Chamber and committees

Officials from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland met with Commission officials in February 2009 to discuss proposals to revise the Cross Compliance payment reduction systems as a result of the 2008 audits in England and Wales.

The Commission made it clear at this meeting that they expected the majority of Cross Compliance breaches to result in a 3% payment reduction otherwise significant disallowance (EC fines) would apply. This approach was further confirmed and clarified in the Commission audit letters to Wales and later to Northern Ireland following their audit in spring 2009.

At our request the UK raised the issue of Cross Compliance penalties at the Council of Ministers on 16 December 2009 and we will press for meetings to be held with the new Commission to keep our concerns on the agenda.

The rules for CAP payment reductions under cross-compliance are laid down in European legislation. In general breaches of cross-compliance should result in a reduction of 3% being applied to a beneficiaries payments for one year under the Single Farm Payment Scheme, Scottish Beef Calf Scheme, Energy Crop Scheme, Protein Crop Premium, Less Favoured Area Support Scheme and certain management options claimed under the Land Managers Options Scheme and Rural Priorities.

Prior to 2009, most breaches of cross-compliance in Scotland were resulting in a 1% reduction or a warning letter as this was considered to be appropriate for the seriousness of the breaches that were being found. We have now been forced to increase the payment reduction levels under cross-compliance because recent EC audits in Scotland, the UK and across Europe, have ruled the current penalty systems too lenient.

These increases must be implemented to avoid potential, costly penalties on the Scottish Government from the EU which could have a detrimental and unjust effect on the level of funds available to all farmers and other land managers. The cross-compliance payment reduction systems in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were also tightened up in 2009 following their EC audits.

We are looking at the detailed results of European Commission audits across the rest of Europe and speaking to other member states who have been audited to confirm the position in their countries.

All cross-compliance inspections are carried out according to clearly laid down procedures across Scotland and the results and any penalties that are applied are monitored on a national basis.

Land managers who are penalised under cross-compliance can submit an appeal under the new EU Rural Payments Appeal Procedure which was launched on the 20 November 2009.

We have regular meetings with stakeholders and these matters will be discussed if appropriate. Although no meetings are scheduled at present to discuss this specific topic, we expect this to be raised at forthcoming meetings.

Stakeholders were alerted to the review of payment reduction levels in January 2009, following the audits in England and Wales in 2008. We had meetings with them and kept in touch as the review progressed. The revised cross-compliance payment reduction system was discussed with stakeholders at a meeting on 5 November 2009, prior to writing to land managers later that month.

Marine Scotland will issue general guidance on how equivalent environmental benefit could be interpreted, and key environmental and industry stakeholders will be consulted on this guidance.

It is not be possible to specify in guidance each and every possibility which may arise and equivalent environmental benefit will in practice need be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-30265 on 15 January 2010. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

It is not possible to predict how frequently the exception in section 85(1)(b) of the Scottish Marine Bill will be disapplied as part of the marine conservation order process. Scottish Ministers do not intend to disapply section 85(1)(b) as a matter of course and would require a good case for such action. Such disapplication would require the consent of Parliament.

The generation of marine renewable energy is a priority for the Scottish Government, as is the conservation of marine biodiversity and cultural heritage. The Scottish Marine Bill provides for a planning regime that takes all these priorities into account. I believe it is right that the Scottish Government and Parliament should have this power to protect important marine features, even if the power is very rarely exercised.