Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean.

Michelle Colquhoun has the list.

The NFUS and the SAMW.

Yes, that is absolutely right. In response to both points, I would say that, if any proposal for an increase in rates were to come to me, I would expect to see evidence that QMS had consulted and engaged widely with its members and levy payers about the proposed increase and what that levy rate would be. That is the very least that I would expect.

It was to enable us to bring the instrument forward. As I said when I set out the process, it was important to bring it forward to enable time for scrutiny of the ceilings and to enable QMS to undertake the engagement work that it has to do.

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.