Official Report 1004KB pdf
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-15809, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask Jamie Hepburn to move the motion on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Rural Support (Improvement) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]
17:11
This SSI will unfairly disadvantage small herd farmers and crofters, especially those who are farming on islands and poorer land. It imposes a calving interval conditionality of 410 days on support from the suckler beef support scheme. Under the new policy, a calf must either be the first offspring of a cow or be born no later than 410 days since its mother gave birth the last time. That interval will decrease over time.
The Scottish Crofting Federation told us that many crofters cannot control that interval. It quotes one of its island members who, only recently, had organised to take delivery of a bull under the Scottish Government scheme on 15 August. Due to weather conditions, delivery was delayed to 4 September. Ferries can be cancelled and there are restrictions on the weather conditions when animals can travel, for welfare reasons. Ferry cancellations also need to be rebooked. A crofter has no control over that. In that case, the crofter was already 21 days behind schedule to receive the bull, and because of that it could be up to 50 days before all their cows were pregnant. A delay of that kind can also have a knock-on impact on other small herds that may be waiting to lease the same bull. It seems wrong that delays in the Scottish Government providing a lease bull could cost a small farmer or crofter dearly.
I agree with what Rhoda Grant said, and I thank her for bringing the issue up. It would be fair to say—I do not know whether she agrees with me—that it is not just one or two groups in the industry that are worried about this; quite a lot are, and it will have a significant impact. Does she agree that the “Suckler Beef Climate Scheme” report, which was published in 2020, is probably a better way of delivering for the Scottish beef industry?
I agree that there has to be a better way than this.
Others have asked for a derogation for small herds, but that is not provided for in the instrument. The derogation is not only important for the sustainability of farming on poorer land and islands financially but important for nature. Previous schemes that restricted cattle from the land showed that doing so was damaging to nature. We have now learned from those experiences how important cattle are to biodiversity and to fostering healthy environments. Sadly, a policy that is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions could have a counterproductive impact on the natural environment.
Due to proportionality, it could take only one missed payment to make a small farmer or crofter’s business uneconomical and for them to give up rearing cattle altogether. Once cattle are lost from our hills and islands, it is difficult to return them, due to the cost of restocking. Therefore, if we get it wrong, there is no way back. I ask that the minister therefore withdraws the SSI and resubmits it with a derogation for small herds.
17:14
This policy intervention demonstrates that the Government and the industry have engaged and collaborated to identify workable solutions to the challenges that we face. The regulations will demonstrate to consumers that the sector is taking its responsibilities seriously and is actively looking to reduce its carbon emissions by adopting interventions under cross-compliance to protect peatlands and wetlands and to improve the efficiency of the national suckler herd. The policy intervention demonstrates that the Government is actively looking at how we achieve our climate ambitions, and how we match the ambitions of our livestock sector by supporting suckler producers with direct coupled support to ensure that we maintain and improve our critical mass of home-bred beef.
I totally agree with Rhoda Grant’s comments, not just about crofters but about small producers in the Borders, for example, who have been in touch with me. The suckler herd is contracting and we need to protect that herd so that we have food security for the future. More importantly, do you not think that this is too much about net zero and not enough about welfare and the welfare of farmers?
Always speak through the chair, please.
I will cover the points that Rachael Hamilton has raised, but first I will continue with what I was saying.
Our approach to how we will protect suckler beef producers is in stark contrast to that of the UK Government, which is fast-tracking to end meaningful direct support to English farmers and livestock producers, who have no coupled support.
Other states are looking at methane and carbon taxes to reduce emissions. That is the context in which the regulations are being brought in.
Can the minister reassure me that the force majeure measures in the SSI can be activated by crofters and small producers in extenuating circumstances and that the Government will clearly communicate in writing how they can activate those measures?
Ariane Burgess is stealing my thunder. If she gives me a couple of seconds, I will come to that in my speech.
In contrast, we are working in partnership with our farmers and our crofters to support reductions in emissions, and these measures are the first step in that journey.
I have heard—and I have a great deal of sympathy with—the position that Rhoda Grant has put to me, which is that smaller producers or crofters may be more impacted than the bigger producers. I assure all members, particularly those who represent crofting communities, that we will ensure that robust force majeure measures are in place, recognising the unique challenges that crofters face.
The Government will review any impacts and, if issues emerge, we will work with officials and industry representatives to build in the changes to the Scottish suckler beef support scheme to underpin the support of cows on crofts and in small herds.
A report by Quality Meat Scotland highlights that the continuation of existing trends will result in a 5.6 per cent reduction in the number of Scottish-born animals—it works out at 20,500 over the next six years. A growing UK population and a downward trend in beef production mean that the UK could require a 74 per cent increase in net imports. A smaller beef sector would have a significant impact on the rural economy, with annual output falling by £72 million and the number of jobs sustained in a rural area falling by more than 1,000. Did the minister consider the impact of the introduction of this conditionality on the size of the Scottish beef herd and the resulting impact on the rural economy?
In conclusion, minister.
The policy has been in place for a number of years, and it has been shown to slow down the decline in suckler cow numbers. I am actively looking at ways not only to stabilise those numbers but to reverse the decline, because I care deeply about the future of our farming and crofting communities. These changes strike the right balance between continuing support of the industry and making progress to reduce emissions.
The point about herd size is critical not just at a national level but in areas such as Orkney, where we have seen that reduction in numbers—and the knock-on consequences that it can have—up and down the supply chain. Irrespective of the outcome of the vote this evening, will the minister agree to meet with the number of members here who have an interest in the issue to identify ways in which that herd size trend can be reversed so that we see the upward trend in the numbers that we desperately need to see?
Minister—you must conclude at this point.
I will always be more than open to having any discussions, but I will not get into too much detail on the size of the herd—I am going to move on.
As a Government, we would be doing a disservice to the livestock sector if we pretended that doing nothing was an option, because it is not. If we do not act now, further down the line, buyers, processors and retailers will increasingly be making demands to move to lower-carbon systems. As the former NFU Scotland president, Nigel Miller, noted recently, now is the time for Scottish farmers to catch up and to lead on reducing methane emissions.
These regulations must be passed tonight to ensure that we can continue to support our suckler beef producers from 2025 onwards and help our farmers and crofters to meet the challenges of the future.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions, S6M-15810 and S6M-15811, on approval of United Kingdom statutory instruments. I ask Jamie Hepburn to move the motions on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]
The question on the motions will be put at decision time.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Decision Time