Chamber and committees

One of the respondents to the consultation said:

“a change in the levy ceiling within the Order must not be taken by QMS as industry agreement to an increase in the levy rates paid”.

I assume that you agree with that, but I do not want to put words in your mouth, because it is for QMS to determine that.

Secondly, we understand that, although there is no requirement for QMS to consult, ministerial approval is still required at the start of each financial year, regardless of whether there is a change to the payable rates.

Thank you.

That would be useful.

I want to unpack a little why your proposed legislation is needed compared with what we have already. I think that you have answered that question quite comprehensively, but why do you think that the Scottish Government has not updated or revisited the existing code, although it is different from what you propose, since 2010? Is that indicative of a lack of concern by the Scottish Government, or is it indicative that it feels that updating the code would not necessarily solve the problem anyway? I know that that is a question for the minister—

It sounds to me as though all the questions about what happens to the levy after this technical instrument is passed should really be directed to QMS.

Cabinet secretary, I took heart from what you have said this morning and from what you said in a previous letter, which was that you would expect QMS to fully consult as widely as possible and to engage with producers and processors before taking any action on the proposed increase. Many of the questions stem from a concern that right now it is hugely challenging for producers, in particular, to make any sort of margin in the industry. Will you say a bit more, broadly, on what role you expect QMS to take and how the Government is supporting producers and farmers more widely at a difficult time?

Our core question is whether the laudable aims of the bill are best served through alternative legislation or changes to the current legislation. I think that you have answered that helpfully.

I will make a final small point. You have made the point that what is distinct about the bill is that you are reaching prospective keepers and owners rather than existing ones. That is a notoriously difficult group to reach because, by their nature, they are not necessarily easy to identify. Being able to do that boils down to somebody having the foresight that they might have to engage with the process. How do you envisage raising awareness so that prospective keepers know that they will now be caught by new legislation?

—but you must have considered whether that might have been a route for achieving the purposes that you want to achieve.

Thank you.

To go back to Mark Ruskell’s question on retrospectively considering areas where we have not aligned, I want to look at how the Government defines “where appropriate” in relation to alignment in the statement of policy. The statement says that Scotland will seek to align with the EU

“where appropriate and in a manner that contributes towards maintaining and advancing standards”,

protecting health and wellbeing and maintaining our international standards, none of which anyone would disagree with. Will the minister unpack a bit of how the Government interprets that appropriateness, and who is final arbiter of that?

I imagine that there are two principal reasons why it may not be appropriate to align: first, where we are bound by UK law and it would be therefore unlawful for us to deviate from UK standards; and secondly, where it might significantly disadvantage our citizens for whatever reason because we are trying to compete in an EU market and in a UK market and so on.

Could you outline that, although I fully understand that, if we were a part of the EU, those questions would not emerge, because we would not have to define appropriateness?

The examples that you have given are commonsensical, but where might there be some dubiety? Is it the default to say that we align and a case therefore has to be made for not aligning? Do you take each case on merit and discuss it? Are there any grey areas, where the Cabinet or the Government needs to consider whether there is an alternative route?