Hansard

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, Climate Change and Environment Committee tackles. I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.

The common agricultural policy is the number 1 issue for rural Scotland. Remote communities from Lerwick down to Whithorn are reliant on the CAP funds that come into communities and which indirectly support local businesses, shops and schools, as other members have said. Our environment is managed by farming communities—there would not be heather-clad hills or rolling green pastures without a vibrant agriculture industry. The CAP is also the first step in food and drink production, which is a vital industry. The base product in whisky—our largest export—is farm-grown Scottish malt barley.

Of course, agriculture also produces more basic products for vital foods such as bread and milk. We simply cannot survive without it. Worldwide demand increases as the population rises—it is now more than 7 billion. The combination of that with climate change—which is changing parts of the world from fertile areas to arid regions that are unfit for production—heightens the importance of getting the reform of the CAP correct.

All alterations to the CAP ultimately result in redistribution. The EU must bear that in mind in its deliberations and it must ensure that there is a transition period to give businesses time to change. As part of that, if we do not have an agreed CAP for the end of the current arrangement in 2014—which is possible—a bridging mechanism must be in place to ensure a smooth transition to cover any gap in the CAP. Transition measures could be used until 2019, which is five years after the proposed introduction of the new CAP in 2014, but if, as is possible, the introduction of the new CAP is late by a year or two, enough flexibility should be installed so that the 2019 date can be set back to allow at least five years of transition.

Scotland could benefit from redistribution within the EU of pillar 2 environmental payments; we are at the bottom of the payment per hectare league on those. There is, I hope, potential for good news. However, the proposals have various anomalies that must be addressed. New claimants in 2014 will need to have made a claim in 2011. How can we encourage new entrants in or after 2014? This morning, the committee heard that the situation is holding up the letting of land until we find out what is what. New entrants could be kept out of CAP for good if that issue is not addressed. There is a need for a national reserve not just at the beginning of the new CAP, but throughout it.

Others have mentioned permanent pasture, which it is proposed will be classified as grass over five years old. When I was a student, any grass under five years of age was classified as temporary grass. Permanent grass—or ley, in Scotland—was traditionally grass that was 28 years old. It was often direct-drilled grass, which saves digging up stones and the land is therefore permanently in grass. Moreover, the longer grass is undisturbed, the more biodiverse the pasture becomes. Given the proposed greening of CAP and the knowledge that increasing ploughing intervals will only increase our carbon emissions, it must be recognised that a five-year permanent pasture proposal is unsuitable, at least for the Scottish situation. I hope that subsidiarity will be the key to be used in that regard.

As I mentioned, the proposal is for a greening of the CAP so that 30 per cent of direct payments will be to benefit the environment, and that payments should not go to so-called slipper farmers. It is absolutely correct that someone who is not farming should not benefit. However, the EU must recognise more of Scotland’s anomalies. For example, there is a call for three-crop rotation, but in most of Scotland it is impossible to grow three different crops on the same land, and the crop rotations that do occur are rightly influenced by what it is possible to grow on the land and what there is a market or a need for.

Another greening issue is the 7 per cent of farmed land that is to be put aside for environmental benefit. I question the benefit of that proposal, given that people in certain parts of the world are starving. However, if it goes ahead, it must not be 7 per cent of every parcel of land, as some suggest, but be either on a whole-farm or community basis, and it should also take into account whether the farmer has been in a scheme like the rural stewardship scheme in the past.

There has also been mention of areas of national constraint and the ability to fund such areas. Orkney could benefit, but at the moment there is concern that such areas would be unfundable through the less favoured area schemes. I would like clarification on that matter from the minister, if possible.

My final point is about the fact that the Scottish Government holds back payments of the single farm payment if there is a live cross-compliance check on a farm. We see at the moment many farms waiting for their SFP that have perhaps altered their maps as per instruction from the Scottish Government and are honestly complying but who are suffering because of that. The Government states that it is an EU rule. If that is the case, the new CAP should allow provision for payment of, say, 90 per cent of CAP payments while waiting for conclusion of the cross-compliance check. I hope that the minister can concur with my view on that at some stage.

16:12