Speech in the Scottish Parliament

18 September 2008

The debate has been excellent and I welcome the Government's initiative in bringing it forward today.

Liam McArthur is not in the chamber, but I congratulate him on his promotion to the Liberal Democrat front bench and wish him well in the future.

Unfortunately, I will not share many more debates with him, given my free transfer to the whips office.

I congratulate Jim Hume on hosting the rural abattoir event this evening—that said, I hope that his standard of jokes has improved by this evening.

Members across the political divide have argued that this is a cross-cutting and vitally important debate.

Hill farming impacts on a series of issues, one of which is food security, a point that was well made by John Scott and Roseanna Cunningham

The issue of employment in our hill areas and islands is also important, as is that of biodiversity, which Jamie McGrigor spoke about eloquently.

Sarah Boyack in particular flagged up the issue of climate change, and an issue that emerged as a theme of the debate is spending on the public good.

Points were also made about the importance of high nature value and about the role of landscape and wildlife.

Another important issue is our relationship with EU policy which, as members will probably expect, I will touch on later in my remarks.

As NFU Scotland said in its recent "Manifesto for the Hills", it is very important that we look at the future

"social, economic and environmental benefits" that flow from the industry.

Many members, including Elaine Murray, John Scott and the cabinet secretary, mentioned the series of important reports that have helped to inform our debate this morning.

Many members mentioned the Shucksmith report, the Scottish Agricultural College report "Farming's Retreat from the Hills", and NFU Scotland's "Manifesto for the Hills".

However, the report that is crucial to the debate is the Royal Society of Edinburgh's report "The Future of Scotland's Hills and Islands".

Given that most members mentioned it, I will spend some time running through its recommendations

I am sure that members across the chamber wish to congratulate Professor McCrone and his team on the sheer hard work that went into preparing that piece of work.

If someone coming fresh to the debate asked for a briefing, my number 1 recommendation would be that they read the RSE report.

The report shares the same quality of clarity and rigorous analysis that is to be found in the Shucksmith report on crofting .

I understand that the RSE report provoked controversy; nonetheless, it is well written and its conclusions are well researched.

Surely there is widespread support for the proposition that there should be an explicit policy to promote rural community viability under which social, economic and environmental measures for rural areas could be co-ordinated.

I believe that many members share such an aspiration, albeit that it will be difficult to achieve.

The report proposes a strategic land use policy framework and a land stewardship proofing test, both of which are important.

My personal view is that there should be wider and tougher rural proofing of all policy decisions.

I understand that both the former and the current Government have accepted that the language of mainstreaming should run through policy making.

Rural proofing of all policy decisions is an important way to go.

There has, quite rightly, been much debate about the shape of the common agricultural policy post-2013.

We heard contributions from Peter Peacock, John Scott and Rob Gibson on that point.

Although the EU CAP health checks can be said to be minor, they represent a start.

We have to look at the bigger picture.

As all members are aware, the CAP budget is currently 50 per cent of all EU spending.

Of course, in setting the CAP for the next financial period of 2013 to 2019, the EU will have to comply with new external constraints.

For example, it will have to comply with World Trade Organization obligations.

Those inside and outwith the chamber who have become prophets of doom in saying that the world will come to an end post-2013 either are being Machiavellian or have misunderstood the UK Government proposals.

I quote from page 4 of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs document "A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy":

"EU spending ... would be based on the current pillar 2".

As members will be aware, pillar 2 funding includes expenditure on rural development regulation, agri-environment schemes, farm adaptation, forestry, less favoured area support, marketing of agricultural produce, training and development.

Many members, including John Scott, have touched on the historical reasons for the underfunding.

I looked into that and found that it goes back to the dim and distant past of the Fontainebleau arrangement.

For the anoraks who have not followed that, I will explain that it was one good piece of work by the Tory Government—there may have been more—which ensured that Britain received a fair degree of rebate from the EU, which we still enjoy today.

The idea that underfunding suddenly started last week is a myth.

The rebate is actually good for the UK, and we have to look at the bigger picture.

However, the argument that the UK Government has been sitting on its hands is a complete joke.

Let me give members an example.

The current objective 1 programme for the Highlands and Islands happened only because of direct intervention by Chancellor Schröder of Germany and Tony Blair.

That has brought in £240 million of new funds and it would not have happened without UK Government intervention.

Future retargeting of funds has to be based on the provision of public goods.

It is crucial that we keep funding within land management. Integration is key.

We have to bring together the environmental and agriculture policies of the EU.

Food security and good-quality environment are not mutually exclusive.

Aileen Campbell spoke eloquently about the plight of farmers from her own family, and many members have mentioned the vital role that new entrants have in the industry.

As the McCrone report said, young farmers form part of the life-blood of the industry and provide innovation and flair.

However, the report expresses the worry—which the cabinet secretary may want to answer—that single farm payments are not tied to the land so that new entrants either buying land or taking tenancies have no automatic right to them.

That is inequitable.

Does the cabinet secretary share the RSE's view that single farm payments should be open to all entrants?

In conclusion, I believe that this is an important and timely debate on the day on which the consultation is published.

Sarah Boyack ran through the Labour amendment, which is a strong one

It calls for simplification and streamlining of the rural development programme application process, and it calls on the Scottish Government to set targets for public sector food procurement that would deliver a significant increase in locally sourced and fairly traded produce.

I would be interested in the cabinet secretary's views on that.

I see it as another source of income for farmers in Scotland.

The Labour amendment also considers the big picture for the industry: the economic, social and environmental factors that are crucial ingredients in securing a sustainable agriculture business for our hill farmers and communities in the future.

We will also support the Liberal Democrat amendment.