Chamber and committees

To be clear, I note that the ceiling was set in 2008, but you are correct that the last time that the levies were increased was in 2010. However, the levies are set annually and I have to approve them. It is up to QMS to propose and consult on any changes to the levies.

I agree that it has been a long time, which is why it is only right that we consider the ceiling rates and why we have made the proposals for the committee’s approval. A lot has happened in that time. We are all seeing and experiencing the impact of inflation and the industry has faced some sizeable challenges over the past few years. That is why it is right that we look to increase the ceilings but also ensure that we future proof those rates so that, should QMS want to raise the levy and should levy payers ultimately agree to that after consultation, we have the ability and flexibility for it to do so.

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.

It is not. That is why the levy is so critical. The levy is considered annually. It has to come to the Scottish ministers for approval even when there is no change, and that process will continue. When the levy comes forward for consideration, I would expect QMS to consult the levy payers before it proposes an increase—should it, in fact, propose one. I would expect to see evidence of that consultation that shows how QMS has engaged with stakeholders. I understand that QMS has already begun that consultation and is running a roadshow across the country to discuss both strategy and the levy. I will continue to take an interest in those discussions before any proposals are put to me.

I would be happy to provide that. If you want me to list them now, I have that information here, but I would also be happy to follow up in writing.

As I have said, we followed up with the NFUS and the SAMW. Michelle Colquhoun can explain any further correspondence that we had with other organisations.

I would expect to see engagement and consultation with industry. That is a given—the industry needs to be consulted about any potential increase in the levy rate, which would be up to QMS to do. Of course, I would hope that any proposals that it put forward would have that industry agreement. At the moment, I cannot speculate on what any potential decision might be or what it would look like, but I know that QMS has a strong relationship with its levy payers and that at that moment it is engaging with them and undertaking that engagement across the country. I would hope that QMS would reach overall agreement and consensus, if it were proposing to increase the levy, about what that should be.

You are absolutely right in that sense, but I have tried with the proposed ceilings to future proof things, so that we do not need to come back every year to look at them and decide whether they are at the appropriate level.

As I have said, a variety of factors have been taken into account in developing the proposals for the ceiling rates set out in the order. We have looked at averages over the past 10 years to project as well as we possibly can in order to future proof things. Of course, we can never say never—we do not know what will happen a few years down the line—but we hope that the ceiling rates in the order today are future proofed to a certain degree.

I make the point again that the order deals with the ceiling—the maximum rate. QMS would have to consult levy payers on whether to increase the levy. There is no guarantee in that regard. Ultimately, QMS needs to have a discussion with levy payers about the rates. That is looked at and considered annually.