Hansard

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.