Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are getting into questions about what we would be looking to go into a negotiation with that it is not appropriate for us to discuss right here and right now, as George Burgess said. We still have the critical points that need to be addressed—the complete lack of clarity and the shortfall so far that needs to be addressed in the interim at least and which we expect to be addressed going forward.

We want to discuss what an allocation would look like for Scotland, as was promised in response to the Bew review. That promise has not yet been fulfilled and we are being ignored on that.

The ones that we have talked about so far—the potential policy constraints that we could face on what we design. We have talked about the multiyear funding as well. I think that you are trying to pin me down to responses that I cannot give you today. The important thing is that we need to make sure that we get the shortfalls addressed and that we at least start to have those conversations, which have not begun yet.

Absolutely. I am happy to come back with further information. You asked for some analysis in relation to the issues that the unit will consider. I am happy to provide that.

However, you also mentioned specific areas that will not necessarily fall within the remit of the food security unit. For example, you asked for clarity on future support schemes. We have set out the route map in relation to that. It is not the food security unit’s job to provide that information. We will provide that information according to the timelines that are outlined in our route map.

You mentioned the funding of abattoirs. I would like you to send me the further information that you referred to, because I want to interrogate the detail of it. There might be funding from different schemes. I want to understand the position more.

There are a number of pieces of work being done in other areas. We are taking forward a pilot in relation to our smallholders. Part of that work is about abattoirs and the future of processing. I think that a survey will be undertaken quite soon, because I know that that continues to be an issue.

So, not all of those are specific pieces of work that our food security unit would take forward but there are links and given where the food security unit sits, there will be crossover and it will be engaging with colleagues and wider stakeholders. There are specific pieces of work that will be undertaken by other areas.

We want to work with industry to see how we can better improve scientific efforts—on monkfish, in particular. That is exactly what we are looking to do.

I will certainly try to. The bill has been a bit of a moving feast as it has progressed through the UK Parliament, so I might ask George Burgess if he can give you some more specific details on that.

We started in a position whereby all retained EU law was intended to be sunsetted at the end of this year. Thankfully, the UK Government has changed course from that. Unfortunately, a lot of work had already been undertaken to prepare for it, because it was going to be a very significant challenge. Instead, the UK Government has published a schedule of about 587 instruments that it is looking to sunset towards the end of the year.

We had an interministerial group meeting on Monday 22 May, at which I asked the then DEFRA secretary of state whether there would be any further changes to the schedule and what the process would be if there was a disagreement in relation to what was on it. There has been continuing movement, particularly over the past week, in how that work has developed.

I have made commitments about that. As I said in connection with the agriculture bill, I cannot give a definitive timescale as to when any legislation will be introduced.

It is important to highlight the work that is already under way. I think that this issue is really important and I want to assure the committee that I hear what you are saying. We have increased the Crofting Commission’s budget and have been working with the commission to see how we can start to address some of the issues that it is up against, which I hope will start to improve things.

We re-established the crofting bill group last year. It has met 10 times so far, more meetings are planned and all the relevant stakeholders are being considered. The bill group has considered some of the issues that were raised by the previous rural committee in its report on crofting. In his contribution to the agriculture policy debate last week, Alasdair Allan raised something that I did not have an opportunity to touch on in my summing up, which is that there has been a degree of consensus on tackling some of the issues.

Good progress is being made. I assure you that work is progressing well and that it is still our intention to introduce crofting reform. I will be happy to keep the committee updated.

Some of those issues are being picked up and discussed by the crofting bill group. We are keen to make progress if there are areas where we can do so without requiring legislation. I appreciate the points that you have raised today and during last week’s debate, and I assure you that those points are very much in the minds of members of the bill group as they do that work.

I can give a very quick response in response to that last point. I wrote to the committee—I think that that was in January—with a broad outline for the timetables for when we would introduce the good food nation plan and the commission. We are still working to those timescales; nothing has changed and nothing has slipped in relation to that. We hope that we will be looking to consult on a draft good food nation plan over the coming months.

Thank you, convener. I am happy to appear before the committee to discuss legislation that will introduce changes to the fees structure of the Animal and Plant Health Agency to uplift the fees for some statutory services that are delivered by that organisation on behalf of Scottish ministers and to deliver the Government policy of full cost recovery for those specified schemes.

The schemes covered by the instrument that the committee is considering cover animal by-products, salmonella control programmes, artificial breeding controls, checks on live animals at border control posts and the poultry health scheme for work carried out to allow producers to trade domestically and/or internationally.

Charges for those services also apply across the English and Welsh Administrations. The Welsh Government and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also have full cost recovery policies and also intend to introduce legislation to uplift fees for those statutory services.

The Animal Health (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment and Revocation) (Scotland) Order 2023 amends the Poultry Compartments (Fees) (Scotland) Order 2010 by revoking provisions that currently allow value added tax to be added to fees charged. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has indicated that statutory fees that can be performed only by the Animal and Plant Health Agency are out of scope for VAT and that no VAT is therefore due upon them.

No business and regulatory impact assessment has been prepared on this occasion, because the Animal and Plant Health Agency has already carried out engagement with the affected sectors to understand the impact of the planned changes to fees. The affected industry sectors are fully aware that the APHA has been moving to full cost recovery for most such charges and that no significant impact on business is anticipated.

I end my comments there and I am happy to answer questions from the committee.

I am sure that the team could give more information in relation to the consultation that they have to undertake. We provide that guidance to public bodies, because they are the ones who are legally obligated to undertake those assessments. I do not know whether you want any more information on that.