Seed royalty rule change challenged by farmers

Farmers are questioning a recent technical amendment to farm-saved seed (FSS) royalty rules, claiming they may have been overcharged for several years due to ambiguity over the “small farmer exemption”.

Under the Plant Varieties Act 1997, growers could use farm-saved seed without paying royalties so long as total crop production on the farm was below 92t for cereals or 185t for potatoes per harvest. 

However, following Brexit, the definition of a small farmer were updated, as part of the transition of EU plant breeders’ rights into UK law. 

See also: The dos and don’ts of farm-saved seed

Some farmers interpreted the new wording to mean the 92t threshold could apply separately to each cereal variety grown, rather than cumulatively across all cereal varieties on a farm.

That certainly seemed to be the wording of the new (2019) legislation, which refers to “a farmer who grows that variety in an area no bigger than that which would be needed to produce 92t of cereals”.

To end any ambiguity, Defra has recently amended the Act, (opens as PDF) clarifying that the cereal threshold applies to total cereal output across all varieties on a farm, not individually per variety.

Farmers must declare FSS use each season via the British Society of Plant Breeders (BSPB) portal.

Implications 

East Yorkshire farmer Steve Ridsdale, a British Farming Union (BFU) committee member, said the clarification has significant financial implications.

“I’m of the opinion that, since 2019, the small-farmer exemption applies per variety, so multiple crops each under 92t would be exempt,” he said.

“Under that assumption, I believe I’ve overpaid around £600 in FSS royalties since Brexit.”

After raising the issue with BSPB, he was offered a partial refund, which he rejected.

Organic farmer George Brown, BFU chairman from near Newbury, Berkshire, reported a similar experience. 

“BSPB admitted to overcharging me and issued a credit of several hundred pounds for the 2025 season,” he said.

“It seems highly likely that other farmers were also overcharged under the previous rules and may be owed reimbursement.

“I have serious doubts about the legality of these legislative changes without prior consultation.

No policy change

However, the BSPB and Defra both maintain that the rules were applied correctly and that the amendment does not reflect any change in policy.

BSPB head of policy Dr Anthony Hopkins told Farmers Weekly the amendment “is just a clarification from Defra” with “no change to how the BSPB treats small farmers”.

Defra said the amendment “clarifies the rule to match its original intent and remove potential confusion”.

Farmers, however, argue that using secondary legislation – normally reserved for technical tweaks – allowed a substantive change to pass largely unnoticed. 

The BFU says the ambiguity raises questions about fairness, transparency, and trust in the FSS royalty system, with some growers reviewing past payments for possible overcharges.

Defra stressed that it is not responsible for collecting FSS payments, which remain a matter between growers and breeders or their representative organisations.