S4M-08857 Common Agricultural Policy

The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08857, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the common agricultural policy.

14:44
... ... ...
15:45

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP):

I remind members of my registered agricultural holding, although it covers 3 acres and I receive no money—public or private—as a result of owning it, so it probably does not matter very much.

The Bank of Scotland carries out an annual survey of agriculture, the most recent of which it published at 11 o’clock yesterday morning. The survey contains a number of interesting points. The number of responses rating the Scottish Government as “good” or “very good” has risen, as has been mentioned, but, more critically for this debate, it shows that 89 per cent of farmers are against single farm payments going to inactive farmers. That view commands pretty broad support in the chamber in principle, if we acknowledge the diverse views on the different ways of moving from the current position to one that is more appropriate.

As I said in my intervention on Elaine Murray, only about a third of farms report that they would be profitable without single farm payments. However, with regard to the Government’s proposals, two thirds of respondents to the survey said that they were in favour of calf subsidy payments.

It is interesting to turn to that indispensable guide to all things farming, Private Eye. This week’s issue praises our Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to the skies, stating:

“At least in Scotland politicians seem determined to ... extract some food production from farmers in exchange for taxpayer cash.”

It goes on to say:

“If Lochhead’s initiative succeeds in starting to revive Scottish beef farming, maybe Paterson will have to consider a similar scheme for England? For that to happen he would first have to brave the howls of well-orchestrated protest from English farmers ... used to being paid £3bn a year without having to produce a thing.”

Alex Fergusson: Will Stewart Stevenson acknowledge, for those who do not know, that Private Eye is essentially a satirical magazine?

Stewart Stevenson: I will bear that in mind next time it makes reference to my perorations here and elsewhere. However, I think that Bio-Waste Spreader—for that is the pseudonym under which “The Agri Brigade” column is written—is someone who writes with genuine and informed views on the agricultural sector. One can play it both ways, but I think that he has at least captured the essence of the debate.

On pillar 2, the Government proposes quite a lot of interesting things. They include £459 million for less favoured areas support; £355 million for the agri-environment climate scheme; £252 million for forestry; and £20 million for new entrants—an area in which there is a fairly widespread view that we need to do more—covering farmers up to the age of 40, which is an EU constraint. There is also £20 million for crofting and small farms, and £10 million for co-operative ventures.

The stakeholders have responded in a variety of ways. The NFUS focuses on the theme that is running through this debate in contributions from members on all sides of the chamber, which is the imbalance between the EU’s objectives in providing money to the UK and where the UK has delivered that money.

As the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing tells us, the NFUS says that it would, in essence, be inequitable for arable farmers in Berwickshire to receive a different amount from farmers in Norfolk, and for hill farmers in the Highlands to receive a different amount from those in the lake district. It is quite easy to agree with that observation.

Claire Baker referred to Finland, saying how much better it was doing on environmental issues. Let us examine the numbers. In 2019, Finland will get €230 in direct payments per hectare while Scotland will get €120—just over half. Further, rural development funding per hectare in Finland will be €148 while in Scotland it will be €12. It is easier to do better if you have more to do better with. That is the fundamental failure of the present arrangements whereby our interests are represented by ministers not from this Parliament but from elsewhere.

Claire Baker: Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson: I no longer have time. Please forgive me; I am in my last 45 seconds.

The amendments before us are well and good. I can certainly agree that the cross-party representations were useful, but I think that, in aiming for 9.5 per cent, the cabinet secretary has got it just about right.

Roderick Campbell, like me, focused on the number of areas that we should consider. Farmers are, essentially, saying that it has got to be two, three or four, with the option of three aggregating as much support as two and four. We ought to consider that again, because that is where farmers are coming from.

Let us not throw out forestry. It is an important contributor to our efforts to deal with climate change, and I cannot help but notice that this evening’s members’ business debate is on Scotland’s national tree.

15:51