No—

If someone has had their card removed, they will have gone through a process to ensure that that was appropriate. The scheme was never about giving free travel to children to get to school—we were absolutely clear about that. If there is a requirement for the local authority to provide that person’s travel to school and it has chosen to let pupils use the concessionary travel scheme instead, that is a local authority issue. It is not an issue for the scheme.

Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to discuss the 2026 fruit and vegetable amendment regulation.

This is a short SSI that will make essential operational changes to how the fruit and veg aid scheme is delivered in Scotland. It is a legacy European Union scheme that has been a success in Scotland. It relies on collaborative working, which, as anyone who has worked with farmers knows, is very difficult. It encourages innovation, sustainability and investment at scale, which growers could not benefit from individually.

Since leaving the EU, the scheme in Scotland has been funded by the Scottish Government. The purpose of the SSI is to ensure that the regulatory framework for the scheme remains effective and is fit for the purpose of continuing to provide much-valued support for our fruit and vegetable sector. It also provides the Scottish Government with greater control over the scheme’s budget. It does not seek to alter the purpose or principles of the scheme, which principally recognise the value of innovative collaboration among fruit and veg growers.

The draft SSI proposes to make three changes to the scheme. The first change will enable funding to be provided based on Scottish production. Although cross-border producer organisations have been supported under the scheme to date, now that there is no longer a United Kingdom-wide approach to the scheme, it is not sustainable or appropriate to allow for the funding of production outside Scotland. With the equivalent scheme in England now having closed, without any indication of what will replace it, it is important that we make this legislative change to ensure that Scotland’s budget is safeguarded for production here in Scotland.

The second change provides that an operational programme, which is a business plan that is necessary for the funding application, must now have a duration of three years. The SSI proposes that the option of two-year operational programmes is removed and that they must instead have a duration of three years. It also proposes that operational programmes may be submitted only every third year. That change would give the sector increased predictability for planning and investment while providing the Scottish Government with greater ability to plan the budget.

The third change will introduce a legal right to appeal decisions. As it stands, there is no easy mechanism for a producer organisation to have decisions that have been made by Scottish ministers in relation to the scheme reviewed. Instead, the only route available is to raise legal proceedings through judicial review, which is expensive and time consuming for all parties involved. The proposed SSI will provide producer organisations that are part of the scheme with access to a statutory review and an appeals process.

In addition to those three key changes to the scheme, the SSI includes a transitional provision that aims to ensure that long-established Scottish producer organisations will not be significantly impacted for the 2026 to 2028 operational programmes. That will give them time to adjust to the proposed changes for a future round of funding.

A 12-week consultation on the proposed amendments was carried out over the summer. We also engaged directly with stakeholders, including producer organisations and industry representatives. The majority of stakeholders strongly supported the continuation of the scheme in Scotland. NFU Scotland said:

“The importance of the scheme cannot be underestimated as a tool to enable economic empowerment for growers and market access.”

The Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society said that the scheme

“has been highly effective in grower planning and crystalising balanced investment priorities for the benefit of growers”,

rural communities

“and sustainable production in Scotland.”

Stakeholders also emphasised the importance of stability and clear guidance. The draft SSI responds directly to that feedback.

Some responses to the consultation indicated that there should be support for smaller growers who do not meet the criteria to access funding through the fruit and veg aid scheme. However, the scheme is explicitly designed to support groups of growers who are legally recognised as producer organisations. It does not fund individual growers. Scottish ministers do not have the legislative powers to amend the criteria that set out how to be recognised as a producer organisation. Therefore, that was not a consideration in the proposed SSI.

As I said, the SSI will give the Scottish Government means to better manage the budget for the scheme and ensure that support can be focused on Scottish growers. If the SSI is not passed, there is a considerable risk that a significant portion of the budget would benefit growers from outside Scotland, who might be able to access other forms of support in their nations. There is also the risk that the budget for the scheme becomes so large that we must reduce support for other agricultural schemes. Therefore, the proposed changes are necessary to manage our budget and agricultural support in Scotland.

I hope that the committee agrees that the proposed operational amendments will contribute to the sustainability of the scheme in Scotland and the continued support of production in Scotland. I am happy to take questions from the committee.

We consulted on the instrument. We did not consult on the whole picture and whether small producers were part of the scheme.

The SSI is about protecting a scheme that works. My pushback is that I know it works; I have been spoken with people and have seen the work that they are doing. I have also stated that smaller producers can get into the POs just as big producers can. The scheme is certainly working to introduce resilience in our fruit and veg sector. I reiterate that we are actively looking at how we can help to support smaller producers in other ways, but the SSI is about protecting a scheme and a budget that will be under threat if we do not pass the instrument, because it will be used by others from other parts of the UK to access funding. We are talking about two different things.

The reservation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It used to be a devolved function but, in 2020, I think, the UK Government decided to make it a reserved function, which makes no sense at all, because the budget comes from Scotland. That is when we had PO schemes across the UK, but the fact that England has now stopped its scheme has put us into the current position. We are taking steps to protect the scheme, but we do not have the primary legislative powers to change any of the definitions in it. As it stands, the scheme is doing what it was required to do in the first place. The situation just means that we do not have powers to do anything on the definitions of the scheme.

I agree that it does not make any sense at all that that function is reserved but that everything else is devolved.

The market has absolutely changed, given the fact that we now have berries being grown in coir rather than peat. As George Burgess said, that is exactly the function of the scheme. These people know their business better than anyone: they know what the market trends are, how to look at their pricing and where their market challenges will be. The function of the scheme is to give them the tools, foresight and collaboration so that they can ensure that they put resilience into their sector.

Well, that should bother you, because the reason why we have introduced the SSI is that what has been done down south is putting pressure on our budget. That means that we have to pass the SSI or we will get into a position—

No. In relation to the rural support plan, there is a route map, so people know exactly what is coming. We are yet to ascertain the timescales in that regard, because, whenever you dig into any box, it gets far more complex than you originally thought, so we need to try to flesh out some things.

We are providing the sector with stability. We have managed to maintain direct support and voluntary coupled support, and we are maintaining the less favoured area support scheme. Some people think that the changes that we are making do not go far enough, and others think that they go too far. There is no simple way of getting to a point at which everybody says, “Yes, this is fantastic.”

Down south, the Government said, “There’s your policy,” and it was an absolute disaster. We are determined that that will not happen up here.

Well, that is what—

Well, there cannot be. [Interruption.]