Agriculture Bill leaves us with more questions than answers

COLUMN: From the Croft by Russell Smith

That is the tups out now - the year begins again and we look forward to April with a mix of hope, anticipation and a bit of trepidation. It is likely to be a slow start to lambing given the horrendous rain as I write.

Meanwhile, back at the Scottish Crofting Federation, much time and effort has gone into responding to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the Agricultural Bill. To recap, the bill is just laying out the powers that Scottish Government want - it doesn’t say what these powers will be. For example, one question asks “Do you agree that the new Agriculture Bill should include powers to establish minimum standards for animal health, welfare as a condition of receiving payments?”

Answers – Yes, No or Don’t Know.

Do we answer ‘Yes’ because minimum standards are a good idea and should underpin our marketing of lamb and beef? Or, do we answer ‘No’ because the bill doesn’t say what the standards might be and there is no indication that what might be proposed will be subject to agreement and will be proportionate to extensively raised animals on crofts?

I know that other bodies are also struggling with this dilemma. Most of the ideas are sound (and SCF agreed to the basic approach in a letter to the Cabinet Secretary over a year ago) but without seeing the details we can’t agree to give the SG a blank sheet of paper.

The danger is that the government get a wide range of powers and then set the terms of the new schemes without scrutiny from parliament or the various bodies concerned so we end up with something rushed, designed by civil servants and not appropriate for crofting.

SCF held a consultation meeting on the bill in Lairg this month in conjunction with Nourish Scotland. It was good to get out and see people again after a couple of years of “Zoom”. There was an excellent turnout and a desire to engage with the consultation. There did seem to be an appreciation of how the tiers might work. Tier 1 would be a basic payment to all for managing the land and producing food subject to minimum standards. Tier 2 would give more money for carrying out actions to meet higher standards in areas such as animal welfare, encouraging biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions. Tiers 3 and 4 were less well understood but the participants were very clear that an LFASS type scheme was essential to sustain crofting. Not surprisingly in an audience of crofters there was strong support for capping payments for the biggest recipients and for most of the money going on Tier 1 payments.

The consultation has been extended to December 5 so do submit your views – you don’t need to answer all the questions so it shouldn’t be too daunting. SCF will update our members so you will have pointers on the important issues.

Also SCF will be running another QMS discussion on line on December 12 since there have been some changes since the earlier round of meetings on line and in halls. The requirement for animal health plans to be signed off by a vet and for an annual vet visit won’t come in now until April next year at the earliest – changes brought in because of feedback from crofters and vets in the last round of meetings.

Russell Smith is a crofter at Bonar Bridge and a director of the Scottish Crofting Federation.

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.