Official Report 190KB pdf
Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/129)
Item 2 is to consider two statutory instruments under the negative procedure: the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2003, and the Rural Stewardship Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003. To assist us in our deliberations, I am pleased to welcome officials from the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department, who have agreed to answer members' questions on both schemes.
My opening remarks refer to some points in the Executive note. The changes were subject to detailed discussions early last year in an industry group comprising the three main bodies affected by the changes: the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Landowners Federation and what was then the Scottish Crofters Union and is now the Scottish Crofting Foundation.
Thank you. You mentioned the consultation that took place with the industry. When the details were announced, the industry generally welcomed the changes, in that they minimised the number of winners and losers that had previously been apparent.
The individual circumstances of the case would need to be considered. Specifically, if he makes an application, there is a mechanism for considering whether the base year is atypical, although I cannot say, hand on heart, that a change would necessarily be made.
Has that mechanism been made widely known to farmers in explanatory notes?
Yes.
A concern about the scheme is the minimum stocking density levels, which do not take account of the souming on the land—the legal stocking density levels. On some hill farms, the legal stocking density level is a lot lower than the minimum stocking density level in the scheme. In a way, people are stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they cannot take action that would attract more finance because that would be illegal. Has any consideration been given to changing the scheme so that it uses the legal stocking density level as a minimum rather than prescribing a minimum that might not fit in with everybody?
The minimum was introduced essentially to avoid over-compensation for large estates and problems that existed with over-compensation in the earlier schemes. People who are below the minimum do not lose subsidies as such. Their area is proportioned down so that their effective stocking density becomes the minimum. That involves a reduction. The system was agreed by the group when the arrangements were set up and that is the scheme that we have.
I certainly welcomed the alteration to the original proposal, which means that there are now three categories. I think that the alteration was welcomed in mainland areas, particularly by marginal hill farms. The alteration followed much lobbying, not just from people such as me but from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. It will help to prevent there being massive losers, certainly in the area that I represent—for example, in Strathspey.
Before I answer that question, I stress that the issue is what we compare losers with.
That is obvious. It is clear that a loser is someone who gets less income than they did before. That is not very complicated.
But compared with which year? Are we talking about 2000 or 2002? That is an important issue, because the schemes in those years were different from each other.
Yes, I know that, but perhaps you could describe both categories of losers.
So you want to know who is losing compared with 2000 and who is losing compared with 2002.
My understanding of the scheme is that it is better than the previous ones that were negotiated, particularly the first one, at the beginning of the Parliament. That scheme caused widespread concern, particularly in areas such as the Western Isles. The new scheme is to be welcomed. However, I am not clear about the answer to a simple question. Who do you expect to lose out under the new scheme? The question is not complicated. Which types of farming activity and land and which parts of Scotland will lose out?
The question is slightly more complicated than is implied, because the 2003 scheme has different elements from earlier ones. For example, there is a significant uplift effect because of the enterprise mix calculation where people have a higher proportion of cattle in their livestock than sheep. Producers get a 35 per cent increase if more than 10 per cent of their livestock units are cattle. If more than 50 per cent of their livestock are cattle, the increase is 70 per cent. I cannot give a categorical answer to the question, but when the 2003 figures are compared with previous years, I expect them to show that the categories of people who will tend to gain will be those who have cattle in or above those proportions.
I appreciate that the matter is complex. When one begins to examine the various formulae that are contained in the statutory instrument, one could say that it resembles more an advanced mathematics paper than a statutory instrument that farmers are supposed to be able to understand. That is why I asked a fairly simple question.
Could I press a small issue, which is part of that line of questioning?
Of course.
Many of the crofter organisations have voiced considerable displeasure about the financial effect that the scheme will have on some of their members. I address my question to Mr Hepburn. In general, will crofters be better off under the LFASS 2003 than they were under the previous hill livestock compensatory allowance in 2000?
There are two answers to the question. The first is that the introduction of the minimum payment of £350, which goes to all producers, has resulted in a large number of crofters being better off than they were under the old scheme. Many crofters—I am thinking of small-scale crofters with low levels of production—received payment below the HLCA level.
So what you are saying is that, although crofters might be worse off than they were in 2002, they should be about the same or slightly better off compared with the previous scheme.
Yes. That is correct.
Will you clarify what you meant by the removal of the cap?
In the 2002 scheme, a limit of £2,500 was placed on the increase in the amount of money that a recipient could receive compared with the base period. Where a freely calculated amount of money under the scheme was more than £2,500 above the amount in the base period, the amount of money that could be paid was capped at an increase of £2,500.
You said that there was pressure from the Commission to remove the cap.
Yes. The cap and the safety net beneath it were transitional measures that were agreed with the Commission; they were not part of the rural development plan as such. The Commission was looking for free-standing rates that would achieve the effect that it wanted to achieve under the rural development regulation.
It was the Executive's decision to remove the cap. The Executive was not required to do that to satisfy European Union rules.
Essentially, the answer to that question is yes. Given that we needed to make changes, the issue was how we could establish a free-standing scheme that would achieve the requirements under the rural development regulation. Decisions were taken with that in mind. It was recognised that a cap would be difficult to negotiate again. That was the position that the industry group faced. We decided that we would advance with a free-standing scheme.
It is important to bear in mind the other side of the cap, the safety net, which in the first year was 90 per cent and in the second year—2002—was 80 per cent. In the forthcoming year, the rather complicated formula, which amounted to 50 per cent and a bit, was going to be removed. The Commission insisted on the removal of the safety net. Had the scheme been left untouched, even with a cap, it would have meant a huge shift in payments and there would have been quite a number of losers, particularly among productive farms. Given that the safety net was coming to an end, we had to change the scheme anyway. In changing the scheme, the cap was lost as a matter of course.
I have two further questions, which are rather different. Looking to the future, how do you feel that the less favoured area support scheme will be affected by common agricultural policy reform—in particular, by decoupling? If decoupling goes ahead, I presume that an extremely complicated LFAS scheme such as that proposed in SSI 2003/129 would be redundant. How do you see the situation developing? Have you had any initial response from the Commission on what the future holds for farmers who rely on LFAS funding at present?
Formally, the CAP reform proposals will have no direct effect on the LFAS scheme. The scheme is funded out of the rural development, or pillar 2, end of funding. The reforms are much more directed at the pillar 1 funding—the sectoral scheme funding. In a formal sense, there is no direct link.
I appreciate that it is a complicated area and that we can only speculate. If decoupling had an adverse impact on the Scottish beef sector, for example, would not it have an indirect impact on the LFAS scheme, because we might lose critical mass in the beef sector?
Yes, there could be an effect there. The top-up calculations on the enterprise mix could be affected if the proportion of farmers' livestock units in cattle fell below 10 per cent or 50 per cent. I would not expect there to be a huge effect, although that would depend on the reduction in beef production that might come from decoupling. The underlying basic rates of payment would not be affected. There would be an issue about whether changes should be made to the payment rates to make up the budget. If money was not paid out under the enterprise mix calculation, it might be paid out in other ways.
I have one further question, although I do not want to hog the floor.
You were not doing that.
Obviously, the regulations are extremely complicated. The formulae are incomprehensible—except perhaps to the draftsman, who I hope understands them. However, the regulations place a number of onerous obligations on farmers. For example, part II of schedule 2, entitled "Verifiable standards", contains eight specific, detailed rules. You are aware that farmers and crofters argue—quite rightly—that they are subject to a huge range of regulation.
Good farming practice guidelines are common to a number of the schemes that we use. When undergrazing or overgrazing is first noted, we will seek to reach an agreement with the farmer on the management steps that are necessary to return the land to good agricultural condition. Once that agreement has been made, it will be monitored. Only if the farmer fails to uphold the agreement will his payment be affected. The effect may be limited to that part of the payment that refers to the area of land that is being overgrazed or undergrazed.
That procedure is not set out in the statutory instrument.
It is set out in the explanatory notes that we have issued to all producers, which indicate how issues relating to good farming practice will be handled.
Courts will examine the statutory instrument and any decision must be made on the basis of it. Does the instrument contain a specific reference to the informal procedure that you have described? I did not notice one on first reading, but perhaps I missed it.
The member is correct to say that the procedure is not set out in the SSI.
Where is it set out?
The arrangements that I have described are set out in the explanatory notes that we provide. Those indicate how we put good farming practice guidelines into practice.
As you know, I have made detailed representations on behalf of crofters and farmers in my constituency who have broken the rules unintentionally, usually by failing to fill in their integrated administration and control system forms properly. As a result of a clerical error, some of them have lost a whole year's income. If I robbed a bank, mugged someone or shot someone, I might not get such a large fine.
Unfortunately, the person who deals with this area of work is not here today. However, because I was responsible for it until eight or nine months ago, I can tell the member that on several occasions we have asked the Commission to address simplification. As part of the mid-term review, the Commission is considering proposals to simplify arrangements, particularly under the rural development regulation.
I take it that you are saying that the Scottish Executive view is that there should be a fairer system that would allow errors that could be demonstrated to be innocent rather than fraudulent to be treated in a mild and appropriate way through a written warning rather than financial loss. Does the Executive share my view that that should be the approach?
Yes. That is the position. In the past, we suggested a yellow card, red card procedure for those kinds of errors, but to no avail.
I have had occasion to write on this many times in the South of Scotland, which I represent, as has Fergus Ewing in his area. It has become apparent to me, as I am sure it has to all committee members, that the lack of flexibility allowed in the European regulations has forced us to a position where we are penalised every bit as severely for a genuine and honest mistake as we would have been if we had filled in a form fraudulently. In any true justice system, that seems to me to be beyond the pale. Although everybody's desire is for further flexibility, will you assure us that such cases are prosecuted with every bit as much inflexibility in other European states as they are in the United Kingdom?
We have not carried out a specific study of exactly how penalties are imposed in other member states. I know that the Commission makes draconian audit visits to member states, including visits to Scotland. It imposes disallowance on member states that do not abide by the rules. I cannot say whether the same stringency is used in other member states, but the Commission penalises heavily those that do not abide by the regulations, particularly in relation to errors in forms. It takes samples of forms and follows the audit trail of what has happened when figures are changed. A draconian procedure is used for audit trail purposes.
Can you give us a time scale for when a yellow card, red card procedure might be looked at?
The simple answer is that I cannot. If the reforms proceed in the way that is proposed, the arrangements will be different. We will not be counting animals or areas and there will be a different system. We are keen to see a much simpler system with the new arrangements—that was one of our key negotiating points. One of the issues that could be difficult is good farming practice, to which Fergus Ewing referred. The measures in schedule 2 are the kind of thing that will be required for receipt of the decoupled payment. There is a question about how that will be controlled and how draconian or detailed the controls will have to be. Those issues will be addressed within the discussions on CAP reform.
You mentioned continuing monitoring of LFASS as it will apply from 2003. What procedures are in place to review it, and in what time scale might that happen?
We will look specifically at the payment arrangements and outturn for LFASS 2003; we will check certain features and see how things are working. Though a date has not yet been set, the industry group will meet again in the middle of the year for review, and to decide whether changes need to be made: to rates, for example. That programme of work is on-going. It is hoped that the scheme will not require fundamental change until the end of 2006, when the plan ends. However, from there we will certainly review how things are working every year.
Might that review include retrospective payments to farmers who have genuinely been caught out in an anomalous situation by the introduction of LFASS 2003? If not, would you expect that to be addressed by the appeals procedure?
I expect that to be addressed through the appeals procedure. Any concerns or anomalies relating to the scheme in question would be covered by it. If slightly different provisions apply in the following year, those would then cover applicants under that scheme. In other words, jurisdiction is kept within the scheme year.
As regards undergrazing, I am concerned about how the scheme sits with environmental protection. The way in which the scheme is written encourages maximum stocking, so that the maximum acreage is taken into account. Discouragement of undergrazing is also written into the scheme. How does that sit alongside policies of reduced stocking levels to protect the environment?
The minimum stocking density is designed to reach a balance between avoiding overgrazing and avoiding undergrazing. I sense that you want to avoid undergrazing. In fact, overgrazing is more of an issue if there is more stock on the land.
Overgrazing is obviously a huge environmental issue, but I cannot understand why the scheme discourages undergrazing, which would allow more habitats to be left intact. The scheme seems to push farmers and crofters up to the maximum grazing available from their land. It does not seem to be aligned with other environmental schemes, which require lower stocking for environmental benefit.
The stocking density of 0.12 is relatively low, and is the minimum level that we would pay on. Clearly, good farming practice in the terms that we just discussed will stop the occurrence of undergrazing. Research has shown that if there are too few animals on land, it will revert to bracken and shrub and result in a monoculture. For that reason, a balance between over and undergrazing is necessary. Therefore, while it introduces a minimum stocking density, the scheme will ensure that there is stock. Too few animals also represent an environmental impact.
It has been explained that for those farms with a souming level below the minimum stocking density, the area of land is reduced until the minimum is reached. Surely that encourages farmer-crofters to reach their maximum stocking density, even up to the maximum that the land can bear? There is no encouragement to reduce stocking levels for environmental benefit.
There are separate schemes to deal with environmental issues. This scheme is designed to support agriculture, so one would expect producers to have a reasonable number of stock on their land and that is what the scheme is designed to encourage. If there is overgrazing, the good farming practice provisions would kick in so that that would be stopped. Equally, if producers have too little stock on their land, the undergrazing provisions would kick in.
Let me add to that. It is true that one could argue that a farm or croft with a stocking density of 0.08, which is below the minimum stocking density of 0.12, has an incentive under the scheme to increase the stock level such that it comes up to the 0.12 level. However, in point of fact, if the 0.08 level is the level that is sustainable and consistent with the souming, that 0.08 level would be seen as the level that was consistent with good farming practice, which would mean that it abides by another element of the scheme. Strictly speaking, therefore, a producer in that situation should not extend the stocking density to go beyond what is required by the good farming practice provisions under the scheme.
To get the maximum benefit from the scheme, producers would be not only encouraged, but required to maintain that 0.08 stocking density level, if that is the maximum that they can have. However, if 0.08 is the maximum level that the land can sustain, might not that cause environmental problems? Surely it would be better to allow the producer to maintain a level slightly below that for environmental benefit.
If the sustainable level of stocking is 0.08, that is the level that is consistent with good farming practice. Having half as much stock again—which is what would be required to get from 0.08 to 0.12—would not be consistent with good farming practice. In that instance, there would be a question mark over whether the scheme's provisions were being complied with.
Do you understand where I am coming from? The scheme seems to run against other Executive support schemes and there seems to be no policy that runs through all the schemes. One can see why farmers might get a little confused, when one scheme asks them to do this and another scheme asks them to do that. Sometimes the schemes seem to contradict one another.
That rather takes me back to where I began. As the farmer to whom I referred had entered an environmentally sensitive area, his stocking density had dropped to a lower category, which in effect halved the amount of subsidy that he could receive. I think that we are coming from the same angle.
I was under the impression that the appeals process was to help farmers who had made innocent errors in the completion of their paperwork, such as failing to fill in forms correctly. However, the answer given to Fergus Ewing's question seemed to indicate that that was not the case. What is the appeals process for?
I must distinguish between two kinds of appeals.
Say, for example, that I am a farmer. I understand the rules, and I fill in my forms and send them off to you. However, when I have sent them off I think, "Crikey, I have made a mistake." If I did not quite understand the rules, or I thought that you were misapplying them, I could appeal. However, because I have made a mistake there is no appeals mechanism for me. You will just make the decision and say that the form is wrong, and I do not get what I am applying for.
It is perhaps not as black and white as that. However, the rules are fairly strict and are in the legislation—indeed, even in the EU legislation. The Commission considers those issues when it conducts an audit. Therefore we must take them seriously. We have looked at trying to make changes, such as the yellow card, red card arrangements that I talked about earlier. However, we have not made headway with the Commission, which has been pretty clear about its views.
I would like to make sure that I have this right. A farmer can use the appeals mechanism if he feels that you are misapplying the rules, but he cannot use it if he thinks that you are applying the rules, whether or not there has been an error. In other words, even if he admits that there is an error and you agree, there is no third party to whom he can say, "The Executive is being too heavy handed because it knows that I have made a mistake, and I know that I have made a mistake, but there is no leeway." Are you saying that there is no other appeals mechanism? If not, do you not think that there should be?
Usually those kinds of problems will appear through the ordinary appeals mechanism. It is not usually quite as straightforward as is being outlined.
We accept that the penalties can be very severe, and to that extent, over the autumn and winter, we issued a booklet that explains the penalties in detail, giving examples of how they are calculated. The booklet also gives handy hints about how penalties can be avoided.
Are we perhaps dancing on the head of a pin here? Is it a problem or not? As far as you are aware, are people being penalised because they make errors in their applications?
They are being penalised. For example, part of my job is to sit on the appeals panel at stage 1. We come across cases of people forgetting to put in a form. The form arrives—there is no debate about that—it gets put on one side, other things intervene and the scheme closure date comes and goes. In such cases, the panel tries to seek out information that might identify whether the applicant has suffered what the regulations call "force majeure"—an unexpected event that has prevented them from filling out the form. If we can find evidence of such a situation, the appeal might be accepted. If we cannot, the regulations say that late claims will not be admissible. It is as stark as that. We do not have any discretion in such a situation.
In effect, you are saying that the lateness of a claim is the issue. If a claim that is wrong comes in, it can be sent back and the applicant can resubmit it. The fact that time has run out is what matters.
That would be one example. Another might be someone who forgets to enter a certain number of animals on a particular claim or who overdeclares or underdeclares the amount of land that they have. People suffer a penalty for many reasons.
I understand the time limit issue. Your hands are tied in such cases. Putting that to one side, you are saying that if someone makes an error in an application, the appeals people will look at it and will say that it can be withdrawn and a proper application submitted. Apart from the time issue, are there any other reasons why farmers should be penalised if they have inadvertently put forward the wrong information?
There might be situations in which farmers had failed to maintain adequate flock or herd records or in which there had been a failure in the tagging of particular animals, for example.
I am glad that the officials acknowledge the severity of the situation. They seem to accept that the penalties are very severe. I could answer Mike Rumbles by saying that my experience over the past three and a half years is that if someone has made a mistake, even if it is an honest and genuine mistake, there is an appeals procedure, but an appeal is very unlikely to be successful. The rules are incredibly tight. I can only hope that efforts to find some flexibility or a warning-card system will be pursued with the utmost vigour. Fairness dictates that that should be the case. An honest mistake should not be penalised in the same way as a fraudulent claim. That is what happens at the moment.
We are not finished with the subject yet. The penalties on farmers for errors that are essentially administrative are draconian. The Executive has applied to Europe to introduce something more sensible. We are not getting what we need. Whose desk is the issue sitting on? Is it sitting on Franz Fischler's desk or on someone else's?
The issue has certainly been raised at working-group level and at higher level. I could not say that it sits on Franz Fischler's desk at the moment, although he is the commissioner responsible for such issues.
I am asking whether we should be encouraging the eight Scottish members of the European Parliament to start raising the issue on a political level in Europe. I do not think that there would be any political division on that suggestion. Would that lubricate the decision-making processes? I recognise that, as officials, you do not necessarily have to comment on that. However, it might be useful to ask whether, in your experience, the application of the rules in other countries is as rigorous and as onerous as it is here.
I just asked that.
Did you? In that case, we do not need to pursue it. I must have nodded off.
Should I answer that?
Please do. I am hurt that a member could nod off while I was speaking.
I would like to add that, from time to time, we have sought to get the Commission to agree to recognise the term, "genuine error". It does not recognise that term. It recognises the term, "obvious error". Such an error would be numbers on a form being summed up to something different from the subtotal. It is extremely difficult to move beyond that.
In my tax return two years ago—when I was leaving my previous employment and taking up employment here—I had share options to deal with. They came under four different headings, because they were part of four different schemes. The bank failed to draw to my attention in a letter the fact that one option differed from the other three in its terms of approval, and all the options went in under one heading in my tax return. A year later, it transpired that one of the options had to be treated differently in tax terms and that more tax was due. The penalty that fell upon me was the interest on the sum that I had not paid in tax, which was £685. That was a perfectly fair penalty. Do you think that the type of penalty that is imposed on farmers when they have made an obvious mistake—the withdrawal of all their income—would be deemed under international law to be cruel and unusual punishment?
I feel that the penalties are draconian in some areas. It does not seem reasonable for someone to lose all their income for what seems a fairly trivial error. There have been test cases against such penalties, but nothing has been upheld. On the late penalties, the legislation says that for every day after the day by which the form has to be in, there will be a 1 per cent reduction in the money, and after 25 days there will be no money at all.
Given that, in other countries, there appears to be flair and imagination in the way that things are implemented, would it be possible for farmers to deliver their forms to an intermediate body that would check them for correctness and obvious errors and return them to the farmer, before they reached SEERAD? Such a body could take a bond or negotiate insurance to cover any liabilities that it might end up with if such checking proved to be incomplete. When the forms reached SEERAD, they would be correct, because they would have been verified by an independent public body or by a body established by the industry. Would that proffer a possible way forward to reduce the impact on farmers?
Yes indeed, and I think that such a method is used to some extent now, as private advisers check forms. We are developing electronic means of submitting forms, which would offer major advantages. When applicants input their information electronically, it can be checked at that point, because the machine will not accept certain errors. A range of things could be done. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a high uptake of electronic form submission, but we are progressing with that as quickly as we can.
I suspect that if farmers became aware that draconian penalties would cease to fall upon them if they used electronic form submission, the uptake might rise sharply. If SEERAD requires additional resources to improve the quality of such systems, we would like to know, to ensure that the resources are made available.
Much as I welcome increased use of electronic methods of applying for various schemes, I hope that it is not too much of a generalisation to suggest that experience dictates that the farmers who find themselves in difficulties because of a genuine mistake are probably the least likely to join electronic schemes.
Sure.
I also have slight difficulty in understanding why an official who will determine what is under or over-stocking, or indeed what is good or bad agricultural practice, cannot also be allowed to determine what is a genuine and honest mistake. In my farming days, the officials knew one's farming practices and probably had a fair idea whether they were good or bad. I find that a difficult equation to get to grips with. I hope that it might be addressed in the future if a more reasonable method comes to light.
On the simplification of forms—
And flexibility in the determination of errors.
I would not like to mislead the committee and say that a working group is considering that as we speak, but at various points we have raised the issue of simplification. Indeed, I think that there is a committee considering it now. The issue is to the fore at working level in Brussels and it is raised from time to time at more senior level. Much attention at present in Brussels is on the common agricultural policy reforms, which will change the nature of the provisions and rules, and the kind of penalties that might apply.
Is any working committee that is dealing with this to be found in Brussels?
Yes.
If you are lucky enough to find it.
Can we be told, by note from officials, who sits on the committee and which senior official has blocked this and been so intransigent? If there is more than one official, can we have their names? You have levelled quite serious charges, with which we would agree, at these people. We need to know who they are, if any progress is to be made. Can we have that information please?
Yes, we can look at producing something.
If that could be sent to the clerks, that would be very useful. Thank you.
Rural Stewardship Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003<br />(SSI 2003/177)
We move to the rural stewardship scheme. I understand that Mr Hood would like to make an introductory comment on the scheme.
In common with the regulations for the LFASS, the regulations that members have in front of them are the result of a process that began almost exactly a year ago, with the issue by the Executive of a consultation paper on a number of measures designed to improve the operation of agri-environment schemes. The regulations contain two main changes. First, there are arrangements that will involve payments for capital items included in the scheme—such as fencing, dyking and pond creation—being made annually by instalments rather than, as previously, on a one-off basis on completion of the work. Secondly, there are proposals for two new management measures: management of ancient wood pasture and a measure to introduce spring cropping on farms.
Thank you.
The consultation paper that was issued in March 2002 indicated that the changes that were proposed in that paper would be introduced progressively during 2002 and 2003. The three main changes that were set out in that consultation paper, which involved the organic aid scheme and the ranking arrangements for the rural stewardship scheme, have been introduced administratively since the consultation period ended last May. The changes that we are making to the rural stewardship scheme in relation to the annualisation arrangements for capital payments need regulatory approval. That is why the regulations are before the committee. Those changes will apply to applications that are being submitted at the moment, which the Executive will consider over the next six months.
Right. You can be forthright in saying that, subject to review, there will be no further changes in relation to applications that are submitted under the criteria that have been laid out, whereby the number of applications would concentrate the available funding too tightly. That would mean that the funding would have to be spread out, as happened in the first year of the rural stewardship scheme.
The change in the way in which we pay for capital items that we have included in the regulations is designed specifically to deal with the issue that arose after the first year of RSS applications, when there was insufficient funding in the rural development plan to meet the cost of all the capital items that had been included in plans. That sum amounted to more than £11.5 million. It was in order to fund the maximum number of conservation plans that the minister took the decision not to fund all capital items. The purpose of the change is to enable the Executive to fund more applications in full.
To an extent, the committee will be relieved to hear that, given that in the first year of operation there was probably the nearest the committee has ever come to uproar—not that we would ever get to that stage.
Regulation 2(6) adds a new qualifying capital activity, namely the
In empirical terms, I cannot. RSPB Scotland and others tell us that, because of the nature of their flight, those types of birds do not see fences and therefore collide with them. That causes a fair bit of damage to those rare birds. The measure is intended to avoid the occurrence of such incidents.
I can see the point of marking fences so that they are visible. That is fairly widely accepted. However, I struggle to understand why it is necessary to hand out grants under the SFGS farmland premium scheme for the removal of fences when it is much cheaper to mark fences and when marking fences reduces the risk. Why are we handing out money for the removal of fences? The fences were probably constructed with a grant and are now being removed with a grant. For decades, deer fencing was regarded as a perfectly adequate and acceptable way of protecting forestry from deer. Why is the Executive suddenly pursuing the approach that it is necessary to give hand-outs to remove fences as well as mark fences? Surely it should be one or t'other.
Let me preface my response by saying that I hope we have learned from the experience of operating the schemes. We receive advice regularly from a wide range of conservation organisations. We listen to that advice and, where it seems sensible, we act on it. We are providing two options. Obviously, where there are risks of collision, the best way of avoiding that is to remove the fence.
What is the risk of collision? Do you know?
I do not know the figures.
What is the cumulative total for the amount of money that will be handed out for the marking and removal of fences in Scotland to protect the capercaillie?
We are talking about 50p a metre for marking a fence.
Are we not talking about millions of pounds? The EU wishes to encourage the preservation of capercaillie, which is an aim that I agree with, but I raise a question about the means that are being used. How much money will be handed out for fence removal and marking in the hope that it may help benefit those species of bird?
I can provide that information to the committee, but I do not have it at my fingertips.
My reason for asking the question is that I understand that we are talking about millions of pounds. From the information that I have received from people who should know, it seems to me that the scheme may not succeed. Capercaillie are at threat from all sorts of other predators, but they tend not to fly into fences. They are birds, not lemmings. The evidence that fences kill capercaillies is limited. Two weeks ago, I asked some of your colleagues what evidence there was. We were assured that we would receive that evidence, but we are still waiting for it. However, I gather that the brief is in the post, as they say, so perhaps there is hope.
I am sorry; I was not aware of that request. The scheme tries to encourage management practices to help a number of rare and endangered species.
We all agree about the aim, but the question is whether the method will succeed. It has been put to me by experts in land management that the method chosen will not succeed and that the only thing that it will succeed in doing is handing out a lot of money that will be wasted. I hope that you will provide us with a note of how much money will be handed out for the removal and marking of deer fences. Is it possible that we could be given an indication of how much money the Executive proposes to plough into the scheme?
Certainly. It is not a question of us proposing to plough money into the scheme. In the light of individual applications to join the scheme, we will decide whether proposals for marking or removal of fences are appropriate and whether they are likely to deliver conservation benefits. That assessment takes place on every application.
I understand that. Before I let other members ask their questions, perhaps I can just conclude by saying that I think that Ronnie Rose, who has been a land manager for several decades in all parts of Scotland, has said that the capercaillie may face extinction in under a decade. He does not have confidence that the methods that are being pursued by the Executive on the advice of various bodies will be effective. That, gentlemen, is why I have raised these issues.
I presume that you cannot say how much specific funding will be allocated to the removal or marking of deer fences until you have seen the number of applications that include that type of activity. Is that correct?
That is correct. We will not know how much marking of deer fences is proposed until next year's application round as the measure is not yet available. The measure for the removal of deer fences has been in the scheme from the outset and I can certainly provide the committee with information about the length of deer fencing that has been included in approved plans and how much funding that will entail.
I should know this, but could you tell me the final date for applications for this year's scheme?
It is 31 March.
Leaving aside the question whether deer fencing is successful, is the funding for its removal or marking a conservation measure that is designed to save species such as the capercaillie?
Yes.
One of the first public petitions to be presented to the Scottish Parliament was from one of my constituents, Jimmy Oswald, on the issue of deer fencing. Has the Scottish Executive come to a definitive conclusion on whether it is more cost-effective to save the capercaillie by removing the fences or by marking them? Is the failure to reach a conclusion the reason for both conservation measures being funded? The proposal seems to be to have deer fences in place and marked in areas where it would be dangerous not to have them, such as by roads. Is that the case?
For a deer fence to be funded through the scheme, we would have to be satisfied that the fence would protect an area of habitat that was being managed. In specified areas, we would pay for the marking of that fence if the advice from the conservation adviser was that there was a risk that capercaillie would collide with the fence.
They are both conservation measures, though?
Yes. The scheme will, of course, be subject to monitoring and evaluation. All the measures will be examined to see whether they are delivering the desired effects and the scheme will be reviewed in the light of that process.
Thank you for answering our questions this afternoon.
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/118)<br />Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Amendment Order 2003 (SSI 2003/100)
We turn now to instruments concerning pesticides and sea fish. The Subordinate Legislation Committee had no comment to make on the instruments and I am not aware that any members have either.
Nor have the general public.
Quite so.
I have an observation to make. The explanatory notes that accompany the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/118) detail a long list of pesticides that are to be inserted into legislation, from Abamectin to Tria-something.
Given the time scale that is attached to the statutory instrument, would you be content that we agree to the instrument and raise your concerns with the Executive?
It was not my intention to oppose the instrument. I am simply raising concerns that we have to do better in proffering explanations of why we do things. The measures may be good or bad. They are probably good, but I do not know.
If you would be happy that we pass on your concerns in letter form to the minister, I thank you for raising them.
I am content.
I do not know whether I can put Stewart Stevenson out of his misery, as it were, but at the end of the Executive note, on financial effects there is a statement that
That would be quite in order.
That is a perfectly fair point, which I support. However, I point out that the regulations apply to foods that are supplied for human consumption in the EU. They do not simply apply to farming practices in the EU, because they also apply to imported products. Reference is made in the European directive to consultation with the World Trade Organisation. There are lots of unanswered questions. It is one of those things: there is so much detail that we were not expected to read it. The bottom line is that that is not satisfactory.
On that note, the points that Stewart Stevenson and Fergus Ewing made have been noted and will be passed to the Executive. We can also refer the Executive to the Official Report if it wishes further clarification. On that basis, are members content with the instruments?
Previous
Item in PrivateNext
Petition