Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Official Report 769KB pdf

---

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill 2020

Item 3 is the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill 2020. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in that I am a partner in a farm.

I am a part-owner of a very small registered agricultural holding from which I derive no income.

I am a farmer in a farming business. I am not sure whether I will comment on this item, but I make that declaration anyway.

We have received a consent notification in relation to one UK statutory instrument, as detailed on the agenda. The instrument is being laid in the UK Parliament in relation to the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill 2020. Does any member wish to comment?

My remarks are about the paper on greening. I would be keen for us to clarify with the Scottish Government whether there was just an imprecise use of language or whether there is an intended change of policy on that important issue.

When we write to the Scottish Government for clarification on the point that John Finnie has made, I wonder whether we should highlight that our concern is just about governance and the reporting of the instruments, without laying the blame on anyone in particular. Dealing with the instrument puts the committee under a huge amount of pressure, and it might be good to clarify with the Government where this came from.

I happened to be watching Westminster parliamentary business yesterday, and it was only yesterday afternoon that the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill 2020 was passed. The whole thing is rushed—not just the work of the Scottish Government—which is a result of Westminster not knowing what it is doing.

I was absolutely not pointing the finger at the Scottish Government; it was a general point. The committee is under quite a lot of pressure to get such things turned around quickly. It might be worth pointing that out to the Government, and it can respond as it sees fit. If the committee is not happy to do that, we will just raise the point that John Finnie made.

I am happy for us to do that. As Maureen Watt said, there is no dubiety about where the responsibility lies: it lies with an inefficient and ineffective UK Government putting demands on the Scottish Government, which, in turn, puts demands on our clerks and our time. That is not in doubt—it is a simple matter of fact.

When we write, we should perhaps ask what exactly the problem is. I agree with the comments of Maureen Watt and John Finnie. Funnily enough, I watched that debate yesterday, too.

When we raise the point that John Finnie raised, we can also raise the matter of the procedure and why this has happened. It would be useful for us to know how it works, for the future. Is the committee content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

12:37 Meeting continued in private until 13:07.