Hansard

We do, indeed, believe that a national reserve is very important.

Stakeholders were concerned about the trigger for eligibility for payments, and the new entrants group described the 2011 trigger as its biggest concern about the CAP reforms. Because new entrants would not have qualified for single farm payments in the past, the 2011 trigger could exclude them in the future. It was felt that basing the scheme on the submission of an integrated administration and control system form rather than a 2011 entitlement would be better from the new entrants’ point of view.

On the greening schemes within pillar 1, there were concerns about permanent pasture and crop diversification proposals. The definition of permanent pasture as grassland that is more than five years old was deemed not suitable, with Scottish Environment LINK stressing that such a definition was too broad and crude and would not sufficiently target the most biodiverse, high nature value grassland. There was a feeling that the EU must allow flexibility. Greening must not mean more cross-compliance. Stakeholders were broadly supportive of the greening of pillar 1 as long as the measures fitted the Scottish situation.

On the capping of direct payments, in the evidence that the committee received, people questioned what would happen to the money that was saved. Would capping be an incentive or not? Would the process be bureaucratic? Would the money be kept in Scotland? If not, would it be possible for us to have extra funds? At present, it seems that only 35 companies receive more than £300,000 in single farm payments, with about 150 companies receiving more than £150,000. That is a small minority of farmers, but it is a significant group and the money may be useful.

Getting new entrants into farming is the biggest challenge of all. The national reserve, which has been mentioned, is important for that purpose.

Many felt that assisting less favoured areas is a top priority for Scotland and that we must ensure that the reforms are flexible enough to allow Scotland to do that. The proposals address that through the areas of natural constraint and by allowing some coupled payments. The Highlands and Islands agricultural group and crofters stressed the importance of targeting support at “vulnerable areas”—that is, areas at risk of de-stocking, where continued agricultural activity provides environmental and social benefits.

High nature value farming areas have been the subject of some discussion and were considered as a vehicle for targeting spending at the most vulnerable areas. On a visit that I made last August to a high nature value farm at Forsie in Caithness, I saw high nature value farming working alongside major commercial cattle and sheep farming. The message is simple: bird-life needs continued grazing, and it needs land to be managed; if land is abandoned or given over only to sheep, precious habitats may be lost. To succeed, constant vigilance and partnership between local farmers are required.

The submission on the CAP proposals from the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism argued for targeted payments for types of high nature value farming in defined areas and said that environmental organisations must be mentioned explicitly as advisers to farmers and crofters on the ways to enter such schemes.

The NFUS and Scottish Environment LINK say that designation is not the issue and that the scheme is the key thing. The current less favoured area support scheme does not target areas that are in need and must be more environmentally focused.

The small farmers scheme was not welcomed because it was hoped that the related cross-compliance and greening would happen on crofts. Crofters said that their common grazings must be taken into account as well.

Many stressed that the priority is to get a fairer pillar 2 share from the EU and the UK. Scottish Environment LINK is concerned that not enough money will be available to deliver environmental objectives and to help farming to diversify. A frozen budget means a budget cut in real terms.

The Scottish Parliament and our Scottish Government must get a direct say in the final arrangements for the new CAP. As Brian Henderson wrote in “Down on the Farm” in the Sunday Post on 15 January,

“there is one thing that sticks in the craw of many Scottish farmers—despite devolution, Scotland doesn’t have a seat at the top level when farming issues are discussed in Brussels—and our devolved voice has to be put through a UK minister who might have little understanding of Scottish issues ... It’s also a fact that on a per-acre basis Scotland averages only one third the level of EU support paid to farmers south of the border, putting us alongside Latvia and Estonia as the poor relations in Europe.”

Before we report, it will be up to our committee to decide what it thinks of the CAP proposals that are before us this year.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s ongoing scrutiny of the European Commission’s proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.