Official Report 450KB pdf
Good morning, everybody. We move to agenda item 3. Would those who have just joined us please switch off BlackBerrys and mobile phones, because leaving them on in-flight mode can interrupt the sound system. When you are seated, make sure that your microphone is pointed towards you.
Good morning and thank you all for coming. It will be useful to kick off the discussion—we hope that it will be such an exchange of views—on issues surrounding pillars 1 and 2 funding and the basic payment scheme to replace the single farm payment, and the various provisions concerning that. Perhaps Scott Walker would like to take up the challenge.
I will try to keep it brief, convener. I will talk first about pillar 2, the key issue in which is the UK’s funding allocation from the European Union. Historically, the UK’s share has been very poor—among the poorest in the EU. I understand that the EU is looking again at the distribution key, which is how the money is divided up between the member states. All the discussions in which I have been involved appeared to indicate that the UK and Scotland would be winners from reallocation of the distribution key. We must maintain pressure on the EU to ensure that pillar 2 redistribution rewards Scotland by providing fairer distribution of the funding.
We have been on a path of CAP reform that has created pillar 2 and has shifted money progressively from pillar 1 into pillar 2. Scottish Environment LINK is extremely concerned about what will be a significant shortfall in funding to deliver against a range of environmental objectives and to help agriculture to restructure and diversify. As Scott Walker said, the overall budget looks as if it means that CAP will be frozen, but that means a real-terms cut of 8 per cent. There are no proposals on the table to shift more money from pillar 1 to pillar 2. There is an option for voluntary modulation, which Scotland and the UK have used to move 10 per cent of the money from pillar 1 into pillar 2. We support that and we would like it to be used. It will be essential in the future.
We will come to that matter. Does anyone else want to say anything about funding? We welcome Scott Walker’s remarks. It would be interesting to hear whether anyone else has any thoughts on that: it seems not, so far. I think that Graeme Dey has a question on pillar 2.
I was going to ask about greening.
That will follow on from the pillar 2 discussion.
We will come back to funding during the morning.
the question is not strictly to do with my fruit interests, but several growers also have livestock farms and, on the permanent-pasture issue, they have asked me to open the discussion about how long it must be before pasture becomes permanent. Many Scottish hill farmers run something like a 10-year rotation on pasture. They plough it up every 10 years or so for a crop of rape or something else, and then put it back to grassland. That does not appear to fit very well with the current guidelines, so the farmers are asking that pasture be allowed to be permanent for longer.
I back that up. We all work about an eight or 10-year rotation on our grass because rotation is expensive. Stipulating a five-year rotation would surely increase the number of times that the ground is ploughed, which releases all that carbon into the atmosphere. That goes against everything that Europe is trying to do and seems totally pointless to me.
As a whole, we support greening and doing things through pillar 1, but there are particular problems with the current drafting. The proposals on crop rotation and diversification of cropping are clearly trying to prevent the type of broad-scale monoculture that we see in some parts of Europe. However, that raises issues for Scotland—in particular, for mixed farming. For example, it would be problematic to force farmers who have some spring barley to feed their livestock to have three crops in rotation.
I agree with much of what Vicki Swales said. We believe that those two greening measures—on permanent pasture and crop rotation—are appropriate, and we do not have a problem with the general direction that the European Union is taking, but the detail is hugely important. On permanent pasture, there has been talk in the European Union about taking into account the rotations that occur in member states, rather than moving to a straight five-year cut-off period for permanent pasture. It is critical to win that type of concession for Scotland. We need 12 or 17-year rotations to be allowed for permanent pasture.
There is a lot of agreement. The key issue is flexibility. The EU is trying to impose an EU-wide measure, but there is such variety across the EU that, when we consider how the proposed measures are applicable in each area, we find that they create problems. As far as we can see, the key thing is to advocate a degree of flexibility so that any crop diversification measures are appropriate to Scotland and the systems that we have here. We need agreement about that principle, after which we can get down to designing the measures properly for us.
I am thinking about our vulnerable areas. The greening measure under which a business would have to grow three crops would be extremely difficult in areas where there are poor soils and extreme climates. The text says that the measure would apply only to farms of 3 hectares or more. We need more clarity as to what the measure would mean and what we would have to do on the ground. In some areas, what the EU wishes to happen might not be possible.
Of course, we are at an early stage in these matters.
I echo the concerns about the greening measures, and will look at the wider context of greening. I think that we all approve of the fact that the measures are intended to green the CAP and make it more acceptable to the European taxpayer. In order to do that, the measures need to be regionally appropriate, and to deliver some green environmental benefits; the CAP could again fall into disrepute if it does not deliver its environmental objectives.
On the proposed basic payments scheme, I understand that there might be differing views on what the trigger should be. At the moment, it involves at least one entitlement being activated in 2011, which is the base year. I have read some of the evidence that has been supplied to the committee, and I wonder what you wish the trigger to be?
I want to say something about the concerns of the tenanted sector, because the matter is particularly relevant to it. We welcome the link to 2011; in fact, we think that it could, and should, be stronger. The link to a single activated entitlement does not appear to be the link to agricultural activity in 2011 that it could, and should, be.
Following what Alan Boulton has said, the 2011 trigger of having activated one hectare of payment is our biggest concern about the whole CAP reform: it concerns me deeply. We have a lot of members, and I represent everyone who has come into agriculture from 2004. Many members of our group have no single farm payment whatever, and have been unable to purchase entitlement due to the high prices. I can see the reasons for having the 2011 trigger, but most of our members will have submitted an integrated administration and control system form. It would sort out a lot of the problems if we could change the wording so that, instead of someone being required to have claimed a unit of single farm payment, they were required to have submitted an IACS in 2011. Without that, there will be huge anomalies and we will end up exactly where we started. As I have said, it is our biggest concern that members who have not been claiming the single farm payment will again be left out in the cold and needing to go to an overstretched national reserve.
My point was in relation to the earlier discussion on the greening of the CAP, so I will come back to it later to avoid disrupting the current discussion—[Interruption.]
Who has their phone switched on?
Mr Kerr has indicated that he has a point on greening.
I am sorry. We will come back to that. Andrew Midgeley is next.
Scottish Land and Estates opposes the link to 2011, and we have suggested that it is unnecessary. It was introduced partly because there is a degree of concern that people will speculate on land and that landowners will try to take land back in hand.
Those are arguments that I suspect that we will continue to have.
We have to look first and foremost at why the European Commission suggested the rule. The reason why it did so is very much along the lines that Andrew Midgeley suggested. The Commission is concerned that if we set a future date for the allocation of entitlements, there will be encouragement for owners of the land to take that land back in hand when they previously would usually have rented that land out, either on an annual basis on grass lets or on a longer-term basis. We believe that there is a strong—and perfectly understandable—incentive for owners of the land to try to protect their position and ensure that they can get the entitlements that will be allocated to them in the future.
I agree with Scott Walker. Our position is that the link should remain and, indeed, be made stronger. However, it will have consequences for new-entrant provision. Jim Simmons represents a significant group of new entrants who began farming after the allocation of the previous entitlements—some of those guys have been farming since 2003—and it is simply confusing to consider them as new applicants. Although they are farming, they will be disadvantaged under this proposal because they will not be able to apply for entitlements in 2011. In that regard, I echo Jim Simmons’s comment that eligibility should be triggered by genuine agricultural activity in 2011 as much as by the activation of entitlements in 2011. As Jim suggests, a link with the 2011 IACS would partly solve a problem for that sector, which has been farming since the allocation of the previous entitlements. For 2011 onwards, we should consider proper provision for genuine new entrants.
Why do tenant farmers distinguish between new entrants under and over the age of 40?
Why?
Yes. After all, one would expect there to be some new entrants who were over 40.
I agree. The young-farmer provision and new-entrant provision are completely separate issues and there might be an issue about the cut-off of 40 years old.
I asked about that because it appeared in your submission. We will now move on to the greening aspects.
I am partly reassured by what I have heard so far. However, I mean no disrespect when I say that, as I read through the written submissions ahead of this meeting, I saw a parallel between some of them and certain letters that, as an MSP, I get from constituents who are opposed to wind farms. Those letters invariably begin with, “I have nothing against wind farms as such. However”—.
Returning to the earlier discussion about crop diversification, I point out that SAC is responsible for supporting the implementation of the farming for a better climate programme, which is a key strand of the Scottish Government’s actions to limit agricultural emissions. We are very much focusing on win-wins and on productivity to ensure that a kilo of output is produced in both an emission efficient and a financially efficient way. As a result, I am a little concerned about the proposals’ crop diversification element, which could lead to farmers altering their practices to introduce new crops that, because of resources and climatic conditions, they will not be in a position to produce efficiently. The Government’s farming for a better climate policy strand is an attempt to look at how land managers can continue to be productive while being efficient and limiting agricultural emissions.
We can have a chat about some of the broader issues to do with integrating forestry into farming but, as a representative of the forestry sector, I think that the greening opportunity is obvious. Planting trees sequesters carbon, produces low-carbon products and provides renewable energy opportunities. We are interested in talking with the farming community about how we can integrate forestry into farming more generally. However, this seems like an obvious win-win, as there is a desire to reduce the greenhouse gas impact of the farming sector and to do something specific that is obviously beneficial with regard to the carbon balance.
However, there is the question of the impact on soils and the attempts to measure climate output as a result of the Durban conference. Do you feel that planting trees is always the best solution?
No, I think that that is a simplistic approach. What we have is robust evidence about where planting trees in certain soils will clearly lead to a carbon-positive outcome. However, in some circumstances, if you are planting in deep peat, for example, that might not have a positive carbon output. I think that we have robust enough information to say where we can plant trees to deliver the outcome.
On whether planting trees is always the best option, it is clearly one option, but there are others, such as peatland restoration, as our peatlands store a huge amount of soil carbon. We have degraded them in the past in various ways—including by planting trees on some of them. However, we are now addressing that problem. Restoring more peatland and getting it into good heart would go a long way towards helping us address climate change.
On the specific point about people agreeing with greening in principle but not with greening as it is proposed, I think that we are in that position. That brings us back to the issue of flexibility. We think that the CAP needs to be reformed and that its greening adds to the justification for the continuation of the CAP. If we can achieve that, that will be a good thing for everyone in the long run. The question is how we can make it work and make it achievable. If we introduce greening that achieves nothing, the CAP will be under even greater pressure the next time around. We must ensure that what we introduce is practical and achievable. People must sign up to it and see a point in it, and it must really work on the ground. That brings us back to the point about flexibility. If we can achieve that, we might get something better out of it.
That leads us into the issue of areas of natural constraint and coupled support under pillar 1. Are there better ways of targeting payments than less favoured area support and the Scottish beef calf scheme? Some of our witnesses may have an issue with that just now.
It is clear to us that, in designing the new support structure for Scottish agriculture, the simplest system would be a flat-rate area payment across the whole of Scotland. That would be the simplest system to administer and for people to understand, but it would be absolutely the wrong system for Scottish agriculture if it is to deliver on productivity and the environment.
We commissioned a report to define the vulnerable areas—the areas of natural constraint—following the dramatic reduction in stock between 2005 and 2010. Having stock on the hills is important to us because it keeps people in rural areas and ensures biodiversity—it is good for the landscape and the environment. One of the most important things in the Highland region is tourism. A tourist in the Highlands and Islands spends three times as much as a tourist in the rest of Scotland does, so our environment, with its iconic views, is extremely important.
Brian Pack has suggested that the abandonment might continue, but surely the high prices for sheep and cattle at the moment, and even the prices for arable products, are countering some of that. Indeed, they are a result of there being less stock available for sale.
There is something in what you say, but it has come too late. The situation of scarcity that you see is only going to deteriorate. We are also looking ahead. We have to consider food security. Perhaps the 7 per cent greening is too much. In the Highlands and Islands, it is about what benefit derives from having stock on our hills. If you keep people in rural areas, you keep services in rural areas. It is about how you do that. Keeping stock there is possibly the best way to do it.
Scottish Environment LINK shares many of the concerns about vulnerable farming areas and the decline in farming activity. As Isobel McCallum said, those areas are extremely important in environmental terms. There has been recent work to map high-nature-value farming systems, which coincide with what we think of as vulnerable farming areas, where farming is economically marginal and the conditions are difficult.
I will bring in Graeme Dey before I bring in Patrick Krause.
I entirely get the fairness argument. I also accept that there are winners and losers in any reform process. As someone who represents an area that could suffer significantly in terms of financial support, I have concerns about what is proposed. Has any work been done to consider the potential detrimental impact on farming in areas such as Angus if these proposals go ahead and if there is much reduced support? I recognise that the area that I represent wins with the derogation for soft-fruit farmers.
I understand the argument. In my constituency, some farmers will do better and some farmers will do worse because it is a very mixed area. The proposal is for a cap, with a progressive reduction in support over time. The counter-argument is that that disincentivises efficient farming. If we are concerned about food security, we do not want to put people off restructuring to become more efficient. Will you respond to that?
We must look at the economic logic behind the proposals and why we need to provide public support to some sectors. Numerous studies have looked at what would happen if agricultural support was completely withdrawn. A bit of a presumption is that, if the support was taken away, farmers would no longer farm or produce food. That is absolute nonsense. As long as there is a market and a growing demand for food, farmers will produce it.
I was going to speak in support of what Isobel McCallum said about vulnerable areas, but Vicki Swales said most of what I was going to say and said it much better than me. However, the issue is so important that I will still make a small contribution on it.
I might come back to you in a minute.
I will take the discussion back to the simple principle of redistribution. We fully understand the vulnerability of farming areas in the north and the west. I have watched 50 per cent of the agricultural capability of Lochaber disappear under a decoupled system in the past few years and I fully understand that support is required. However, the principle of redistributing cash is far too simplistic a way to address that.
We have picked up the issue with the National Sheep Association, which is exercised by abandonment and getting sheep back on land. We have been considering whether forestry might be part of the solution to that and exploring whether planting forestry on part of the land, which brings fencing opportunities with it, would enable a farmer to increase the productive value of the sheep that they have on the holding. There are other advantages, too. Because the forestry support that is being provided is outwith the existing measures, it provides an opportunity to target forestry support that does not involve redistribution.
I am a simple sort of chap, so I will say this briefly and simply. Linking activity to payments is essential for the subsidy to reach the correct recipients. That is it in a nutshell, as far as the new entrants group is concerned.
We will come back to new entrants a bit later on.
I return to the question about the reform impact on different areas. We have spent a lot of time speaking to farmers throughout the country, and I do not think that there is a single farmer who does not realise that there will be redistribution. They may not like it, but they accept that it will happen. A definite, big mind shift on that has taken place in the farming community.
To fight the cause of the more intensive areas, we as fruit growers lost our funding over the past three years. That impacted on the farmers considerably, but it has had a greater impact on the wider community.
Fruit and berries have taken off in a big way in countries such as Finland, which has altered people’s diets. Presumably, there must be an ability for us to grow many of those things in many more areas.
There is. We have growers on the coast in Carnoustie on grade 1 land growing strawberries, but we also have a grower up near Huntly growing them on what was traditionally a stock farm. Innovation will always come in the best areas, and we can then spread that knowledge to other areas—the hydroponic farms on the west coast are an example.
Dumfries and Galloway and Wigtownshire overall is a high-production area that has already been severely hit by the LFA, particularly in Stranraer, where I am based. Having a high stock density, our fear is that the new payment, if it is area based, will hit just as hard.
This conversation started with coupled support. Many people have suggested that what we need is a package of targeted support. As I understand it, the coupled budget would be limited to 5 per cent because we fall underneath the threshold. If the current stage is about the negotiation of the regulations, there is a question over whether it would be possible to get some change that would enable Scotland, if it wanted to, to increase the coupled support. There is a question over how big the coupled budget could be, because at the moment it falls beneath the 5 per cent threshold.
If that is the case, should a cap of €300,000 a year be placed on support for an individual farm?
We oppose capping, primarily because it is a disincentive to needed restructuring, as has been said. It goes against the direction of travel. People have been encouraged to become more efficient, and increase in size is a consequence of that. However, the response or reward would then be for them to be hit by the cap. Capping is also arbitrary.
But are we not talking about the need to find money, within a small envelope, to redistribute to other areas? If the direct payments were affected by capping, there might be an opportunity to redistribute money.
It would be a very small opportunity.
How small?
I do not have the exact figures on how much would be redistributed, but given that the way in which the proposal is written means that, if it were introduced, it would affect only a certain number of people, I suspect that the amount of money that could be redistributed to pillar 2 and specific measures would not be huge.
It would be very useful to get some estimate of that figure, from Mr Midgeley or anyone here.
I will look into it.
That would be useful to us.
In the round of meetings and consultations that we have had with our members, capping has not come up as an issue. It is a bit of a non-issue. When the 30 per cent greening is taken off and allowances are made for salaries, the level of capping is quite high.
Our concern about capping is that, rather than being based on a salary level or an expenditure on labour, it is done more on a labour-unit basis, to allow contract farming-type agreements. In other words, it is based on people rather than salaries.
My understanding of the capping proposal is that it would not amount to a huge sum of money, and that that sum of money would go back to Europe and we would not get the benefit of it. Perhaps someone can clarify that.
Patrick Krause might have something to say on the mountains and islands issue, and on the small farmers scheme, which might help some crofters in those circumstances.
We have been pushing for mountains and islands status for a long time. I think that that was coming up in the final part of the final reform of the CAP, and we are certainly highly supportive of the idea that we should use it.
LFA support splits into two issues. For me, the key issue is not designation, because whichever article is used will get the area designated to be eligible for LFA support; rather, the key issue is the scheme that is put in place. The two issues must be clearly separated. Designation by itself does not necessarily do anything about the scheme and the delivery of the money.
Obviously, an LFA scheme will be an important part of pillar 2. I agree to a large extent with Scott Walker that designation is not really the issue, whether we are talking about article 18, 19 or 20; what will matter is the pot of money that is allocated and how the scheme is constructed. As I said earlier, we are keen that that money should be used to target vulnerable but environmentally important areas, and the current LFASS is very much out of kilter with that aim. The European Commission does not like it, and it is out of step with the direction in which LFA policy has been heading in Europe. We need to get that right and get the scheme more environmentally focused.
We support Scott Walker’s comments about common grazings; we think that the issue needs to be investigated further. Common grazings fall into a strange no-man’s-land. The Scottish Government finds it quite difficult to administer CAP and support measures on common land, and the situation is further complicated by the fact that some shareholders of common land do not have holdings. A lot more work needs to be done on our common grazings, with specific measures being formulated to support them.
A shiver of expectation ran down the spines of committee members at the thought of discussing common grazings in detail.
I have one small question following Scott Walker’s point about small farmers. Is the suggested annual payment rate of between €500 and €1,000 appropriate? Is it sufficiently high?
It is a question of getting the balance right. I could build an argument that we should raise that ceiling, because €1,000 is not too significant a sum. Perhaps we should be thinking about €2,500 or €3,000. For me, however, this is about the principle of getting the European Union to consider a single, simple mechanism that can be applied across the whole of Europe. We therefore need a degree of equality across the EU. Should we push for a slightly higher sum? We probably should, but the key issue for me is how we actually use it.
I should like to continue on the theme of rural development that we touched on earlier, and the common strategic framework, which will extend to six the broader priorities. Do other members of the panel see the rural development programme as a means of helping farmers to access those priorities? We are aware of the difficulties involved in applying for funding, so this might be a good time to discuss those issues.
The rural development programme will be a critical component. It is about getting the correct mix of what we do through direct payments under pillar 1, and how we complement that appropriately through the rural development measure. I understand, from what is coming out of Europe now, that we shall have greater flexibility than we do now. At the moment, we are constrained in certain ways: we have to achieve a minimum spend on certain measures, for example. It looks as though that straitjacket, as I would describe it, will be removed under the future scheme, which will give us greater flexibility.
Scott Walker makes an important point about bridging. The latest that I have heard is that the first reading of the proposals is unlikely to be finalised in the European Parliament before the end of next year, which means that we are probably looking to 2015 for a start date for the proposals. We will, therefore, need a bridge between the end of this programme and the next programme. I have already pointed out our real concern about the lack of overall funding for pillar 2. That is a critical issue. We now have six priorities that the programme must help to address and we have added new measures into the rural development regulations, which are stretching the budget ever further. That is a real problem.
Business diversification and any potential climate change measure would presumably not be mutually exclusive per se. Indeed, the two things could marry quite happily.
They could, and we are very keen to look for those sorts of synergies. We are already funding things such as manure storage and handling, which the farmer needs to do but which are also incredibly important in dealing with environmental pollution. There can be renewable energy measures—let us look for the synergies that help the farm business to develop, but do that in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way. So, yes, we must maximise those as well.
I reiterate the need for a bridging mechanism. That is crucial for both forestry interests and farmers who want to become interested in forestry through not just new planting, but their existing woodlands. The scheme is the only mechanism for them to secure funding, so if there is a problem in getting the renewable development regulation approved and a new scheme in operation on the ground, it will have a particular impact on those people. Compared with farming, there is additional flexibility in forestry to come up with a different approach. Unlike forestry, farming is part of the treaty of Rome, so there are greater restrictions. We would ask the Scottish Government and officials to look at how they can create a bridging mechanism for forestry.
I will add a little to what Vicki Swales and Stuart Goodall said. Again, I look at the issue from a climate change perspective, and I am pleased that there is a strong theme in the RDR on that.
Should we have demonstration farms that demonstrate those things?
We have a number of demonstration units. The monitor farms, which look at productive efficiency, are supported by Quality Meat Scotland and the Scottish Government. The environmental focus farms have been supported through the research programme, and we now have the climate change focus farms, which are in effect supported through the farm advisory system as they are funded through the veterinary and advisory service programme.
There is scope to boost the advisory services that Graham Kerr mentioned. We have seen all sorts of problems with the current programme, but we know where good advice is available on the ground and there are people to whom farmers can go to help them to put applications together. That assistance can work well and we need to focus on it more.
On the theme of co-operation, there is a proposal for a greater use of producer organisations for funding. We would support that, as it has certainly helped our fruit company to grow dramatically. However, I ask that—as is in the proposals—the organisations are managed by the same country that manages the rest of our programme. At the moment, we are managed by the Rural Payments Agency in Newcastle, which is not joined up with the rest of our Scottish Government funding.
That is a good point. Thank you for that. Let us return to the subject of new entrants.
I want to return to pillar 1 support and how we can encourage new entrants into farming. The Commission’s proposal is that new entrants under the age of 40 would receive a top-up of an additional 25 per cent to their basic payment for the first five years after they start farming. Member states would also be able to use up to 2 per cent of their national envelope to provide support for farmers without entitlements, and I think that that would be targeted particularly at young farmers. My question is for everyone around the table, but particularly Andrew Hannah of the Dumfries and Galloway District Association of Young Farmers Clubs. Would that additional funding be sufficient to encourage young farmers and new entrants into farming?
I would focus on pump-priming money for smaller, £2,000 to £3,000 projects. Those are not a big take-on for farms, but they help in providing sheep handling facilities, pens or whatever. If the money could be put towards such projects, that would be a great help to businesses that were just starting off.
Would anybody else like to comment?
I have seen such a scheme working effectively in France. As well as providing financial help for young farmers, it accelerates the handover of responsibility. At the moment, the average age of the farmer—the person who is controlling the business—is ever increasing. The scheme that we saw working in France forced the new generation to be given some responsibility and helped the older generation to move out of the business. It kept the young blood and new ideas coming forward in a more vibrant agriculture environment in the regions in which it was used effectively.
We need to be realistic about the measure that the European Commission is proposing. I do not believe for a minute that there is enough money associated with it to provide the incentive and the wherewithal to get something new started in the industry. Nevertheless, it is one of a series of measures that we could put in place to get people into the industry.
Who would get payments for five years? I have read the summary of the rules and it seems to be a catch-22 situation. In order to get the payments, you must have the 2011 trigger, which takes off three years. Who will get five years of payments?
I cannot comment, because I am not part of the inner workings of the European Commission, but I suspect that there is a collection of ideas and that how they impact on one another has not necessarily been thought through. I suspect that a lot of comments will be made on the proposal that has come from the European Commission and that significant changes will be made to the current proposal in the final agreement that is reached somewhere down the line. On issues such as this, I suspect that there will be an open door for us to push on and point out where we think the payments could be delivered in a far better and more efficient way. I suspect that the European Commission will be willing to listen.
I suppose that I had better comment. Obviously, the new entrants group welcomes any proposals that help young folk into agriculture. As Scott Walker says, the age limit is a bit worrying. I was knocking on 40 when I started and I know that a lot of the guys who are starting are over the age of 40. It takes a long while to build up your capital reserves to get a start.
It is very good to hear about the new regulations, although they seem to be a bit complicated. We should not underestimate how much it costs to set up on a farm and the capital investment involved.
That opens a whole new discussion, which I am sure we will take forward in the next few months.
We have no idea—that is an unknown entity. Plenty of people who are trying to get a start contact the new entrants group. Most of them keep a few sheep or the odd cow on seasonal grazing let and they want a permanent start. Obviously, land being let up is a big issue.
The young farmers association is a great thing, not just for the farming community but for any young people who want to take part. However, the number of members has been dwindling over the years. There is just not the interest and people are not going into farming. People still continue to take over their family farms, but few people come into farming from the outside. It is really only people in the rural communities who go into farming.
Andrew Midgeley wants to comment on this subject. I do not know whether you have land units available for us.
My comment is in relation to that, but it is just anecdotal evidence; I do not have the numbers. Several of our members who have tried to let units to new entrants have sometimes struggled to get people to apply, even though they have sought them out. Members have highlighted to us that there are issues with the package that goes with a new entrant regarding the support that is available and the finance that they have access to. That relates to the question of the level playing field. It is a difficult issue. It is not just about providing a small package as if that will provide the solution. If more people are to be encouraged into the sector, there must be a route for them to follow, but there are blockages in the system, retirement being one. That is another issue that we must address, but it cannot necessarily be addressed under the CAP per se, or at least under the current proposals.
Are there any other points on the issue?
I will use this opportunity, convener, to make a general point about data and information and the evidence base to back up what is said. It is easy for us to express opinions and views and what we know from talking to people, but it is vital that we marshal evidence and information so that when we are thinking about policy options and solutions, we have the evidence to base them on. Scott Walker made a point earlier about some modelling scenarios and looking at economic, social and environmental impacts. We have time to do it, so I urge us to ask our civil servants to marshal the evidence and present it, so that our decisions about the real impacts will be based on facts and figures, rather than on the positions that we all like to hold.
That may well be a very good point at which to draw these remarks to a close. There is nothing—oh, there is. Jim Simmons wants to come back in.
It is important that we ensure that the new entrants situation does not happen again under the new CAP. The new entrants group believes that it is important that, under the new CAP, we try to stop the trade in entitlements either by linking them to the farm that they were attributed to in the first place, or by framing it so that if an agreement cannot be set by an outgoing tenant for an ingoing tenant, and if the entitlements are unused for a couple of years, they are returned to a national reserve. The problem with the trade in entitlements is that it uses up so much valuable working capital for the new entrant who is trying to get a start. That capital should be spent in the local economy. The situation at the moment is a massive barrier for getting new entrants into farming.
I have a final statement. I compliment Mr Lochhead on what he has done so far. He has been prepared to listen to people who want to be new entrants and to provide more of an incentive for young people to get into the farming community.
Thank you. We will certainly ask the UK minister and Mr Lochhead about these issues in due course. This is an appropriate point to say that we have had a very good round-table discussion. I thank the witnesses for their contributions. No doubt there will be many more as we go through the process before we reach the outcome of what the CAP will offer us. I hope that we will try to speak up for Scotland with a united voice wherever that is possible. Thank you all for being here. We will take a short interval.
To follow on from our round-table evidence session, on 7 December we will write to the Scottish Government and to relevant committees in Westminster, the European Parliament, and the European Commission, summarising the evidence that we have received and our conclusions.
Do members also agree to meet the European commissioner and/or senior officials to present the committee’s report on its CAP scrutiny and discuss the issues raised?
Previous
Subordinate Legislation