Hansard

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 regret that it seems highly unlikely that that will be the case at decision time this evening. That is not just a great shame but a missed opportunity on the part of the Government, as there is much in the debate around which I genuinely believe we could have agreed. Surely the Government would agree that a unanimous vote from this Parliament would carry a much stronger message to both the UK Government and the EU than the fragmented result that, I fear, we will see later this afternoon.

Had today’s motion reflected the perfectly reasonable tone taken by the cabinet secretary in his speech this afternoon, we might have achieved such unanimity, but I do not think that that will be the case. In my view, the motion certainly does not reflect that reasonable tone. When I started to read the motion, I was filled with optimism that the debate would concentrate on the many really important issues that face rural Scotland in the wake of the CAP reform package, but, as I read on, my heart slowly sank as I came to what I can only call a remarkably self-congratulatory clause that asks us to welcome

“the Scottish Government’s success in negotiating provisions that meet Scotland’s needs”

in various fields. That phrase “success in negotiating” was penned by the same cabinet secretary who is forever complaining that he cannot negotiate anything because he does not have a seat at the top table. Well, I do not see how he can have it both ways.

I very much welcome the fact that the UK Government was clearly impressed enough with the Scottish Government’s arguments on these issues that it negotiated hard for them—often, I believe, against its own instincts—succeeded in those negotiations and returned with a deal on CAP reform that might not have given us everything that we wanted but that the cabinet secretary pronounced as a good deal for Scotland. So I find myself asking why the motion calls on us to “deplore” that agreement.

Let us get real for a minute. We all know that the overall EU budget has been reduced. How could it have been otherwise in these economic times? Let us also not forget that, as Liam McArthur reminded us, the SNP’s representatives at Westminster voted for that budget reduction, so it should surely have come as no surprise that there is less money in the CAP budget. The issue should be not how much blame and vitriol we can pour on the UK Government but how we can maximise the benefit of the smaller pot of money under the two pillars following CAP reform. As Claire Baker hinted, that may not suit the Government’s agenda on the outcome of next year’s referendum, but it is the question to which most people who live and work in rural Scotland want an answer.

I will focus on those issues. I have a lot of sympathy with the cabinet secretary as he faces the task before him because, as we all recognise, the changes that he must now implement will involve many winners and losers across the agricultural sector as pillar 1 support moves from historical to area-based payments. However, it is worth reflecting that Scotland has historically had a low level of CAP funding because our historical payments have always been based on stock numbers and productivity. As we all know, and are constantly reminded, 85 per cent of Scotland’s land is classed as less favoured. We are geographically less productive and therefore have historically received less support.

The change to area-based payments, as the cabinet secretary understandably hinted in his opening remarks, will inevitably have the broad effect of moving support payments up the hill. That presents the Government with a huge challenge: how to bring about the change without actually destroying the viability, possibly even the very existence of some agricultural businesses. In looking for the best answer to that question I cannot disagree with NFU Scotland’s priority of focusing pillar 1 payments on active, productive farming businesses in a carefully targeted way that will minimise the flattening effect of these reforms. That points us towards having three distinct payment regions rather than two.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government can use up to 8 per cent of the Scottish CAP budget for coupled payment, which I strongly support. I will also take the argument for increasing that amount by having access to the whole of the UK’s CAP budget ceiling for modulation to the UK Government, because I believe that we will probably need to go above that level of 8 per cent maximum if the necessary safeguards are to be put in place to sustain our hill farming sector without causing irreparable damage to the other sectors of agriculture.

It is also clear, as I think the cabinet secretary said, that there will be huge pressure on the pillar 2 budget, because yet again we will have the smallest pot of jam to spread over a much larger slice of bread from 2015. The reforms give the cabinet secretary the power to increase the amount that can be modulated from pillar 1 to pillar 2 from the current 4 per cent to 15 per cent, as Claire Baker has already mentioned, without match funding. I am sure that he will be sorely tempted and heavily lobbied to use that power.

Unlike Claire Baker—and I suspect that this is where I will lose some potential support for our amendment—I would urge him to resist that temptation because every percentage decrease in pillar 1 support will simply undermine what will be a very fragile agricultural sector that will struggle to come to terms with a very different support structure over the next few years. It deserves time to do so and, above all else, it surely needs to know what that structure is likely to be as soon as is humanly possible, to allow for effective forward planning.

I will argue for Scotland to have a greater share of the CAP resources within the UK and I accept the case for the external convergence uplift largely to come to Scotland. The cabinet secretary told the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee two weeks ago that this could amount to, I think, €60 million by 2019. I think he repeated that this afternoon. That is a considerable amount of money that would not come to the member state of the UK unless Scotland was in the position that it finds itself in.

There is a perfectly logical case to be made. I will do so using the language of persuasion and the arguments of logic. The cabinet secretary does not do his arguments any favour when he publicly accuses the UK Government, as he did at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee two weeks ago, of stealing Scotland’s money. The rhetoric might fit the referendum agenda, but it does not do Scottish agriculture any favours. The simple reality is that the CAP reform package is now firmly in the hands of the cabinet secretary. As the headline of last week’s Scottish Farmer put it so succinctly:

“Over to you, ScotGov”

Indeed it is.

I move amendment S4M-07892.2 to leave out from “and welcomes” to end and insert:

“, which was welcomed by the Scottish Government as a good deal for Scotland; welcomes the Scottish Government’s success, alongside the UK Government, in negotiating provisions that meet Scotland’s needs on new entrants, active farming and increased flexibilities; looks forward to the Scottish Government’s future public consultations on implementing the new CAP in Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to negotiate responsibly with the UK Government to ensure the best possible outcome for rural Scotland and to inform Scotland’s farmers and other rural stakeholders without undue delay how these reforms will be implemented across the country.”

15:03