Hansard

President Dwight Eisenhower famously said:

“Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”

It is of course tempting to draw a comparison with the architects of the new CAP. Just when we all get to grips with the four-axis model, the European Commission comes along and abolishes them. However, complexity and timescale do not negate importance.

Although I welcome the final agreement on the new CAP, I share the frustration of many people—not least some members who have spoken before me—that the policy has taken so long to agree and we are still months away from completion. In fairness, however, I welcome the cabinet secretary’s £70 million allocation from his portfolio’s draft budget to fund effectively the transition between the two programs, which will up to a point mitigate the uncertainly of EU delays.

As we know, the new CAP is crucial for farmers and rural communities. The agricultural sector’s needs are in many ways critical to Scotland‘s future and it is essential that the SRDP be tailored to the reality of modern life in rural Scotland, with its rich diversity of individuals, enterprises and communities. The Scottish Agricultural College’s “2012: Rural Scotland in Focus” report reflected that diversity and called for Government policies to be tailored to the wider reality of rural Scotland. In a similar vein, the Carnegie UK Trust report, “Future Directions in Rural Development”, echoed views that were expressed by organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations in calling for greater investment in capacity building and networking at community level.

As we have heard, the new SRDP has the potential to benefit not just the farming industry and Scotland‘s environment, but Scotland‘s rural communities. The toolkit contains community-led local development strategies such as LEADER and an extended and improved Scottish national rural network.

It is essential that when we address the CAP’s complex technicalities—which many members, not least the cabinet secretary, have referred to—we do not lose sight of the vital dimension of its being intended to be a policy that benefits all who live in rural Scotland.

I will focus my remarks on the pillar 2 rural development programme, but it is perhaps worth pausing for a second to look back into history. As we all know, agricultural support—more specifically, support for farmers in the development of agricultural produce for the export market—was, arguably, an early driver for the treaty of Rome in 1957. As members also know, the powerful dynamic between France and Germany, which is reflected in foreign affairs and defence, demonstrates the strength of the relationship between those countries. That presents major challenges for us all in review, reform and renewal of the CAP.

One of the bigger questions this afternoon, which Rob Gibson touched on, is the question about why we need public support for agriculture. We know the international picture, which is of a crisis in global food prices and inflation that has led to food riots in nearly every continent apart from Europe. In addition, instability in the middle east has hit the price of oil and has affected transport and fertiliser costs. The key point is that security of supply is not just about the energy markets; it is a key element in the CAP as well.

We would probably need the foresight of the Brahan seer to predict exactly what the Scottish allocation of the CAP is going to be, but we know, as has been pointed out in the debate, that there has been an overall cut in the EU budget and in the overall CAP budget, of 11 per cent and 12 per cent in pillar 1 and pillar 2 respectively. However, Scotland can gain, due to the external convergence mechanism, which is an EU-wide device for boosting direct payments for the recipients of the lowest amounts. The new deal allows much more flexibility for member states to move funds from one pillar to another through modulation, as Alex Fergusson touched on. That will support much-needed rural development. Perhaps the cabinet secretary, in his winding-up speech—if he is paying attention—could say whether he plans to use the full 15 per cent voluntary modulation from pillar 1 to pillar 2.

Pillar 2 rural development programmes must be linked to the six key priorities, which include enhancing competitiveness, promoting ecosystems, developing social inclusion and reducing poverty. The new arrangements will allow much more flexibility in how money is spent by individual member states. Pillar 2 has a crucial role to play in supporting and developing the delivery of public goods and services by agriculture, although as a number of members have stated—not least the cabinet secretary—the UK receives the lowest share of all EU member states, and Scotland has the lowest share of the four countries in the UK. The new arrangements allow for sub-programmes in a future SRDP, which could help to fund vital programmes that will help with existing and new crofter schemes, particularly those for new entrants.

After a recent meeting that I had with the Crofting Commission, it is clear to me that there are growing concerns in crofting communities about how much real money will be allocated to the new crofters programme. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could give some assurances on that when he winds up.

I want a future rural development programme that encompasses strong environmental stewardship, that works actively to secure biodiversity and manage landscapes and habitats, and that stresses the needs of people in rural and remote areas. Rural development needs people’s intelligence and individuality. The acid test will be how the CAP delivers for our most fragile and remote rural areas.