Environment and Rural Development Committee, 20 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Official Report 225KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/117)<br />Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2005 (SSI 2005/140)

---

Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/143)

Item 2 is subordinate legislation. There are three instruments to consider under the negative procedure.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the instruments and drawn our attention to points in the Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2005. An extract from that committee's report has been circulated to members. It made no comment on the other two instruments.

I will give some brief background information. We have previously considered the implementation of common agricultural policy reform both through our report on the subject and again in detail in January when we took oral evidence from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development on the whole package of instruments to implement CAP reform, after we received the first of the expected instruments. The policy area is important and we are to consider a substantial instrument, so I asked the clerks to get Scottish Executive officials in front of us in case members had technical questions. I am conscious that the documents are lengthy and that members may have questions.

Linda Rosborough is head of the CAP management division at the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department; John Brunton works in the CAP reform implementation branch at SEERAD; and Paul Neison is an assistant chief agricultural officer at SEERAD. We might not ask the witnesses questions but, given the substantive nature of the documents and the fact that the negative resolution procedure applies to the instruments and there are time constraints, I wanted space for members to be able to do so. Do members have any comments to make on the instruments?

I have a couple of brief questions on the Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005. A couple of nights ago, I met farmers just outside Inverurie, and the appeals procedure was the first thing that they wanted to discuss. They were concerned about the fact that very few appeals are successful. Do you have any statistics on the number of appeals that are lodged for internal and external review and on how many are successful?

If I do not have the figures that you want, I will need to send you a note of them. I have figures for the 2003 calendar year in a report that I have to hand. During that year, we received 251 appeals at stage 1 and we resolved 58 of those pre-review. We upheld 15 appeals and rejected 122 at review. The independent element is brought in at stage 2. We received 21 stage 2 appeals during the year, determined 23—two of them pre-review—and rejected 21. We will produce a 2004 report in the early summer.

Okay. I realise that you cannot comment on policy issues, but are there any plans to change the appeals procedure in the light of concerns that have been expressed by NFU Scotland and others?

The appeals procedure has been working for some time, and it is obvious that people who have been unsuccessful will be disappointed. However, in general, people who have taken part in the procedure have said that they are happy with it and that they get a fair hearing in the stage 1 and stage 2 processes.

There is the option of a stage 3 appeal, which involves taking the appeal to the Scottish Land Court. However, not many cases have gone there because it has taken time for cases to progress and the Scottish Land Court has been busy with other matters. Ultimately, there is the test of a full independent review of our decisions by the Scottish Land Court, but there have been no determinations by it yet. That is the ultimate test of the appeals system, but it has yet to be made. The answer to your question is therefore that we do not have plans to change the procedure at the moment.

Finally, a transition is under way from the old system to implementing the reforms and the single farm payments, and a number of farmers are concerned that there might be an increase in errors as a result of introducing the new system with all its complexities. Will such things be taken into account to try to avoid the need for appeals in the first place? Will flexibility be built into the payment schemes?

Ultimately, the new systems are simpler, so less scope should exist for the errors that have occurred in the past, because we do not have all the rules about retention periods and suchlike. The ability for simple errors to mean that people break the rules will be lessened.

We have also taken that into account in the design of the Scottish beef calf scheme, which tries to avoid the problems that have led to errors in the past. For example, we have no closing date, so people can apply beyond the end of a year. That prevents people from falling foul of rules that give a closing date. We have taken those matters into account as far as possible.

The issue was one of our primary concerns. We were aware of several difficulties with the previous bovine schemes. Features that Linda Rosborough identified, such as closing dates, retention periods and other bits and pieces, have been avoided where possible, to simplify schemes. It is hoped that simplification of schemes and the arrangements that we have made will prevent farmers from falling foul of the rules.

Will Richard Lochhead list in detail the NFU concerns to which he referred?

That takes us into policy issues. The farmers' concern was that the appeals system could be seen as a bit of a sop, because so few appeals succeeded. They were concerned about the statistics, which is why I wanted them to be clarified.

It is obvious that anyone who does not secure victory from an appeal system will be disappointed. I am looking for detail about the mechanisms and the reform that you were advancing on the NFU's behalf.

Alasdair Morrison does not seem to have questions for the panel, so can I ask the panel more questions?

I do not want us to have an open-ended discussion. Alasdair Morrison asked you a question, but you do not have to answer.

I have lots of questions to ask the panel. I would prefer to ask my questions than to take up time in answering questions.

I do not want lots of questions to the panel.

Members have no more questions on the Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005.

Having read the background papers on it, I am keen to see the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2005, which is sensible. The timescale is important because of developments around the rest of the UK.

Members have no questions or comments on the Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2005.

As members have no questions or comments on the three instruments and have considered all the paperwork, are they content with the instruments and happy to make no recommendation to the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the witnesses for attending. We did not know how many questions members would have, but we wanted to enable them to ask questions. The session was useful to put on record the appeals issue, given that concerns have been expressed. I take the point about future monitoring and the simplification of the system, which is important to record. We will pick that up in future.

As agreed at our meeting on 22 February, we will move into private to discuss the draft report on our inquiry into climate change.

Meeting continued in private until 13:07.