Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would expect to see engagement and consultation with industry. That is a given—the industry needs to be consulted about any potential increase in the levy rate, which would be up to QMS to do. Of course, I would hope that any proposals that it put forward would have that industry agreement. At the moment, I cannot speculate on what any potential decision might be or what it would look like, but I know that QMS has a strong relationship with its levy payers and that at that moment it is engaging with them and undertaking that engagement across the country. I would hope that QMS would reach overall agreement and consensus, if it were proposing to increase the levy, about what that should be.

You are absolutely right in that sense, but I have tried with the proposed ceilings to future proof things, so that we do not need to come back every year to look at them and decide whether they are at the appropriate level.

As I have said, a variety of factors have been taken into account in developing the proposals for the ceiling rates set out in the order. We have looked at averages over the past 10 years to project as well as we possibly can in order to future proof things. Of course, we can never say never—we do not know what will happen a few years down the line—but we hope that the ceiling rates in the order today are future proofed to a certain degree.

I make the point again that the order deals with the ceiling—the maximum rate. QMS would have to consult levy payers on whether to increase the levy. There is no guarantee in that regard. Ultimately, QMS needs to have a discussion with levy payers about the rates. That is looked at and considered annually.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak about the Quality Meat Scotland (Amendment) Order 2023. The Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 makes provision about the constitution and function of Quality Meat Scotland and specifies the rules on the rates for the red meat levy. The rates that are included in the order are the maximum rates that can be charged, and QMS sets the payable levies annually, with my approval, within those ceilings. The order stipulates that QMS cannot increase the paid levy in excess of the maximum levy rate in the order. Contravention of that requirement would be an offence.

The maximum rates have not been amended since the order was laid in Parliament in 2008. Since then, there has been only one increase in the payable rates. That was in 2010, when the rates increased from £4.57 to £5.50 for cattle, from 67p to 80p for sheep and from £1.05 to £1.26 for pigs. Those figures are for the combined producer and slaughterer levy. That change took the sheep rate to the maximum and left only 9p of headroom on pigs.

Levy income is fundamental to the running of QMS, which provides several functions to the benefit of the red meat sector. I do not have time to cover all of QMS’s activities, but I highlight its marketing of Scotch Beef, Scotch Lamb and Specially Selected pork, which is important for Scotland’s red meat industry and for raising the profile for the export market. It is important to ensure that QMS has the ability, with the agreement of industry, to raise the payable levy if it feels that there is a need to do so, and the draft order amends the Quality Meat Scotland Order 2008 for that purpose. Final approval of any rise in the payable levy is required from ministers.

I reiterate that the maximum levy rates are being raised due to the current payable sheep rates having reached the ceiling that is permitted by the 2008 order and the pig levy being just 9p away from the limit. The changes for which the new Scottish statutory instrument provides will ensure that the 2008 order will meet the sector’s needs for a number of years. Raising the maximum rates in the order does not mean that the payable rates will automatically increase. In giving my approval for any subsequent proposed increase in payable rates, I will have to be satisfied that QMS has fully engaged with levy payers, that stakeholder views have been heard and that the impact of the rise has been considered.

Levy income is fundamental to the running of QMS and I am content that the amendment to the 2008 order is necessary. I hope that my comments have been helpful in setting out the rationale for laying the draft order. I am happy to take any questions that the committee has.

I point to what we have already published on that. We do not have the exact details of what will be involved in a future scheme, but we have tried to share our thinking in that regard, which gives a general direction as to the measures that we will consider, including in future support. We have also set out the route map and timeline for when more information will become available to people.

Alongside the route map that we published earlier this year, we published the list of measures, but it is by no means a definitive list and it is not final. I think that there are links in the online publications for people to provide us with feedback and information. The list sets out some examples of how the different measures can interact and what that would mean for different types of business. It also outlines some of the measures that we might include as part of final support. It does not cover all sectors, because we know that more work needs to be done.

I emphasise that, as I have already stated, there will be no cliff edges in support. We have said that the schemes that people are currently on will continue until we transition at various points. That is all set out in the route map.

Although we cannot set out the detail of a scheme, we have set out what our thinking is at the moment in order to give some clarity and direction so that people know what we are considering for the future.

No, we have not.

Yes. I hear the concerns about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I do not think that it has ever produced the numbers that we need for the industry in Scotland. From the discussions that I have had, it seems that the availability of workforce continues to be an issue, as well as the various issues with the scheme itself.

Yes. It will be on the horizon, particularly in relation to the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and any potential impacts of that. Obviously, we are not yet at the point of bringing forward the detail of future schemes, but we will need to have those discussions further down the line. That has continued to concern us from the start of the Subsidy Control Bill process and right through it. A lot of our concerns were not really resolved during the passage of that legislation, so those concerns very much remain.

It is not anticipated that it would have any funding implications at the moment, because the strategy would not, in and of itself, require to be funded. It is more about how we better utilise the resource that we already have available in relation to science and how we use it in Scotland. Ultimately, the science and innovation strategy is about how we can work more collaboratively across the piece in Scotland.

Within the marine directorate, we have a fantastic marine science resource. We also have the aquarium and the marine lab. It is about how we can better utilise the assets and people that we have by working with other institutions and academia across Scotland. We really want to ensure, as far as we can, that Scotland becomes a global leader in marine research. It is only by collaborating better and using those resources more wisely right across the piece that we can hope to achieve that.

We believe that we have not received resource that we should, and would, have received had we remained members of the European Union. We currently have £14 million a year as part of the marine fund Scotland. However, we might consider what other nations in the EU receive through the new strand of EU funding, which is the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund.

We can look, in particular, at nations that are similar in population size to Scotland—one of the better comparisons is Denmark, which has the same population but a smaller marine area, and a smaller marine industry and sector as a whole. On average, Denmark is receiving £25 million a year in comparison with what we receive. It also has seven-year continuity for that funding—it is £25 million each year over seven years, whereas we do not have multiyear funding. We simply receive the £14 million allocation, so we believe that we are being significantly short-changed in that regard.