Hansard

I think that there is a balance to be struck in that regard.

Within that figure will be people who commute to towns and cities to earn their living but, given the huge investment that is being made in delivering an acceptable standard of broadband to rural parts of our country, we must ensure that SRDP funding continues to encourage people to set up all sorts of businesses and helps to sustain existing businesses in a rural setting, thereby supporting local economies and reducing carbon dioxide emissions through lowering car miles.

Pillar 2 is there to support things such as LFASS and new entrants and much of it will go to the farming sector but, contrary to what some in agriculture seem to think, it is not exclusively for supporting farming. Pillar 1 is there exclusively to provide support for farming, but pillar 2 is there for a wide range of activities. However, perusing the latest edition of the NFUS’s Scottish Farming Leader, I was struck by an article on the CAP that insisted that, if the Scottish Government was to transfer funds from pillar 1 to pillar 2, that should be matched and the combined sums channelled towards accessible and practical measures that underpin farming and crofting.

I entirely appreciate that the NFUS is going to fight its members’ corner, but I cannot help but feel that those demands betray a belief that pillar 2 is—if not quite lock, stock and barrel, then not far off it—there for farmers to access. Actually, it is also there to support programmes such as LEADER and other lifeline funding for rural areas. The situation regarding transition arrangements for LEADER is concerning given that it gave out, I think, £12 million in the last financial year.

The nature of what the SRDP is for was reinforced in the Parliament building on Tuesday evening, when the cross-party group on rural policy received a briefing from Mike Mackenzie of the European Commission’s directorate-general for agriculture and rural development, who works within the unit that deals with the fundamental principles and structures of the EU’s rural development policy. He made it clear that the rural development policy from 2014 to 2020 must

“achieve a balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities including the creation and maintenance of employment”

and that included among the six Union priorities is

“economic development in rural areas”.

I speak as an MSP for just such a rural area—one where farming is hugely important, but one that has also seen vital support given to non-agricultural businesses. They include the prospering quarrying company whose £1.2 million new processing plant and offices I had the pleasure of opening. As the only source of quarried Angus sandstone, it employs about 20 full-timers and it is looking to develop a training programme. We also have a small architectural business that, with the help of grant aid from the SRDP, is building a brand new headquarters in a rural setting and aiming to double its workforce, keeping young, newly qualified architects in the rural communities that they come from.

The Scottish Government has spent the past 18 months consulting stakeholders on the next SRDP, and a second, more detailed consultation will follow. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s confirmation in opening the debate that the SRDP has a wider role than simply supporting farming. However, it would be helpful if, in his closing remarks, he could shed some light on how he will seek to ensure that we continue to encourage and support non-farming and non-forestry businesses to locate or remain in rural settings.

There are so many important aspects of the CAP that each member who participates in the debate could choose just one or two to cover in their speech and a number of aspects would be left untouched, but we cannot get away from the fundamental issue of funding. By any determination, the position in which Scotland finds itself is unacceptable. The facts are there. The funding situation and, in particular, the prospect of Scotland not receiving the full external convergence uplift that the UK received only because of Scotland—it would be worth about €11 million in 2014, rising to €60 million in 2019—are gross wrongs.

It is not only SNP members of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee who have recognised the inherent unfairness that is at work here. Alex Fergusson reiterated his worries today. However, it seems that Mr Paterson is not listening. When he was in front of the committee, his message was essentially to tell Scotland that it would get what it was getting and it should concentrate on how it would spent that.

In winding up, I want to look over the horizon to the next CAP, because it is possible to look beyond 2020 and see what the future holds if we remain within the union—the union with England, that is. In considering the forthcoming CAP, one should not lose sight of what is coming down the track beyond that if Scotland remains in the UK and the UK remains in Europe. I recognise that I am speculating, but let us assume that the Conservatives, maybe propped up by the Lib Dems and maybe not, are still in power at Westminster. The Scottish Parliament, just a few months ago, was given a telling insight into what the future would hold for our agriculture sector when Owen Paterson appeared before the committee.

The secretary of state—let us give him credit for candour—was quite clear in his view on direct support for Scotland’s farmers. If the UK remains part of Europe, he at the very least wants to reduce that support greatly, which would be seriously bad news for Scotland. Claire Baker suggested that any hiatus in direct payments would be problematic for Scotland’s farmers. How damaging would removing them be when, as Alex Fergusson pointed out to Owen Paterson at the committee, pillar 1 spending is incredibly important to Scotland?

To be accurate, Mr Paterson believes that there is a role for continuing to compensate farmers for environmental benefit, and he has indicated that he would direct some of the money saved to research and marketing. Specifically, he is on record expressing the belief that a proportion of the money saved by slashing support to Scotland’s farmers would be better deployed supporting England’s wine industry, of which he is a fan. The truth is that slashing direct support would be hugely harmful to Scottish farming, although his honesty is welcome in the context of the independence debate.

In agriculture, as in so many other walks of life, the situation is evidence based and clear. Scotland’s best interests are not served by remaining a part of the UK.

15:36