���˿���

In relation to the contracts that producer organisations have, it is up to supermarkets to decide where they will put those products. I find it absolutely scandalous that we can be in Perthshire and yet the berries that I am buying are still from Kent, but we cannot change that. What we can do is make sure that there is resilience in the producer organisations that are currently producing food here in Scotland—whether or not it gets exported, they are still producing food in Scotland—and give them the protection over the next three years that they have told us that they want.

You are right that there are two different strands here. I repeat again: my commitment is to supporting that small producer cohort, which will give us the biodiversity, environmental, local food resilience and local economy benefits. All those people are very much in my mind. I cannot give you a timescale for doing something about the issue, but we are actively looking at it right now.

The small producers pilot fund is not for fun. We are not doing it because it is a wheeze. The asks that came to us previously from small producers were about slaughtering and how to get slaughtering facility—that is what we did previously. This SSI is about making sure that those very professional businesses, which do a hell of a lot of good work here in Scotland, get the support that they need and deserve, so that they will continue to be able to produce food. Whether it gets exported to England or any other place is an issue for the market, not for the Government.

I am sorry, but I am being a bit dense. Can you rephrase that question?

It would mean that the budget—

In relation to whether we will continue with the fund, the fund is currently sitting at £500,000 and we will have to wait to see how that develops and what it grows into. I can only say the same thing that I said to Ariane Burgess. We want to work out the best way to support small producers across the country in order to make them the bedrock of our food-producing systems. I give the commitment that that is exactly what I want to happen.

We will have to work through the details, because the issue is complex. Different areas need different things, and different producers need different support mechanisms. The support that producers need might relate to innovation, marketing or facilities, so we need to work out the level of funding that we need to provide and, at the same time, how that will affect other areas, in order to provide balance. That is not simple; it is a complex issue. However, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we get it right.

On the comment about waiting for a “big bang”, I told the committee that there will not be a big bang—we do not intend to have a big bang. We intend to transition from the policies that we have had to the policies that we will deliver, and we will do that by having conversations.

If people are stepping down from ARIOB on the basis that they do not think that we are going fast enough or far enough in their direction, it is entirely up to them to make that decision. However, if someone asks for something but does not get it, that does not mean that they have not been listened to. The Government has taken a position in the round about how we deliver a transition that will allow people to continue to farm—they will have to do more for the farming that they are doing—and how we get people to come with us on that transition.

However, none of that has anything to do with the SSI that is in front of us, which is about protecting producer organisation groups and providing stability regarding the fruit and veg aid scheme for people who produce fruit and veg in Scotland.

We have put in place the small producers pilot fund, so we are giving clear signals that the area that we are talking about is vital to the Government, and we will bring forward proposals to provide resilience in the sector, as I have said continually during the evidence session.

Indeed.

It could be the case, because we would then have to make a decision as to whether we were going to continue to fund the scheme at that level.

Two weeks ago, I sat at the committee to discuss an SSI, and the NFU pushed back to say, “You’re going far too fast and far too strong. Stop; slow down.” On the other hand, I have people telling me, “You’re not going nearly fast enough”. We are doing this in a way that is measured and controlled, and we are allowing people the time and space to understand what is coming down the road.

This SSI is about protecting a scheme that we know works. If we pass the SSI, we can park it and focus on the other things that we have to deal with. I completely disagree with the points that you are making. If there is frustration, I understand that people want more support to go into different areas, which we are looking at. The SSI is about protecting a scheme that is working, as far as I am concerned.

You say that the reason why it was decided to scrap the scheme down south was because there are better ways of doing it. Where are the better ways of doing it? Where was the offer to introduce a similar UK-wide scheme that would allow the same level of support, funding and innovation? There is not one—there is nothing there. Yes, we are keeping an old scheme, because we know that it works.

You say that stakeholders are telling you that the scheme is not keeping up to date. It is the stakeholders who are keeping it up to date. They are the ones who make the decisions about what they are trying to do. They are the ones who have told me, “It will be a disaster if you do away with the scheme. We’ve heard rumours that it’s going to happen down south. Please don’t do the same thing up here.” I have to tell you that we are hearing different things. The plan currently works—