Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 03 October 2013
03 Oct 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Common Agricultural Policy
This is an opportune time to have a CAP debate, and we should not miss the opportunity to discuss the key issues. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s press release this morning and the way in which he has addressed the debate this afternoon. He began to lay out some of the key issues that face us in Scotland.
This morning, my daughter got ready for her school harvest service with the poem about all the farmers working hard. It is important to recognise the huge contribution that farmers make to our food production and security, land stewardship, and our rural and national economies.
There are significant on-going debates about food affordability and accessibility and how we reconcile impressive export growth figures with growing food poverty at home. Regardless of who receives more, or where Scotland is in a subsidy league table, farming receives significant public resources in return for a number of public benefits, some of which compete. It is important not to lose sight of that in this debate. Our focus is on how we implement the changes and try to get the best deal for those who receive the support, but we also need to ensure that we get the best deal for consumers and the wider community and economy.
At the start of the process, the European Parliament identified food security as key, but that was alongside rising energy prices, climate change, environmental protection, land abandonment and the economic crisis as the set of challenges that a reformed CAP must respond to. I am not convinced that what we have before us meets that challenge. If Scotland is to respond effectively to those issues, implementation has a lot to deliver.
Labour’s amendment focuses on the complex matter of the choices that we have to make in Scotland. In this phase, the decision making lies with the Scottish Government. After a pretty protracted period of negotiation, we now face a fairly tight timescale for introduction. The Scottish Government will soon consult on the issues but, as the Scottish Environment LINK briefing says:
“Government clarity on objectives and desired outcomes is essential here if a ‘bun-fight’ between different farming sectors—beef versus arable versus dairy—is to be avoided.”
At committee last week, the cabinet secretary laid out three options for the transfer from historical to area payments. I have previously cautioned about using the “Irish tunnel” model. We now have agreement on the principle of a new entrants fund. That fund is very welcome, and we should prioritise its introduction in Scotland. Perhaps in light of that, there is more room to have a more gradual approach towards convergence. However, there is a risk that the “Irish tunnel” model will slow reform too much and that, while it cushions the change for some, it will mean that others who are in need of support will have to wait much longer.
The cabinet secretary talked about securing the Scottish clause. It would be good to have some clarity on the Scottish clause. The end of slipper farming has been a key aim of the reform, but it looks as though there is a risk that other loopholes will be created. Unintended attractions could be created that encourage some land to become eligible for pillar 1 support. The flexibility of setting a minimum stocking level seems key to the policy being effective. Will the cabinet secretary say a bit more about what the current understanding is? His press release this morning talked about “minimum activity levels”. Is he confident that that will address the issue?
The cabinet secretary is fond of per hectare average comparisons. They are accurate, and I support a fairer distribution of funds throughout the EU and the UK and accept that that is the measure that is used, but those comparisons also fit the cabinet secretary’s preferred narrative. We know that the situation is much more complex than that.
We can recognise how the situation came about. The payments are historical. Scotland’s 1.5 million hectares present unique farming challenges and we have worked with a system that has heavily rewarded productivity, but has not sufficiently recognised what Scotland’s less favoured farming areas deliver. The Scottish Environment LINK briefing highlights the importance of high nature-value farming—I think that a few of us were at the RSPB Scotland parliamentary briefing earlier. Average per hectare calculations give a distorted picture. They mask significantly different payments. Therefore, when the cabinet secretary makes claims about farmers being £6,000 a year better off, that is really not the whole picture. The matter is not as simple as average per hectare payments. What does the figure tell us about recipients in East Lothian, who receive an average payment of over €125,000 per hectare, whereas the Highland region receives an average of just over €34? It does not tell us very much. If we look at other measures, such as per holding or per worker—that is surely an important measure if we are looking at public benefit—we will see that Scotland and the UK are much higher in the EU league tables. Scotland even receives more than the rest of the UK on some of those figures.
This morning, my daughter got ready for her school harvest service with the poem about all the farmers working hard. It is important to recognise the huge contribution that farmers make to our food production and security, land stewardship, and our rural and national economies.
There are significant on-going debates about food affordability and accessibility and how we reconcile impressive export growth figures with growing food poverty at home. Regardless of who receives more, or where Scotland is in a subsidy league table, farming receives significant public resources in return for a number of public benefits, some of which compete. It is important not to lose sight of that in this debate. Our focus is on how we implement the changes and try to get the best deal for those who receive the support, but we also need to ensure that we get the best deal for consumers and the wider community and economy.
At the start of the process, the European Parliament identified food security as key, but that was alongside rising energy prices, climate change, environmental protection, land abandonment and the economic crisis as the set of challenges that a reformed CAP must respond to. I am not convinced that what we have before us meets that challenge. If Scotland is to respond effectively to those issues, implementation has a lot to deliver.
Labour’s amendment focuses on the complex matter of the choices that we have to make in Scotland. In this phase, the decision making lies with the Scottish Government. After a pretty protracted period of negotiation, we now face a fairly tight timescale for introduction. The Scottish Government will soon consult on the issues but, as the Scottish Environment LINK briefing says:
“Government clarity on objectives and desired outcomes is essential here if a ‘bun-fight’ between different farming sectors—beef versus arable versus dairy—is to be avoided.”
At committee last week, the cabinet secretary laid out three options for the transfer from historical to area payments. I have previously cautioned about using the “Irish tunnel” model. We now have agreement on the principle of a new entrants fund. That fund is very welcome, and we should prioritise its introduction in Scotland. Perhaps in light of that, there is more room to have a more gradual approach towards convergence. However, there is a risk that the “Irish tunnel” model will slow reform too much and that, while it cushions the change for some, it will mean that others who are in need of support will have to wait much longer.
The cabinet secretary talked about securing the Scottish clause. It would be good to have some clarity on the Scottish clause. The end of slipper farming has been a key aim of the reform, but it looks as though there is a risk that other loopholes will be created. Unintended attractions could be created that encourage some land to become eligible for pillar 1 support. The flexibility of setting a minimum stocking level seems key to the policy being effective. Will the cabinet secretary say a bit more about what the current understanding is? His press release this morning talked about “minimum activity levels”. Is he confident that that will address the issue?
The cabinet secretary is fond of per hectare average comparisons. They are accurate, and I support a fairer distribution of funds throughout the EU and the UK and accept that that is the measure that is used, but those comparisons also fit the cabinet secretary’s preferred narrative. We know that the situation is much more complex than that.
We can recognise how the situation came about. The payments are historical. Scotland’s 1.5 million hectares present unique farming challenges and we have worked with a system that has heavily rewarded productivity, but has not sufficiently recognised what Scotland’s less favoured farming areas deliver. The Scottish Environment LINK briefing highlights the importance of high nature-value farming—I think that a few of us were at the RSPB Scotland parliamentary briefing earlier. Average per hectare calculations give a distorted picture. They mask significantly different payments. Therefore, when the cabinet secretary makes claims about farmers being £6,000 a year better off, that is really not the whole picture. The matter is not as simple as average per hectare payments. What does the figure tell us about recipients in East Lothian, who receive an average payment of over €125,000 per hectare, whereas the Highland region receives an average of just over €34? It does not tell us very much. If we look at other measures, such as per holding or per worker—that is surely an important measure if we are looking at public benefit—we will see that Scotland and the UK are much higher in the EU league tables. Scotland even receives more than the rest of the UK on some of those figures.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
Good afternoon. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-07892, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the common agricultural policy.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead)
SNP
The debate on the common agricultural policy for 2014 to 2020 provides an opportunity for the Government to update Parliament on the state of play in the Eur...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
Has the cabinet secretary approached the UK Government to discuss the possibility of calculating the 8 per cent on the UK’s share rather than just the Scotti...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
Yes we have, and I will talk about that now because this is a key area for Scotland.Unfortunately, our negotiator, Owen Paterson, did not want any coupled su...
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD)
LD
We have heard a lot about the UK Government not batting for Scotland. As I recall, the cabinet secretary was demanding an increase in the budget at the same ...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
I am sure that the member is aware that only 38 per cent of the Europe budget is for CAP. That is one area in which Scotland gets an extremely raw deal. We d...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
This is an opportune time to have a CAP debate, and we should not miss the opportunity to discuss the key issues. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s press rel...
Richard Lochhead
SNP
The figures that Claire Baker has read out illustrate why we have to move from the historical basis for payments to a new basis for payments. That is why we ...
Claire Baker
Lab
I accept that that is the formula that is used, but the story behind it is much more complex. It is not just about providing a fairer formula throughout the ...
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse)
SNP
I hope that Claire Baker acknowledges that, if we were an independent member state in our own right, we would have benefited from the new formula in terms of...
Claire Baker
Lab
That is not the situation that we face. The SNP proposes that we go into the EU as a new member state and there are concerns about the negotiations that woul...
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Con
This is a debate on which I wish it were possible for the Parliament to speak with one voice. We have often managed to do so on this topic in the past, but I...
Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (LD)
LD
I draw members’ attention to my declaration of interests.I spent last Saturday—as many of us do at this time of the year—at my local mart, in Lerwick. I hear...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
We turn to the open debate. Can I have speeches of six minutes, please?15:11
Rob Gibson (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
SNP
There have been some suggestions that we would be better not having a fragmented approach, but the motion and the amendments show that the fragmentation come...
Alex Fergusson
Con
Will Rob Gibson take a brief intervention?
Rob Gibson
SNP
I have hardly started, but I will.
Alex Fergusson
Con
It is better to take interventions early.If what Mr Gibson said about the budget deal is the case, why did the cabinet secretary describe the deal that came ...
Rob Gibson
SNP
The cabinet secretary was talking about the bits that we got into the deal in relation to dealing with active farming, the Scottish clause and so on—that is ...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lab
President Dwight Eisenhower famously said:“Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”It is of co...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Angus MacDonald, to be followed by Graeme Dey. We have a small amount of time in hand for interventions.15:23
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
SNP
As we have heard from the cabinet secretary, the long-drawn-out saga of CAP reform is finally reaching a close, with a vote in the European Parliament in mid...
Claire Baker
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Angus MacDonald
SNP
Sorry. I have a lot to get into my six minutes.Ireland gets €70 per hectare, Finland gets €138 and the Czech Republic gets €83.With friends like the UK Gover...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
There is a bit of extra time for members who want to take interventions.15:29
Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP)
SNP
I begin my speech by focusing on pillar 2 and how, from a greatly reduced funding pot, it will be made to work to deliver for rural Scotland. By rural Scotla...
David Stewart
Lab
I strongly support the point that the member is making about rural development, but does he share my view that a maximum modulation of 15 per cent from pilla...
Graeme Dey
SNP
I think that there is a balance to be struck in that regard.Within that figure will be people who commute to towns and cities to earn their living but, given...
Jayne Baxter (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
It does not seem so long ago that we were gathered here to discuss the common agricultural policy reform proposals, but it has in fact been more than six mon...
Nigel Don (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
SNP
I will start by looking at the Scottish Government’s objectives in the CAP process. As the cabinet secretary has already alluded to, those are to continue to...