Hansard

There is probably more that could be said about what the bill fails to do and should have done than there is to say about what it does. Labour will support it, and I welcome the fact that it provides certainty on agricultural payments in the short term, but it is deeply disappointing that the SNP, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, has gone out of its way to ensure that the bill and the debate have focused on little more than that.

Every piece of legislation that goes through the Parliament is an opportunity to change things for the better, but the aim of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats appears to have been to try to avoid changing very much. That is particularly frustrating when the pressure on parliamentary time means that many important pieces of legislation, from the good food nation bill to the crofting bill, have been dropped.

I appreciate that the purpose of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill is to provide continuity, but that should not have come at the expense of using the bill to give direction on the important but largely ignored powers that it provides—namely, powers to allow changes to be made to existing payment schemes.

The Scottish Government has committed to introducing an entirely new system of agricultural and rural support to replace the common agricultural policy by 2024. It remains to be seen whether that will happen. That will be an opportunity to make some much-needed improvements to how support is allocated and to what that support delivers, but it will be a significant change for the sector. It is critical that the four short years between now and then are used to lay the groundwork for that change and help the sector to prepare. However, within and outwith the bill, the Government has refused to set out its plans in any meaningful way for the transition period, let alone its vision for what will follow after that.

In the absence of any clarity or leadership from the Government, Opposition parties, with the support of a range of stakeholders, sought to provide in the bill some policy direction for the next four years, but that was ignored. We urgently need to see a different, more constructive and more ambitious approach from the Government if we are to build a consensus on the future of agricultural and rural support.

Time and again, we have come to the chamber and asked the Government to set out its plans, even in the most high-level terms, but it has failed to do so. The cabinet secretary has justified that by eventually establishing the farming and food production future policy group and insisting that any hint of leadership whatsoever from the Government would undermine the group’s work.

That is not to dismiss the group’s vital work—its expertise and insight are invaluable and should be at the heart of any policy making in the future. The problem is that, for the cabinet secretary, setting up such groups seems to be his only answer, and now the publication of the long-awaited report has been postponed. Meanwhile, across Scotland, farmers and crofters are waiting for information on what could be the most drastic overhaul of support for decades, unable to prepare or plan.

The sector faces ambitious targets in 2030 for both productivity and carbon reduction but it remains reliant on a support system that fails to properly support either. The message that I get from the sector over and over again is that it is ready and willing to change but is being held back by a support system that is not fit for purpose and is unsure whether, when or how that system will be changed.

Whatever the details of the new system, it is likely to be—and indeed should be—a significant change from the CAP. A new agricultural support system has the potential to deliver a huge range of benefits in addition to those already provided by the CAP. It can do more to support our environment, our economy and our rural communities, and it can distribute funding more equitably. There is broad consensus on the way forward and on the need for a support system that better incentivises sustainability and innovation, delivering clear public good for public money.

Although that will be to the sector’s advantage in the long run, it is bound to require significant adjustment, and the only way to minimise disruption is to allow preparations to begin as far in advance as possible, ensuring a smooth transition. Back in 2018, the Government made a commitment to introduce the new system in a short period of time. Two years later, we are no further forward on what the new system looks like but we are now just four years away from its implementation. A long-term sector such as agriculture needs advance planning, but that becomes increasingly difficult the more time it takes the Government to get its act together.

As we look to the future, I am optimistic that, whatever challenges the sector faces, it will do its best to meet them in the same way that it has met the challenge of the current Covid pandemic. However, ultimately, the bill will be remembered—if it is remembered at all—as a testament to the Government’s lack of ambition or imagination in relation to the future of agriculture. The Government has no vision for the future of agricultural support and seems in no rush to develop any, having even delayed the publication of the group’s report.

If the cabinet secretary spent half as much time developing that vision as he seems to have spent running around in the past 24 hours desperately trying to drum up support for his opposition to amendments that were lodged today, the sector would have had more of an idea about what the bill would mean for it in the next few years. The clock is ticking on the need to meet our climate change commitment and deliver a sustainable agricultural sector. The stakes are far too high for any more dithering. The sector needs clarity on what lies ahead, and it needs that clarity now.