It is a pilot capital fund.

I disagree with that point, but we will just have to agree to disagree.

In so far as protecting a scheme—

I have no idea how many acres of berries those producers were growing. In terms of a definition, what I can tell you is that they said, “As a small producer, I am far too wee to be able to do on my own the things that I can do as part of the PO group. Being in a PO is the best thing that has ever happened, and it has saved my business.” I am paraphrasing, but it was very much along those lines. That is one of the things that gave me the confidence to say that what we are doing is absolutely the right thing to do. We need to protect the fund, so that those smaller-scale producers can tap into that resource. The big guys really know their stuff: they know how to get things done; they know how to move with the market; and they can see market trends. Smaller producers, however, often get left behind, so it is helpful if they can get access to the thinking of the big producers.

As I said, I have no idea about the numbers in relation to the scale of those producers. George Burgess can give you some technical answers on the operation of the small producers fund.

It might not work for them, but it absolutely works in ensuring that Scotland has a vibrant group of people who are growing the kind of fruit and veg that we want to be grown in Scotland. It is working for them and it is working for Scotland plc.

It might not be working for some individuals, but, as I have already said to other committee members, I am more than happy to continue looking at how we can give them more support. We have put the small producers pilot fund in place, and I am absolutely committed to looking at how we can do more for them while, at the same time, providing stability for those who are living in less favoured areas and for people who are living in the most remote areas. I am committed to ensuring that the basic payment scheme that is currently in place is still functioning.

You are asking an awful lot by saying that we could have come here with a better scheme. We could have, but we also worked on ensuring that we gave stability and that we are transitioning at a pace that allows the farming community to come with us, while also ensuring that we get the delivery that we are looking for on biodiversity and carbon emissions.

Before the end of tomorrow?

I appreciate you not asking me, because you have probably seen that as recently as I have. There was no request to come and speak to me or to the cabinet secretary about the decision to resign. We will digest the information that was given to us at the same time as it was given to everyone else, although I think that we might have had an embargoed version a few hours before it was put out. We had an embargoed version, but we only found out very late in the day. There was no request for a discussion or debate about it, so we are still a little bit in the dark as to why that happened.

I will get straight into it. We have a lot to get through, so I will be as brief as I possibly can be.

On amendments 321 and 252, I fundamentally disagree with the member’s intentions to prevent the repeal of the venison dealer licence in the bill. Time and again in Parliament, we have heard about how important it is to raise the profile of venison, as so eloquently done by Ms Hamilton just now and through Lauren Houston’s fine words.

If we want to raise the profile of venison, the venison dealer licence acts as a barrier to that goal. For a start, the price of a licence varies significantly across local authorities and it prevents locally sourced venison being consumed in local communities, hotels, pubs and restaurants. In addition, it makes no sense to me that we can allow other wild game such as pheasant and rabbit to be dealt with without a licence, yet we still require a costly licence for venison. It is entirely suitable for venison to follow the same protocols as other wild game, so I want to increase its availability while maintaining the high food standards that we would expect. Ultimately, the venison dealer licence is no longer fit for purpose. For those reasons, I urge members to oppose amendments 321 and 252.

Amendments 322 and 323 seek to introduce a power for Scottish ministers to repeal section 33 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 by regulation rather than through primary legislation. Amendment 322 goes further and adds that conditions that require ministers to be satisfied that alternative arrangements for data collection are in place and effective before repealing section 33. I understand that the amendments stem from concerns raised by the committee about traceability and monitoring of venison and its recommendation to delay the repeal of the venison dealer licence provision until the NatureScot deer app is in place. However, it would be remiss of the committee not to remember that, when the committee met practitioners during stage 1 of the bill, the current licensing system for venison dealers was criticised as being ineffective.

It is also important to be clear that the venison dealer licence does not function as a national data collection tool. In addition, Food Standards Scotland has confirmed that traceability of wild venison can be maintained through the existing food safety and hygiene legislation, which applies to all meat and wild game. If those reservations remain, we do not need to commence the repeal of the venison dealer licence immediately, and we will work with NatureScot on the correct timing for doing that.

The venison dealer licence is outdated and acts as a barrier to increasing venison supply and supporting local communities. For those reasons, I believe that both amendments are unnecessary and that they risk delaying the removal of a system that is no longer fit for purpose. I ask members to oppose amendments 322 and 323.

Finally, amendments 75, 254 and 255 seek to make better use of venison. As I have said many times, that is a subject that I feel very strongly about. Although the amendments are well intentioned, it is critical that we look at deer management as a whole when creating action plans. During a stage 1 evidence session, Ms Grant said that it is important that we manage deer properly and do not waste the venison that is created from the cull of deer. I absolutely agree with that sentiment.

We are taking forward various strands of work on venison, including on how we can learn from the wild Jura venison project, which was referenced, where products have been distributed to schools. However, creating stand-alone plans that focus solely on venison risks overlooking the wider objectives and the need for integrated solutions. That is why I supported the creation of a national deer management plan, which we heard about during the discussion on amendments 246, which will be capable of addressing the issues that are raised by amendments 75, 254 and 255.

I invite Ms Grant and Ms Hamilton to work with me and Mr Ruskell to develop a proposal for an amendment on a national deer management plan ahead of stage 3 of the bill. I therefore ask those members not to press those amendments, and if they are pressed, I ask the committee to reject them.

Let me finish—

I have concluded them.