Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 03 October 2013

03 Oct 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Common Agricultural Policy

Baker, Claire Lab Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

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 would have to take place. What would that mean for Scottish farming? Could the SNP guarantee that payments to farmers would continue during any negotiations? Recent examples show that new member states, including those that joined in 2007, have had their direct EU payments phased in gradually, which would be disastrous for Scottish farming.

I will move on to an area on which there is more agreement between us. I agree with the cabinet secretary that Owen Paterson needs to listen and respond positively to the debate. We need an equitable solution for the UK. I accept that it is a challenging negotiation for the cabinet secretary, but he will also have to deliver on the degree of redistribution that he argues for across the EU and within the UK. He must start to be clear about what level of support will be available to farming in Scotland’s more disadvantaged areas. There have been suggestions that the maximum degree of modulation from pillar 1 to pillar 2 will take place and, as the Liberal Democrat amendment highlights, that decision will have to be made quite soon. We support arguments for greater funding in pillar 2 to deliver an effective SRDP. Some people in the farming sector have raised concerns over the impact that that degree of modulation will have on pillar 1, but we need to consider our commitment to meet our environmental challenges. If we were to boost the agri-environment schemes, which have previously been cut, we could deliver benefits for both.

Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report clearly set out the global challenges. We know that the farming sector in Scotland has a pretty significant environmental impact, with emissions from agriculture and related land use accounting for some 20 per cent of total Scottish emissions. The example this week of John McKenzie from Dingwall, who is running a carbon neutral flying business with all the energy generated from his farm, demonstrates the commitment and innovation that exists out there to improve performance. Currently, we have no statutory measures placed on the sector and there is some way to go. It is essential that we use incentives and good practice, but we need to see more action in that area. If we could boost the funds in pillar 2, that would go some way towards helping that.

The other significant area is how we implement degressivity. We need much more transparency around payments and a better explanation of how public benefit is gained from some of the large farm payments that are being made to profitable farms. The payments must be justifiable. I recently spoke to a senior figure in food and drink, and they said that the most innovative of produce, the most diverse business models and the most modern farming often come from younger farmers who have received no public subsidy but who are, nonetheless, growing businesses and have the potential to do more.

The new entrants scheme will ease matters—I know that the cabinet secretary agrees that part of the solution must be to look at land availability and tenancies if we are to improve the lot of new entrants—but we must also be prepared to focus resources on where they provide the greatest public benefit. On that issue, Alyn Smith MEP commented this week that he was

“disappointed the agreement didn’t go further on capping: we have simply not addressed popular concerns on this issue, and when everyone is having to tighten their belts it’s only right that the nation’s wealthiest farmers should as well.”

It is now up to the cabinet secretary to address the issue and to indicate where he thinks that the balance should lie and what is proportionate and fair.

We need to be clear about our priorities for implementation. We would be better spending our time today on that significant debate and sending a clear message to the UK Government about delivering a fairer funding deal throughout the UK than on making referendum arguments that have little reference to the CAP deal, which is determined now until 2020.

I move amendment S4M-07892.3, to leave out from “and welcomes” to end and insert:

“and believes that the focus must now shift to implementing the latest CAP agreement to best meet the needs of farmers across Scotland, including new entrants, reward active farming and support rural businesses and communities, as well as protect and enhance Scotland’s environment; recognises the tight timescale for introduction and calls on the Scottish Government to provide clarity on the transition from historic to area payments, the level of modulation from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 and the future Scottish Rural Development Programme as soon as possible, and calls on both the Scottish Government and the UK Government to ensure that a mature dialogue is maintained in the implementation of the current agreement in order to deliver a fair outcome throughout the UK.”

14:56

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 03 October 2013

In the same item of business