Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the first part of your question, which raises a sound point, there are a number of provisions that the AHDB would previously have provided to the horticulture and potato sectors that I think people in those sectors would still regard as important, including work on the fight against blights, aphid monitoring and applications for emergency pesticide use. Such things were previously arranged on a collective basis and I think that, now, conversations will be had about how best those services can be provided in future.

You ask about the interaction that we have had with the board. In the consultation, it was clear that the work on the application of fertilisers was identified as very important. The AHDB will continue to provide that until 2023. We have responded to what was asked for in the consultation but, as I say, it is extremely important to respond to democratic wishes as they are expressed, and it is now for those industries to agree how they wish to organise themselves, and we, the AHDB and others in the four nations of the UK are here to continue working with them.

I absolutely give that commitment. I do not anticipate any job losses as a result of the removal of the statutory levy. On the point about the continuing support for research and development in those areas—as well as for marketing, which is separate—we are absolutely there to provide that. Recently, we invested £2.2 million in research into potato cyst nematode, and that research continues in our world-class research facilities, including in the James Hutton Institute.

I will hand over to Caspian Richards in case he wants to add anything.

It was not necessarily a UK Government decision; it was a joint Governments decision. To give you a bit of background to what happened, in 2021, growers in Lincolnshire gathered enough people to trigger a ballot. The ballot took place and, as I set out in my opening remarks, the majority voted to remove the levy. There was a consultation, which was developed by the UK Government and us, which spoke to some of the questions that were part of the ballot and to some wider questions. Within that was the point about how we ensure greater accountability for the remaining sectors.

On the provision to have a vote every five years, it is at least every five years, but the AHDB has already committed to do so more frequently. I expect that the first vote will be in April 2022. I will let Caspian come in on that, but the vote is to be at least every five years, although I would expect it to be more often than that.

Yes, I did, and I am happy to answer the question.

It is a problem of dynamic alignment and the failure to reach agreement prior to Brexit taking place. That is undoubtedly the case, but what we need to focus on now is finding solutions that will allow Scottish producers to continue to trade with the EU and at the same time finding alternative trading routes in the rest of the world. We require the UK Government and the EU to get round the table to make progress on that.

Absolutely. Within reason, I would support consultations that are as frequent, broad and deep as possible with those who are paying the levy and for the services that the AHDB provides.

That is a good question. I am not sure that I have the detail of exactly what would happen if, in one of the votes, the levy payers rejected the proposals, but I am more than happy to come back on that point.

I am happy to answer that question albeit that I do not think that it is within the remit of what we are discussing today.

Thank you, convener, and thank you all for the opportunity to give evidence on the draft order.

By way of background, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board—AHDB—is a statutory levy board that is funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain. It provides services and advice to support and promote our world-class food and farming industry. The AHDB comprises six statutory levy-paying sectors that are included in the scope of the order, which are: the cereal and oilseed industries in the United Kingdom; the milk, horticulture and potato industries in Great Britain; and the pig, beef and sheep industries in England.

As the convener said, the order is a UK-wide instrument, to be made in exercise of powers conferred by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on the secretary of state, acting with the approval of the Scottish ministers. The act also provides that the Scottish ministers may not give that approval without the approval of the Scottish Parliament, which is why the order is before the committee today.

The purpose of the order is to amend the principal Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008, which established the AHDB and is the source of its functions, to remove the statutory levies in the horticulture and potato sectors in Great Britain. That is being done because, in January and February 2021, levy payers in the horticulture and potato sectors triggered democratic ballots on whether they wanted the statutory levy to continue in their sectors. In the horticulture ballot, 61 per cent voted against the levy continuing, from a 69 per cent turnout. In the potato ballot, 66 per cent voted against the levy continuing, from a 64 per cent turnout. The order respects those democratically expressed views and the outcome of those ballots by removing all the legislative provisions for the statutory levy in those two sectors.

In addition, the order seeks to improve accountability for the remaining levy-paying sectors, which I mentioned a moment ago. It does that by imposing a new duty on the AHDB to deliver a regular vote by levy payers—at least once every five years—on what their levy will be spent on.

Finally, the order makes an amendment to the original AHDB order to clarify that the AHDB’s ability to charge for services includes all the industries in the scope of the order and not only those sectors that pay a levy. The amendment is purely technical and will ensure that, although the statutory levy is being removed for horticulture and potatoes, the rest of the order will continue to apply to those sectors. It means that, if they decided to, businesses in either sector could continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or commercial basis.

In addition to the provisions that are contained in the order, the AHDB consulted on a further proposal, which was on broadening the AHDB’s scope to further agricultural sectors. A majority of respondents in Scotland resisted that proposal and voted against it, and they highlighted that the AHDB should use this opportunity—following the vote and the removal of the levy in some sectors—to rationalise and deliver excellence in its service rather than expand it, so that has not been included.

In summary, I support the changes that the order makes to give expression to the democratic views that are expressed by the horticulture and potato sectors and to introduce greater accountability for the remaining sectors. Looking forward, we will continue to work closely with the horticulture and potato sectors as they work to identify their priorities and the way in which they wish to organise themselves outwith the scope of the statutory mechanism. The draft order provides the flexibility that will enable them to do that on an individual subsector basis, and we will work with them as they decide what they wish to do.

That is plenty from me, but my officials and I are happy to answer any questions.

Doug, do you want to come in?

That was very much about new woodland creation. I have previously thought hard about woodlands that already exist, and even more so before coming in today, and I admit that it is a complex set of rules and regulations that determines the protection of ancient and native woodlands. For example, we have a system of sites of special scientific interest where native and ancient woodlands of a particular size or antiquity are protected by those environmental designations. If there was an application to fell something in an SSSI, felling permission or an SSSI consent would have to be sought.

The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, which strengthened the relevant legislation, provides for the management of potential felling of those woodlands. Again, that means that any felling between 0.1 and 0.5 hectares would have to get felling permission.

Both of those routes therefore take us to felling permission, and we might ask in what circumstances felling would be allowed in our ancient woodlands. Ultimately, there are very few circumstances in which felling of any ancient woodland would be approved. The regulations are in almost the strongest possible terms without providing for a total ban. You can understand why there is not a total ban when you consider the exceptional circumstances in which felling might be approved. Doug Howieson can correct me if I am wrong, but it could be in relation to breaking up the canopy of the forest to allow light in to support the woodland floor and growth of the ancient woodlands. It could also be about removing invasive non-native species.

There is a very robust, albeit complex, web of protections, which, when they operate correctly, should absolutely protect our ancient woodlands. However, there are threats. I am sure that we will come on to this, but there are threats from overgrazing, invasive non-native species and climate change generally. I will pause there, but we can come on later to talk about how the Government is trying to rise to some of those challenges.