Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 18 January 2012
18 Jan 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Common Agricultural Policy (Reform)
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
The backdrop to the debate is interesting in that, until recently, the typical reaction from recipients of CAP support to the question of reform tended to be along the lines of, “You must just make sure that we get a fair share of the cake.” That has changed to, “Will there actually be a cake to get a fair share of?” Such is the state of the euro zone, and such is the resultant uncertainty surrounding the European budget, that the size of the cake is now as much in doubt as our share of it. Nonetheless, we can surely assume for the purposes of the debate that the general principles of the proposals will remain the same, whatever the size of the cake—or the budget.
Within the proposals, there are perfectly reasonable and valid arguments about fair shares. I will come to fair shares in Scotland later but, as members have said, there is no doubt that we have a strong case to make for a fairer share of pillar 2 resources, given that we receive the lowest share per hectare in the whole of the EU. I agree with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee report from the previous session of Parliament that that is an unacceptable situation, not least because of the high proportion of our land that is classified as less favoured. I have no doubt that we are fully justified in seeking a fairer share of that particular cake.
How we do that is open to question, but I hope that the degree of Scottish and UK intergovernmental joint working that marked the recent common fisheries policy negotiations will be replicated in the CAP negotiations. That would be a positive start, and in a very brief meeting that I had with Caroline Spelman last week, I was given the distinct impression that the door is well and truly open. I hope that the cabinet secretary will avail himself of it. I wish both our Governments well as we move towards the negotiations. There is an enormous amount at stake that affects both our rural and national economies and we all have a considerable interest in the outcome.
I will use the time that is available to me to raise one or two concerns about the proposals. The first proposal that I will address is the much-vaunted greening of direct, or pillar 1, payments. The idea is to attach compulsory elements to those payments to ensure that producers undertake activities that are beneficial to the environment and help to tackle climate change. It is hard, if not impossible, to argue with the sentiment of that aspiration, but we need to exercise a degree of caution about the proposal. I have no problem with farmers being asked to produce food in an environmentally sustainable and friendly way, but I do have a problem if that environmental sustainability comes at too great a cost to food production—and I do not mean a financial cost; I mean a cost in terms of output. Food production and security are surely the primary functions of our agricultural sector, and they should remain as such.
Of the three main elements of the greening proposals, which Ms Baker mentioned, crop diversification is barely relevant to Scotland, the definition of permanent pasture as anything over five years old would have a catastrophic impact on our time-served agricultural practices, and the idea of leaving 7 per cent of eligible hectares fallow simply takes us back to the dreadful days of set-aside, which we have finally managed to put behind us. I therefore argue that the rightful place for greening measures is in pillar 2 and that we should be wary of the pillar 1 element of the proposals.
I also harbour major concerns about the local impact of the shift from historical payments to area-based payments—not about the principle, which I fully accept, but about the potential to transfer vast resources from our most productive agricultural areas to our least productive areas. In 2009, the total value of single farm payment entitlements was €56 per hectare in Caithness and Sutherland and €256 in Dumfries and Galloway. That is not a measure of unfairness; I believe that it is a measure of comparable productivity based on historical support payments.
What we must therefore strive to achieve is as fair a redistribution of support as is possible, coupled with as long a period of transition as is possible, to allow our producers to adjust their businesses to any new system of support. Farmers are extraordinarily flexible in adapting to what their political paymasters ask of them, but they need time to make adjustments and we must ensure that they get it.
Time is something that is running out for me, which from my perspective is a great shame as I have an enormous amount that I would like to discuss. To the detriment of the chamber, I will not be able to do that. However, I will mention the need to create a year-on-year national reserve, which the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and I briefly discussed, and the need to support new entrants to farming. That issue is terribly important and it needs extensive debate. In Scotland, it cannot be divorced from the need for a policy on land tenure that encourages those who have land to let to do so without fear that it will be taken from them.
We also need to discuss the forestry sector, which was hugely disadvantaged by the transition period during the previous reforms, as the convener briefly mentioned. Bridging the gap between periods of reform is vital, and it is a good note on which to wind up. I do not think that anybody really expects the reforms, whatever their final shape, to commence on time in 2014. Therefore, all Governments must be prepared to have an arrangement in place to ensure that CAP support is continued to all recipients so that their work can continue uninterrupted in the event of any slippage.
At the end of the procedure, we must not forget that there is a world out there to be fed. It is a world that is expanding rapidly, and the ability to feed it, and ourselves, must remain the priority for current and future CAP reform. I wish the committee nothing but success in its continued deliberations.
The backdrop to the debate is interesting in that, until recently, the typical reaction from recipients of CAP support to the question of reform tended to be along the lines of, “You must just make sure that we get a fair share of the cake.” That has changed to, “Will there actually be a cake to get a fair share of?” Such is the state of the euro zone, and such is the resultant uncertainty surrounding the European budget, that the size of the cake is now as much in doubt as our share of it. Nonetheless, we can surely assume for the purposes of the debate that the general principles of the proposals will remain the same, whatever the size of the cake—or the budget.
Within the proposals, there are perfectly reasonable and valid arguments about fair shares. I will come to fair shares in Scotland later but, as members have said, there is no doubt that we have a strong case to make for a fairer share of pillar 2 resources, given that we receive the lowest share per hectare in the whole of the EU. I agree with the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee report from the previous session of Parliament that that is an unacceptable situation, not least because of the high proportion of our land that is classified as less favoured. I have no doubt that we are fully justified in seeking a fairer share of that particular cake.
How we do that is open to question, but I hope that the degree of Scottish and UK intergovernmental joint working that marked the recent common fisheries policy negotiations will be replicated in the CAP negotiations. That would be a positive start, and in a very brief meeting that I had with Caroline Spelman last week, I was given the distinct impression that the door is well and truly open. I hope that the cabinet secretary will avail himself of it. I wish both our Governments well as we move towards the negotiations. There is an enormous amount at stake that affects both our rural and national economies and we all have a considerable interest in the outcome.
I will use the time that is available to me to raise one or two concerns about the proposals. The first proposal that I will address is the much-vaunted greening of direct, or pillar 1, payments. The idea is to attach compulsory elements to those payments to ensure that producers undertake activities that are beneficial to the environment and help to tackle climate change. It is hard, if not impossible, to argue with the sentiment of that aspiration, but we need to exercise a degree of caution about the proposal. I have no problem with farmers being asked to produce food in an environmentally sustainable and friendly way, but I do have a problem if that environmental sustainability comes at too great a cost to food production—and I do not mean a financial cost; I mean a cost in terms of output. Food production and security are surely the primary functions of our agricultural sector, and they should remain as such.
Of the three main elements of the greening proposals, which Ms Baker mentioned, crop diversification is barely relevant to Scotland, the definition of permanent pasture as anything over five years old would have a catastrophic impact on our time-served agricultural practices, and the idea of leaving 7 per cent of eligible hectares fallow simply takes us back to the dreadful days of set-aside, which we have finally managed to put behind us. I therefore argue that the rightful place for greening measures is in pillar 2 and that we should be wary of the pillar 1 element of the proposals.
I also harbour major concerns about the local impact of the shift from historical payments to area-based payments—not about the principle, which I fully accept, but about the potential to transfer vast resources from our most productive agricultural areas to our least productive areas. In 2009, the total value of single farm payment entitlements was €56 per hectare in Caithness and Sutherland and €256 in Dumfries and Galloway. That is not a measure of unfairness; I believe that it is a measure of comparable productivity based on historical support payments.
What we must therefore strive to achieve is as fair a redistribution of support as is possible, coupled with as long a period of transition as is possible, to allow our producers to adjust their businesses to any new system of support. Farmers are extraordinarily flexible in adapting to what their political paymasters ask of them, but they need time to make adjustments and we must ensure that they get it.
Time is something that is running out for me, which from my perspective is a great shame as I have an enormous amount that I would like to discuss. To the detriment of the chamber, I will not be able to do that. However, I will mention the need to create a year-on-year national reserve, which the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and I briefly discussed, and the need to support new entrants to farming. That issue is terribly important and it needs extensive debate. In Scotland, it cannot be divorced from the need for a policy on land tenure that encourages those who have land to let to do so without fear that it will be taken from them.
We also need to discuss the forestry sector, which was hugely disadvantaged by the transition period during the previous reforms, as the convener briefly mentioned. Bridging the gap between periods of reform is vital, and it is a good note on which to wind up. I do not think that anybody really expects the reforms, whatever their final shape, to commence on time in 2014. Therefore, all Governments must be prepared to have an arrangement in place to ensure that CAP support is continued to all recipients so that their work can continue uninterrupted in the event of any slippage.
At the end of the procedure, we must not forget that there is a world out there to be fed. It is a world that is expanding rapidly, and the ability to feed it, and ourselves, must remain the priority for current and future CAP reform. I wish the committee nothing but success in its continued deliberations.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01679, in the name of Rob Gibson, on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s scruti...
Rob Gibson (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
SNP
The common agricultural policy proposals that are to be set in place by January 2014 must be made to be good for Scotland’s highly successful food and drink ...
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Con
Does the convener agree that there is also a need to create a year-on-year national reserve, so that people who enter farming after the base year are able to...
Rob Gibson
SNP
We do, indeed, believe that a national reserve is very important.Stakeholders were concerned about the trigger for eligibility for payments, and the new entr...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
I call Richard Lochhead, who has a tight nine minutes.15:17
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead)
SNP
I am delighted to speak on the future of the common agricultural policy. I thank the committee for bringing this important debate to Parliament.This is a cru...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lab
I warned the cabinet secretary that I have a brief point to make. What are his views on what the voluntary modulation rate and the rate of co-financing will ...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
I thank the member for the notice that he gave me just before I sat down. He raises an important issue. On co-financing and pillar 2 of rural development fun...
Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (LD)
LD
The roadshow that his officials conducted in Shetland was extremely helpful, but the statement that there would be little or no change to the bureaucratic im...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
Tavish Scott raises a very good point. The only bit of good news that I have on that point is that all member states across Europe share his concern. I hope ...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
Con
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Richard Lochhead
SNP
I apologise to Mr Scott for not giving way, but I am running out of time.Future CAP processes must be simpler for farmers and Government alike, with regulato...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
I am pleased to open for Labour in the debate.I welcome the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s work in considering the CAP reform prop...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
You should begin to conclude.
Claire Baker
Lab
I have only one paragraph left, Presiding Officer.Such a cut would be very difficult for Scottish farming and would make it very difficult for the CAP to del...
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Con
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.The backdrop to the debate is interesting in that, until recently, the typical reaction fro...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
We now turn to the open debate. Speeches are of six minutes, but as we are very tight for time, it would be appreciated if members were able to make their co...
Aileen McLeod (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
As a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, and as a South Scotland list MSP who represents a large rural and farming communi...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I reiterate to members how short of time we are and that we will not be able to get everyone into the debate if members take more than six minutes. I therefo...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the common agricultural policy. I congratulate Rob Gibson and the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and...
Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP)
SNP
As is Alex Fergusson—his recent departure from the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has deprived the committee of a valued and conside...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Con
Last week, I remarked on how unusual it was to have a committee debate before a report had been published. That worked well in last week’s Education and Cult...
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
Farming and rural communities will welcome the programme of meetings that are being held across the country, and the invitation to submit recommendations. It...
Jim Hume (South Scotland) (LD)
LD
I thank the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their hard work on the subject and on the many other subjects that the Rural Affairs, C...
Mike MacKenzie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
Presiding Officer, I have a confession to make: I cannot pretend to understand properly the common agricultural policy, some of which is mind-boggling in its...
Alex Fergusson
Con
I am sorry to interrupt a very good speech. Does Mike MacKenzie accept that the door of DEFRA is, as I understand it, open to the cabinet secretary, just as ...
Mike MacKenzie
SNP
I am delighted to take Alex Fergusson’s assurance that the door is now open, although I am sure that he would agree that there have been occasions in the pas...
Jim Hume
LD
Is Mike MacKenzie just picking numbers out of the blue?
Mike MacKenzie
SNP
I understand that the number of MEPs would be in the region of 20. Of course, that will be a matter to be decided when the great day comes. I look forward to...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
Having recently left the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I would like to start by saying how much I enjoyed serving on that committe...