Hansard

The cabinet secretary was talking about the bits that we got into the deal in relation to dealing with active farming, the Scottish clause and so on—that is a win in a limited field of opportunity.

The UK Government did not fight for a better allocation of funding for pillar 1 and pillar 2 funds. Scotland has demanded an uplift in our rural development budgets; after all, we have the lowest budgets not just in the UK but in the whole of Europe. However, unlike how 16 other countries negotiated their deals, the UK failed to negotiate a special uplift or a fairer share for Scotland. That surely is a matter for deep concern across the Parliament.

To retain active agriculture and keep our land productive, maintain food production, safeguard our environment, remain competitive and maintain populations living in our rural communities, the settled view of Scotland is that we need on-going support from Europe. However the UK position is to end direct support for Scottish agriculture, in particular pillar 1 support. There is therefore a clash between the whole Scottish community and the way some parties in here wish to portray the motion. In order to reverse the decline in livestock numbers, to keep cattle and sheep on our hills, to protect our red meat supply chain and to produce for the domestic and export markets, Scotland wants the option of coupled support, but the UK position is that there should be no coupled support, so that is another fault line in the story.

Scotland is demanding that our cast-iron case for a fair share of the EU farming budget be recognised, but it has not been recognised in London. We receive the fourth-lowest level of payments in Europe, but the UK position is that the case has not been proved. Indeed, the UK is trying to invent other formulae to try to siphon away money that should be Scotland’s. When the cabinet secretary talked about stealing money, he was alluding to the danger that came from the mouth of Owen Paterson, the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He came to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 12 June this year and said:

“I came in in September with a clear remit from the Prime Minister to grow the rural economy ... and to improve the environment”.

If he is intent on doing that for Scotland’s rural economy, he must prove that he is going to put in place the mechanisms that will allow us to grow it.

Mr Paterson also said:

“Working with ministers in the devolved Administrations, we have a huge role in helping to grow the farming and food production sector”

but how can we do that if there are no coupled payments and no proper supply of red meat? He said:

“I think that we have pretty much got an awful lot of what”

we

“wanted.”

I totally disagree. We did not get what we wanted because we still have the lowest payments in Europe.

Mr Paterson also said,

“The days of significant public support leading to the production of unwanted food products are gone, and my whole drive throughout the reform is to keep the CAP moving in the right direction”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 12 June 2013; c 2369-74.]—

In other words, it is moving downwards and certainly not in support of the development of our rural economy. At a time when people are lining up to get food from food banks, the secretary of state in London is talking about “unwanted food” production. Surely there is an appalling disconnect in that respect. After all, this country would like to be able to feed all its people.

As I have said, Owen Paterson opposes pillar 1 support and thinks that we should rely on the market. However, he fails to see that coupled payments for cattle are key to protecting our biodiversity because they keep cattle on the hills and the machair. As a result, we need a strong pillar 1 alongside pillar 2 aims for public good.

Mr Paterson also recently described global warming as positive. That is incredible, particularly as our biodiversity is hugely threatened by global warming. Indeed, on Monday, The Guardian reported his praise of the alleged positives that will come from global warming. As the secretary of state in charge of tackling climate change at UK level, he should be well aware of the deeply damaging impact climate change will have at home and abroad, not least when it comes to our farming.

Unfortunately, Owen Paterson’s office has informed us that he will not be able to attend our committee as all his Wednesdays and Thursdays this side of Christmas are taken up. His diary is full. However, our demands remain unmet so I ask Parliament to support the motion, which gets to the heart of the matter and evolves a policy that can take Scotland’s food and drink forward.

15:17