Press Releases
26-02-2010 : McARTHUR RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE PACK PROPOSALS ON ORKNEY
Speaking in yesterday's debate on debate the interim report of Brian Pack's inquiry into future support for farming in Scotland, Orkney MSP, Liam McArthur, outlined worries that the proposed move to area based payments would hit Orkney farmers and suggested ways of tackling this.
Before looking at the Pack proposals, Liam McArthur stressed the need for clarity on the funding available for farming, noting that Scotland had not been well served by the way in which funding is allocated under the CAP. He noted, "We are busy deliberating how the cake should be divided up without assessing what size the cake should be in the first place."
Turning to the Pack proposal Liam McArthur noted that a move from an historical basis for payments to one based more on area is likely, he said that the NFUS was right to point out that such a system would bring with it a unique set of problems in Scotland, given our geography and reliance on livestock. He said that he echoed that sentiment, "representing as I do a constituency that is heavily dependent on farming that has an excellent reputation for high-quality beef and lamb. It is hard to see how a flatter, area-based system would address Orkney's needs, despite the fact that the local industry has responded at every turn to issues such as consumer demands for higher quality and environmental and animal welfare standards. The harsh reality is that we have good-quality land, but it is a scarce resource. More pertinent, producers find themselves some distance from markets, accessible only by ferry and sometimes by more than one."
Looking at possible ways of tacking this, he said "I am keen to see what conclusions are drawn about how LFASS rules might accommodate island status, not simply mountain regions and land types. Again, that is a case that only Scotland has an interest in building and only Scotland can be expected to build."
Speaking after the debate, Liam McArthur said, "The Pack proposals are only at an early stage of their consideration. This debate was a useful opportunity to set out concerns about their impact and to suggest ways of ensuring that island farmers, producing high quality food, do not lose out. But behind the question of how funding is shared out there remains the key issue of how much funding there is to share out. Scotland has long lagged behind other EU Member States on the funding it distributes to farmers under the CAP and it is important that the Scottish Government addresses that, as well as looking at how the funding is distributed."
full text of Liam McArthur's speech from the Official Report:
Like other members, I acknowledge the efforts of Brian Pack and his team, and I welcome him to the public gallery this afternoon. The task that the inquiry team was set was far from straightforward, although there was a general recognition back in June last year that the cabinet secretary had at least identified somebody who was more than capable of rising to the challenge. I suspect that, as John Scott implied, Brian Pack has had occasion over the past eight months or so to wonder what on earth he allowed himself to be talked into-perhaps a tough lesson that one should always be wary of ministers bearing poisoned chalices.
An easy consensus was never likely to be achieved. Indeed, that was not the purpose of the exercise, and rightly so. Brian Pack made it clear last month that he intentionally created an Aunt Sally in order to prompt further debate, which throws up the possibility of casting the cabinet secretary in the role of Worzel Gummidge. It is to be hoped that he has his thinking head on.
The cabinet secretary has suggested that the debate is intended to give Parliament an opportunity to respond to the interim findings in the Pack report and offer views. Although I feel that his offer is somewhat hamstrung by the lack of detail in some key areas, I will attempt to enter into the spirit of the minister's invitation.
I have no difficulty with the Government motion and Liberal Democrats will also be able to support each of the amendments that have been lodged this afternoon, all of which acknowledge in different ways the wide contribution that agriculture can and must continue to make into the future. My amendment, however, seeks to make a broader point. I will try to reassure the cabinet secretary, who I know has reservations. We are busy deliberating how the cake should be divided up without assessing what size the cake should be in the first place. I am under no illusion about the pressure on agricultural budgets and indeed, on all budgets now and for the foreseeable future. The serious problems facing numerous economies in the EU at present give cause for concern and only help to reinforce the sense that cuts might be inevitable.
Notwithstanding that grim reality, we must accept that the UK as a whole, and perhaps Scotland in particular, has never been well served by the way in which funding is allocated under the CAP. That is particularly true for pillar 2 funding, on which we lag far behind most of our European partners. I am not saying that mounting a case for sustaining the CAP budget overall and direct payments in particular would be easy-there are good reasons for believing that finding allies elsewhere in Europe might be difficult-but there is a case to be made. By making that case, we would at least encourage some debate about the size of the cake that we are left trying to distribute, whether by the methods set out by Brian Pack or in some other way.
It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary would say when he winds up what work he and his officials have done or are doing to develop alternative models of how resources might be allocated at EU level. There is no doubt that such work is taking place in other national capitals throughout Europe. We need reassurance from the Scottish Government that it is undertaking a similar exercise. If it is not, we risk being left needlessly disadvantaged in the difficult negotiations ahead.
My amendment acknowledges the strong case that Brian Pack has made for on-going direct support for agriculture and food production. However, there is a general concern among the farming community, much in evidence at the excellent event in St Andrews last week, that there appears to be a serious risk of funding leaking out, potentially in significant amounts, from regions across the country. Without further detail on how the top-up fund might work, or indeed on the SRDP and LFASS, it is impossible to corroborate or accurately quantify that risk, but that does not invalidate the concerns.
Other fears have been raised, as is borne out by the briefings that we received from a wide range of stakeholders. I do not argue that moving from an historical basis for payments to one based more on area is not inevitable or even desirable. However, the NFUS is right to point out that such a system would bring with it a unique set of problems in Scotland, given our geography and reliance on livestock. I echo that sentiment, representing as I do a constituency that is heavily dependent on farming that has an excellent reputation for high-quality beef and lamb. It is hard to see how a flatter, area-based system would address Orkney's needs, despite the fact that the local industry has responded at every turn to some of the issues that Sarah Boyack raised, such as consumer demands for higher quality and environmental and animal welfare standards. The harsh reality is that we have good-quality land, but it is a scarce resource. More pertinent, producers find themselves some distance from markets, accessible only by ferry and sometimes by more than one.
As I said in my intervention on the cabinet secretary, I am keen to see what conclusions are drawn about how LFASS rules might accommodate island status, not simply mountain regions and land types. Again, that is a case that only Scotland has an interest in building and only Scotland can be expected to build.
As the cabinet secretary highlighted, one of the most potent criticisms of the historical basis of payment is that it gives rise to so-called armchair farmers, which should be addressed. I note the argument from the NFUS and the STFA for a rebasing exercise to take place. As John Scott said, that should be considered, although I expect that, at this stage, the chances of success are limited. Certainly, any rebasing would have to be tied to strict time limits and a clear understanding of what more fundamental reforms were to follow in due course. It should not be overlooked that paying landowners for doing little or nothing is a risk that would not disappear simply by moving to an area-based system. Again, that is acknowledged by Brian Pack and his team and must be reflected in any future negotiating position.
I will touch on the short-term options identified by Brian Pack in his interim report. There have been calls by some, including RSPB Scotland, for a change to an area-based system immediately, and certainly before 2013. Although I respect its reasons for arguing that case, it is not one that I support. Nor would I support using article 68 in the ways suggested in the interim report; although the causes to which it could be put are worthy of support, I do not believe that the pain that would need to be caused would be justified by any consequent gain.
I appreciate that Brian Pack has long-held concerns about the beef calf scheme, but I urge the Government to hold fire. I think, perhaps in contrast to Sarah Boyack, that-as I said at the outset-there is a risk of Scottish ministers rushing to show their hand. This is an occasion on which the benefits of being the prime mover are not immediately obvious. Nevertheless, a balance must be struck. Ministers must ensure that the detailed preparatory work is done without boxing themselves into positions too early. In that context, I hope that I have reassured the cabinet secretary and other members, so that they will now be able to support the amendment in my name.
I again congratulate Brian Pack and wish him well in his further deliberations. Likewise, I look forward to continuing to participate in the debate on this crucial issue over the coming months.
I move amendment S3M-5807.3, to insert at end:
"; notes concerns over the possible removal of funding from active farmers and crofters; recognises, however, that the report makes a strong case for the ongoing direct support of agriculture and food production and therefore believes that the overall level of Single Farm Payment funding should be maintained, and opposes any reduction in agricultural spending through the CAP."
The Official Report of the full debate can be found at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-10/sor0225-02.htm#Col24055