Farm Payments (Penalties)
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-6312, in the name of Liam McArthur, on penalties on farmers.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that the tightening of enforcement of cross-compliance rules for farmers, particularly in the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere in Scotland, has resulted in new and higher levels of penalties due to unintentional errors in livestock paperwork and a new interpretation of land eligibility rules governing claims for Single Farm Payment (SFP) or Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (LFASS); considers it unsatisfactory that many farmers and crofters have been left uncertain of how to properly fill out their 2010 application forms for SFP and LFASS in time for the 17 May 2010 deadline because of a lack of clarity in the new interpretation of the land eligibility rules; believes that there is a manifest injustice when anyone is penalised where the interpretation of rules have been changed without proper notice and explanation, and supports the call from NFU Scotland for the introduction of an immediate amnesty on penalties associated with eligibility of land for support scheme purposes and for moves to reduce the impact on farmers and crofters of the tighter interpretation of the rules.
17:03
On the eve of the Royal Highland Show at Ingliston, I am delighted that Parliament has an opportunity to debate an issue of importance to farmers, crofters and our wider rural community. Colleagues from all parties have struggled to cope with the multitude of parliamentary engagements that are being held this week, sometimes simultaneously, to coincide with the show week. I am therefore all the more grateful to those who have made time to participate in the debate, particularly those who have signed my motion. I know that some members may have reservations about the terms of the motion, which is on the way in which penalties are levied on farmers, though I hope that the debate will provide reassurance about the intentions that lie behind it.
Of course, no disagreement exists over the need to ensure that those who are guilty of defrauding, or attempting to defraud, the public purse are brought fully to book. The level of public funding that goes to support our farmers and crofters through the single farm payment, the less favoured area support scheme and other schemes is in the region of £600 million. Those who are in receipt of that funding must rightly be held accountable for how it is used. That is not simply a reflection of the challenging economic times in which we find ourselves. As I am sure the Minister for Environment will be quick to point out, the threat of serious fines and disallowance of subsidy by the European Commission is also very real.
I accept that entirely, as I do the suggestion that, given the outcome of the recent audit inspections elsewhere in the United Kingdom, it was inevitable that the rules and how they are applied in Scotland would come under scrutiny. Like Scotland’s farming industry leaders and those they represent, I find it less easy to accept how that has been done and the impact that it is having on farmers and crofters who, in many cases, have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Before considering the specific issues surrounding livestock paperwork and eligible land, I am happy to acknowledge the steps that the Government has taken on penalties and appeals. The Kinnaird review, which reported to ministers in late 2008, made a series of sensible recommendations, almost all of which the Government was happy to accept. The claim then was that the changes would make inspections simpler and fairer, while ensuring that penalties in the case of any failures were more proportionate.
Unfortunately, the experience of farmers and crofters of the way in which the rules that apply to eligible land are being interpreted flies in the face of that bold claim. As former NFU Scotland president Jim Walker made clear in a recent Scottish Farmer article, the Kinnaird report
“was announced in a fanfare of excitement about cutting red tape, but it now appears it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on as the same minister who accepted the recommendations promptly ignored them.”
To paraphrase the First Minister, the red tape agenda, like the respect agenda, is not just about words. It needs to be backed up by action and deeds.
Indeed, talking of respect, I have learned in my short parliamentary career to date to be wary of ministerial answers, in either debates or correspondence, that begin, “With the greatest respect”. That generally precedes a torrent of abuse masquerading as a response.
Oh!
So began a recent letter to me from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on the subject of eligibility of land, and my low expectations were not disappointed by what followed. Mr Lochhead—not Roseanna Cunningham—went on to claim that arguments against the approach that the Scottish Government has taken are founded on a series of misunderstandings, a claim itself that is riddled with inaccuracies. I am not arguing, and never have, that land eligibility criteria have changed; rather, I am arguing that the approach that is taken by the Scottish Government to enforcing the rules demonstrably has.
Audit concerns and the threat of European Union penalties are real, but that is an argument for setting out clearly what the new approach will be and how it will be enforced. However, it now appears that changes in the approach by the Scottish ministers and their officials happened after inspections were carried out and applications made in 2009. In a letter to my colleague George Lyon back in April, Commissioner Ciolos confirmed that the issue of land eligibility was discussed by the relevant management committee only at the end of 2009. That means that, for those who made applications in May 2009, penalties incurred through the inclusion of areas of bracken or gorse have been applied retrospectively. Such an approach is simply unfair.
The predicament that faces farmers and crofters who look to make applications under the SFP or LFASS is perhaps best summed up by a Campbeltown farmer who contacted the NFUS recently. She pointed out that the integrated administration and control system guidance documents, up to and including those issued in 2009, made no reference at all to bracken or gorse. Scottish Government officials, she said,
“have accepted all our claims, bracken and all, without deductions or comment from 2005 to 2009, thereby proving that they have previously interpreted the regulations in the same way as we have”.
As it is clear that the goalposts for the 2009 scheme shifted after inspections had been carried out and applications submitted, one would have reasonably assumed that the Government would have been geared up to prevent similar problems arising in 2010. However, although in his letter to me last week Mr Lochhead disputes that farmers and crofters lacked clear guidance, it is well documented that guidance notes were issued only a couple of days ahead of the 17 May deadline for applications to be submitted this year. Not surprisingly, in many cases the notes arrived after that deadline had passed. Perhaps unfortunately for ministers, one place where the post could not cope with the Government’s just-in-time delivery strategy was the residence of one Mr James Walker. However, he was far from alone in being affected, and there remains a great deal of anger among farmers and crofters who have been left exposed to the possibility of penalties for completing their single application form and IACS forms incorrectly as a result of confusion over the stricter enforcement of eligibility rules.
I agree that such penalties are not inevitable, but the threat for many is very real indeed. There is also a risk, identified by RSPB Scotland, that action may be taken by some farmers to remove gorse or scrub at times in ways that run counter to wider environmental objectives. I therefore urge the minister to look again at the possibility of an amnesty for those affected by penalties in 2009 and to consider a more measured response to any problems that arise this year.
Likewise, I firmly believe that a more proportionate approach is needed to the way in which penalties are applied for errors in livestock paperwork. Again, changes to the way in which the rules are applied were inevitable following a critical EU audit of the penalty system back in 2008. However, figures released by the Scottish Government suggest that the total value of penalties has increased more than fivefold between 2008 and 2009, a rise which cannot possibly reflect accurately the extent of the problems of fraud or misreporting.
NFU Scotland cites the example of cattle passports. Although failure to return the passport of an animal that has died can result in a penalty being incurred, the same is not true for passports that are returned in error for animals that are still present on a farm. The logical conclusion of that is that, to avoid the risk of losing 3 per cent of their single farm payment, farmers might be best advised to return all their cattle passports and seek to recall only the passports for the animals that are subsequently identified as being part of their herd. That position is simply ludicrous. So, too, is the fact that under the current rules, having three failures in a herd of 1,000 or more animals is treated in exactly the same way as having three failures in a herd of 10. Those shortcomings must surely now be addressed.
We must achieve value for the public funds that are invested in our farming and rural communities. However, the disproportionate and punitive way in which some penalties are being applied is a cause for concern. I am pleased that the Parliament has the chance this evening to debate this issue and I hope that, on the eve of what looks set to be a sun-kissed Highland show at Ingliston, the minister will see her way to radiating common sense and compromise in her response.
17:10
I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing this important debate. I have every sympathy with farmers who find themselves in a position of non-compliance and subject to penalties for breach of the support schemes and I instinctively back more proportionate penalties.
The large increase in the level of penalties is worrying. Penalties appear to be way out of line with the seriousness of the errors committed. I therefore support the efforts of the Scottish Government to get the United Kingdom and EU authorities to have another look at this issue.
One of the problems is that, although the basic rules have not changed, it appears that the penalty matrix has. The effect of that is that the 3 per cent reduction applies to a lower category of infringement. I presume that that change was made as a result of the critical EU audit of the penalty system in 2009, which ruled that our inspectors were being too lenient.
Another problem was that the guidance that the Scottish Government issued came out very late in the day. I hope that that will be rectified in future, so that everyone knows exactly what is required of them at an early date.
One of the crucial things that we must bear in mind when considering this issue is animal health. As a former animal health officer, I am fully supportive of efforts to ensure a robust animal health regime. In that respect, the compliance requirements of the EU state that a case of non-compliance that constitutes a direct risk to public or animal health shall not be considered as minor. That is important, given that animal health issues appear to feature quite prominently as non-compliance issues. Apparently, 60 per cent of cattle discrepancies are due to the following four reasons: movements not reported to the British cattle movement service within three days; passports for dead animals not returned to the BCMS within seven days of death; farm records with missing or inaccurate information; and animals incorrectly tagged.
Dave Thompson has helpfully set out the main risks to animal health. However, as I suggested in my speech, there is a possibility that one could return the passports for all the animals in one’s herd and recall only those for the animals that are subsequently identified in one’s herd. Presumably, that scenario, too, has animal health implications.
I am very well aware of the need for movement records to be kept accurately. Back in 2001, I was responsible for Highland Council’s response to the foot-and-mouth outbreak. It is important that records are maintained and dealt with properly.
Although the reasons that are outlined are all related to animal health, they will not be the only ones. I am sure that everyone accepts the importance of animal health, but there is obviously a need for a debate to be had on the interpretation of which breaches of the rules should fall into the minor category and which should be treated more seriously. That is where Mr McArthur’s point should perhaps be picked up.
Another area of contention relates to gorse and bracken claims, as some farmers misunderstand the rules. Nothing has changed: EU rules stipulate that land must be arable, permanent pasture or permanent crop to be eligible for the SFP. Obviously, areas of impenetrable bracken are not eligible, but the Scottish Government has made it clear that less dense areas of bracken with growth below that can be grazed are eligible. That being the case, we must all redouble our efforts to ensure that all farmers are fully aware of what complies. We do not want to see farmers needlessly cutting back gorse and scrub in the mistaken belief that the land will be eligible only if that is done. Let us get the message across: if it can be grazed, it can be claimed.
Failure to tighten up the system would have led to the Scottish Government incurring heavy penalties, which would ultimately have led to less money being made available to all farmers. Although it is only right that conditions are attached to ensure public benefit when substantial amounts of public money are given out, it is also right that penalties for non-compliance should be sensible and proportionate. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has raised the matter with the UK and EU authorities with a view to reaching a sensible solution.
17:15
Like Dave Thompson and other members who will speak in due course, I welcome the debate that Liam McArthur has brought to the chamber this evening.
Obviously, the issue is of real concern to many crofters and farmers who are caught up in the issues that Liam McArthur outlined. It is important that the Parliament has been given the chance to give the subject an airing and to hear the minister’s response. It will help to clarify the Government position—indeed, anyone can read the Official Report of the debate. Liam McArthur set out the issues very well, as did Dave Thompson, who also addressed the issue of animal health. I will not repeat what they said; I intend to reinforce it. In so doing, I will concentrate on the issue of land, not livestock.
At the time that the issue was coming to the fore, the NFUS set out clearly its concerns. It said that it was concerned at
“the failure to provide Scottish farmers with proper guidance on the subject.”
Liam McArthur referred to the timing of the guidance. As he said, it was issued extremely close to the deadline, which meant that it was impossible for everyone to take account of it. The NFUS also said clearly that the
“ongoing confusion and uncertainty over what ground is deemed eligible and ineligible”
was “causing real concern” to the farming and crofting community and that individuals could suffer retrospective penalties as a consequence of getting it wrong, in addition to anything that may happen in future.
One particular concern that the NFUS pointed out is the interpretation and understanding of what constitutes bracken and gorse—how such land is counted in, or out—particularly given past practice on the issue. At the time, Jim McLaren rightly made it clear that land can be grazed at certain points of the year and yet be covered in bracken later in the year. He said that the critical question for the farmer is: at what point does the land move from being ineligible to eligible, or eligible to ineligible? The matter is one of fine judgment and interpretation and the answer will vary according to the part of country where the farmer resides, the altitude at which they farm, weather conditions and so on. If there is confusion on the matter—clearly there is—one can understand how farmers may inadvertently have made a claim that subsequently is deemed to be ineligible. They did so in good faith and in light of what was passed in previous years.
The NFUS set out a couple of ways in which it thinks the matter can be resolved. One option is to recalculate SFP entitlements in such a way that ineligible land is removed from the land base area; another is to take account of the slope of the land in any land base calculation. John Scott has regaled members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on the latter subject in relation to his holding. I hope that he will do so again tonight as that will inform the Parliament more widely on the issue. The NFUS suggested a move away from the current flat-mapping system to one that takes account of the slope of the land. The NFUS said that it felt strongly that the goalposts had shifted and that that was unfair.
As Liam McArthur and Dave Thompson said, it is important that we have a system of compliance and that the system is robust. In its briefing for tonight’s debate, the RSPB made that point clearly. It is also vital that the system is fair and is seen to be fair. For a system to be fair, it must also be clear, including to all its participants. People should not be penalised because of lack of clarity or ambiguity in the system.
The NFUS is a responsible organisation. It understands the complexities of farming better than almost any other body. It tends to work with and not against Government. It is also not overly critical when it does not have to be. If the NFUS calls for an amnesty on a matter, it does so not lightly, but after due consideration. In this instance, such is the level of concern that the NFUS has called for an amnesty. It has done so because of the issues that I have raised thus far. Tonight the minister has an opportunity to set out clearly the Government’s position, so that crofters and farmers can see what it is, understand the reasons for the actions that are taken and make up their minds. I look forward to hearing what the minister says when she winds up.
17:20
I declare an interest, as a farmer who is in receipt of agricultural support payments and has had penalties levied on his business because of a simple mistake. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing this debate on a hot topic that is of huge concern to farmers and crofters throughout Scotland, nowhere more so than in the livestock sector.
Today’s debate has been precipitated by the growing anger in the industry about the growing unfairness of the penalty system. The fivefold increase in deductions between 2008 and 2009 demonstrates the argument and makes the case that something needs to be done. It is unacceptable for £1,394,409 to have been deducted from our industry’s receipts. The retrospective nature of some deductions is particularly disturbing.
Of course, penalties must be imposed if fraud is being perpetrated. However, if genuine mistakes have been made that are rectifiable, by correcting paperwork errors, and no harm has been done to livestock, the land or the environment, surely the time has come to take a fresh look at a system that can—and does—impose disproportionate deductions.
With the advent of sheep electronic identification, which means that so many more numbers will have to be recorded, it is even more important that a test of reasonableness be applied in imposing deductions. At the moment, numbers are not always accurately recorded by scanning systems. The scanning process will improve over time, and it is to be hoped that a completely accurate and paperless system of movement traceability for all livestock can be developed, but at the moment we are some way from developing, implementing or even being able to afford the holy grail of a movement system for livestock producers.
I turn to the issue of land use under integrated administration and control system rules and penalties. It is even more unfair for farmers to be penalised for mistakes by Government than for recording errors and mistakes by individuals. When inadequate guidance is issued, as has happened in the past, and new guidance is not issued timeously, as appears to have been the case this year, it is not acceptable for farmers to run the risk of being penalised for not being adequately aware of the rules. That is why it is in the interests both of farmers and crofters and of Government to find and promote a different system that can recognise genuine mistakes and apply more reasonable penalties. The NFUS’s suggestion that a fixed penalty—similar in style, if not in amount, to a parking ticket—be introduced would be a much more proportionate and reasonable response, and could be backed up by throwing the book at those who deliberately set out to defraud.
Peter Peacock defined neatly the grazing capability of land on which gorse and bracken are growing. As he said, early in the spring, grass grows on bracken and gorse-carrying ground, and grazing can and does take place. That is an odd and anomalous situation. We must clear up the issue of when grazing ground stops being grazing ground.
I congratulate Liam McArthur on bringing this matter to the Parliament’s attention and look forward, as does he, to the minister’s response.
17:24
I declare an interest as a hill farmer of sheep and cattle since 1974. Anyone looking at the hairstyles of John Scott, who declared a similar interest, and me will see how we have suffered.
In my earlier farming days, the picture was happier. Plenty of young people were keen to work in the industry, there was plenty of teaching, there were reasonable subsidies and prices for livestock, and there was less paperwork. Above all, there was an attitude of helpfulness from my local department of agriculture and fisheries office in Oban with completing the forms and other paperwork that I and others found confusing. There was a pro-farming attitude, especially towards hill farmers, who were seen as the seedcorn for the fattening industry in the lowlands.
Due to the decline in farming, it is now very difficult to get enough people to gather sheep in large areas among the Scottish hills and glens. Some gatherings take more than a day, with huge acreages being covered by fewer and fewer people. Hopefully, the situation will improve now that we have slightly better prices, but at the moment, with the new EID scheme, sheep farmers are nervous about the severe financial penalties that might result from their not being able to show all their animals at short notice, which they might be called upon to do. The NFUS notes:
“The penalty levels are now significantly out of line with the seriousness of the error, in NFU Scotland’s view, and a degree of proportionality must be factored in to penalty awards.”
I hope that the minister is aware of the conundrum and will ensure that inspections show flexibility and allow time for compliance.
Dave Thompson talked about bracken, which is a curse in the Highlands, as it is difficult and expensive to clear. It often costs more to treat bracken-infested land than the land is actually worth. One solution could be to use free-range pigs, which root out the bracken and haul out the secondary root system in a most effective way. That is far more effective than spraying the bracken. However, although pigs eat bracken and other herbage, they are not considered by agricultural government to be grazing animals, so they do not attract payment under LFASS. That system of bracken clearance does not attract support even though it deals with the bracken problem while also producing income for the farmer and delicious free-range meat. Will the minister consider that method of bracken clearance, which could perhaps—
The member is moving rather away from the motion, which is not about bracken clearing.
It is all—
No—it would be helpful if you could just get back to the subject of the motion.
I will come back to it. With regard to possible penalties on land that might not attract IACS payments in the future, will the minister consider that method of clearing the bracken—using pigs—which could perhaps then go on to the menu of options under land management or under the Scottish rural development programme?
17:27
I acknowledge that the issues raised in the debate are of genuine concern to the industry. The Scottish Government has a duty to all farmers and crofters to safeguard the support that is vital to their livelihoods.
Agriculture matters to all of us. It employs nearly 10 per cent of the rural workforce. It provides 24 per cent of total inputs to our food industries. It maintains almost 80 per cent of the land, creating the landscape that draws so many tourists. Those are all good reasons why it is important not to take risks with the £660 million of agricultural support that is paid annually.
The Scottish Government is obliged by the European Commission to enforce strictly the obligations that are set in return for the subsidy that is paid, and it has very limited discretion to vary those requirements. Failure of financial control is severely penalised through the disallowance of European funding for schemes, and it is essential to minimise that risk. Northern Ireland has just been hit with a £66 million disallowance; we do not want that to happen to Scotland.
Members should be aware that we were forced to tighten up the cross-compliance system because of audits elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Europe. That was to guard against the adverse consequences of disallowance. We need to keep the matter in context. Cross-compliance breaches result in a 3 per cent payment reduction, on average, which equates to £900 out of the average payment for those who are inspected.
Seventy-five per cent of all cross-compliance inspections and 65 per cent of all cattle identification inspections result in no penalties, so the majority of people are managing to comply with the rules.
Cattle ID and traceability will continue to be important. We need to know and be able to trace animal movements from birth to death, to support food safety and disease control. All cattle are required to be correctly identified and issued with a passport, in accordance with European regulations.
I listened closely to what the minister said about the 3 per cent penalty. It is clear that for some people the amounts that are involved are less significant. However, for people who have larger herds and are in receipt of larger single farm payments the trigger for penalties often represents a fraction of the overall herd, but the penalties can be significant.
I will come on to proportionality, because that is important.
The majority of breaches are the result of failure to report movements and deaths, return passports to the British cattle movement service or keep accurate animal medicine records or haulage details for transported animals. The majority of the industry is able to comply, but some people can and should do better.
Farmers are endeavouring to do their best, but notwithstanding their best efforts one in three or one in four farmers, depending on the subsidy regime, fails to comply, as I know from bitter experience. Given that farmers are failing to comply, although compliance is absolutely in their financial interests—and nothing concentrates farmers’ minds more than that—does the minister accept that something must be wrong with the guidance or with the compliance regime?
A number of things might be wrong, but John Scott and most members who are present know that the vast majority of the issue is not in the Government’s hands. It is important for everyone to remember that we cannot unilaterally make a change.
I agree with Liam McArthur that some farmers and crofters remain concerned. It is important to keep it in mind that we are working towards a more proportionate approach. Much work is being done in that respect. A difficulty with cattle numbers is that only one animal is needed to create a problem. I appreciate what people are saying, but one untraced animal can create a difficulty. To apply proportionality in relation to the numbers might be to overlook the fact that a single animal might create a big difficulty.
The Government is working towards securing a more proportionate regime. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment raised the issue with the Commission directly a couple of months ago, in March, and raised the issue this month in conversation with the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Indeed, the reason the cabinet secretary is not present for this debate is that he is in London, directly raising this issue, among others, in a face-to-face meeting with the secretary of state. The issues are at the forefront of our minds. A useful meeting took place between Government and Commission officials on 9 June, and officials are working out the details with UK colleagues. The details will be announced in due course.
The motion calls for an amnesty on penalties. I say again that it is the European Commission that fixes rules on eligible support and consequently on reductions that are imposed for non-compliance.
Does the minister agree that some of those regulations are not fit for purpose in Scotland and especially in the Highlands, and are better suited to the small fields of French, German and perhaps Greek farms? The Scottish situation is completely different. We have talked about difficulties with cattle numbers; the difficulties with sheep numbers are much greater.
I am grateful for Jamie McGrigor’s intervention. There is a constant debate about whether rules and regulations apply fairly to the Scottish situation. I hope that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues will take the opportunity that they now have to lobby their secretary of state much more strongly and help us to make the changes for which we are arguing. It is important to say that.
The point that I was going to make about the amnesty is that it is not in our gift to create an amnesty—we cannot do it. Our difficulty is that if we tried to do so, we would end up with disallowance. I hope that everybody here supports the on-going engagement with the Commission.
The motion describes the land eligibility issue, fairly, as one of the enforcement of regulations, but it also underscores that the rules about what constitutes eligible agricultural land have not, in fact, changed. Officials, in the company of European auditors, have too often found buildings, roads, lochs and so on claimed as agricultural land. We cannot defend that practice, nor accept the risk of significant disallowance of funding that comes with it. I hesitate to say it, but the flexibility that might have been allowed in the past will simply not be able to be applied.
I have heard about roads, sheds and lochs being claimed, but that is an extreme example that none of us would seek to defend. The point that all the speakers in the debate have made is that, in relation to bracken and gorse, there is a real issue about land sometimes being eligible, then becoming ineligible. The fact is that the guidance is issued very much at the hand of the Scottish Government and that is where many of the problems have resulted.
I will come to that. I am trying to deal with the points that have been made. I say in passing that Peter Peacock’s point about 3D mapping is interesting, but we are obliged to use the national mapping of the Ordnance Survey. If we move to any other system, we will be in breach of European Union rules. That is one of the difficulties that we are caught with.
European regulations define eligible land. The criteria that apply to the current principal schemes are the same as those for the predecessor schemes, so there is no question of moving the goal posts. The key point is that the land must be capable of having agricultural activity undertaken on it. I dare say that most people here read the letter from the Scottish Government’s chief agricultural officer in The Scottish Farmer, saying that if you can graze it or mow it, you can claim it. That is the kind of fairly basic eligibility that has not changed.
Another point that was raised in the debate was about the information that is available to farmers. The application forms, for which the submission deadline was 17 May and on which all subsidy payments depend, have their own notes for guidance. The forms were issued to farmers on 15 March. The single farm payment scheme notes for guidance were issued separately, albeit later than had been planned. We have accepted that as a problem, and officials have apologised for that. I reassure members that lessons will be learned from the experience and used in the production of future scheme guidance. However, farmers were allowed to change land use declarations up to 30 May. The problem is that, notwithstanding that, the EU auditors now have their beady eyes on us, so the kind of amnesty suggested would just open us up to disallowances, as I said. We can undertake only very limited movement to try to do the kind of things to which people have referred.
Liam McArthur, I think, mentioned the red tape agenda. He is right to refer to that, because we grapple with it all the time. I am advised that land and farming inspections to confirm eligibility have reduced from 1,800—perhaps it was 1,500—to 1,100 per year. We are therefore making some inroads. It may not be fast enough or as much as one would hope, but at least we are getting there.
The Scottish Government’s ambition is to see a sustainable farming industry that is supported by its full share of the available agricultural support. The very best of Scottish farmers are already very good at compliance. The challenge to us as a Government is to continue to work to ensure that their obligations are proportionate. We are, in fact, doing that as much as is open to us. I hope that we can now rely on the support of the UK secretary of state and, indeed, on the rest of the industry to come up to the standard of compliance that is achieved by the very best of their fellow farmers and crofters. Everybody needs to keep it in mind, however, that we do not have a free hand; we have to comply with EU rules as much as anyone else does.
Meeting closed at 17:39.