The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14327, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on agriculture, current challenges facing the sector and opportunities. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now.
I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet secretary, you have 14 minutes—and I should tell members that we are tight for time this afternoon.
14:40
I am very pleased to open this important debate on the opportunities and current challenges facing Scottish agriculture. As we are all aware, agriculture matters hugely to our country; indeed, 98 per cent of Scotland is agricultural. It underpins what is now our £14 billion food and drinks industry; it contributes to our environment by delivering clean air and water and carbon capture, and by protecting and sustaining our rich and varied wildlife; and, of course, it generates jobs in the wider economy, supporting communities and other industries throughout the nation. Last year, agriculture contributed more than £3 billion to the Scottish economy, with around 40 per cent coming from the livestock sector alone.
First of all, however, I want to turn to the current challenges that face agriculture. As we know, our farmers are used to difficult and sometimes challenging weather and the vagaries of the marketplace, but this year the challenges that they face are really quite exceptional. Right now, the industry seems to be facing a perfect storm, with local, European, United Kingdom and global factors all coming together. In particular, bad weather, with heavy and prolonged rain, has had a huge impact on farming in some parts of the country, particularly in the north and north-west of Scotland. In fact, the first six months of the year have been the wettest in a century in Orkney.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will take an intervention on the subject of Orkney.
I thank the cabinet secretary for teeing me up so expertly. He will be aware of the on-going discussions between his officials and local representatives in Orkney about the implications of the wet weather. I understand that the winter fodder shortage has reached the point where the need to sell off breeding stock is rapidly approaching. For example, 900 large square bales are needed in Westray, but their cost—and, indeed, the cost of getting them there—is prohibitive. What specifically can the cabinet secretary do to assure farmers in Westray and across Orkney that they will get the fodder they need to ensure that they do not have to send breeding stock off the islands?
I am aware of some of the challenges that are facing many of the farmers in Orkney. I simply assure Liam McArthur that my officials are working on the transportation issues that he has mentioned and on other matters where the Government can help out. Those talks are on-going, and I have asked for an urgent report back on the progress that is being made. Some practical issues have to be ironed out, but I assure Mr McArthur that we are looking closely at the issues.
As Liam McArthur has suggested, the effect of continuous rainfall can be profound: the ground becomes saturated; the grass does not grow; and farmers have to buy in extra feed and straw for their stock. Harvests have been delayed, and we are waiting to see what yields are like and whether the drying costs for wet grain will be higher this year. As I have said, we are working closely with the industry to identify what can be done to help those who have been affected most by the heavy rainfall in Orkney and elsewhere.
Other challenges include the euro-sterling exchange rate, which affects the value of farm payments. In recent years, the exchange rate has resulted in higher payments, which have helped to buffer the impact of additional costs. Last year, however, a combination of the exchange rate and a smaller common agricultural policy budget overall led to support falling by around 12 per cent or £70 million.
We are also having to cope with the wider international economic backdrop. For example, we have heard of the economic challenges in China that might slow down growth. Given that China is a big barometer for world trade conditions as well as a potentially huge market for Scotland, its economic prospects are very relevant to the debate. Moreover, the Russian ban on imports from Europe is having both a direct and an indirect effect on our sectors, including dairy, with produce that normally leaves the EU now remaining in European markets.
Of course, the challenges facing the dairy sector have very much occupied the headlines in recent months. Some of our producers are now receiving some of the lowest prices anywhere for their milk. Efficiency improvements have allowed the sector to increase total milk production by 97 million litres since 2004; unfortunately, however, that has coincided with a global oversupply of milk, and the price for many dairy farmers both in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe has plummeted. The situation here has been compounded by our overdependency on liquid milk rather than added-value products. There are some small signs that international dairy prices may be improving, and Europe has made some extra funding available for milk and meat producers. I will come back to that later.
Times are tough for many other livestock producers; it is not just a dairy issue. Beef prices this year are sluggish, and rising costs in the beef sector over the past 10 years have led to a real-terms fall in the average net farm income of more than £6,000. Early analysis by one group of economists suggests that the decisions that the Scottish Government took to have three payments regions under the new common agricultural policy and to use the maximum amount of coupled support available under the policy will help to keep beef cow numbers up. Therefore, there are some bright spots.
I turn to the sheep sector. At the start of the season, lamb prices were again disappointingly low, partly because of slow growth as a result of poor grass, but there are now some signs of improvement in that sector, too.
On arable land, we will have to wait and see what this year’s harvest will yield and how much that contrasts with last year’s harvest, when the amount of arable land was the highest since 1994 and Scottish farmers produced more than 2 million tonnes of barley and 1 million tonnes of wheat.
With the poor market situation, many farmers face cash-flow problems, so the direct payments that are issued to us every year through the common agricultural policy are particularly important this year. However, as members are well aware, we have to implement the first year of the new common agricultural policy this year, with the biggest reforms in a generation.
Given the huge uncertainty that exists about the payment schedule, can the cabinet secretary confirm the timetable for the delivery of those payments?
If Sarah Boyack will bear with me, I am just coming on to that.
By the end of this year, we will have launched or relaunched between 15 and 20 schemes, each of which needs its own programming. The timespan between Europe agreeing the new common agricultural policy and when we need to make payments is incredibly short. We have an excellent track record of making payments in this country, and we are pulling out all the stops to start to make payments by the end of December, as I have said before. We have registered more than 20,000 customers in the new payments system and have allocated around 400,000 fields to basic payment regions. That gives members an idea of the scale of the challenge that our officials face.
Our challenge under the new European policy is that we are not able to calculate payment rates until we know exactly how many eligible hectares we have in each region. Claims are now being checked and eligible areas are being confirmed so that the value of each farmer’s entitlements can be calculated properly for 2015 and subsequent years. We have the option of delivering part payments to get cash out the door to businesses, and we will seriously consider using that option.
Europe has also given some recognition to the industry’s cash-flow issues and has brought forward a €500 million package: €420 million for direct aid for milk and meat producers, and €80 million for private storage aid and some promotional activities. The UK’s share is just over €36 million, so it is clear that Scotland’s share will be quite modest. However, we must ensure that we get a fair share of the UK’s allocation, as the UK’s track record in such matters is not good. The UK ministers must acknowledge the serious challenges that Scottish farmers face, which I have set out to them. We need the UK to urgently right the wrongs that were done to Scotland when the external convergence uplift was allocated across the whole of the UK, which resulted in Scotland’s farmers losing out on £145 million between now and 2019. That compounds the £1 million per annum that we are already losing through the lost red meat levies, which are now needed back in Scotland more than ever before.
Once we get our share of the EU aid package, Europe requires us to make the payments extremely quickly—in December. Therefore, there will be a focus on pragmatism to make the payments on time.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the convergence uplift. Does he accept that the UK Government is, as I understand it, still committed to undertaking the review in 2016-17, as has always been the case?
Yes, but my concern remains that that review will take place in 2016-17, which is already too late, and that once it is completed and implemented, we will be into the next common agricultural policy period. Scotland needs the wrongs to be put right now, not later.
A range of sectors faces challenges, and we have had to step up to the plate and respond to them urgently. We have done our best to do that, particularly in areas such as dairy. In March, we launched our action plan, which was designed to help to ensure a viable future for the dairy sector in the context of extreme price volatility. Under the plan, we have unveiled a new dairy brand; supported dairy farmers through the dairy hub; given £400,000 of capital support to First Milk in Campbeltown; taken steps to encourage serious investment in processing; and taken every opportunity to beat the drum with retailers and others to increase the sourcing of Scottish produce. There is no reason whatsoever why 70 per cent of the dairy products that we consume should come from outside Scotland.
We have also been active in the poultry sector, and we have just established a sheep industry group to address marketing and processing capacity issues that have been outstanding for many years. Many of the causes of those issues are international, so many of the solutions must also be international. That is why we have argued strongly at successive EU councils for effective EU action: short-term measures that not only look at helping people, but actually deliver that help. It also means taking medium-term action such as mandatory country-of-origin labelling and decisive action on supply chains across Europe.
The clear message today, which I hope other parties in the chamber echo, is that there is much more that we can do at home in Scotland and throughout these islands. All parts of the supply chain must play their part—in particular, our food service sector and our retailers, which together account for around £200 billion of sales in the UK.
Let me make that real with an example. Many parts of the retail and food service sectors are booming—none more so than coffee shops on our high streets, with exponential growth forecast to continue for years to come. We spend £80,000 a day on coffee. However, consumers will be shocked to learn that when they buy their coffee at Costa on Princes Street or at Starbucks in Dumfries, the milk in their caffè lattes or cappuccinos will have been sourced from outside Scotland. That is a missed opportunity, when many Scottish dairy farmers face enormous challenges and need support in their hour of need. In addition, consumers will have been shocked to see New Zealand products on Tesco shelves advertised as “Scottish lamb in season”. Those things must and will be put right.
All is not doom and gloom. We are making real progress. This morning, I visited an Aroma cafe at the Western infirmary—one of 25 hospital branches that the national health service owns—to acknowledge Aroma’s policy of sourcing 100 per cent of its milk from Scotland.
Our hard work with catering companies and the retail sector is beginning to pay dividends. I was delighted that last week Brakes announced its commitment to double its sourcing of Scottish products. In due course, that could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy. I have heard similarly positive noises from another food service and catering business, 3663. In addition, I say “Well done” to the Crerar hotel chain, which has just committed to sourcing 100 per cent of its meat from Scotland. I could go on.
There is much more to do, but the tide is turning. The backdrop that we must not lose sight of is the booming food and drink industry. It is now at record levels, with a £14.3 billion turnover in 2013—up a staggering 28 per cent. The industry is growing at twice the rate of its counterparts elsewhere in the UK. A recent Bank of Scotland report predicted that the sector will create 14,000 new jobs, and producers forecast an average turnover growth of 19 per cent by 2020. It is a phenomenal success story, and we will do a lot more in the coming months and years to keep up that level of success.
However, there would be no record-breaking figures without the producers—those who produce the raw materials, take the risks, tend our landscapes and build our reputation—and they need to see profit shared across the supply chain. That is why I have been setting the pace with my UK counterparts in creating a fairer framework for farming. At the summit on 17 August, which I and NFU Scotland called for, I stressed that we have an unprecedented opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers. We can speak with one voice and put our case and our demands to the rest of the supply chain, especially UK retailers and food service companies. We need clearer labelling, more Scottish and British sourcing, commitments to develop local sourcing and real attempts to develop long-term relations with local suppliers.
I repeated those calls when I wrote to Liz Truss and at a further summit in Brussels. I am still waiting for her to step up to the plate and join ministers of the devolved Governments and farming leaders in a joint approach to the retail sector, so that we can combine our influence and send a powerful message, in what would be an unprecedented show of solidarity with our farmers.
That is key way forward to help our primary producers in this country. If ministers of the devolved Governments and the farming leaders are up for it, I hope that Liz Truss, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will also be up for it. If she is, we can transform sourcing in Scotland and throughout the UK. That will help the whole supply chain, but particularly our farmers—our primary producers—without whom we would not have a food and drink industry or food on our tables.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the hard work and dedication of the men and women working in Scottish agriculture but recognises the current challenges facing the sector; notes the Scottish Government’s commitment to deliver 2015 CAP Pillar 1 payments as soon as it is able to do so, following the payment window opening on 1 December 2015; calls on the UK Government to allocate Scotland a fair share of Europe’s new €500 million market support package; further calls on the UK Government to revisit its decision not to allocate Scotland the full £190 million convergence uplift provided to the UK as a result of Scotland’s low payments, and for an urgent resolution to the negotiations with the UK to repatriate the industry’s red meat levies to Scotland; acknowledges the record growth in Scottish food and drink and calls on all parts of the supply chain to benefit, and welcomes the Scottish Government’s call for UK and Scottish ministers, along with farming leaders, to jointly approach UK retailers and food service companies to secure a fair deal for farming.
I advise members that they must take interventions within their time, because we really are tight for time.
14:55
I definitely agree with the cabinet secretary that this has been an incredibly difficult year for our farming communities. The NFUS describes it as a “crisis”, because of the dairy crisis, the weather this summer, price volatility not just for dairy but for grain, and the nervousness and concern about farm payments and potential delays. The viability of some of our farms is at stake, so we really need the Scottish Government to do more to support the industry. Our amendment sets out some key areas where we think that we need change and action.
At the top of my comments, I re-emphasise our support for our farming sector and what it does to assist us with food security—not in the way that happened at the end of the second world war, but in the 21st century, with climate uncertainty and changes around the world, economic instability that is caused by dysfunctional supply chains not just in Scotland but all round the world, and the vulnerability of farmers who are having to borrow large sums of money to invest in modern farming equipment. We can see the strains in the industry. Our supply chains are long and remote, can be lacking in transparency and are, as the NFUS says, sometimes completely dysfunctional.
However, as the cabinet secretary said, there is success in the industry, too, and we should celebrate it. We should acknowledge the record food and drink exports. I hear from the industry that the figures have been boosted by particularly strong performance in the drinks sector, although there are good headlines in some parts of the food-supply sector as well.
As an economic sector, farming and agriculture provide a bedrock in many of our rural communities, with jobs, incomes and livelihoods being delivered by farmers and farm workers, so I want to keep the beginning of the SNP motion and to note their “hard work and dedication”. However, I also want to ensure that we reward that hard work, which is why Labour members believe that it is vital that we retain the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, given its positive impact on rural livelihoods and its representation of farm workers, who might be only one or two people on a farm. In another industry, they might be one of 50, 100 or 1,000 people. Farming is a very different industry—the isolation can be severe, so such staff need support. We are therefore disappointed that the SNP Government is consulting again on abolishing the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. That would be a retrograde step at this time of uncertainty.
During the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s visit to Islay and Jura this week, the importance of agriculture was stressed by one of the tenant farmers. He highlighted the importance of farming and crofting in supporting the whole livelihoods of rural communities. We must not take that for granted, so we need to capture better the benefits for those who work in the industry, for those who lead it and for our rural communities.
We believe that use of co-operatives is underdeveloped in Scotland. They are a key way for small producers in particular to secure value from farming and crofting produce. We see co-operatives in other European countries, but we do not see them on the same scale here.
Our amendment also highlights the importance of farming and of farmers as stewards of our land. They have a key role in supporting biodiversity, and a distinct contribution is being made by the organic farming sector. That role is also important for the long-term health of our soils and for capturing the economic benefit of marketing our high-quality, well-renowned produce. The challenge is to design support mechanisms that help farmers to deliver those aspirations in practice. Anyone who visits a farm will find that if not the first thing, then the second or certainly the third thing that the farmer will mention is what they sometimes regard as the daftness with which regulations are applied.
We need to do much more to support the transition on emissions and to enable farming to make its contribution to alleviating climate change. Farmers are doing key work on taking advantage of renewables—especially wind and, I hear, solar—but the step back from the UK Government in relation to renewables obligation certificates and the feed-in tariff is creating short-term obstacles. Much more can be done in relation to farming as a whole. At the Royal Highland Show I saw for myself the research that Scotland’s Rural College is doing, which could be applied if we had the right transition plan in place. The cabinet secretary needs to be doing much more work on that. Every other sector in the Scottish economy is looking at how to play its part. The issue needs political and ministerial leadership, and it will get support in the Parliament.
The terms “agroeconomy” and “agroecology” are being used by Scottish Environment LINK. We need a broader discussion among all stakeholders about how to innovate and develop good practice. However, a key threat is the economics. I mentioned global price fluctuations and the weather, which are huge threats to our farmers’ day-to-day work.
The milk and dairy industry is massively vulnerable at the moment, and there is not enough urgency in the Scottish Government’s dairy action plan. I wrote to the minister more than a month ago with positive suggestions on product development, marketing, public procurement and support for catering in the private sector, but I am still waiting for a reply.
When the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee visited Orkney in the summer, we saw the impact of positive support from local government for our farming communities. The minister should explore that.
There is consensus on some areas, including on fairer prices for farmers and shorter supply chains, but work is needed from the minister in that regard. We need an overhaul of supply chains if we are to deliver fairer prices. Some members in this Parliament have campaigned for fair trade abroad, and we have had an impact on trading relationships. This summer I was shocked by the level of dairy prices in this country.
Over the past decade, there has been cross-party work in the Parliament, particularly in its rural affairs committees, on the importance of fairness and transparency in contracts and prices. However, when I visited a farm this summer and commented on the impressive mound of potatoes in a barn, I was shocked to be told that the potatoes would not be sent into the retail chain, because the contract had been pooled. The farmer was, rather than wasting them, using the potatoes to feed his livestock. That was the best that he could do. There is still a power imbalance in the industry. Supermarkets and the retail industry are not in a fair relationship with farmers, particularly smaller farmers, although the randomness of the impact of contracts on bigger suppliers can be shocking, too. Shorter supply chains should be part of a better picture in which we would have more accountability and certainty. They would also save on logistics costs.
As the cabinet secretary said, we need a new drive on public procurement. When I talk to my local government colleagues I think that more could be done at national and local levels. We would like new targets and a fresh approach to promoting co-operatives and joint supply locally. It is crucial to target hospitality in the commercial sector.
The minister has been in his position for eight and a half years. Some of the things that he has announced today are welcome, but it should not have taken eight and a half years and a crisis to get to this point. As we said in debates on the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, standards are high and the quality of our environment, animal welfare and producers is impressive and something to be proud of. Politicians could act on local sourcing and procurement in Scotland to ensure greater value right across the food chain.
I emphasise our support for the cabinet secretary in his work in the EU and with the other UK Governments to support agriculture and investment in our environment. We need to get the right mechanisms, which need to be fair and fit for purpose. I understand that this morning the Public Audit Committee interrogated Scottish Government officials about CAP payments. It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could guarantee that payments will be delivered by December. It is astonishing that banks are beginning to put in place special measures to get farmers through the winter. That is a crisis that should not be happening. The cabinet secretary needs to take his share of responsibility for the mismanagement of the programme.
We need to do better for our farmers. We need to ensure that they are properly supported, because they support a raft of jobs in our rural communities and because of the vital money that farming brings into our economy.
We need more on country-of-origin labelling. There is cross-party support for the food sector in Scotland, but we are perhaps not applying it effectively enough. At the end of the day, the Scottish Government could do more. Our amendment calls for action and urgency. It puts on the agenda issues that are not in the Government’s motion.
There should not have to be special arrangements for loans; we need support for our industry that works and will keep it going through the winter.
The debate should send a clear message to the Scottish Government, the UK Government and our retail sector that we need a better deal for our farmers and our farming communities. This is about the role of Government in supporting industry, looking at dysfunctional food chains and persuading consumers to buy differently. There is a role for us and the retail sector, so let us do it together.
I move amendment S4M-14327.3, to leave out from “but” to end and insert:
“; recognises and celebrates the importance of the agriculture sector to Scotland’s rural economies and its international reputation as a producer of quality food and drink; notes the importance of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board to securing workers’ wellbeing and livelihoods; believes that the sector can deliver greater social justice and economic benefit to rural communities through the promotion of cooperatives, greater biodiversity, organic food production and land conservation to aid the continued stewardship of Scotland’s land; notes the new opportunities presented by agro-ecology; further notes the significant potential of the sector to deliver sustainable and effective action to meet the Scottish Government’s climate change targets, for example from on-farm action and community-owned renewable energy; recognises the damaging impact that global price fluctuations caused in summer 2015, particularly in the dairy sector; calls on the Scottish Government to accelerate the implementation of the Dairy Action Plan; further calls on it to facilitate and enable the overhaul of the sector’s supply chains to deliver fairer prices for farmers and shorter supply chains, enhance product development to add value to quality raw materials and to promote diversification within the sector; considers that new targets should be set for the Scottish Government to improve the procurement of Scottish produce across the public and private sectors in Scotland; urges the Scottish Government to clarify the delivery of 2015 CAP Pillar 1 payments before the payment window opening on 1 December 2015 and to press the UK Government to allocate Scotland a fair share of Europe’s new €500 million market support package, and recognises the failure of the UK Government to allocate the £190 million convergence uplift and to deliver the most appropriate arrangements for the Scottish agricultural sector red meat levies.”
15:05
Like other members, I very much welcome the debate. It is needed, if for no other reason than that I have never known so many farmers in my part of Scotland who are genuinely wondering what the future holds for them. In some cases, they are wondering whether they have a future in agriculture at all. I do not think that that is just down to the serious drops—tough as they are—in commodity prices, which have affected milk, lamb and cereals in particular, or to other factors such as the exchange rate, which the cabinet secretary mentioned. There is palpable uncertainty about the future.
In recent years, we have grown used to farms changing hands incredibly quickly when they are put on the market. Recently, however, in my part of Scotland, farms have been noticeably slow to sell, if they have sold at all. To me, that is as sure a sign as there can be that all is not well in the sector and that the confidence of recent years no longer exists. What has happened to bring about that change and what, if anything, can we do about it?
I am in no doubt that the biggest single factor has been the move away from a CAP support system that was based on productivity, to one that is based on the area that is farmed. I acknowledge that there was no choice in the matter and that the Scottish Government had an extremely difficult task in delivering the new system. However, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to look back and heap praise on how it was introduced—from the apparent reluctance to model new systems at an early stage, through a pretty inadequate and hideously expensive information technology system that required 50 changes to the guidance between the opening day on 1 March and the extended mid-June deadline for applications, to the current inspection and verification process, the outcome of which we do not know. All that has been to deliver a pillar 1 payment the amount of which will probably remain unknown to those who will receive it until they receive it. That process was never going to instil a great deal of confidence, and it has failed to do so.
I agree with Sarah Boyack that one thing that the cabinet secretary could do that would go some way towards rectifying the situation is ensure that the basic payment is paid fully in December, which is what all the amendments seek. The motion says that the Government will make the payments
“as soon as it is able to do so”,
and the cabinet secretary has hinted at interim payments—I understand that more was said about those at the Public Audit Committee this morning. However, the fact is that Governments are elected to make things happen. The CAP support system is the sole responsibility of the cabinet secretary, and the measure of his grip on it will be basic payments being made to all primary producers from day 1 of the December window. He can, and I believe he should, make that happen.
The motion also makes much of what the Scottish Government thinks the UK Government should do—no surprise there—but does very little to suggest anything positive that the Scottish Government can do in bringing back confidence to the sector. Maybe that is no surprise, considering that one of the cabinet secretary’s latest actions—the banning of genetically modified crops—has provoked a pretty adverse reaction not just from the farming sector, but from the science sector. I appreciate that there will be different opinions about the issue around the chamber, but it almost defies belief that a Government that never misses an opportunity to back up any controversial proposal by assuring us that it is acting on the best available scientific advice has not bothered to seek such advice in this instance. Instead, the cabinet secretary talks about protecting the purity and quality of Scottish produce by banning the growing of GM crops; yet, he is denying any potential to grow those crops without the use of chemical pesticides and fungicides that are in common use today. Plant and animal breeding and cross-breeding have been going on since time immemorial, and GM technology is really just an extension of that science.
If Alex Fergusson is concerned about the Scottish Government not waiting for scientific advice, how can he be so positive about the biotechnology industry? GM crops could have serious ramifications across Scotland.
I want the scientific evidence on the table to back up the ban that has been put in place by the cabinet secretary. We have no such evidence.
GM crops have the potential—I only use the word “potential”—to provide an exciting new future for agriculture, of which the principal purpose must surely always be to feed an ever-increasing world population. We will forget that—as I think the cabinet secretary has, in this instance—at our peril.
I will move on to a more positive note. I think that we all agree on the need to include the retail sector in our thinking and discussions on making the most of our home-grown products. The success of Scotland’s food and drink is fantastic, but until the fruits of that success are fed back down to the primary producer, it is only a partial success.
As some members know, I recently reviewed the voluntary code of practice between dairy farmers and milk processors. It became obvious early in the review that the retail sector is the missing link in the chain; for the code to be effective, the retail sector has to be part of it. We will back any moves, wherever they come from, to enhance that relationship. We also fully back moves to further empower the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Well-known supermarkets are selling New Zealand lamb under “Scottish lamb” signage. That is not on—until we reverse the thinking that encourages retailers to do that, the challenges will remain.
The motion rightly notes the hard work and dedication of the people who work in agriculture. They always have been hard working and dedicated and they always will be. Give them back the confidence that is declining and they will not let this country down.
I move amendment S4M-14327.1, to leave out from second “notes” to “repatriate the industry’s” and insert:
“regrets the Scottish Government’s decision to rule out the cultivation of GM crops without having taken any scientific advice or debate on the potential benefits of biotechnology; notes the critical importance to farmers’ cash-flow of CAP funding being delivered on time; urges the Scottish Government to ensure prompt CAP Pillar 1 payments in December 2015; recognises the UK Government’s commitment to discuss the allocation of its €36.1 million European support package with devolved administrations as a matter of urgency; welcomes the UK Government’s confirmation that it is committed to review the intra-UK CAP budget allocation in 2016-17; seeks an early resolution to ongoing negotiations over the reallocation of”.
15:11
It would be unfair to blame Mr Lochhead for the rain, and nor could he in any way be blamed for global weather. However, if the sun had been shining all summer, I wonder whether the Government would perhaps have tried to take the credit.
It is important to concentrate on the aspects of agricultural policy and the changes that we need that are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and its agencies. As the cabinet secretary rightly recognised, Scottish farmers and crofters are under pressure. Dairy farmers have told many of us that they are being paid less than the cost of production; the cabinet secretary recognised that implicitly in his speech.
Lamb prices are at a seven-year low and the wet summer has created higher costs for bought-in fodder, notably in the far-flung areas such as Orkney. Last night, Jamie Leslie, who is a farming pal of mine from Shetland, phoned to tell me about the price of straw. The cabinet secretary will know well from his constituency that straw costs £20 a bale in Aberdeenshire. Once it is trucked to Aberdeen and then to the farm in Shetland, another £20 is added to the cost. NorthLink’s freight rate adds £28.20 for shipping alone. Therefore, it costs £68.20 to bring essential fodder to a Shetland farm. The farmer would not normally need to buy that, but he has to because of the summer that we have had. The Orkney weekend freight rate per bale is around £15, so that is certainly helping.
The local NFU and I have been pressing the Government to assist Shetland producers. I have raised the matter with the cabinet secretary previously and I ask him to consider their needs again. That is a practical example of how different parts of our agricultural industry could be assisted at this time. Alan Bowie, the president of the NFUS, made the argument to me last night about the need to help different parts of Scotland in recognition of the challenges that we face.
The Government’s statistics show that agriculture is contracting. Its “State of the Economy” report, which was published last month, shows annual growth in agriculture falling by 5.3 per cent. In addition, cattle numbers fell by 11 per cent between 2004 and 2014, and there has been an 18 per cent fall in breeding ewe numbers over the same period. If we want to grow the food and drink industry—or the food industry in particular, given Sarah Boyack’s accurate observation about whisky—we need the trend in primary livestock production, far from falling, to go the other way. There is a significant challenge for the Government, as much as for the industry, in recognising the reality of livestock numbers across Scotland.
As Scottish Environment LINK mentioned in its briefing for the debate, the Government environmental adviser, Scottish Natural Heritage, says that more priority farmland habitats are deteriorating than improving. The UK national ecosystem assessment says that 44 per cent of Scottish habitats are in decline. Therefore, from a production and an environmental perspective, the trends are in the wrong direction.
How are we to meet the growth targets for the Scottish food industry that we all aspire to meet when there are fewer cattle and sheep? Scotland’s environment is being impaired, but environmental change cannot be happening as a result of farming when our farming is becoming less intensive. Scotland’s natural beauty, which is at the core of our tourism product, is under some challenge.
What can the Government do? I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about CAP payments. If I got him right, I think that he said that they would be paid by the end of December; I do not know whether that means by the week beginning Monday 28 December. The industry will be disappointed by that, because it has argued very strongly—as Allan Bowie said to me last night—that the payments need to be made in the first two weeks of December. I will not rehearse all the arguments on why that is the case, because Richard Lochhead knows them very well—he has heard them for eight years; in fact, the arguments on the payment timescale have been made since long before then.
At this morning’s meeting of the Public Audit Committee, the cabinet secretary’s officials were commendably fair about all this. They explained the challenges, but at no time did they say that it was impossible for the payments to be made in the first two weeks of December, so I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the industry and to Parliament and ensure that the payments are paid out to a great extent if not in full—we understand how the system works; payments are made in instalments—in the early part of December rather than after Christmas day.
The cabinet secretary will share my concern about the fact that Scotland is having to spend £178 million on an information technology system to allocate £400 million every year to 21,000 farmers. That cannot be a good use of Mr Richard Lochhead’s budget; it is certainly not a good use of public money. An IT system that is 111 per cent over budget, as Audit Scotland has said, must be questioned from first principles. The Government has no choice, in that it must implement a system that is EU-compliant, but we are in a world of madness when it is necessary to spend that amount of public money on a clever computer to properly allocate money to agriculture across Scotland.
Will the member give way?
Very briefly, please.
Does Tavish Scott accept that the European auditors have said exactly the same about almost every country in Europe? There is a common denominator here regarding the way in which the EU has brought this system into being.
I am afraid that you must close, Mr Scott.
I agree with that to an extent, but I am concerned about how the approach that the European Commission takes when it meets farming ministers in Brussels is implemented in other European countries. I would not wish to name names, but we all know that other countries take different approaches.
My final point is to agree with Alex Fergusson, Sarah Boyack and the cabinet secretary on public sector procurement. I think that there is a great deal more that we could do on that, not least because of the scale of Government spend on food and drink in the round across Scotland, which amounts to £160 million every year. The cabinet secretary was right to emphasise the importance of tackling the retail sector and bringing it up to the mark. We need to ensure that our public procurement is not run by huge multinational conglomerates but is much more local and therefore much more applicable to local farmers and crofters.
I move amendment S4M-14327, to leave out from second “notes” to end and insert:
“considers that Scottish agriculture, in particular the dairy and sheep sectors, is experiencing a financial crisis; recognises the importance of the new CAP Pillar 1 payments to crofters and farmers and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that these are fully paid in December 2015; welcomes the cross-party support that exists for a fairer allocation of the £190 million convergence uplift provided to the UK as a result of Scotland’s below average area payment rates and commends NFU Scotland for consistently making this case; believes that the Scottish Government should explore how it can use its significant public sector procurement powers to promote the use of Scottish produce; calls on the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to further strengthen the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, championed by Liberal Democrats in the last UK administration, to enable the adjudicator to investigate the supply chain from farm gate to dinner plate; welcomes the record growth in Scottish food and drink, but calls on the Scottish Government to ensure a fair deal for all farmers and all parts of the supply chain.”
We come to the open debate. I am afraid that we are extremely short of time. Speeches should be of less than six minutes.
15:18
What is agriculture for? Well, we must try to feed Scots. It has been suggested that we must have an agriculture that tries to feed the world, but the world wastes so much food that I think that we should give closer consideration to the issue of what agriculture should be doing and how it should be doing it.
I am extremely concerned about the fact that, in their motion, the Conservatives mention
“the Scottish Government’s decision to rule out the cultivation of GM crops without having taken any scientific advice or debate on the potential benefits of biotechnology”.
There is scientific knowledge—significant bodies of research raise large question marks about the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms. Eighty per cent of the crops that are currently approved rely on glyphosate, which is a non-selective pesticide that the World Health Organization regards as a probable carcinogen. Another piece of evidence that we should not ignore is the fact that GM farmers in America face problems as a result of weeds becoming more prevalent, with the result that they need to spend more and more on different types of GM crops.
Vast amounts of research are funded by big agri-chemical businesses. Many in the scientific community rely on money from large GM firms to carry out the research that they want to do. They are doing that research not for the benefit of Scotland but because they know that GM firms are a large source of money. I suggest that that does not necessarily make for the best science.
Why, for example, are GM supporters spending hundreds of millions of pounds in America at present to prevent the labelling of food containing GM ingredients? What are they trying to hide? The examples that I have given all highlight scientific probes of the way in which the argument for GM has been laid before us.
Scotland has been joined by Germany, France, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Latvia, Greece and—just today—Austria in wanting to have clean green production. Those countries are not ignoring the science: they all know about the science.
I will focus on two groups of people who are looking closely at the science. Waitrose, in its conditions for feed in its protein divisions, states:
“the inclusion of vegetable protein ingredients must be of a non GMO origin and inclusion rates must not compromise animal welfare or the eating quality and nutritional value of the final raw product.”
The German Minister for Food and Agriculture was in South America recently, trying to find sources of non-GM soya. Waitrose has managed to do that, and the Germans are now looking for a source. Why are all the other supermarkets in Britain not taking the lead?
Sárpo potatoes are produced in a small trust—the Sárvári Research Trust—in north Wales. They are an excellent example of non-GM blight-resistant potatoes, and are available to gardeners. They have a high yield, deep rooting for good drought tolerance and vigorous weed-smothering foliage. Their carbon footprint is very low because they do not require all the dressings that other types of potatoes require. Does the trust get the cash from Monsanto and the like to develop the crop on a farm scale? No, it does not. That supports the argument that the science that backs GM very often involves—as the website foodtank.com said recently—“Dirty Money” supporting “Dirty Science”.
Becoming a good food nation is one of the major planks of the Government’s approach. Going back to my first question about what agriculture is for, it must be to ensure that people can get the food that they need to eat and be healthy, and to promote a healthy culture. Is that compatible with companies making big profits, given that genetic modification is seen as a means to do just that? I question that fundamentally.
There is no going back if GM crops are allowed into the ecosystem. It has been said before that GM, like nuclear power and fracking, is a short-term fix with long-term implications. The problems that we face at present must be addressed by looking at what we need to eat and what can be usefully sent to other people in a nutritious form that helps their health as well.
I urge members to reject the Tory amendment; to support the cabinet secretary‘s motion; and to recognise that the GM bogey must be dismissed out of hand.
15:23
I think that we all agree that the agricultural sector is facing extremely challenging times. Crofters and farmers in the Highlands and Islands were already facing challenges, and the weather this summer has made those even worse. Feedstuff cannot be grown, which means that it needs to be bought in. The poor season has affected growing all over Scotland, which means that feed will be expensive and in short supply. As we have heard, for people who live in the islands, the shipping cost of feed is prohibitive.
Breeding has been affected by a lack of grass. Lambs are smaller, and there have been fewer multiple births, which again impacts on profitability. All that is happening when the sector debt is extremely high and has increased by more than 4 per cent in the past year.
Agriculture is very important in the Highlands and Islands. Crofting has kept people in our remote and rural communities, but that is now threatened because of the difficulties of making a living from agriculture in the area. Crofting law has been reformed to tackle those difficulties, but that seems to involve tinkering around the edges rather than making a lasting difference.
The bottom line is the need to make a living. If changes in the law do not make it easier to make a living, they are absolutely useless. The Government remains deaf to the real issues that face crofting. If young people cannot see a future, they will not stay in their communities. Last week, crofters in Sutherland called on the cabinet secretary to look at the funding of crofting and hill farms and asked for it to be on a level playing field with funding in the rest of the UK, where farmers in the sector receive over 12 times more in subsidy payments.
Does the member accept that one of the reasons—in fact, the key reason—why farmers elsewhere in the UK receive much more per hectare in farm payments than those in Scotland is that previous Labour and Conservative Governments failed to negotiate a proper budget for Scotland? Does she accept that we have an unfair share of the overall European farming budget because of a lack of political will from UK Governments?
I would always argue for more money to come to Scotland. However, I am talking about the Scottish Government’s distribution of the money. I am asking for that to be done more fairly and in a way that funds those who farm on the periphery, in conditions that are much worse than those elsewhere. The Scottish Government needs to distribute the money that it gets in a more equitable fashion. The subsidies come from Europe to create a level playing field but, in Scotland, we use them to do the exact opposite.
The Highland clearances leave a long shadow over much of the Highlands and Islands. Villages were cleared and left to return to the wild. The Scottish Government should make it a priority to resettle the areas that were cleared by Scottish landowners in the past. It should find ways of encouraging people back into those abandoned villages, which often have the best ground in the Highland crofting counties. Instead, the Government is presiding over further clearances by making farming and crofting in our remote rural communities uncompetitive and impossible. I would like the Government to seriously consider how we repopulate the Highlands and Islands. People made and shaped those communities, but they are fast becoming the endangered species there.
The cabinet secretary talked about the dairy sector. In Argyll, much of the sector has gone and it will disappear altogether if the Scottish Government does not act. We have seen milk prices plummet, as the cabinet secretary acknowledged, and dairy farmers are facing bankruptcy. The creamery in Campbeltown needs to be put on a secure footing financially and through diversifying the products that it produces, to build on its name and reputation. It would be desperately sad if, because of the Government’s inaction, the creamery closed, as so many in the area have done, and its premium products disappeared. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
It is really disappointing that the current consultation on the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board does not allow for the status quo. All the options would water down the board’s role. They range from total abolition to a power grab by the Scottish Government, and we have seen how those worked out in the past.
We need only look at England to see that the options will have a detrimental impact. Almost half the workers who were previously covered by the equivalent board there have not had a wage rise since its abolition, and those who have received a wage rise have received much less than the average increases for the country. It would be revealing if the Scottish National Party Government were to follow the actions of a Conservative Government in England.
Agriculture is dispersed and collective bargaining is not an option, given the multiple employers, so the board provides much-needed protection for workers. I firmly believe that it should be retained and, indeed, have its role enhanced. There is an opportunity for the board to take on the role of promoting safety in the industry. Sadly, we know that the sector has some of the most dangerous workplaces in Scotland and, for too long, we appear to have accepted that. The board should be tasked with enhancing safety in the agriculture industry.
As members have said, marketing must play a part in agriculture in Scotland. In the Highlands and Islands, we have premium products rather than mass-produced commodities. Assistance must be given to market those products and have them used locally. This summer, I saw the plans for the Portree microslaughterhouse, which will enable producers to slaughter animals locally to sell to hotels and restaurants and will allow people to access local produce close to home.
For too long, crofters in the Highlands have been at the bottom of the production ladder and had their profits squeezed by a long supply chain between farm and plate. Shortening that chain would allow the primary producer to retain a larger share of the profit. Given the shape of the industry, there needs to be co-ordination and effort, which the Government needs to take a lead on. Crofters and farmers in my region need more than warm words from the cabinet secretary—they need commitment and action.
15:29
We have just to take a quick flick through the farming press to see a mixture of headlines: some good, some bad, some dramatic and some extremely worrying. This debate would go on for hours if we were to do justice to each and every issue. There is no doubt that Scottish farmers and crofters are facing more challenges than any of us would prefer to see. Although most sectors in the agriculture industry can take the rough with the smooth and struggle through when times are hard, sections of the industry are close to becoming simply not viable any more.
As we know, the dairy industry is on its knees. I grew up on a dairy farm in the 1960s and 70s, and my heart goes out to the dairy farmers, who must be wondering whether the situation can possibly get any worse. It is hard to envisage a worse scenario than the nightmare that dairy farmers find themselves in, but we see announcement after announcement from the processors that lower the prices even further. We know that our dairy industry is at the mercy of the global dairy markets, which are experiencing significant volatility. Milk supply continues to outstrip demand globally, partly because improvements in technology are making production more efficient, and we are hearing reports that dairy farms in Scotland were losing on average of around £200 a day in August.
When the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Phil Hogan, called in for a chat with our Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee before going to the Royal Highland Show in the summer, my colleague Mike Russell and I asked him about European Union intervention on the milk price. During the discussion, Commissioner Hogan stated:
“I have tools such as export refunds and private storage aid that I can use to intervene.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 18 June 2015; c 15.]
Thankfully, there is now talk of intervention, but we must wait and see whether the European Commission is willing to go that extra kilometre to help ensure that our dairy farmers survive. Each and every one of us can intervene by doing our own wee bit—for example, by demanding that coffee chains such as Costa and Starbucks use Scottish milk. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, they do not do so at the moment.
I am grateful to the NFUS for providing in advance of the debate a briefing that raises some salient points. However, its disappointment about the Scottish Government’s stance on GM food cannot and should not go unchallenged. In that regard, I note that Alex Fergusson’s amendment on behalf of the Conservatives
“regrets the Scottish Government’s decision to rule out the cultivation of GM crops.”
I therefore make no apology for concentrating on GM, despite it being covered by previous speakers. It is clear to me that the Scottish Government’s sole objective in banning GM crops is to protect Scotland’s clean, green status. I am glad that the First Minister and the cabinet secretary took the decision in August to restate our Government’s precautionary approach to the cultivation of GM crops in Scotland.
Our reputation for producing high-quality, natural food and drink has resulted in Scotland’s food and drink sector being worth over £14 billion. Allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would jeopardise the integrity of our world-class brand and gamble with its future. Our policy on GM crops must be based on what is best for our environment, Scottish agriculture and the wider Scottish economy. I hope that we can have a parliamentary debate on the GM crop ban at some point in the not too distant future, but I challenge now Alex Fergusson’s assertion that the decision on the GM crop ban was made without taking any scientific advice.
We do not have to look far in the press or on the internet to find grand claims being made for genetically modified crops. We are told that they increase yields and profits for farmers, decrease reliance on agrichemicals and improve human and animal nutrition and healthcare, and that they could coexist happily with organic and other GM-free crops. We are assured time and again that GM crops have been proven safe, often to the point where anyone who dares oppose them can be vilified for impoverishing farmers and starving the hungry.
However, when those claims are scrutinised, a very different picture emerges. A study commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture found that the impacts of the adoption of GM crops on farm finances in the US were mixed and in some cases even negative. In the developing world, away from the energy and chemical-intensive inputs that typify the systems that GM crops were developed for, the picture is even bleaker. Yield reductions and outright crop failure caused by the inability of the GM crops to adapt to local conditions and agricultural practices have been coupled with the soaring cost of GM seed, which cannot be saved for replanting. There are also rising pesticide prices.
In addition, rather than reducing the farmers’ reliance on pesticides, herbicide-tolerant plants increase the use of herbicides. The emergence and rapid spread of pesticide-tolerant weeds and pests has further increased herbicide use, with farmers having to rely on ever more complex, toxic and costly mixtures to control their weeds.
In 2009, a study of pesticide use during the first 13 years of GM crop commercialisation in the US reported that the emergence and rapid spread of glyphosate—Roundup—resistant weeds was the main driver behind a rapidly growing gulf in pesticide use between GM and conventional varieties. On average, fields that are sown with GM varieties require 26 per cent more pesticides.
In September 2013, I attended an event in Parliament hosted by my colleague Jean Urquhart MSP on a study by Professor Séralini into the chronic toxicity of genetically modified maize and pesticides. At that meeting was Danish pig farmer lb Borup Pedersen, who switched from GMO-containing feed to GM-free feed in 2011 to see whether the health of his animals would improve. Overall he improved his profits by €69 per sow, despite GM-free feed costing more.
We will take no lectures from anyone on the requirement to take scientific advice. The proof is there. GMOs are not guaranteed to be safe.
15:36
As a novice in agriculture debates, I found it particularly useful to read “The Future of Scottish Agriculture: a Discussion Document”, which addresses some of the key opportunities and challenges that are facing the sector. It says that the sector must become more efficient and sustainable, given climate change imperatives. That necessitates closer working with farmers and the use of new technology as the CAP payments that make up 70 per cent of farmers’ net profits are reduced in the coming year.
Turning unique, desirable and ethical Scottish produce into profit, based on an international and national reputation, is vital in the long term. We are told that, in Scotland, only 27 per cent of farmers have formal agricultural training—I was surprised to hear that—and many would benefit from a more diverse skill set when adapting to new demands.
In recognising the unique qualities of Scottish local and regional produce, farmers can make an impression on international markets; some of the figures for food and drink exports in recent years bear that out. That is why outcome 1 of the discussion document recommends that farmers should anticipate demand and meet consumers’ expectations for quality and sustainability. The outcome also suggests that
“Farmers monitor their productivity, using benchmarking data and other tools to identify opportunities for improvement”.
Will the minister comment on what extra training will be provided to assist farmers in getting to grips with such a formula for improvement?
I found a lot that was positive in the discussion document although, in the context of our amendment, it is unfortunate that the document did not mention the Agricultural Wages Board, which is so important for securing agricultural workers’ wellbeing and livelihoods. I was most concerned to hear from Sarah Boyack and Rhoda Grant that it might well be abolished. It is important that that issue is addressed in the debate.
In recent months, the agricultural sector has been reacting to a number of economic shocks to the supply chain, which has served to illustrate the need for a more resilient strategy to support producers. To take the most obvious example that other members have mentioned, we are all aware of the challenges that dairy farmers face with production costs outweighing wholesale value, and severe price volatility and uncertainty over payments impacting on livelihoods. Sarah Boyack and our amendment emphasise the urgent need to accelerate the implementation of the dairy action plan and the overhaul of the sectoral supply chains to deliver fairer prices for farmers.
In the longer term, there needs to be a focus on Scottish dairy products as a brand and a concerted effort to gain local and international recognition for excellence in the food and drink sector. Welcome extra funding has been given to the Scottish dairy growth board to develop a Scottish dairy brand and range of products. I look forward to hearing how those fare at showcasing Scotland’s meet the buyers event next month.
On a more local level, the push to get more local products on the shelves in Scottish stores is also welcome and important. The plan had targeted doing that in May this year and I would be interested to hear whether there have been any discernible results from the measure, which stores took part, whether they reported figures and whether they will agree to continue making local products a top priority for promotion.
We certainly need to do everything possible to support local growing initiatives. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 provides a new framework for community growing and allotments where local residents can grow produce for personal consumption or for sale. In the past year alone, the number of local food projects has grown, with 150 new developments across Scotland. Those projects serve to change attitudes to food, increase awareness of the supply chain, encourage a sense of community endeavour and improve the environment.
The sector offers an opportunity for growth, with smaller firms being more productive per acre, according to the local food education group Nourish Scotland. They also have the capacity to reduce carbon from production. Around a fifth of Scottish greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and the related land use sector.
In 2014, Nourish reported on the need to encourage consumers to choose local produce. Its “Growing the Local Food Economy in Scotland” report highlighted the fact that there is a considerable lack of public awareness of the socioeconomic and ecological importance of local food. Much of the rhetoric around buying local does not necessarily translate into buying decisions. Nourish suggests that a long-term partnership between the Government and the local food sector is essential for the sustainable growth and development of local food. Such an approach would help growers and small producers that are situated in urban environments, such as the Leith Community Crops in Pots organisation, to widen their market to local retailers who are looking to profit from the locally sourced brand. I was interested to see a new locally sourced food initiative that was launched this week, called Leith food assembly. Members can see information about that in a tweet that I posted on 20 September.
Sustainability and the success of the agriculture sector require a multifaceted approach that takes into account the diversity of food and drink production in Scotland. We must find a balance between promoting our brand in the competitive globalised market and encouraging greater awareness of the vast benefits of local growing. A growing global population indicates a future of growing demand, but we must seek development within the boundaries of what is sustainable and not run up a debt of overexploitation and sky-high emissions that cannot be reversed.
15:42
The NFUS produced a detailed briefing for members on where it believes the problems that have created the present difficulties in the industry stem from and how it believes that they can be alleviated. It identifies as key causes volatility in key global markets, the impact of the Russian ban, poor growing conditions, a new common agricultural policy and food producers being burdened with regulations. Interestingly, at no point does it recognise even in the slightest way that the industry might, over the long term, have contributed to its difficulties.
Of course, if the causes of the problems lie elsewhere, it follows that the actions that must be taken to address them must be taken by others. A number of the things that the NFUS is highlighting or calling for are perfectly valid. Retailers are insulated from price volatility and too little of the profit that is generated by Scotland’s food and drink sector is seen at the sharp end. Similarly, there is not enough sourcing of indigenous produce and, too often, inaccurate labelling means that consumers who believe that they are supporting Scottish produce actually are not. Widening the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator would be beneficial, and Scotland needs to take advantage of the extended promotional package that was announced in the EU’s emergency measures.
However, let us consider the general thrust of some of the other items on the wish list: short to medium-term measures that can be taken by Governments to ease pressure on the sector; a fundamental shift in approach from Governments and the wider food chain; Governments taking every action they can to ease cash-flow difficulties and strengthen safety nets; cutting back on greening, regulation and cross-compliance; the Scottish Government strengthening investment, research and innovation in farming and farming infrastructure; and the ditching of the ban on GM crops. There are calls for Government to do things, but there is not a single mention of anything that the NFUS, as a representative body, or its members could or should be doing in the short, medium or even longer term to help themselves, to whatever degree. I do not think that that was an oversight
I believe absolutely in the need for direct support for food production. We, as individual consumers, cannot meet the true costs that are associated with growing food, which means that subsidy is absolutely necessary. At times of genuine crisis, the Government must of course lend a hand. However, this is an industry that, at least at a strategic level, seems to believe that the answer to its ills—whatever form they take and whenever they arise—is more public money and being left to farm as it believes is appropriate.
Would the member give way?
I would rather not, because I want to get through my speech.
That approach is being taken at a time when there is a shrinking public funding pot and the rest of us are being asked to do our bit to tackle the climate change that is manifesting itself in the bad weather that is, of course, dogging agriculture.
I compare and contrast the approach of the industry on this matter with that of the environmental lobby, which was articulated by Scottish Environment LINK in a measured and well-argued briefing that acknowledges the need for short-term support. However, in looking to the longer term, it talks of the need for a step change and not just kicking the can down the road. It is right. I also welcome Scottish Environment LINK’s call for a new social contract between the public and the industry that would involve the people of Scotland supporting its farmers as part of a transformed food and farming system.
There is no doubt that Scottish agriculture is experiencing serious difficulties. The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s inquiry into the dairy sector laid bare some pretty horrendous problems. The 2015 survey of Scottish bank advances to Scottish agriculture showed that Scottish farm debt rose by 4 per cent in the year to May. That is the sixth consecutive annual increase in agricultural debt, which is a concerning trend.
There is no denying the need for short-term support, which is being provided. The dairy action plan, the dairy brand and the £400,000 of support for the Campbeltown creamery are instances of that. Let us not forget that £47 million has been invested in buildings and equipment since 2007 through the food processing marketing and co-operation grants scheme, protecting an estimated 8,500 jobs.
However, against that backdrop, there is surely a need for the industry to look at itself and at how it operates—if not immediately, certainly in the medium to long term. Are we really saying that a sector that receives vast sums of money by way of support must be bailed out whenever it runs into trouble, without any expectation that it will take steps to reduce the risk of further foreseeable problems arising, however limited they may be in the grand scheme of things?
Individual farmers are looking to secure more reliable income streams to protect their businesses and leave them less susceptible to the ravages of market conditions. Last night, two farmers from my constituency were in the Parliament promoting the high-end gin and vodka production that they have moved into using locally grown products. We need more of that kind of imaginative diversification from the industry. The NFUS should actively lead that and send out the message that, at the same time as seeking the help that is needed, agriculture is prepared to help itself in a meaningful way.
Thank you for your brevity.
15:47
I will carry on the discussion about farm payments, which several speakers mentioned. I echo Tavish Scott’s kind comments about what happened at the Public Audit Committee this morning and commend the officials who came to the committee for their frank and helpful comments. We heard that there might not be a payment for every farmer in December, simply because there are some compliance issues to do with inspections.
I bring that fact to the cabinet secretary’s attention and ask him what he can do—he might not immediately know the answer, of course—to ensure that inspections happen as quickly as possible. We all understand that cash flow is the life-blood of every business and a farm is, at the end of the day, a business. Therefore, it is really important that farmers who are entitled to a payment get it as soon as they can, even if it is only a partial payment and the rest of it comes along in due course.
I will consider briefly the regulations on the greening requirements for farm payments. Local landowners have brought it to my attention that the regulations on ecological focus areas seem to be particularly complicated, and I wonder whether there might be some scope for them to be simplified in future. EFAs have to be 5 per cent of the farm area for the farmer to get the 30 per cent of the farm payments that will come from greening. The regulations run to a large number of lines and take quite a lot of understanding. Might it be possible to make them rather simpler, given that the European regulations that they seem to follow are very simple?
To continue the point that Graeme Dey raised about the industry helping itself, I point out that there are many technical things that can be done and that farmers are aware of some of them but probably not aware of others. I recently met a business from my constituency called SoilEssentials. At one level, what that company does is simple chemistry: it works out the pH of the soil and makes recommendations about what one might do with lime and other obvious chemicals to make the soil more productive over its total area. That is a simple part of what farmers can—and, I suggest, should—do with all their land, because the answer always lies in the soil. If that soil is not particularly productive because the farmer has not looked after the nutrients that need to be in there, it will be no surprise that it is not very effectively farmed.
There are demonstration farms, of course, which the Scottish Government has set up and funded. Those lessons are there to be learned. We do not have to just carry on farming as we always have. Therefore, I encourage the industry to do what it can to make use of the technologies and information available.
What we can all do is what I have been told to do over my lifetime—buy locally. Once upon a time, it was buy British. In this context, it is manifestly buy Scottish, but if people cannot buy Scottish, please buy British. If people can buy locally, please buy locally. Nobody can stop me from doing that and nobody can stop anybody from doing that who might be listening to what I am saying now, watching the debate online or—dare I say it—even reading the Official Report at some stage. It is a choice that we have to make. If it costs us a penny or two more, so be it—again, it is a choice that we can make. We can support our fellow countrymen in an industry on which we are going to be dependent over the long term just by changing what we do with our money.
On the issue of land reform, I will start with a comment that you made in committee a couple of weeks ago, Presiding Officer. You said that, over our lifetimes, what we have done with land reform has not been terribly effective one way or another, although it has always been done with good intentions. It has always been done, I suspect, from the philosophical point of view that we are trying to do the right things. It has always been done with a political willingness to make a change to help people to get access to the land.
I suspect that land reform has always failed because those intentions at a social level have not been matched by practicality at an economic level. Therefore, in the current land reform, we need to be mindful of the fact that if we set up new leases that are intended to help people to get in and out of the industry, we must ensure that the economic backdrop against which tenants and potential tenants are working is the right one to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities.
Frankly, if the money is not available to the tenants to take those opportunities, land reform will fail. The basic point is that we must not just think about what we are trying to do for tenanted land and for society as a whole; we have to put that in the economic context for it to work, because the lesson of history is that otherwise, it does not.
15:52
I am delighted to be taking part in the debate because the agricultural sector is vitally important to our economy and is often undervalued. If, like me, people were brought up in rural Angus and if, like me, they have attended the many receptions that are held for the food and drink sector in this Parliament, they will appreciate just how important the produce of our farms is to our economy, our reputation as a Scottish brand, and the growth of the many small businesses that use the produce of our farms. For instance, at the Scottish Craft Distillers Association reception last night, I met small gin, vodka and whisky distillers, many of whom rely on barley and other products grown in Scotland.
However, much more to the forefront of my mind is the plight of the dairy farmers. This summer, I saw dairy farmers in Ayrshire protesting in local supermarkets over the price of milk because they felt that no one was listening to them. When I spoke to dairy farmers in North Ayrshire, they told me that producing milk is a loss-making business at present.
The cost to dairy farmers of producing a litre of milk is higher than the price that is paid by the supermarkets and the gap is widening. Their livelihoods are at risk and many of them told me that they have been selling their dairy cows at below market value—at a substantial loss—just to pay the bills to prevent them from going bankrupt. Anyone who knows dairy farmers will know how distressing it is for them to have to sell their dairy cows.
I understand that global factors are affecting the price of milk, but there is a need for action from both this Government and the UK Government. The current position is simply untenable and the industry needs greater support to secure a long-term, sustainable future. Although the Scottish Government’s dairy action plan was launched in March, the crisis has deepened since then and it is vital that the Government implements the plan as soon as possible. I was therefore disappointed that it received no mention in the First Minister’s programme for government speech earlier this month.
One part of the plan that needs to be progressed is the development of the Scottish dairy brand. The First Minister joined her rural affairs secretary to launch the brand logo in June, but to date the launch has failed to improve the position of dairy farmers in my region. It seems to me that the Scottish Government must take immediate steps to roll out the logo to allow consumers to choose local dairy products and support our dairy farmers.
I should clarify that the new dairy brand, which has been developed in partnership with the industry, was broadly welcomed by everyone with an interest in the dairy sector’s future when it was unveiled at the Royal Highland Show. However, it will be launched next month at the Anuga exhibition in Cologne, because it is a brand for the international market.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that clarification.
The cabinet secretary mentioned a few businesses that have committed to using Scottish dairy produce. However, although I welcome that, the Scottish Government should use its procurement powers to ensure that the public sector procures its fresh milk and other dairy products from Scottish dairy farmers. Such a move would give a boost to the industry.
As a whole, we need to support our dairy farming industry in its attempts to add value to the high-quality produce that we create in this country. For example, on a recent visit to the Isle of Arran, I was informed that the island’s dairy farmers no longer produce milk to be sold directly to consumers; instead, they sell their milk to cheese and ice cream manufacturers on the island, which makes production more financially viable but leaves Arran reliant on transporting milk for domestic consumption over from the mainland. That could give cause for concern at times when the ferry service is not operational, but it is clearly a decision that dairy farmers on Arran have made in order to add value to their product. It is also an option that other dairy farmers in Scotland should consider, particularly with regard to products such as yoghurt and soft cheese that are not commonly produced in this country, and the Scottish Government should support dairy farmers who wish to diversify into new markets that could add value to their business.
We must ensure that money that is provided by the European Commission to support farmers in these difficult times reaches those farmers as soon as possible. They need support now to protect their livelihoods and sustain the agricultural sector, and I urge the Scottish Government to discuss these matters with UK Government ministers. I also ask the cabinet secretary today to clarify the Scottish Government’s position, in consultation with the NFUS, on using the ability to allow from 16 October an advance of 70 per cent of common agricultural policy payments, as has been permitted by the Commission.
Dairy farmers clearly face cash-flow problems and are at risk of losing their businesses and livelihoods. Given that we are at risk of losing the dairy industry in Scotland, it is time that they were given a helping hand.
15:58
I welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate on an issue that is important not just to my constituents but to the whole country.
I want to start a trifle unconventionally by wishing a happy 70th birthday to my constituent and friend Robert MacIntyre, who is a councillor for Bute and a farmer of immense experience and wisdom. Indeed, the cabinet secretary knows Mr MacIntyre, and his name is known through Scotland’s farming sector.
I have learned more about agriculture from Robert MacIntyre and other working farmers than I ever learned from briefings that I received as an environment minister and much more than I thought I could learn from attending, as I did on a couple of occasions, the agricultural council of the European Union. Robert has been chief among my tutors, although I must also mention, with some sadness, the late Bert Leask of Mull, who passed away in July and whose deep knowledge and ready wit were always generously put at the disposal of not just his local MSP but the cabinet secretary.
I mention Robert MacIntyre not just because he has reached the biblical age of three score years and 10 but because he is a dairy farmer on the island of Bute. At a time when he has a right to be experiencing a more comfortable and less stressful life—though he remains a member of Argyll and Bute Council—he faces an immensely worrying and very pressured future.
Last year, Robert’s son, Robert, came home from a successful career in England because he wanted to take over the farm. The price of milk was good and the prospects for the industry were promising. That was last year. Earlier this year, the price of milk plummeted, as members know only too well, and the price has gone on falling. The two Roberts at Dunallan are producing milk for a First Milk price that is some 10p or more per litre below the cost of production. They are pouring their money into a tanker and off the island, and they cannot do that for ever.
The reasons for the collapse of the price of milk are many and various. There was undoubtedly an oversupply of milk, with greater efficiency producing more milk from fewer cows. There has been increased competition from other countries, there has been loss leading in the retail sector, and the closure of the Russian market because of sanctions has meant that milk powder, which First Milk was producing, could not be sold there.
There are other, more local, factors, too. First Milk has been a disastrously run company. Last year, it lost over £20 million after a series of bad decisions and failed projects. Its incoming chief executive, Mike Gallacher, has admitted as much, and he gave compelling evidence to the Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in March about his plans to turn the company around. The committee and the agricultural sector have supported those plans.
The problems of that company do not affect just the 13 dairy farmers on Bute. There are First Milk dairy farmers in other parts of Scotland, in England and particularly in Wales. In my constituency, there are also some 36 or so dairy farmers in Kintyre and Gigha who are similarly challenged by rock-bottom prices and a scheme of retention of payments—capital retention—that First Milk has used to avoid insolvency.
The farmers in Kintyre and Gigha supply to a creamery in Campbeltown that requires substantial upgrading if it is to be competitive. I thank Richard Lochhead for helping to fund that work, which has at least started. However, First Milk’s previous management compounded the problems of the area by an inappropriate and ineffective sales and marketing agreement with an external company, which has led to huge amounts of premium Mull of Kintyre cheddar being sold on the mass market as bulk cheddar and returning very little profit. The farmers and their families are trying to rectify that with their own campaign for Campbeltown cheese.
It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the dairy industry in my constituency—in Kintyre, and on Gigha and Bute—hangs on a knife edge. If there is not a significant price rise or significant intervention before the winter sets in, with increased feeding costs, many of those who are presently in the sector will leave it, no matter the cost to them.
It is with great regret that I have to tell members that First Milk is now making the situation even worse. Tesco has agreed to pay full premium price for the milk that goes into cheese at the First Milk plant at Haverfordwest in Wales. As that is being paid to a co-operative across the UK, the expectation of all the members of that co-operative was that each one would benefit. However, First Milk announced last week that that would not be the case. Those who supply the Haverfordwest plant will get a huge boost in payments, but all the other members, whose money has gone to equip and run it over the years, will get nothing. When is a co-operative not a co-operative? The answer is when it is run by First Milk.
I appeal to First Milk to rescind that decision to help all its members to survive, not just some. The members of First Milk have much money tied up in the company and they want it to succeed, but if First Milk turns its back on them just when they need it most, it will forfeit all right to respect and continuing support.
Other parts of the agriculture sector also face hard times, of course—we have heard about sheep and beef prices—but the dairy sector is a special case. Its very future is in doubt in my constituency at least. More help must be given now, as I think the cabinet secretary knows. Help must be given over and above the worthwhile but longer-term aims of the cabinet secretary’s dairy action plan.
I do not want to finish on a gloomy note. In early August, I took my friend Robert MacIntyre to the Kintyre show. Wandering around an agricultural event with him is a slow process. He knows everybody, and he has a story for everyone and a story about everyone. Many of his stories are immensely entertaining, and many of them could not be told in the chamber.
There was a sense of camaraderie and comradeship, and indications of innovation and new thinking. There was enthusiasm for the jobs that had to be done, which many young people wanted to be involved in.
Draw to a close, please.
Our food industries are flourishing thanks to the cabinet secretary. In Scottish farming and society there is a determination to overcome difficulties. Robert MacIntyre has spent his life in farming. He will tell you that despite the difficulties it has been a good life, in which he believes he has done good for his island and his community. Fortunately he is not unique.
You must close.
We should be helping farmers—and getting the European payments on time is the first thing that we should do. I commend the motion and the Government’s work in that regard.
16:05
The food industry is certainly flourishing, which we all welcome, but the fact is that the producers are not reaping their share of the rewards. In many areas in Scotland, farming is in crisis.
What we have heard today sums up a lack of leadership. There are plenty of warm words and plenty of rhetoric, but Graeme Dey basically attacked NFU Scotland and said that farmers need to take responsibility and do more themselves. The Government highlighted what the UK Government needs to do, but it did not offer many answers. We live in a global economy, in which there is increasing pressure from competition. However, in this country there is much more that we can do. We need leadership from the Scottish Government, rather than just warm words.
I will highlight the plight of workers in the farming sector. The Scottish Government has embarked on yet another consultation on the future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. In its briefing, the trade union Unite contests that options presented by the Government
“are designed to deliberately constrain the opportunities to genuinely consider the future of the SAWB by excluding a specific question in the consultation on how the work of the board could be enhanced and improved, and, for the Orders to promote a living wage through the board, despite this being a stated aim of the Scottish Government.”
It also says:
“Unite has the strong impression that the relevant Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment has launched this latest ‘periodic review’ of the SAWB with a view to seeking to abolish it. We also believe that the previous consultation in 2008 was specifically designed to achieve this objective.”
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that that is not the case?
I make a plea to the member not to conflate a review of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board with a proposal to scrap it. The Labour Government carried out its own review of the board a few years ago, when it was in power.
I remember that, during the 2008 review, my local authority, Fife Council, made the case for the continuation of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
In 2013, the Tory Government abolished the Agricultural Wages Board in England, which left many workers in the ridiculous situation of having to negotiate their own wages face to face with their employers. The UK Government’s own figures estimate that farm workers in England will lose more than £250 million ever 10 years in lost pay, sick pay and holiday entitlement. We cannot want farm workers and agricultural workers in Scotland to be treated in that way.
Only 56 per cent of respondents to a survey conducted in England by Unite said that they had had a pay rise since 1 October 2013, when the board was abolished. I say to the cabinet secretary that we have seen the lessons of what happened when the Conservative Government abolished the Agricultural Wages Board in England. When he sums up today, he could give assurance by removing that threat and making it absolutely clear that he has no intention of abolishing the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
I have read the NFU Scotland briefing, which was fairly reasonable. However, it says that there are points where Scottish Government could intervene, and it asks it to do so. For example, it says:
“Scotland is part of an ambitious and forward-looking agriculture sector in the UK, and the Scottish Government should strengthen investments in farming, research and innovation in order for Scotland to become more resilient and competitive. Investment in processing infrastructure is lacking in Scotland, which leaves Scotland far behind other global exporters. This support is essential in increasing the Scottish agricultural industry’s competitiveness with neighbouring exporters.”
It points out some practical things that we can do to bring about investment that would make our industry more competitive and support farmers, and it makes a number of recommendations that seem to me to be not unreasonable. The cabinet secretary might want to say what further work he is going to do to see that type of investment come in.
Scottish Environment LINK’s briefing is also good. Again, it cries out for there to be leadership. It talks about what can be achieved if we have procurement processes in place that allow people to buy locally. Local authorities and public sector organisations should be able to buy locally and support local farmers.
If we are serious about buying locally and getting people to buy Scottish produce, we need leadership. There are a lot of warm words from the Government and the minister, but let us actually turn them into something and start to have action that supports our farming industry and our agriculture sector, which is important for everyone in Scotland.
16:11
Alex Rowley has just asked for leadership and he asked us what we can do. I echo Nigel Don’s remark that we, as consumers, have a responsibility to ensure that we do our bit to protect our farming industry.
Let us look in detail at the fairer framework for farming. We need to look at how produce leaves the farm and the producers and gets to market and to the plate for consumption. Just last month—I think that it was on 17 August—our cabinet secretary had a meeting with the other UK ministers and the supermarket industry to look at how we can support the industry and get the supermarkets to sign up to the fair work deal. I do not know how many have signed up, but we know that there are supermarkets that are trying to dupe the consumer.
Alex Fergusson mentioned that lamb is branded as Scottish in supermarkets but when people pick up the pack and look closely they see that it is New Zealand lamb. Alex Fergusson is right—that has to stop. However, it is not the job of the cabinet secretary to ensure that it does. It is the job of the supermarkets and those who manage them to ensure that branding and labelling are such that the industry ensures that the consumer gets what they are looking for.
In my constituency, we have seen some diversity from our farmers and within the industry. For example, more of our farmers are participating in farmers markets. Just a few weeks ago, I was buying local produce at the farmers market in Huntly, and many people there were doing the same. They said that they go to the farmers market because they are assured that what they are getting is local. Farmers markets support our local farmers, and shopping at them is something that we can do as consumers.
The Cambus O’May Cheese Company in my constituency produces premium cheese and it is sold as a premium retail product. Does it get the price that it requires? Probably not. Again, it is the retail market that takes the gain. Profitability in the food and drink industry is at a massive high, but are retailers passing it on to those who produce the goods? No. We need to ensure that we protect the source of the goods.
Our farmers require subsidy and a fair contract from the people to whom they sell their food. They also need long-term contracts, so that they are assured of their source of income, regardless of the weather. Retail needs to take some of the risk in the contracts, but that is not happening.
On diversity in the farming industry, more farm shops are opening. That is certainly the case in my constituency. In Finzean, there is a restaurant as well as a farm shop, which employs local people, brings the community together and attracts tourism—people might even come from as far as Aberdeen to taste the local produce. The community is extremely proud of what has been achieved.
Despite the hardship that the farming industry faces, it is doing what it can. There is no doubt that there are difficulties, because farmers are subject to things over which they have no control—the weather is probably the main hardship, but another is in connection with the subsidies that come from the European Union.
There has been a call for leadership. Let me suggest one approach in that regard. Let our cabinet secretary go to the top table in Europe and negotiate the payments for our farmers. We can support farmers in Scotland by enabling our cabinet secretary, who has eight years of experience in Government, to go to the top table in Europe and protect our farmers.
16:16
Most people in Lothian live in urban areas, but that does not mean that agriculture is not vitally important to them. Who produces our food and how is of interest to everyone.
Local people who are campaigning to save Damhead in Midlothian from the new A701 have proposed an alternative use for the green belt: an Edinburgh food belt, which would change our perceptions of the green belt. It is hoped that opportunities can be offered for people to start businesses on croft-sized areas of land, leading to short food chains. That resilient approach would be embedded in future development plans.
We need to shorten supply chains, reduce inputs and improve the environment if we are to have a sustainable food system. The authors of the Scottish Government’s paper, “The Future of Scottish Agriculture: a Discussion Document”, which was published in June, clearly get the challenge. The content is refreshingly clear for such a publication. Action is suggested on improved innovation, resource efficiency, skills and profitability. The need and opportunities for Scotland to be a world leader in green farming are recognised. Advice, training, education and demonstration farms are all proposed, to support farms to be “environmentally and commercially successful”. In the not-so-long term, the two concepts are absolutely inseparable.
However, the Government’s discussion document misses our food system’s reliance on fossil fuels for transport, pesticides, fertilisers and much more. Breaking that link is one of our biggest challenges. We must ensure that we can sustain a system of affordable food production without fossil fuels. That will need innovative thinking and a willingness to try new techniques.
I ask members to imagine walking down a road with a field of crop on their left and natural woodland on their right. Which is more productive? The field gives us a uniform crop, but the woodland is layered with a vastly greater weight of plants and biomass, all without fossil fuel inputs. We still have many lessons to learn from nature.
As with so many industries, co-operation on innovation and the sharing of good ideas will be key to success. There are plenty of strong communities in farming that can do that. Co-operative models are working to help farmers get the best deal and share resources, but our production numbers from co-operatives are very low compared with other EU countries.
CAP reform has finally got rid of some of the artefacts of the old system, but the wrong decision was made on allocating the convergence uplift uniformly across the UK. I support calls for the decision to be revisited. Across 521 businesses in the Lothian region, the new CAP is expected to deliver gains of €1.4 million and losses of €5.4 million—a net loss of €4 million.
The Government’s motion also refers to the red meat levies, and I agree with it on that subject. However, the Scottish Government could take action right now by supporting new abattoirs in Scotland. That would solve the levies issue and improve animal welfare by reducing transport distances.
New farmers are faced with lots of barriers, including high land values. Land reform should be seen as a way of opening up more opportunities for farms of all sizes.
Many farmers now have renewables or use low-carbon energy, but there is always more to do to maximise the benefits to farmers and to wider community initiatives that need land for projects. The UK Government’s attempts to pull the rug from under those initiatives demonstrate why Scotland needs much more influence on energy policy as well as in EU agriculture debates.
Broadband infrastructure is another issue for rural businesses. My colleague John Finnie will mention the importance of the Royal Mail’s universal service obligation in his members’ business debate tomorrow, but the same principle could be applied to broadband provision, so that rural businesses are not stuck with a loading page instead of the latest price data.
The transatlantic trade and investment partnership is a risk to Scotland’s reputation for quality, safe agriculture. I ask the Government to step up to the plate and to be clear in opposing it. It is not a trade deal; it is a corporate power grab that is bad for food.
In his welcome speech, Rob Gibson asked what agriculture is for. I agree that it is not about providing profits to huge monopolies but about ensuring that we all have enough to eat. We should remember that the right to food is established in international human rights law.
I received an email today from the Edinburgh central and Edinburgh north-west food bank, asking us all to watch “The Food Bank: Scotland’s Hidden Hunger”, which will air next week. Although we understand why there has, sadly, been a rapid increase in the growth of food banks—I attribute it, in no small amount, to welfare reform at Westminster—let us listen to Nourish Scotland, which calls on us to eat more of what we produce here, and to produce more of what we eat here. We should listen to people such as Professor Elizabeth Dowler and Professor Graham Riches, who tell us that relying on corporate food waste—the waste from the same corporates that do not pay farmers a fair price for milk—is not an effective, sustainable or fair response to hunger. Perhaps if we used the Poverty Alliance’s term “emergency food aid” rather than the term “food banks” we would better appreciate the urgent need to ensure that Scotland’s food success story fully benefits local producers and local people.
I ask that we continue to strive for a stronger food culture that brings producers and consumers closer together. I enjoyed Malcolm Chisholm’s speech, which focused on the right to grow and local initiatives, and I conclude by highlighting the fabulous Dig-In, here in Edinburgh, which is a community greengrocer that is making the most of local produce.
Thanks very much. We now move to the closing speeches—I beg your pardon. I call Bruce Crawford, and we will then move to the closing speeches. Forgive me, Mr Crawford.
16:23
My time for making closing speeches as a minister is probably over, Presiding Officer.
I recognise the vital work that farmers across Scotland do for our nation on a daily basis. Our farmers, their families and their employees are the very backbone of our rural communities. They provide the food for our tables through countless hours of hard toil and commitment to the land.
In my constituency and across Scotland, we are all concerned about dairy farmers’ plight, which we have heard about this afternoon. Earlier this year, I held a members’ business debate to highlight issues around the labelling of dairy products and the need to introduce a “Made in Scotland” label for Scottish-produced dairy products. I was therefore pleased to note that such a brand was launched by the First Minister in June at the Royal Highland Show. I believe strongly that the Scottish dairy brand will assist consumers’ understanding of where their food is being produced and should lead, over time, to greater sales of Scottish produce.
Although the recent focus has been on the dairy industry, it is not only that industry that faces challenges. Our arable farmers receive very low returns, the prices for our sheep farmers are dropping and there are significant pressures on beef margins. That is why the matter of Scotland’s receiving a fair share of Europe’s new €500 million market support package is critical, particularly in the light of the UK Government’s failure—as yet—to allocate the £190 million of convergence uplift that was provided to the UK as a direct result of low payments in Scotland. The money could provide hope to a hard-pressed sector. If we could get it into the system quickly enough, it could prevent at least some farm businesses from falling over.
The Scottish Government must play its part, too, by getting the 2015 CAP pillar 1 payments into farm business accounts at the earliest possible date. I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said about that, and I recognise the challenges.
I highlight the remarkable resilience of Scotland’s farmers, particularly those in the tenanted sector. In many cases, tenant farmers own no property assets, and they face challenges in securing financial support from the banks, even in circumstances where lifelong, secure tenancies exist.
Farming infrastructure and machinery are expensive. To be able to invest in the best technology and the most up-to-date ways of working, tenant farmers need better access to capital. To that end, will the cabinet secretary say what discussions he has had with the banks to encourage them to be much more amenable to supporting the tenanted sector?
Those are some of the challenges—we have heard about others—but there are opportunities, too. Some of our farmers—certainly those in my constituency—have chosen diversification as a way of improving their businesses.
Diversification through agri-tourism not only works for the agriculture sector, but delivers greater sustainability for the whole of rural life. I have some great examples of that on my own patch. The Rodger family at Knockraich dairy farm in Fintry have diversified into the artisan dairy business. The Rodger family have been farming at Knockraich since 1947, and today have a milk herd of 60 British Friesians. They also run an exquisite soft furnishings company, a cafe and a creamery, all within the farm courtyard. The business is going from strength to strength selling award-winning hand-made dairy produce. We are aware that times are tough for our farmers in the current economic climate. Clearly, not all dairy farmers can do what the Rodger family have done, but that shows how diversification can help a farm’s fortunes.
Another great example is the Inglis family, who have farmed at Briarlands for more than three generations. In 2006, they opened up the farm to the public, creating family-friendly activities for children and adults to enjoy, such as fruit-picking experiences, as well as opening a new restaurant.
Mains Farm Wigwams is another fabulous example of where diversification has worked. Louise and Martyn have created a great wigwam site with 15 original wigwams. The wigwams are heated, double glazed and insulated—they even have electricity. Mains Farm Wigwams has created a glamping experience for those who might prefer home comforts over conventional camping.
I strongly believe that agri-tourism is a way to help the farming industry through some of the fluctuations in market prices from which it often suffers. It can also help to make our countryside an even more appealing place for people to visit. Will the cabinet secretary say what the more Scottish Government can do to help promote agri-tourism?
Every industry goes through its tough times. Our farmers are in a prolonged rough period, but they will come through it. Although agriculture faces many challenges, I say without doubt that farmers are some of the most resilient people I know. I very much agree with the NFUS when it says that the future can be bright for the farming industry.
Presiding Officer, when I got to my feet, Scotland was leading the rugby 45 points to 10. Obviously, our farmers are doing something right by feeding our rugby players. I hope that the score in the game finishes on the right side by the time that we get to full time.
I confirm that that was, indeed, the full-time score. We move to the closing speeches.
16:29
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to see that you were watching your iPad like the rest of us.
On a point of information—I received a note from our office.
Yeah—right.
It has been a very useful debate. I begin by making a couple of points about what other members have said. After having the temerity—as some would see it—to raise the issue of GM crops, Alex Fergusson was then landed on by a number of members from across the chamber. An argument needs to be had about the science behind GM crops. I have heard Rob Gibson make the speech that he made today a number of times over the years. He and other members are passionately against any dalliance with GM crops, but I suspect that he and others would accept that, at the very least, the science and a full assessment of it need to be considered, not least because the Scottish Government is rightly having to follow exactly the same principle when it comes to fracking. I do not see how the Government can have a policy on fracking that involves looking at the science and all the environmental consequences and not take the same approach in principle to another issue in a different policy area.
In response to Graeme Dey’s observations about the NFU—which he has every right to make—I say gently that over many years, particularly when his colleagues were in opposition, it was always the case that the Government was required to do more, especially when the NFU had made the argument. If I may say so, in opposition Richard Lochhead was particularly good at pressing that case when such luminaries as Jim Walker were shouting loudly from the pages of The Scottish Farmer and elsewhere.
I have a serious point to make about Rob Gibson’s challenge on what agriculture is for. I did not disagree at all with his contentions about local food production and the principle of producing for the marketplace and the consumer, particularly in a local context, which I think is the argument that Sarah Boyack developed.
For me, the other fundamental—I make no apologies for this—is supporting rural communities. Many of us represent outlying and rural parts of Scotland. If it were not for agriculture, crofting and farming, there would be far fewer people there, which would mean that there would be fewer schools and shops, and fewer of the other ancillary industries that are wedded to agriculture and which give some parts of the country the flavour that makes them so attractive for tourists to visit, as Bruce Crawford said. He was right about crofters and farmers recognising what they do and diversifying their businesses. That is not for all, but it is certainly for some.
I agree with the assessment of the €500 million so-called emergency package. As far as I can tell, it will probably be spread very thinly across Europe, in which case I suspect that Mr Lochhead will be banging his head against a brick wall in trying to get anything out of it for Scotland. Particularly at this time of extreme pressure on primary producers not just in our country but in other parts of Europe, there might be more that could be done in relation to marketing and assisting in a different way. I leave that to people who are closer to that argument than I am.
I turn to Bruce Crawford’s point about convergence funds. I thought that the parties in the Parliament had a solid and consistent line in support of the arguments on the issue that have been made over the previous year or so. There is to be a mid-term review and other assessments in that area, and it is very important that that process continues and that it produces results for Scottish agriculture.
On CAP payments, I will not repeat the arguments that have been made about timing, but there is one other point that I want to make to the Government. For many of us who represent rural and island constituencies, if a move is being made towards complex forms being filled in online, that will need to go hand in hand with the provision of better broadband services around Scotland. The concept of superfast broadband is a bit of a joke in many parts of Scotland; they would just like some broadband service. I know that the Government is on that issue, as it were, but I am not sure that we are getting all that we might out of the current contract, given the huge investment that the Government is putting in. I feel that the programme is the wrong way round—we should target the hardest-to-reach areas before we target big towns, where the market will probably deliver anyway. I think that the contract is somewhat in BT’s favour rather than people’s favour.
I am sure that Tavish Scott will be aware that the UK Government auctioned the 4G mobile spectrum last year and that the 5G spectrum is coming up for auction next year. The great thing about 4G and 5G is that broadband can piggyback on those technologies.
Would Tavish Scott support putting a clause in the contract at the next auction to insist that 95 per cent of the Highlands and Islands is covered by the masts that are going up in our rural areas?
You have 45 seconds, Mr Scott.
I tell Mr Thompson that, although the principle is good, the remaining 5 per cent is the bit that I am worried about. Some of that 5 per cent is in my constituency—in fairness, some of it is probably in Dave Thompson’s constituency too. When we say to those people, “You are not going to get any of this”, that means that the policy is the wrong way round.
I will finish with two points on the pressure that agriculture is facing. First, I want the cabinet secretary to recognise Liam McArthur’s point about breeding stock. Livestock production underpins all agriculture in Scotland, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will take very seriously Liam McArthur’s point about Westray and the potential for losing stock as a result of the fodder problem.
Finally, with regard to sheep sales, the pressure on lamb prices is significant at present. I hope that, in the context of the cabinet secretary’s discussions with the supermarket trade, the market is being pushed as hard as it possibly can be.
16:36
I refer members to my farming interests in the register of members’ interests. I am pleased to close today’s debate, and I thank those organisations that provided briefings for it.
As members on all sides of the chamber have said, the debate is timely as our farming sector is facing a number of very tough challenges. Some of our farmers are under severe pressure and have significant cash-flow problems, and Scottish farming debt levels are at their highest since the late 1980s. Farmers and crofters are therefore looking to the Scottish Government—rightly—for support.
The challenges arise from a number of areas including volatility in global markets; low commodity and livestock prices; bad weather; the relative strength of the pound in comparison with the euro; and the implementation of the newly reformed common agricultural policy.
I want to pick up on a number of issues from the debate. Michael Russell was right to refer to the continuing crisis that is affecting dairy farmers in Kintyre, Bute and Gigha who supply First Milk, as they remain under huge financial pressure. The investment in Campbeltown creamery is welcome as that is a vital processing facility, but we need to continue to do more to promote Kintyre cheddar and ensure that Scottish dairy products are properly labelled and made from Scottish milk that is processed in Scotland.
The Scottish Government needs to look at what further support it can provide to our hard-working specialist dairy farmers to ensure that the industry gets through the current challenges. In that way we can ensure that we retain the producers and processing infrastructure so that the sector has the potential, with the right marketing and export support, and through building on Scotland’s strong reputation for quality food, and when market conditions improve in the future, to be an area of growth for our rural economy.
Bad weather, which started with a cold, late spring followed by a very wet summer, has sadly been a feature this year for far too many of our farmers. I am aware that parts of Orkney have had their wettest summer for more than 100 years, and a combination of poor grass growth and a shortage of silage has been very difficult for many farmers, with some being forced to sell livestock far earlier than normal and at a loss. I know that the Scottish Government is looking at what additional assistance it can provide to those farmers who are most affected by the adverse weather conditions that have prevailed this year, and I hope that any announcements can be made without further delay.
Lamb prices, which are currently at a seven-year low and 20 per cent lower than they were a year ago, are a source of real concern to many in the sheep sector. The price of breeding sheep has also fallen significantly. I support the NFUS in calling on every retailer to have British or Scottish lamb on its shelves so that the consumer has the choice of having local Iamb or imported lamb, rather than only imported lamb being on sale.
In the longer term, we need to do more to encourage Scottish consumers to eat more lamb and mutton. We currently eat far less lamb and mutton than most other countries in Europe do; I simply do not know why that is the case.
Members have mentioned the new common agricultural policy system. Crofting constituents in my region, such as those in Kinlochbervie who were recently quoted on BBC Radio Scotland, continue to voice their disappointment at what they see as very low levels of support for poorer-quality rough grazing in Scotland, even when combined with the ewe hogg payment, when compared to support for equivalent land in England and especially Wales, where the support is many times higher. I am told that grade 3 land in Scotland receives £7 per hectare and that the equivalent ground in Wales receives £88 per hectare. That puts Welsh hill farmers at a considerable advantage and it puts our crofters and farmers at a very considerable disadvantage. Will the minister comment on that?
The greening element of the new common agricultural policy has meant extra regulations and cross-compliance. I support the NFUS in its call for the removal of gold plating and simpler guidance so that our primary producers are not disadvantaged. The simplification agenda at EU level should be seized on to deliver improvements to the greening regulations.
I want to touch on the Scottish Government’s decision on GM crops. The vast majority of the farmers whom I have spoken to about the issue are aghast at the Government’s decision, which was taken with no consultation with the industry or, it appears, the scientific community. The policy risks putting Scotland’s farmers at a competitive disadvantage and can only do damage to our world-class research institutes. Ministers should look at the subject again and recognise that GM has a role to play in increasing food production and developing disease-resistant crops. The debate on the issue is about opportunities in the farming sector, rather than disadvantages, so it would be a travesty if ministers were to prevent farmers from benefiting from new technological advances. I refer members to the comments of EU Commissioner Hogan at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee that animal feed would be far more expensive for our farmers if GM was not accepted.
Given all the challenges that face the industry just now, I again emphasise the importance of our farmers and crofters receiving their support payments in December. I look to the minister to deal with that.
16:42
As many members have done, I pay respect to our farming communities across Scotland. As we have heard, they face many challenges. There is the eternal daily struggle in all weathers, the effect of poor weather on harvest, which has been particularly bad this year, and price uncertainty and volatility. The NFUS briefing for the debate states:
“this has forced many Scottish farmers to question their future viability.”
We need to acknowledge that that is a worrying and stressful position for farmers to be in. However, the NFUS also states:
“This is a crucial time for Scottish and UK farming but with a fundamental shift in approach from governments and the wider food chain, NFUS remains convinced there can be a bright future for the farming industry.”
The NFUS also highlights how essential it is that the Scottish Government engages with banks and lenders
“to clarify new measures and lending structures that will provide assistance to farmers who are dealing with price volatility.”
Dennis Robertson made the point well about how important it is for contracts to be longer for farmers. No business likes uncertainty. It is significant that the Bank of Scotland has already established a large fund of £500 million to help agricultural customers who are eligible to receive a basic payment and who might be adversely affected in the event of a delay in December. That will be free of any arrangement fee and will be in place for the time required until payment is received. However, as members from across the chamber have done, I emphasise the importance of the payments being made in December.
I wonder whether earlier payments might have been of use to Scottish farmers. I ask the cabinet secretary to comment on whether the reason that he is not taking up Commissioner Hogan’s points on that is the fairly chaotic situation that developed earlier with applications.
It is clear, from examples in the US, that the development of farm credit co-operatives can make a significant difference and contribution to investment and develop specialist knowledge for farming needs. Will the cabinet secretary consider supporting their development along the lines of credit unions?
The challenges for the dairy sector today symbolise the challenges that are faced by all sectors. In that respect, Margaret McDougall highlighted the plight of farmers in her region; we also heard from other members, including Michael Russell, on that issue. There are grave concerns about the challenges that farmers face. Development of the processing industry infrastructure, with support from Government, is vital for the longer term, but there are issues at the moment that cannot be resolved by that. Dairy farmers across Scotland, including those in my region, are turning to the Scottish Government with a plea for help.
Retail needs to take some of the risk, as Dennis Robertson said. Supermarkets need to be faced with their failure to give specific support and priority to Scottish produce. The Groceries Code Adjudicator gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee earlier this year, but the adjudicator’s role should be broadened, in the words of the NFUS, to receive
“complaints from indirect as well as direct suppliers”.
Supermarkets need to be held to account. Dennis Robertson highlighted the value of farm shops and the role of farmers markets, which I know the Deputy Presiding Officer, John Scott, had a role in developing in their early days. They are an important way for consumers to connect with the industry.
The public sector procurement targets, which are highlighted in the Labour amendment, and the shorter supply chains that are highlighted by Nourish Scotland are vital, as are provenance and niche markets across the country. Scotland Food and Drink’s excellence awards, which I attended with the cabinet secretary and many other members earlier this year, are a testimony to the success of our food and drink industry. From my region, there was recognition for Peelham Farm’s platters of charcuterie; Galloway Chillies’ soups and preserves; and Canape’s curried Scottish goat, which I have not tried yet.
I turn to the contribution of co-operative models to agriculture. First Milk has been a bitter disappointment in its dealings with milk producers, which are as far away from the co-op spirit as one could imagine—Mike Russell explored that point. However, members of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society Ltd and others have shown how effective and efficient co-operation can be, and SAOS has asked the Scottish Government
“to maintain a strong commitment to investing in farmer co-ops and their growth and development in both grants and specialist support”
and to
“step up its endorsements of”
co-ops.
Scottish agriculture is addressing many systemic challenges that relate to biodiversity, climate change and connectedness with communities, and there must be just transitions that support farmers. Last week, the Scottish Government published “Scotland’s Biodiversity—A Route Map to 2020”, which presents a number of direct challenges that agriculture must face, including acknowledging that agricultural pollution is a key pressure on biodiversity and that land use intensification reduces diversity and connectivity of habitat. Alison Johnstone raised that point.
Given the climate change challenge, farm-level carbon assessment must now be considered. It is important that farmers take up the opportunity of the new collaboration fund to address flooding and climate change solutions. The expectations of change through the new CAP payments robustly signal the need for a shift in farming approaches and the ultimate aim of fusing farm food production and greening into a future for Scottish agriculture.
Earlier in the summer, Sarah Boyack and I visited Whitmuir the Organic Place. In that regard, the cabinet secretary wrote to me recently and stressed that
“it is essential that our organic sector will be well placed to successfully compete in a growing European market.”
Scottish Environment LINK has highlighted the possibilities through agro-ecology and has called for
“a new social contract between farmers and citizens of Scotland, one of mutual benefit, respect and value.”
That needs serious consideration.
I also highlight education. The Royal Highland Education Trust makes a large contribution to schools and makes young people and children aware of the future. We have had apple day at Holyrood. We have heard from a range of members, from Bruce Crawford to Malcolm Chisholm, about initiatives for growing. All those will address some of the problems for the people who are faced with using food banks, especially if they can be involved with food co-ops and other similar initiatives. Of course, the main challenge for people who are faced with food banks is the UK Government’s approach.
I commend all those who work in agriculture and wish them well. We are determined to work with the Scottish Government to ensure a positive future for Scottish agriculture and our rural communities from the Highlands to the south of Scotland.
16:50
I begin by thanking members for their contributions. The debate has been a good opportunity to highlight and commend the contribution of many men and women to Scottish agriculture, to putting food on our tables, to looking after Scotland’s environment and to underpinning a large part of Scotland’s economy.
It has also been a good opportunity to follow in the footsteps of Michael Russell by wishing Robert MacIntyre a happy 70th birthday. He is certainly a stalwart of the dairy sector in Bute and he cares deeply about the future of agriculture in Scotland. I know Robert MacIntyre very well because I accidentally gave him my mobile phone number a few years ago. He is still a fine man.
There is a lot of agreement across the chamber on many of the key and serious issues that are facing Scottish agriculture and food production, as well as on the enormous achievements of our food and drink industry, which is underpinned by agriculture. Many good points are made in most of the Opposition amendments, but we cannot support them because we do not agree with everything and they would remove some of the good parts of the Scottish Government’s motion. We are not, therefore, able to support the amendments.
I will talk about the Tory party’s amendment in particular. We have severe reservations about its support for GM crops. I remind the Tories, as I have done many times before and will continue to do, that Scotland was able to opt out of the growing of GM crops because the EU changed its regulations and decision-making process. Therefore in the decision-making process, decisions on science have now been divorced from the social, economic and democratic factors. The Scottish Government was able to take the decision that we have taken only on the basis of those democratic, social and economic factors. The science is decided at EU level, the crops are authorised once they have gone through the scientific analysis at EU level, and then member states and their Governments are able to base decisions to opt out on other factors. It was those other factors, as well as our longstanding reservations about the wider debate, that led us to take the decision.
Not for one minute do I question the Scottish Government’s right to take that decision, nor have I advocated anywhere today a compulsory requirement for all Scottish farmers to take on GM cultivation. Will the cabinet secretary accept that my belief is that it is wrong to close the door to the potential benefits of the technology?
The key point is that since we, as the Scottish Government, took the decision, our belief has been shared by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany—Europe’s biggest country—Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Northern Ireland, Poland and Slovenia. No one is seriously suggesting that any of those countries are anti-science or that they do not care about feeding the world.
When it comes to feeding people around the world in the future, the planet currently wastes 1.3 billion tonnes of food. That is one third of the agricultural output that is intended for human consumption on this planet. It is equivalent to using 28 per cent of the world’s agricultural land on producing food that goes to waste. I suggest to the Tory party that the way to feed the world is not to use GM crops but to stop that waste.
I want to turn to issues that were raised by members, particularly on the Labour benches, about the future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. We are not proposing to scrap the board. We consulted on the options for the future because when we had a similar consultation in 2008 we promised a further consultation in a few years. That approach is not novel. Also, I wish that Alex Rowley and other members would not conflate a consultation with a proposal for closure. The Labour Party had exactly the same kind of review in 2003, so I say gently that it is a touch of hypocrisy for the Labour Party to criticise the Government for having a review of the board, when that is what it did when it was in power in the Scottish Parliament. We will announce the outcome of that consultation in due course.
Agricultural workers whom I know in the south of Scotland, as highlighted by Unite and the points that were made by Alex Rowley, are concerned about the abolition of the ability of isolated agricultural and horticultural workers to negotiate.
As I said, we are listening carefully to responses to the consultation and we will announce the outcome in the coming weeks.
I want to turn to areas in which members who spoke in the debate feel that the Scottish Government should be taking action or doing more. The big issue was a request to help the industry with its cash-flow problems by getting the European support out of the door as quickly as possible once the payment window opens on 1 December. I remind members that, between now and 2019, more than £4 billion of European support will be delivered by the Scottish Government to farmers the length and breadth of Scotland. I have already said that we are busting a gut to get the money out of the door—we hope, by the end of December. That is the policy position at the moment. We will keep the industry up to date as things become clearer. Of course, we have the option of paying the money out in two parts, with an initial payment followed by a later payment at some stage. We are seriously considering that option.
On administration and the complexity of the policy, we are investing in an IT system and in administration. The system is new and complex and the policy is radically different to the former one. It is based on area as opposed to past activity. The investment is equivalent to 4 per cent of the £4 billion that is going out of the door, but it is necessary investment. I agree with members that the policy is far too complex: it should have been simplified, as was promised by the European authorities and other politicians in other member states. The EU estimates that the cost of administering the new CAP will be between 15 per cent and 45 per cent higher than the cost of administering the previous programme. Quite clearly, the EU has failed in its objective of simplifying the programme. This programme is much more costly and complex than the last one was.
Would not it be great if we had more budget to get out the door? I listened to Rhoda Grant standing up there and criticising the Scottish Government for not having enough funds for Scotland’s crofters. I remind her that we wish that we had bigger budgets to allocate to crofters and farmers. The 2013 average payment figure was €265 per hectare in England, €247 per hectare in Wales and €335 per hectare in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, thanks to poor negotiation by Labour and Conservative Governments, which ignored Scotland’s pleas, the average payment figure in Scotland was €130 per hectare. When I hear Rhoda Grant say that it is terrible that farmers in England are getting more than farmers in Scotland, I ask this: where was the Labour Party in Scotland when the UK Labour Party was letting Scotland down in the budget negotiations?
Now, of course, the UK Government can help Scotland’s crofters and farmers by putting right some of the big problems of the past year or two. Firstly, there is the CAP convergence budget money. Europe has acknowledged that Scotland’s payments are an issue and that, therefore, Scotland should get more money. An extra £190 million was allocated to the UK because of Scotland’s low payments. The UK qualified for that uplift only because of Scotland’s payments, but the Tory Government kept the money and we have been denied £145 million that should have come to Scotland. I ask the Scottish Conservative Party to ask the Conservative UK secretary of state to fix that wrong as quickly as possible and to help Scotland’s farms and crofters now.
We also lose £1 million per year from red meat levies from animals that are reared in this country. Because of the current system’s flaws, the money goes south of the border to promote produce from there, not produce from north of the border, where the income was generated. The UK Government could help our farmers by fixing that, as well.
Now, of course, the battle turns to the new EU aid package, which was given to the UK to help us to address some of those challenges. About €36million—not a huge amount of money—comes to the UK through the aid package and, of course, a modest amount will come to Scotland from that. However, it is really important that it is not third time unlucky and that we get our fair share of that €36 million. The decision on that aid was taken at a Luxembourg informal council, which Scotland was not allowed to attend, and where some of the money was decided upon based on weather conditions in some countries. There was no one there to speak for Scotland about the wet weather that we have had so that we could earn more of the emergency aid, but there was somebody there to speak for eastern European countries, which are getting more money because of the droughts that they have had. That is why Scotland should have its own voice at such negotiations.
The Scottish Government will continue to urge the UK Government, Europe, our retailers and food service companies to get behind, in their hour of need, the men and women who farm our land and put food on our table.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Business Motions