Chamber and committees

I am sure that we would have those discussions with QMS. Again, I think that we are jumping automatically to a negative situation, and I do not think that we will be in that position. We have a very strong working relationship with QMS, and I know that QMS has that kind of same relationship with its levy payers, so that engagement from its side is important. I do not imagine that we would end up in that situation, to be honest.

Yes, you are absolutely right. I agree with everything that you have just said about Quality Meat Scotland. This is a discussion that it needs to have. You are absolutely right that the instrument is technical; it just raises the ceiling, not the levy itself, because that requires a discussion between QMS and its levy payers.

That is not an unusual approach. We take that approach with other consultations when we need to consult and hear from specific interests. Just to be clear, the consultation was about the ceiling and not about an increase in the levy, which is a discussion that QMS needs to have with the levy payers.

Again, this is about future proofing the ceiling for years to come. QMS used a certain methodology in considering what the appropriate ceiling rates might be. Michelle Colquhoun might be able to say a bit more about that. We considered the consumer prices index, the retail prices index and the agricultural price index. We looked at the averages for the past 10 years and how they have changed, and we looked at how the ceiling could be future proofed for the next 10 years, at least, to give flexibility. Again, this is all about the ceiling and not what any rate might be.

QMS is not the only agency that is going through this process. The same discussions are taking place across the rest of the UK, including in England and Wales, where the agencies are looking at the ceiling rates for their levies.

As I highlighted, there have been a number of challenges over the past few years. We have seen inflation soar, which is why it is important that we are considering the matter now, especially as the levy for sheep is at the ceiling and the levy for pigs is only 9p away from the maximum. That leaves no leeway should QMS, in discussion with the levy payers, decide that there needs to be a change to the levy to enable it to carry out its activities. The levy is fundamental to the running of the organisation.

It is not. That is why the levy is so critical. The levy is considered annually. It has to come to the Scottish ministers for approval even when there is no change, and that process will continue. When the levy comes forward for consideration, I would expect QMS to consult the levy payers before it proposes an increase—should it, in fact, propose one. I would expect to see evidence of that consultation that shows how QMS has engaged with stakeholders. I understand that QMS has already begun that consultation and is running a roadshow across the country to discuss both strategy and the levy. I will continue to take an interest in those discussions before any proposals are put to me.

I would be happy to provide that. If you want me to list them now, I have that information here, but I would also be happy to follow up in writing.

As I have said, we followed up with the NFUS and the SAMW. Michelle Colquhoun can explain any further correspondence that we had with other organisations.

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.