disagree on today, minister, I will be very happy.