The Scottish Government

PROPOSAL TO ALTER THE ROLE OF QUALITY MEAT SCOTLAND

Consultation Proposal (pdf 97kb)

Analysis of Consultation Responses (pdf 133kb)

You are invited to comment on the proposals in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the attached consultation document. Written comments are required by Tuesday, 28 May 2002 and should be sent to:

Marie Coventry

Agriculture Policy Division

Scottish Executive

Pentland House

47 Robb's Loan

EDINBURGH, EH14 1TY

You can e-mail your comments to:

Marie.coventry@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

or

fax them to 0131 244-6950.

It is intended to publish the results of this consultation on the Scottish Executive Website. Please indicate in your response if you do not have web access and would like a written copy of the results. Please note that, unless clearly requested otherwise, individual responses may be made public.

PROPOSAL TO ALTER THE ROLE OF QUALITY MEAT SCOTLAND

Background

1. Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) was set up in 1999 and tasked to:

'improve the competitive position of the Scottish meat industry, to undertake certain statutory functions in Scotland on behalf of the MLC, to provide co-ordination and leadership to the Scottish meat and livestock industries and to ensure that the levy funding from Scotland is better focused on Scotland's strengths and market opportunities, consistent with the Statutory Functions'.

2. QMS brought together the work of the Scotch Quality Beef and Lamb Association (SQBLA), the Scottish Pig Industry Initiative (SPII), and some Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) activities in Scotland. It was formed as a company limited by guarantee, with its guarantors being MLC, NFU Scotland and the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW).

3. QMS receives funding from MLC on an annual basis, as well as the annual fees from its quality assurance schemes which cover the vast majority of livestock producers in Scotland. The Scottish general levy has largely been retained by the MLC which has been responsible for functions such as collection of market information, research and product development, livestock improvement, training and health education.

4. The Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture was published by the Scottish Executive in 2001. The Strategy confirmed the key leadership role for QMS within the Scottish livestock industry, and highlighted the role of QMS in:

continued development of Quality Assurance standards to reflect new areas of consumer concern;

strengthening the auditing and inspection systems to ensure compliance with Quality Assurance standards;

increasing customer focus within the red meat industry;

collecting and disseminating market information to help the industry in its business decisions;

promoting best practice and, when necessary, undertaking research into production methods to ensure that the industry can provide a consistent quality product to consumers;

helping Scottish companies develop and increase market share of Scottish beef at home and abroad;

assisting Scottish companies identify new markets for good quality lamb;

developing the identity of Scottish bacon and other pork products under the Specially Selected Scotch brand.

5. QMS also has an important role in delivering aspects of the Scottish Food and Drink Industry Strategy (Scottish Food and Drink: the Big Opportunity), published in 1999.

Proposal

6. The changes outlined in this document seek to further equip QMS to meet these challenges. They follow discussions with the main Scottish industry stakeholders, MLC and other UK Agriculture Departments. Working with QMS and other key partners, the Scottish Executive aims to:

• strengthen the co-ordination of red meat industry development and promotional activities for Scotland;

• focus Scottish livestock levy funding on Scottish priorities;

• further increase the reputation and demand for Scottish red meat.

7. It is proposed that:

(i) QMS become responsible, on behalf of MLC, for all MLC functions in Scotland (see Appendix 1);

(ii) whilst remaining part of the MLC, QMS be given the autonomy to develop a strategy for Scotland focused on Scottish red meat development and promotional priorities;

(iii) QMS receive the full Scottish general and promotional levies to address Scottish priorities for red meat development and promotion;

(iv) QMS continue to invest in GB level MLC services where this confers benefits on the Scottish industry.

Accountability to Scottish Ministers

8. The increasing role of QMS in spending the statutory levy raised in Scotland means that it must be more accountable to Scottish Ministers. It is therefore proposed that:

• QMS should lay an annual report before the Scottish Parliament;

• QMS will be required to keep Scottish Ministers informed of its activities;

• Scottish Ministers will be entitled to exercise alone the existing power to give the MLC directions of a general character (under section 20 of the Agriculture Act 1967), in so far as it relates to the use of the Scottish levy or the exercising of MLC functions in Scotland;

• the power of Scottish Ministers to participate in giving directions to the MLC in relation to England and Wales will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The role of QMS

9. QMS is currently primarily focused on promoting the Specially Selected Scotch brand, and the quality assurance infrastructure that supports it. This key focus will continue and develop but, under these proposals, it is envisaged that the role of QMS will broaden to become the focal point for red meat industry strategy development and delivery for Scotland. This work has already begun with the publication of the QMS Strategic Plan for 2001-2004. Appendix 2 summarises QMS current key priorities.

Under this proposal QMS main functions will be:

Quality assurance

• Continue development and management of the Scottish red meat quality assurance scheme.

Marketing

• Continue strategic development of Scottish meat branding, and the marketing and promotion of Scottish branded red meat in Scotland, the rest of Great Britain and abroad.

Industry development

• Work with the meat and livestock industry to improve the quality of red meat produced in Scotland.

• Work with the meat and livestock industry to promote increased value adding to red meat in Scotland, particularly through product innovation.

• Provide guidance to help improve competitiveness in all parts of the red meat chain by reducing costs, increasing collaboration, benchmarking and the provision of advice.

• Work with other bodies to promote training and human resource development within the red meat sector.

Communication

• Collect industry market and consumer information and disseminate to the Scottish industry.

• Promote consumer awareness of the Scottish red meat quality assurance scheme.

• Ensure effective communication with all parts of the industry and relevant bodies.

• Operate an effective media, public and industry relations programme.

• Promote consumer education on the health and nutrition aspects of red meat, working with health professionals, schools and other partners in Scotland.

• Ensure all activities take full account of the interests of consumers.

The structure of QMS

10. The structure of QMS must change to reflect it new responsibilities. The proposed structure is therefore guided by the following principles:

• company membership and board composition should reflect and facilitate the increased autonomy of QMS;

• the size and composition of the QMS board should be that best fitted for effective development and implementation of strategy;

• the interests of all sectors within the red meat chain should be taken into account;

• potential commercial conflicts of interest over investment in MLC core services should be avoided;

• structures should reflect clearly defined lines of accountability.

11. It is proposed that the QMS board will be responsible for setting strategic priorities, approving budgets and fulfilling accountability obligations to Scottish Ministers. The board will have fewer members than the current 14, with individuals appointed for their skills and experience. Structures for industry representation will, however, ensure that the interests of all sectors within the chain are taken into account.

QMS funding

12. It is proposed that the entire Scottish promotional and general levy would be passed to QMS. This is currently around £4 million/year. QMS also receives about £1.0 million/year from Assurance charges and is active in securing additional funding from sources such as the Enterprise Networks and the Scottish Executive, which in the 2000/01 financial year amounted to some £0.4 million.

Links with MLC

13. It is recognised that in an increasingly global economy, strategic collaboration with other parts of the UK will be vitally important for Scotland. The MLC will continue to have an important role to play in this process, facilitating the development of GB-wide initiatives to benefit the whole industry and promoting cross-industry collaboration. QMS will become the natural focus for Scottish industry engagement with the MLC. It is proposed therefore that QMS should continue to invest in MLC core services where there are clear benefits to the Scottish red meat industry. This could, for example, include collection of statutory levies, GB level market information and price reporting, and agreed research and development projects.

14. It is envisaged that QMS will engage with MLC at three levels.

• Strategic: QMS should be directly represented at the highest level within the MLC to ensure co-ordination of strategic direction.

• Co-ordination: mechanisms will be needed to ensure QMS engagement with MLC and the proposed Welsh and English bodies to co-ordinate investment in MLC core services.

• Contractual: QMS and MLC will enter into contractual agreements over provision of specific services to Scotland.

Timing

15. Subject to this consultation, it is envisaged that the legislation required to make the changes proposed here will be put before the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments over the summer months, coming into effect in October 2002. This will permit QMS to use the period from October 2002 to April 2003, when it will assume its full range of functions and responsibilities, to make the necessary adjustments to its structure and staffing.

Next steps

16. You are invited to comment on the proposals in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Written comments are required by Tuesday, 28 May 2002 and should be sent to:

Marie Coventry

Agriculture Policy Division

Scottish Executive

Pentland House

47 Robb's Loan

EDINBURGH, EH14 1TY

You can e-mail your comments to:

Marie.coventry@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

or

fax them to 0131 244-6950.

It is intended to publish the results of this consultation on the Scottish Executive Website. Please indicate in your response if you do not have web access and would like a written copy of the results. Please note that, unless clearly requested otherwise, individual responses may be made public.

APPENDIX 1

SUMMARY OF MLC FUNCTIONS

The 1967 Agriculture Act defines the scope of functions conferred upon MLC at its formation. The nature of these functions, and the balance of priorities between them has, of course, changed over time.

• Collect and disseminate information about, and advice based on information about supply, demand and market prices for livestock and livestock products in Great Britain and abroad.

• Give advice and information to the Ministers about current and prospective supplies of livestock and livestock products from all sources.

• Promote or undertake investigations and research as to:

• Disseminate information about, and advice based on, the results of the investigations and research.

• Advertise the merits, and increase the sales of livestock and livestock products produced in Great Britain.

• Disseminate information and advice useful to consumers and in particular information as to availability, use, identification and choice.

• Encourage and promote training.

• Promote greater efficiency in the production of livestock.

• Give advice and information to livestock producers on the commercial and technical aspects of introducing and developing co-operative arrangements for the production and marketing of livestock.

• Advise on terms of contracts for the sale of livestock and meat, and preparing model or standard terms for inclusion in such contracts.

• Promote or undertake arrangements for performance and progeny testing of livestock, assessing the breeding qualities of livestock, provision of services of artificial insemination of livestock and maintenance of publish registers of cattle and pig herds and sheep flocks appearing to the Commission to be efficiently managed and to conform to the standards specified by the Commission.

• Give advice and compile standard codes of practice on the efficient layout, design and operation of auction markets and slaughterhouses, and on efficient techniques of slaughtering of livestock and of dressing carcasses.

• Giving Ministers advice and information to assist them in discharging their functions relating to the licensing of slaughterhouses.

• Give financial assistance to any person in order to achieve the objects of the Commission.

APPENDIX 2

QMS KEY PRIORITIES

QMS has defined its key roles (from the QMS Strategic Plan 2001-2004) as:

• developing and maintaining quality assurance standards within the Scottish red meat supply chain;

• promoting Scottish red meat products, including the development of the 'Specially Selected' branding of beef, lamb and pork;

• acting as a catalyst in the identification and dissemination of best practices throughout the Scottish red meat supply chain.

QMS key priorities over the strategic plan period are to:

• promote Scottish red meat products and further develop the Specially Selected Scotch brand, including a move to a born, reared and slaughtered definition of Scotch;

• maintain and develop the Specially Selected Scotch quality assurance standards within the Scottish red meat supply chain, with the inclusion of meat eating quality standards and incorporation of strengthened whole chain assurance;

• ensure strict compliance with quality assurance and labelling standards;

• identify and disseminate best practice throughout the red meat supply chain, particularly in relation to providing consistently excellent meat eating quality;

• promote innovation, added value and new product development to increase the value to Scotland of its red meat industry;

• promote supply chain co-operation to reduce costs and increase competitiveness in the Scottish red meat industry;

• assist in connecting the red meat sector to the rest of food industry in order to expand value added markets and the brand identity of Scottish red meat products;

• to provide a Scotland specific market information service to complement UK and European level information;

• prepare a costed action plan to implement the red meat sector aspects of the Dewar-Durie report 'The Scottish Sheep Industry: The Way Forward';

• prepare a costed action plan to increase market share for Scottish beef at home and abroad, whilst working with the Scottish Executive to increase supply potential;

• prepare a costed action plan to develop the identity of Specially Selected Scotch bacon and other pork products;

• expand the breadth of the QMS red meat marketing strategy to encompass local brands and unbranded Scottish red meat products.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATIONPROPOSAL TO ALTER THE ROLE OF QUALITY MEAT SCOTLAND

ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

The consultation proposalOn 2 April 2002 the Scottish Executive issued for public consultation a proposal to alter the role of Quality Meat Scotland. The proposal is summarised below.The role of QMS

Working with key partners, the Scottish Executive aims to:

0. Strengthen the co-ordination of red meat development and promotional activities for Scotland.

0. Focus Scottish livestock levy funding on Scottish priorities.

0. Further increase the reputation and demand for Scottish red meat.

It is therefore proposed that:

0. QMS become responsible, on behalf of MLC, for all MLC functions in Scotland.

0. QMS be conferred the autonomy required to develop a strategy for Scotland focused on Scottish red meat development and promotional priorities.

0. QMS continue to invest in GB level MLC services where this confers benefits on the Scottish industry.

The four main functions envisaged for QMS are:

0. Quality assurance

0. Marketing

0. Industry development

0. Communication

FundingIt is proposed that QMS receive the full Scottish general and promotional levies to advance Scottish priorities for red meat development and promotion.Accountability

It is proposed that:

0. QMS offer an annual report for laying before the Scottish Parliament.

0. QMS be required to keep Scottish Ministers informed of its activities.

0. Scottish Ministers be entitled to exercise alone the existing power to give the MLC directions of a general character (under section 20 of the Agriculture Act 1967), in so far as it relates to the use of the Scottish levy or the exercising of MLC functions in Scotland.

0. The power of the Scottish Ministers to participate in giving directions to the MLC in relation to England and Wales be transferred to the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Structure of QMSIt is proposed that any structural development of QMS will be guided by the following principles:

0. Company membership and board composition should reflect and facilitate the increased autonomy of QMS.

0. The size and composition of the QMS board should be that best fitted for effective development and implementation of strategy.

0. The interests of all sectors within the red meat chain should be taken into account.

0. Potential commercial conflicts of interest over investment in MLC core services should be avoided.

0. Structures should reflect clearly defined lines of accountability.

It is proposed that the QMS board have fewer members than at present, with individuals appointed for their skills and experience. Structures for industry representation will, however, ensure that the interests of all sectors within the chain are taken into account.Links with the MLC

It is envisaged that QMS will engage with MLC at three levels.

0. Strategic: QMS should be directly represented at the highest level within the MLC to ensure co-ordination of strategic direction.

0. Co-ordination: Mechanisms will be needed to allow QMS to engage with MLC and the proposed Welsh ACC to co-ordinate investment in MLC core services.

0. Contractual: QMS and MLC will enter into contractual agreements over provision of specific services to Scotland.

Responses to the consultationConsultation papers were sent out to 66 organisations (Annex B). 21 responses were received:

0. British Meat Federation
1. British Society of Animal Science

0. Charis Innovative Food Services Ltd

0. Crofters Commission
1. Grampian Country Food Group Ltd
2. Independent Farming Group

0. Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

0. National Beef Association

0. National Pig Association

0. National Sheep Association
1. National Farmer's Union of Scotland

0. Perth and Kinross Agriculture Forum

0. Private individual

0. Safeway Stores plc
1. Scottish Agricultural College

0. Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers

0. Scottish Beef Association

0. Scottish Crofting Foundation
1. Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations

0. Scottish Landowners Federation

0. Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Analysis of consultation responsesThe following nine respondents, including all of the principal stakeholders in the Scottish red meat sector, expressed strong overall support for the proposals, whilst offering additional suggestions and comments:

• The National Farmers Union of Scotland
• The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers
• The Scottish Beef Council
• The National Beef Association
• The National Pig Association
• The Crofters Commission
• The Scottish Crofting Foundation
• The Scottish Landowners Federation
• Perth and Kinross Agricultural Forum.

Four respondents indicated reservations about, or opposition to, the thrust of the proposal. The Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations expressed disappointment in the proposed direction but confirmed their willingness to work with QMS, and endorsed the vision that QMS become the focal point for strategy development and delivery in Scotland.

The British Meat Federation, principally representing processors in England and Wales were opposed to the proposals, the detailed reasons for which are considered below. The Independent Farming Group, a small farming pressure group, has been opposed to the organisational basis of QMS since its inception in 1999. The Grampian Country Food Group, Pork Division questioned the continued relevance in pig levy bodies in Great Britain.

Eight respondents restricted their responses to specific aspects and did not give a view on the proposals as a whole.The role of QMS

There was broad support for the role of QMS described in the proposal. NFU Scotland laid out five areas on which it felt QMS should focus, which were themes echoed in other responses:

0. The further promotion of Scottish red meat products, and the development of the Specially Selected Scotch Brand.

0. The development of the Specially Selected Scotch quality assurance standards within the Scottish red meat supply chain.

0. The promotion of innovation, added value and new product development to increase the value of Scotland's red meat industry.
1. The promotion of supply chain cooperation to reduce costs and increase competitiveness within the Scottish red meat industry.

0. The preparation of an action plan to increase market share for Scottish beef at home and abroad, whilst working with the Scottish Executive to increase supply potential.

The Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations were keen to ensure that the proposed changes do not result in reduced support to Scottish butchers and made the point that the services offered to QMS must be available to businesses irrespective of size. The Scottish Crofting Foundation asked that QMS recognise the particular circumstances of crofters.

The importance of QMS' work in developing quality assurance schemes was widely recognised. The National Sheep Association asserted that every Scottish red meat producer should be a member of QMS quality assurance scheme. The Scottish SPCA supports quality assurance schemes on welfare grounds and would like to work with QMS to strengthen the welfare elements of the scheme. Safeway were keen on the development of a single GB reassurance scheme.

There was widespread support for the work of QMS in promoting Scottish red meat. The National Beef Association, Scottish Beef Council, National Pig Association, Safeway and Scottish Agricultural College all indicated that promotional effort should not be entirely focussed on the Specially Selected Scotch brand. A need was expressed to support Scotch product that was not produced through the Specially Selected Scotch quality assurance scheme, and to recognise the importance of the generic British meat market for a proportion of Scottish red meat. The Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations favour generic Scotch meat promotion, although also concerned that regional branding may generate unhelpful competition within the UK. An individual respondent identified the need for more outlets for rare-breeds meat.

The Scottish Agricultural College, Charis Innovative Food Services and the British Society of Animal Science wished to ensure an emphasis on research and development to underpin technological advances in areas such as meat hygiene and quality. The Macauley Land Use Research Institute proposed that there should be an ongoing dialogue between QMS and the Scottish livestock and meat research community over research priorities.

Safeway highlighted the need for clear definition of the roles between QMS and MLC should there be a further food scare or other industry-wide crisis. It also emphasised the value of education work in schools and the benefits of QMS engaging with the growing food service sector.

SAMW saw 'the availability of suitably qualified staff to QMS' as important to the successful achievement of its aims.Funding

Nine respondents, including all the key industry stakeholders, supported the proposal that QMS receive the full Scottish general and promotional levies to advance Scottish priorities for red meat development and promotion. The Scottish SPCA support was conditional on more resources being focussed on animal welfare. Both the British Meat Federation and Scottish Agricultural College suggested that a mechanism be put in place for MLC retention of part of the levy, the former to fund GB level promotion and the latter to fund research.

The Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations raised a concern that, as it is proposed that levy be allocated to Scotland on a location of slaughter basis, cross border movement of livestock for slaughtering could lead to inequalities in levy support between countries.

Funding issues were a central theme of the SAMW response. They felt that Scottish levy income would be insufficient to deliver all QMS priorities, particularly given the current reduced level of slaughtering (this was also echoed in the Safeway response). SAMW members would like to see 'that sufficient funds be underwritten by SEERAD to ensure QMS is in a position to fund all MLC functions in Scotland in the future', particularly in relation to QMS as the delivery mechanism for a number of Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture actions. They suggested that this should include 'a meaningful contribution towards the fixed costs of administration, similar to that of Bord Bia in Ireland' and that such continuity of funding was required to underpin a commitment to the use of MLC core services.

The Grampian Country Food Group response focussed on the pig levy. It asserted that the whole MLC levy system is not now appropriate due to continued consolidation in the producer, processing and retail sectors. It proposed that pig levies be reduced to a few pence to pay for economic information, with the ability to raise additional levy for research into specific pig diseases.Accountability

Of the eight respondents that mentioned accountability, six were fully supportive of proposals for accountability to Scottish Ministers, including all the key industry stakeholders. SAMW looked for confirmation that accountability mechanisms would be 'of a purely legislative nature and will in no way interfere with the smooth running of QMS'. The Independent Farming Group questioned whether public accountability could be achieved whilst QMS was a company limited by guarentee.

Several respondents also indicated the importance of QMS accountability to levy payers and stakeholders.Structure of QMS

There was wide support for the QMS structure guiding principles. NFU Scotland supported the proposals for a smaller QMS board but stressed the importance of ensuring that levy payers be properly represented. The National Beef Association and the Scottish Beef Council felt that the QMS board does not give sufficient farmer representation, and should include a Scottish Beef Council representative. They further felt that the QMS board should not include individuals that do not represent an industry body. The National Sheep Association indicated if there is to be a smaller board 'it is vital that bodies and organisations which represent producers should be included in discussions as a matter of priority'. Both the National Sheep Association and the Scottish Crofting Foundation expressed a desire to work more closely with QMS.

The Scottish Landowners Federation hoped that QMS will not 'remain exclusively based on representation from the red meat industry'. They feel that with its current ownership, 'QMS excludes many of those involved in the Scottish livestock sector such as auctioneers, farmers and crofters who are not themselves members [of the QMS founder bodies: MLC, NFU Scotland and the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers]'. The Scottish Landowners Federation suggests that 'both independent observers and consumer representations' be 'directly involved within the core structure of QMS'.Links with the MLC

There was widespread recognition of the importance of close links between QMS and the MLC. NFU Scotland added a qualification that QMS activities should not be subject to MLC veto. The Perth and Kinross Agricultural Forum felt that safeguards were needed to prevent 'any future total divorce'. Eleven respondents highlighted the need to avoid duplication of activities between QMS and the MLC with the resultant loss of efficiency and fragmentation of expertise.

Nine respondents specifically expressed support for continued investment in MLC core services where there are clear benefits to the Scottish industry. The Scottish Beef Council and the National Beef Association indicated the need to ensure that Scottish stakeholders secured best value for money from these services.

The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers and the British Meat Federation cautioned against 'cherry picking' of MLC services and the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations called for a commitment to investment in core services to protect the expertise and services available from the MLC. They drew particular attention to the range of MLC services they have found most helpful: product demonstration and development; product and skills competitions; publications and videos; legislation advice; professional advice; Guild of Q Butcher (a UK wide quality assurance scheme for independent butchers); Sales Development Managers; crisis management (e.g. during the BSE and Foot and Mouth crises).

The Scottish Agricultural College proposed that 'QMS becomes responsible on behalf of MLC for all MLC functions except those which are deemed to be core services for GB'. In their view this particularly included research and development activities that would have a GB-wide application. The Scottish Agricultural College proposed that a mechanism for MLC to retain a proportion of levy was required to fund this.

The National Pig Association indicated that 'it is essential the we, the Scottish Pig Industry have representation at BPEx [British Pig Executive] level to insure at UK level our interests are maintained'.Conclusions

The 21 respondents to the consultation included all of the key stakeholder groups in the Scottish red meat sector. Support from the major stakeholder groups was high and all of the respondents had additional comments and suggestions. Certain of the smaller and special interest groups focused on specific issues in relation to their own areas of interests. Several respondents raised wider issues about red meat levy bodies that go beyond the scope of this consultation. Role of QMS

There was broad support for the role and functions of QMS laid out in the consultation paper. Some respondents additionally raised issues or made suggestions in relation to:

0. Ensuring that QMS strategic priorities reflect those of their stakeholders.

0. Promotion of Scotch meat produced out with the Specially Selected Scotch scheme, and the interface with both generic promotion of British meat and other British quality assurance schemes.

0. Working closely with smaller and more specialist stakeholder groups and businesses.

0. Engagement with Scottish red meat and livestock research organisations.

Funding Proposals for transfer of the Scottish levy to QMS were widely supported. Several respondents questioned whether this funding would be sufficient to resource the whole spectrum of QMS functions due to reduced levels of slaughtering in Scotland. One stakeholder group suggested that SEERAD should provide grant-in-aid funding for QMS. Two respondents proposed that an element of levy income be retained by MLC to pay for GB level services/promotion. Accountability

Proposals for increased accountability to Scottish Ministers were widely welcomed. The need for QMS to ensure accountability to levy payers was also raised.Structure of QMS

There was broad acceptance of the principles to guide QMS structural development. Several stakeholder groups indicated a desire to become more involved in QMS strategy development and implementation. Links with the MLC

Many respondents expressed a view that continued links with the MLC were important in order to avoid duplication of effort, retain valued services, protect core expertise and maintain the integrity of GB programmes. It was also recognised that a balance must be achieved with securing best value for the Scottish red meat sector.

A question from one respondent highlighted the need for effective arrangements between QMS and MLC in the case of a GB industry-wide crisis.

One respondent specifically concerned with pigs was keen to ensure that the close level of GB working within the British Pig Executive be retained. It was felt that the emphasis of the pig industry strategy on efficiency gain and cost reduction was applicable at the GB level.

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

June 2002