Dave Thompson MSP

Dave Thompson, SNP MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch used a recent meeting of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee (RACCE) to press the case with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs (Richard Lochhead) for more money to be given to crofters and small farmers from the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme (LFASS) when it changes to Areas of Natural Constraint (ANC).

Mr Thompson said, “The environmental value of crofts and small farms should not be underestimated when assessing payment levels under the ANC system, which will replace LFASS, which is why I think it is important to raise the issue of increased funding for crofters and small farmers with the Cabinet Secretary”.

“It was pleasing to have his budget commitment to the scheme confirmed and that he will consider other possible targeting options in the future”.

“I appreciate the need to await the implementation of the new CAP before any tinkering with the scheme; however, I also look forward to continuing discussions on the options for LFASS and its ANC successor in order to get the best deal for crofters and small farmers in my constituency”.

Notes:

Transcript of the RACCE meeting noted below.

Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP):

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Welcome back.

LFASS is very important for constituencies such as mine and for the Highlands and Islands generally. Maintaining people on the land and on crofts in difficult farming conditions is obviously beneficial for the environment. Crofting has a very high environmental value compared with some other farming methods. As less favoured areas are replaced by areas of natural constraint, would it be beneficial to attach a higher weighting to the environmental value of crofting and agriculture when consideration is given to payment levels under the areas of natural constraint system?

Richard Lochhead:

That is a good question to ask on behalf of your constituents. The issue that you raise is important to your constituents and those of other members. That is why we gave the budget commitment to continue the scheme in the new SRDP, which I remind the committee accounts for about a third of the budget in pillar 2, if my memory serves me correctly. When it came to the debate about the transfer from pillar 1 to pillar 2, I was quick to remind the agriculture sector that at least a third of the budget in pillar 2 goes directly into agriculture—and that is not including many of the other schemes that have been mentioned today.

There has been a call to better target the scheme. We have until 2018 to renew it. I am sympathetic to the idea of making changes to it, but I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. A big discussion will take place about how we should better target it. If there is a case for that, I will give it serious consideration.

We are pleased that we have managed to allocate budget funding to the scheme. Discussions are continuing with the European Commission about some of the fine detail, as you can imagine, because the way in which the scheme is delivered in Scotland is quite complex. We hope and expect that it will be in the new programme.

Dave Thompson:

Thanks for that. I am pleased that you will be considering the better targeting of the scheme. When you think about changing the system, I ask you to keep in mind the fact that, for a relatively small additional cost, in terms of what crofters and small farmers in the north and west would get, you would get a disproportionate additional environmental gain.

Richard Lochhead:

I will keep that in mind. In the previous parliamentary session, I made some changes to the scheme that uprated the payments to the more severely disadvantaged recipients. That was warmly welcomed in a number of constituencies, including—I am sure—your own.

We have a track record of ensuring that we support the more fragile communities. It is premature to say what changes will be made in the future, but the committee will undoubtedly have a view, and I urge it to offer that view in due course.

The Convener:

We are concerned about being able to measure these things, which would allow us to prove that they provide value for money. We know that agriculture is very fragile in many of the areas that get LFASS payments. Can we expect to find out in some detail how you will measure that? To follow up on Dave Thompson’s question, it seems to me that we need to be able to demonstrate that the scheme provides value for money.

Richard Lochhead:

Yes, and I have had representations in the past year or so, as part of the implementation of the new policy, about making changes to LFASS. However, opening up that can of worms at the same time as trying to implement the new CAP would have just brought everything to a halt—I would have had to employ several hundred more officials, so there was just no going there.

We want to implement the new CAP first; we then have until 2018 to review LFASS. We will do that, but I have resisted the temptation to look at the scheme in the middle of implementing a complex CAP.

The good news is that Scotland generally fits into the criteria laid down by Europe for the successor to LFASS. As things stand, we are confident that we will qualify in the way that we want to qualify. It is ironic that, when you cross Europe, you see some countries that look much greener and wealthier but which qualify for LFASS. That is bizarre. There may be issues that need to be addressed in relation to LFASS across Europe.

The Convener:

We will keep that issue on the table, because we are interested to see how it develops.

Nigel Don will ask about farming for a better climate.

Nigel Don:

The 2015-16 budget for farming for a better climate appears to be £400,000. Is it more than that? Are there other parts of it that are labelled under some other heading?

Last week, we heard evidence from those who generally support the scheme. They wondered whether that budget would be sufficient to generate the carbon dioxide savings that are attributed to the scheme in the second report on proposals and policies. Will you reassure us that this is all going to work as well as it must in order to reduce our carbon footprint?

Richard Lochhead:

Farming for a better climate is a good initiative of which I am very proud. I have visited some of the farms that have taken part in the scheme—I recommend members do that, too, if there are any in their constituencies. It is great to hear how, sometimes, reluctant farmers got involved—which was brave of them—and saved X per cent of their energy bills or reduced their emissions. There are good-news stories, and the initiative is catching on.

There are also carbon audits in the SDRP. We hope to encourage farmers right across Scotland to get involved in such measures.

I may have not picked up your question correctly, but I am not sure that I understand how revenue could be generated from farms that have made savings. The SRDP’s purpose is to invest in rural Scotland and to encourage transformation where possible. The whole of agriculture will then reap the benefits. Perhaps one day there will be no need for agriculture subsidies—we do not know. I am not sure how that would work or how you would capture the revenues from farms that have benefited, but I am open to suggestions.

Nigel Don:

Forgive me—I may have put my question badly. I am picking up on the comment made by RSPB Scotland the other week. In their view, 90 per cent of our farms would need to take up the benefits that we are identifying in order to achieve the carbon dioxide savings that we need under RPP2. Therefore, the question is whether we believe that that level of uptake will happen. If we do not, how will that work?

Richard Lochhead:

I am keen to change the mindset of the agriculture sector in Scotland. As I said, we want to balance delivering food security with sustainable production. A huge scientific debate is going on about how to do that. I referred to the carbon audit in the SRDP and, as part of the CAP greening measures, there is a requirement to record on-farm management of nitrogen. Those are pretty big changes compared with what was there before. Some are mandatory and some are in the SDRP, which people can apply to, and there are advisers to encourage 90 per cent of holdings to get involved somehow.

Nigel Don:

On the carbon audits, you cannot run a business without having your tax issues audited. How soon will it be before farms will not receive public money unless they do a carbon audit?

Richard Lochhead:

All the debates in Europe are being held against the backdrop of what should be voluntary and what should be mandatory. For the first time, we have mandatory measures—30 per cent of the payment, which is a substantial amount, relies on those measures being adopted. That is a step forward. However, the options that were brought forward were not necessarily the best ones for Scotland. We therefore support a review of the greening measures, which I want the new Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Phil Hogan, to undertake as soon as possible. He has given us some sympathetic noises but, unfortunately, when I was in Brussels a couple of weeks ago, the UK Government did not let me join in its meeting with him, so I could not put the point directly. However, I am hoping to secure a meeting with him in the near future.

Through such an early review of the greening measures, we would want to ensure that what we do in Scotland makes a difference and is effective, while being appropriate for Scotland. At the moment, that is not quite the case with some of the mandatory measures, and we are trying to get round that. I want to encourage a change of mindset, so that such issues are taken seriously.

The Convener:

The farming for a better climate farms are scattered around the country. I do not know whether there are any in the crofting areas. I raise that point because, although it is a diverse area, it would be interesting to have models for crofting for a better climate, and it would be interesting to see whether farming for a better climate farms could be included as places that crofters could visit and pick up some things.

Can you tell me whether the number of farms will increase, or whether we are covering the parts of Scotland that we mentioned earlier, where crofters might have to do an audit themselves for the money that they get under LFASS and its successor?

Richard Lochhead:

I will ask Jonathan Pryce to discuss the detail of that, but I am very sympathetic to the point as part of taking crofting forward.

David Barnes wishes to comment.

David Barnes:

As the cabinet secretary mentioned, we are increasing the number of farming for a better climate farms. We are working with the industry—the tranches of demonstration farms that we already have were selected jointly by Government and the industry. We will take the same approach and work with the industry to work out the best coverage, both geographically and sectorally.

The content of farming for a better climate is not entirely made up of farms: there are also farm walks, demonstration days, material on the website and so on. Apart from the demonstration farms, there is a lot of material that can be accessed.

Government has an interesting prioritisation decision to take. The convener mentioned assessing value for money for all our expenditure. The scientific backdrop to the RPP, and therefore to the Government’s policy, is that the most important thing that we need to get farmers to do is, as the cabinet secretary and members have said, manage well their use of nitrogen fertiliser, both organic and inorganic.

We want geographic coverage across the whole of Scotland. Scientifically, however, it would make sense to concentrate efforts where the most nitrogen fertiliser is used, because that is where we can bring about the most benefit for the climate by reducing emissions.

Those two considerations both play into the Government’s decisions, but we will be working with the industry to pick the farm locations and sectors.

Roderick Campbell:

My question has largely been answered, but I seek further explanation, although everybody else may know the answer. Could you identify for me the areas where the most nitrogen fertiliser is used? Are there specific geographical areas where it is used more?

Richard Lochhead:

As part of the nitrate vulnerable zones legislation, we publish maps that show where nitrates are a big problem for watercourses. Those maps therefore indicate where the big areas are. I am not sure whether there are other maps, but the ones that we have published will be the best source of that information.

Roderick Campbell:

Can you tell me whether any particular part of Scotland is affected, or should I just go and look at the maps?

Richard Lochhead:

I would get some headlines if farmers in the areas concerned thought that they were about to be hit with NVZ legislation, so I had better not guess. There are pockets that are much worse than others, but the situation in many parts of Scotland is improving, which is good news.

The Convener:

Obviously, there is significant use of nitrogen fertilisers in areas where there is arable farming. That is what we are thinking about, rather than the crofting areas, where there is not such significant use.

Richard Lochhead:

There are also issues around the livestock sector, with slurry and so on. That is all part of the equation.

The Convener:

Okay—we look forward to some developments there.

We now move on to equalities issues. Cara Hilton will start.

Cara Hilton (Dunfermline) (Lab):

Good morning, cabinet secretary. What changes, if any, were made to the SRDP budget as a result of the equalities statement that accompanies it?

10:45 <BR&NBSP; /><BR&NBSP; />

Richard Lochhead:

I take equalities issues into account across my farming, fishing and other responsibilities, such as the general economic development of rural communities. For instance, the LEADER programme has been successful in tackling disadvantage in some parts of Scotland through targeted schemes and programmes on agriculture. We put huge effort into trying to get new entrants into agriculture included in the new CAP, which was a big equalities issue. No doubt, some new entrants will say that they are not totally equal with other farmers, but they will become so in the course of the new CAP, and we have gone as far as we can to ensure that that is the case.

The Government has a duty to publish an equalities statement. John Swinney, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, publishes one as well. We take the matter seriously across our portfolios.

Cara Hilton:

How will the budget assist young people to remain in rural areas? What will it do to improve information technology skills, in particular to reduce the isolation of disabled and older people in rural communities?

Richard Lochhead:

The digital economy line sits in my budget as well, in terms of connectivity to address inequality in Scotland in a spatial way. The roll-out of broadband connectivity is a very important part of our strategy.

At the launch of the Scottish rural parliament about three weeks ago, there was an insightful video by rural communities from Argyll and Bute—I think that there was cross-party representation in the audience for that. About 400 people came together for the first rural parliament meeting, and some equality and rural poverty issues came out in some of the contributions. One comment was that the internet was a lifesaver.

We are doing our best to roll out internet connectivity. We do not control its regulation, but we have a joint project with the UK Government and the providers to fund it. That is an equalities issue that is very much part of the budget.

I have already mentioned attracting young people as new entrants to fishing and agriculture and giving them opportunities in those sectors. Despite all the stick that I take from certain young farmers or new entrants, a young farmer said to me last week at an event that he felt that he would now have an opportunity for a career in agriculture because of some of the support schemes that are being implemented. It was heartening to hear that. Some of the people who class themselves as new entrants but who perhaps do not quite fit the description under the European regulations might not be as happy as that young farmer, but new entrants will benefit a lot from the new policy in Scotland.

Nigel Don:

The cabinet secretary has obviously been talking to some of the not-quite-so-new entrants to whom I have been talking, who feel that they are seriously disadvantaged relative to everybody else because they do not quite qualify for support. They got into farming just a fraction too soon and feel that they will be seriously disadvantaged for some time. Can he do anything to nuance the payments so that folk who got in just too soon can receive rather more and have a more equitable playing field?

Richard Lochhead:

There are new measures in the SRDP, and as part of the CAP negotiations, that help new entrants. Clearly, we will hear only from people who define themselves as new entrants but who do not qualify for support. However, there will be hundreds of new entrants throughout Scotland who qualify for the SRDP support and will be covered by the new CAP, albeit that we took the decision—which many parties supported—to have a transition between the historical scheme and the introduction of the area payments. Of course, that is just one part of the overall payment, and there is a level playing field for the other parts from day 1.

We are talking to those who are aggrieved. The position is difficult. Europe has told us who qualifies and who does not in relation to people who had entitlement under the previous SFP and whose business has expanded. There are lots of people in that position, and it is difficult to say that, under the new legislation, this person is a new entrant, but that person is not. Europe has said that we must not differentiate. If we do it for some, we have to do it for everyone, which means that a farmer who is already getting the regional average, or a high payment, would get even more money out of the system because his business has expanded slightly since last time.

Every time we decide to give new categories of help, we have to take money out of the pot, which affects every other farmer in Scotland. That is why such decisions are difficult.

Nigel Don:

I am grateful to you for explaining that on the record. Some people probably just need to be told that, unfortunately. Thank you.

Alex Fergusson:

The committee was keen that the starting point for the new CAP should be the acreage farmed and claimed in 2013, but I understand that the Commission has said that we cannot do that because it would create a false limit or suchlike—no doubt it used more technical language. Am I right in saying that, if Europe insists that the start point be 2015, genuine new entrants between 2013 and 2015 will be ineligible for support?

Richard Lochhead:

Discussions are under way with the European Commission. You are right to say that it has raised the issue with us, and we will have to make an announcement shortly on the final position. It has suggested that those who have expanded can be included only if we choose 2015, and that there would be limitations on who could be included in the new CAP if we chose 2013, which could have a counterproductive impact on some farmers.

There are mixed views out there on whether we should move 2015 now, but we will make the position public soon.

Alex Fergusson:

How soon, if I may ask that?

Richard Lochhead:

We have to meet various timescales for getting the final changes to Europe. However, the Commission is still looking at the issue, and we will not know the exact situation until we get a clear steer from it.

Alex Fergusson:

Okay. Thank you for that.

The Convener:

I have a final question. The CAP futures programme is being designed with the age profile of farmers—which is currently quite high—in mind. Is that aspect on track given the risks associated with it, which we have discussed? Is it dealing with matters related to sight or physical capacity to continue farming and so on, given that people in the farming world are obviously ageing?

Richard Lochhead:

I will bring in Jonathan Pryce as it is clear that he wants to say something, but the answer is that we are ensuring that the local offices have a bigger role in helping people. As I said, we have to be careful in terms of advice. An advisory service is being funded through the SRDP. Advice will not necessarily come directly from our officials in local offices, but we recognise that it is important for people to be able to access computers and get some guidance on the on-screen options and how to fill in the forms.

Jonathan Pryce:

The area offices will be available, as they are at the moment, to support applicants. I also emphasise that, while we are encouraging an increase in the use of IT systems so that customers apply online, we are absolutely maintaining the option of paper applications. We are not taking away anything that people already have. We hope that the new IT interface will feel so good that more people will use it, but those who choose not to use it or who have issues that mean that it is not easy for them to use IT will still be able to use paper.

The Convener:

Good. That concludes the range of questions that we wanted to ask. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials. We will review our report to the Finance Committee after this meeting.

Official Report from the RACCE meeting on 26 November:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=9656

< Prev		Next >