Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I did, and I am happy to answer the question.

It is a problem of dynamic alignment and the failure to reach agreement prior to Brexit taking place. That is undoubtedly the case, but what we need to focus on now is finding solutions that will allow Scottish producers to continue to trade with the EU and at the same time finding alternative trading routes in the rest of the world. We require the UK Government and the EU to get round the table to make progress on that.

Thank you, convener, and thank you all for the opportunity to give evidence on the draft order.

By way of background, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board—AHDB—is a statutory levy board that is funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain. It provides services and advice to support and promote our world-class food and farming industry. The AHDB comprises six statutory levy-paying sectors that are included in the scope of the order, which are: the cereal and oilseed industries in the United Kingdom; the milk, horticulture and potato industries in Great Britain; and the pig, beef and sheep industries in England.

As the convener said, the order is a UK-wide instrument, to be made in exercise of powers conferred by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on the secretary of state, acting with the approval of the Scottish ministers. The act also provides that the Scottish ministers may not give that approval without the approval of the Scottish Parliament, which is why the order is before the committee today.

The purpose of the order is to amend the principal Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008, which established the AHDB and is the source of its functions, to remove the statutory levies in the horticulture and potato sectors in Great Britain. That is being done because, in January and February 2021, levy payers in the horticulture and potato sectors triggered democratic ballots on whether they wanted the statutory levy to continue in their sectors. In the horticulture ballot, 61 per cent voted against the levy continuing, from a 69 per cent turnout. In the potato ballot, 66 per cent voted against the levy continuing, from a 64 per cent turnout. The order respects those democratically expressed views and the outcome of those ballots by removing all the legislative provisions for the statutory levy in those two sectors.

In addition, the order seeks to improve accountability for the remaining levy-paying sectors, which I mentioned a moment ago. It does that by imposing a new duty on the AHDB to deliver a regular vote by levy payers—at least once every five years—on what their levy will be spent on.

Finally, the order makes an amendment to the original AHDB order to clarify that the AHDB’s ability to charge for services includes all the industries in the scope of the order and not only those sectors that pay a levy. The amendment is purely technical and will ensure that, although the statutory levy is being removed for horticulture and potatoes, the rest of the order will continue to apply to those sectors. It means that, if they decided to, businesses in either sector could continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or commercial basis.

In addition to the provisions that are contained in the order, the AHDB consulted on a further proposal, which was on broadening the AHDB’s scope to further agricultural sectors. A majority of respondents in Scotland resisted that proposal and voted against it, and they highlighted that the AHDB should use this opportunity—following the vote and the removal of the levy in some sectors—to rationalise and deliver excellence in its service rather than expand it, so that has not been included.

In summary, I support the changes that the order makes to give expression to the democratic views that are expressed by the horticulture and potato sectors and to introduce greater accountability for the remaining sectors. Looking forward, we will continue to work closely with the horticulture and potato sectors as they work to identify their priorities and the way in which they wish to organise themselves outwith the scope of the statutory mechanism. The draft order provides the flexibility that will enable them to do that on an individual subsector basis, and we will work with them as they decide what they wish to do.

That is plenty from me, but my officials and I are happy to answer any questions.

I am happy to answer that question albeit that I do not think that it is within the remit of what we are discussing today.

I think that it is an indictment with regard to what the horticulture and potato sectors felt was their experience with regard to value for money, the quality of the services provided and the accountability for decisions that were made and for what the levies were spent on. For the remaining sectors within the order, that second provision in the legislation ought to improve the circumstances, because there will be a vote every five years on what the levies should be spent on.

With regard to the future of the horticulture and potato sectors outwith the statutory mechanism, it is now open to them to decide either on a whole-sector or subsector basis how best to organise themselves and what they wish to prioritise. As I say, the Scottish Government is happy and willing to continue working with them on that.

Absolutely. It is a tumultuous time for the sectors, particularly since EU exit when, at the stroke of a pen, the UK Government’s Brexit deal ended the Scottish seed potatoes market for trade into the EU virtually overnight.

The cabinet secretary, Mairi Gougeon, and I, along with our officials, have regular round-table meetings with the potato and horticulture sectors to get an on-going understanding of their concerns and how we can address them. To date, the concerns largely centre on trading opportunities post-Brexit—as I just mentioned, the EU market was cut off overnight—the availability, or lack, of a workforce, and supply chain disruption, on which Brexit, the pandemic and other global issues have had a huge impact.

Most of those areas are reserved, and we are in almost constant contact with the Home Office and the UK Government, making representations on behalf of the Scottish sector. So far, responses have been very disappointing, but we will continue to make representations.

In the meantime, we are providing support in the way that we can; for example, in R and D and in some of the ways that I mentioned to Rachael Hamilton, such as by investing in research into blight and other pests that cause problems for the industry.

Absolutely. Within reason, I would support consultations that are as frequent, broad and deep as possible with those who are paying the levy and for the services that the AHDB provides.

That is a good question. I am not sure that I have the detail of exactly what would happen if, in one of the votes, the levy payers rejected the proposals, but I am more than happy to come back on that point.

In the natural environment bill that we hope to introduce, we expect to include statutory targets for nature recovery and nature growth, akin to the climate targets, which I think we would all agree have been a turning point for action on emissions reduction. Within that, we are also committed to protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030. In both of those pieces of work—I am not leading on them; my colleague Ms Slater is—I will be arguing strongly for the inclusion of the greatest possible protection for our ancient woodlands.

The point about hectarage that you and the Woodland Trust make is a good one. The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 strengthened the law to cover woodlands of less than 0.5 hectares. Doug Howieson will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that felling permission is required for areas of 0.1 to 0.5 hectares. As I said, there are very few circumstances in which felling permission would be afforded in relation to ancient woodland.

Enforcement is important. I know from my ministerial and constituency roles that concerns are frequently expressed about felling being undertaken without regard to the rules or the enforcement action that might be taken as a result. Such felling is criminal offence and can result in a fine of up to £5,000. We strengthened the rules in 2018 to provide that Scottish Forestry does not require a successful prosecution to make a restocking direction. Scottish Forestry can step in and take action where the landowner is not doing so.

However, despite all of that, I understand the frustration that people feel when they see things going on that are not in line with the rules. Doug Howieson, I and our teams try to respond proactively to such cases. When they are raised with us, we investigate the circumstances. I remain open minded to any ways that we can ensure that the rules are complied with across the board.

You have described the two greatest threats that our woodlands face. On deer, I come back to the analogy about the grandparent tree standing alone in the forest, which brings the situation to life. We need to do something to allow the natural regeneration process, which our ancient woodlands are well placed to deliver, to flourish.

The Government received the recommendations of the deer working group and we responded last year. We committed to implementing the vast majority of the recommendations, save for one—because of welfare concerns, we do not support the recommendation on the close season for female deer. We can take non-legislative actions and we can take actions that will require primary legislation. We will take forward the non-legislative actions now through the biodiversity strategy, and we will have the natural environment bill later in the parliamentary session. I am not leading on that bill, but I expect it to contain any actions that need primary legislation. The issue is very much a focus for this session.

As with deer, dealing with invasive non-native species is laborious and requires boots on the ground for hard work to clear what is largely rhododendron. When I was in the west Highlands recently, I saw that consuming the forest floor. Our forestry grant scheme already supports landowners with funds to help with clearing rhododendron.

We are working with the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest as part of our commitment to protecting and restoring Scotland’s rainforest, and we are backing that with funds from our £500 million of investment in the natural economy. We have opened a nature restoration fund; I do not remember the exact figure, but I think that it is a multiannual fund of £60 million, from which £12.5 million is available this year. Bids are in for that and are being considered by NatureScot. I expect some of that to rise to the challenges of dealing with invasive non-native species; the bids will be confirmed in the spring.