Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

On the first part of your question, which raises a sound point, there are a number of provisions that the AHDB would previously have provided to the horticulture and potato sectors that I think people in those sectors would still regard as important, including work on the fight against blights, aphid monitoring and applications for emergency pesticide use. Such things were previously arranged on a collective basis and I think that, now, conversations will be had about how best those services can be provided in future.

You ask about the interaction that we have had with the board. In the consultation, it was clear that the work on the application of fertilisers was identified as very important. The AHDB will continue to provide that until 2023. We have responded to what was asked for in the consultation but, as I say, it is extremely important to respond to democratic wishes as they are expressed, and it is now for those industries to agree how they wish to organise themselves, and we, the AHDB and others in the four nations of the UK are here to continue working with them.

I absolutely give that commitment. I do not anticipate any job losses as a result of the removal of the statutory levy. On the point about the continuing support for research and development in those areas—as well as for marketing, which is separate—we are absolutely there to provide that. Recently, we invested £2.2 million in research into potato cyst nematode, and that research continues in our world-class research facilities, including in the James Hutton Institute.

I will hand over to Caspian Richards in case he wants to add anything.

It was not necessarily a UK Government decision; it was a joint Governments decision. To give you a bit of background to what happened, in 2021, growers in Lincolnshire gathered enough people to trigger a ballot. The ballot took place and, as I set out in my opening remarks, the majority voted to remove the levy. There was a consultation, which was developed by the UK Government and us, which spoke to some of the questions that were part of the ballot and to some wider questions. Within that was the point about how we ensure greater accountability for the remaining sectors.

On the provision to have a vote every five years, it is at least every five years, but the AHDB has already committed to do so more frequently. I expect that the first vote will be in April 2022. I will let Caspian come in on that, but the vote is to be at least every five years, although I would expect it to be more often than that.

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.

Those are two important, technical questions. I will try to answer them, but I would also like to go away and get you a fuller answer. I will ask my colleague Doug Howieson whether there is anything that he would like to add. We will come back to you with a response that is detailed enough to reflect the questions.

I will quickly pick up on the point about the contamination by different species of trees and the extent to which that is a threat to our ancient woodlands. For our part, Forestry and Land Scotland, which manages the public forests and estate on behalf of Scottish ministers, is undertaking restoration on 60 per cent of the sites that they manage where there has been historical planting on ancient woodland. That often means removing the non-native species that are planted in and around an ancient woodland site to prevent that cross-contamination and to allow the ancient woodlands to develop as they naturally would.

I will now hand over to Doug Howieson and we will both come back to you with further detail in response to your questions.