Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Official Report 653KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Direct Payments (Crop Diversification Derogation) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/135)

Item 4 is consideration of one affirmative instrument: the Direct Payments (Crop Diversification Derogation) (Scotland) Regulations 2020. The committee will take evidence from Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, and his officials. The motion seeking approval of the affirmative instrument will be considered under item 5.

Members should note that there have been no representations to the committee on the instrument, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comments on it.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement.

Thank you for making time today to consider the regulations, which have been made using emergency powers in the European Union direct payments regulation that were transferred to the Scottish ministers when the United Kingdom left the EU in January. The regulations provide a derogation from crop diversification requirements in the direct payments regulation, which stipulates the number of different crops that must be grown by farmers in Scotland.

There was an unusual increase in rain, coupled with an unusual decrease in sunshine, between August 2019 and January 2020. The result was that farmers across Scotland have been unable to meet the crop diversification requirement. The requirement helps to protect the environment, but sadly the damage has already occurred. This is about mitigating the impact on our farmers.

If we do not provide a derogation, farmers will incur, through no fault of their own, a penalty reducing the greening element of the basic payment scheme, which accounts for approximately 30 per cent of the total value of the scheme. Such a penalty could not come at a worse time.

For that reason, the regulations are a necessary and justifiable response to an emergency caused by adverse weather. I note that the European Commission has made similar provision for similar purposes in the past. The derogation applies only during claim year 2020, as that is what is strictly necessary.

I am happy to take any questions that members might have.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Three members have questions, the first of whom is John Finnie.

Is there a definition of what an emergency situation is? Do an increase in rain and a decrease in sunshine justify the removal of the diversification requirement? Is that necessary?

The regulations are absolutely necessary. It is just a matter of common sense. The level of rainfall means that the three-crop rule would be totally impracticable for farmers. They would not be able to plant in winter and there would be other impacts.

We would not bring forward the regulations unless we were satisfied that they were necessary and that by doing so we would in no way contribute to damaging the environment.

Our role is to scrutinise and I am trying to look behind the regulations. A particular problem is that there has been no impact assessment. I appreciate the wish to support our farmers and crofters, but without diversification there could be a glut of a single crop—we have that with barley at the moment—which could, for argument’s sake, lead to a price collapse and a request for assistance from farmers. Conversely, there could be a shortage of a particular crop, which could lead to a price hike for consumers.

The issue is broader than the impact on recipients of the payment. It is about the public. Why was there no impact assessment?

We have had to act swiftly under the Covid-19 restrictions. I will bring in my officials to deal with the specific question of the impact assessment. I think that Professor Saddler has been dealing with that.

It is important to stress that the derogation is for only one year, so it is self-evident that its impact on the environment will be minimal.

The next question is from Emma Harper.

Professor Saddler just answered my question by saying that the derogation is temporary. I am sure that the farmers who had their slurry spreaders stuck in the fields during the wet weather last year will welcome it.

The next question is from Stewart Stevenson.

Farmers have regularly complained over a long period of time about the three-crop rule that the EU introduced to respond in essence to Mediterranean farming but which made little sense in much of our environment. I therefore welcome that it appears to be being suspended. In relation to that specific and narrow point, will the Scottish Government look at follow-on measures for subsequent years, and at a diversification scheme that is more relevant to Scotland’s environment than the crude three-crop rule was?

Mr Stevenson makes a good point—sorry, are you trying to signal something, convener? I will just soldier on, will I?

I was just going to say that the point that Mr Stevenson is making is not particularly relevant to this piece of legislation. It might be sufficient for you to acknowledge or to not acknowledge it. I am just worried about time.

Okay. Mr Stevenson makes a good point, and one that we should pursue further.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. As no other member wants to ask a question, we move to item 5, which is the formal consideration of motion S5M-21632.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Direct Payments (Crop Diversification Derogation) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/135) be approved.—[Fergus Ewing]

Motion agreed to.

---

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 (Supplementary Provision) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 [Draft]

Item 6 is the consideration of a further affirmative instrument. The committee will take evidence from Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, and his officials. The motion, which seeks approval of the affirmative instrument, will be considered under item 7.

I ask the committee to note that there have been no representations to the committee on the instrument. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement.

Thank you. I brought these regulations forward in direct response to requests from the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association, which is concerned about the impact of coronavirus on the ability of its members to take advantage of the tenants’ amnesty. The amnesty gives tenants the opportunity to serve notice on landlords that specific relevant improvements are to be treated as tenants’ improvements, capable of compensation at waygo, if certain criteria are met.

Generally, the informal amnesty preparation process requires an on-farm, face-to-face meeting between the parties to view and discuss improvements. In the current circumstances, those meetings cannot take place. Although not essential, those meetings are an important part of a best-practice approach of reaching consensual agreement and avoiding conflict wherever possible.

The amnesty commenced on 13 June 2017 and was due to end on 12 June this year. The regulations extend that period by a further six months until 12 December 2020, which give the current restrictions the chance to lift and allow people to conclude discussions within the broadly equivalent period that the act intended, had the coronavirus outbreak not taken place. As I said, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association asked for the extension. My officials have also consulted the tenant farming commissioner and other stakeholders and they do not oppose the extension. Therefore, I hope that members will support the regulations, which will reduce pressure on tenant farmers at this difficult time.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that explanation. Since no members have notified me that they want to ask a question, we will move on to item 7, which is the formal consideration of S5M-21670, in the name of the cabinet secretary.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 (Supplementary Provision) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 [draft] be approved.—[Fergus Ewing]

Motion agreed to.