³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I want to make sure that we are absolutely clear on what we are talking about today. The last thing that I want to do is put a fear into the industry that levy rates will increase to the absolute maximum that is allowed by the ceiling. This is a technical order. We are raising the ceiling; the levy rates are not being increased.

I come back to the fact that any rise in the levy rates is a matter for QMS and its discussions with its levy payers about that. A proposed rise must come to the Scottish ministers for approval. As I have set out, that is an annual process.

It would have been very difficult for us to prepare a BRIA. As you set out, I wrote to the committee to outline why we did not undertake a BRIA. Had we done so, it would have been purely speculative. There is no proposal on the table for an increase in levy rates. We do not know whether such a proposal will be made or what it would be, so it is not possible for us to make a definitive assessment or to say that there would be a direct impact on businesses when we do not know whether the levy will rise.

The roles and responsibilities in relation to that are set out in the legislation. That is why I am appearing before the committee today to give evidence on the order, which is about raising the ceilings. However, I will be more than happy to keep the committee updated. QMS is undertaking engagement across the country through a range of events to discuss the issue of levies, as well as its wider strategy, with industry. That is a discussion that QMS needs to have. We will be informed and approached if it considers raising the levy, and I will be happy to keep the committee updated.

What is key there is who was consulted and the fact that there were follow-up discussions with the two people who responded to the consultation. It is critical that we engage with the people who would be most impacted by the amendment order, who are the processors. There was also a response from NFU Scotland. There were follow-up discussions and meetings with the two organisations to discuss their concerns about the order. Again, this is about their discussions with QMS should the levy rates be raised. We are talking about a technical order and raising the ceilings, and that was the discussion that we had.

Michelle Colquhoun might want to say something further on that.

It was important that we consulted on the raising of the ceiling and that the consultation was, quite rightly, a separate process from consideration of raising the levy, because they are distinct processes. It is important that we set out that process and that we undertook the consultation in the way that we did.

First, QMS is not a Government-funded organisation. The information that you ask for can be interrogated by the committee or by any member of the public in QMS’s audited accounts, which are published annually.

Again, QMS would put a proposal to me and then it would be up to Scottish ministers to agree on it one way or the other. I am just trying to set out how that fits into the overall process.

Again, we are going down all sorts of different roads here and speculating about what might or might not happen. We have not been in that position in the past. The proposals are put to Scottish ministers for approval.

QMS is a responsible body, and I know that it would undertake that engagement. As I have said, I know that, in this case, that engagement has already started. I do not think that QMS needs any prodding from me or to be told to engage with the industry—it is doing that now. It is in its best interests to do that and to have a good relationship with levy payers.

That is not a discussion that I have had with QMS.

No problem. As I said, during the past couple of years of the programme we have been learning as we went and have been trying to modify the process. I remember from discussions that we have had about the islands programme that it is always difficult to look at the pros and cons of a direct award versus a competitive bid, and that is why it was interesting to hear the evidence from local authorities that the committee received about that.

There are drawbacks with direct award because, if we did that, the allocations could be a lot smaller for some areas, which means that they would not be able to take forward some of the larger projects that we have been able to fund.

On the competitive bid process, we have already said that we have made various changes to the guidance and to the process to streamline it. We have also removed the ceiling on applications so that local authorities can decide whether they want to take through a large project or would prefer to submit applications for a number of smaller projects. That process gives us overall strategic oversight. As Erica Clarkson outlined, we can also ensure that we are delivering against the objectives of the national islands plan.

Ultimately, we would not have been able to fund some of the big projects that have been part of the programme during the past couple of years if it had not been for the competitive bid process. Therefore, although I understand the calls for direct award, I think that we have greater flexibility in a competitive bid model.

As Erica Clarkson said, we are always keen to learn from what is happening on other projects elsewhere, but I do not know whether that is what you meant about sharing the learning from projects.