Fishing Industry

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs McGuire]

I hear what the Minister says.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I do not know how accountable an unelected Member of the House of Lords can be. However, does the right hon. Lady share my concern that the issue—for once—is not that he is unelected, but the effectiveness of his contribution and his lack of experience to represent the industry? It is a bit like playing the sub and keeping the star striker on the bench.

[Mrs McGuire]

When he winds up the debate, I hope the Minister will clarify the situation. Will the noble Lord be part of the discussions? Will the Minister be leading the delegation? I know he has great experience of, and takes a great interest in, the fishing industry, but in some circumstances it would be appropriate for a Scottish Fisheries Minister to represent the UK. The Minister has to prove that a Scottish Fisheries Minister cannot represent the views of the whole UK industry. Under the Labour Administration in Holyrood and here, the Scottish Fisheries Minister occasionally led those discussions. In the interests of mature partnership within the UK, and given the significant interest of the Scottish fishing industry in these discussions, he should tell us why the lead is not being taken by the Scottish Fisheries Minister. There might be a straightforward answer, but I think we need to be more mature in the way we co-operate across these islands in representing the UK in these discussions.

I will not be here, but I hope the next time we have a fisheries debate in this Chamber, it will be in Government time. It should not be the subject of a Backbench Business Committee decision, although the Committee has always been very supportive of holding this debate. The fishing industry is too important for the Government not to take responsibility for holding the debate in their own time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). This afternoon, in common with others, I want to open my remarks by remembering all those lost at sea in the last year, and in particular by paying my respects to James Noble, the skipper of the Fraserburgh-registered Ocean Way, and crew members Jhunitzo Antonio and Michael PulPul who were all lost off the coast of Northumberland just a few weeks ago. My thoughts are with their families, friends, and the surviving crew members, and all those who have lost loved ones in this most dangerous working environment. In common with others, too, I would like to pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, who voluntarily risk their own lives to save others, to our coastguards, and of course to the Fishermen’s Mission and other welfare organisations that do so much to support our fishing communities.

I would also like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for all the work they have done as chair and secretary of the all-party group on fisheries. Even though we have not always agreed, it has been a pleasure working with them on behalf of our fishing and processing sectors, and as they both step down from Parliament next year, I wish them the very best for whatever comes next.

This time last year I highlighted some of the challenges we face in relation to the implementation of the landing obligation. Those problems have not diminished over the last 12 months; they have become more pressing, as the discard ban comes into effect for our pelagic fleet in the next three weeks. The pelagic sector has not had an easy run in recent years. Although we saw some progress in resolving the protracted mackerel dispute with Iceland and Faroe earlier this year, the trade sanctions imposed on the EU by Russia in response to the political situation in Ukraine have hit our pelagic exports disproportionately hard, and I know that the Scottish Government and indeed the UK moved very quickly to help the industry identify and develop new export markets. Although our mackerel saw a 9% fall in value last year, it remains our most valuable stock, and it supports hundreds of onshore jobs in my constituency in addition to those at sea.

Arguably, implementing the landing obligation should be easier for the pelagic fleet than anyone else because of the nature of the stock and the fact that there will not be much by-catch, but I understand that there are still contradictory regulations in force, and these regulatory inconsistencies do not look like they will be ironed out in time for the first phase of the landing obligation on 1 January. I understand that the so called “omnibus process” has been stuck in co-decision-making, and it would be helpful to get an update from the Government on where that has got to today.

Now, we could say that the sky is not going to fall in because the revised regulations are not fully signed and sealed, but I think it sends the wrong signal to our fishermen and undermines the discard ban before it has even got under way. That undermining of confidence is also relevant to the issue I raised with the Minister earlier this morning about enforcement and the lack of a consistent compliance regime that applies to all vessels fishing in our waters. It would be wholly unacceptable for our boats to be working to one set of rules, and third party states fishing in our waters to be subject to another—potentially less stringent—set of rules.

I was pleased to hear from the Minister this morning that some progress was made on this issue at the recent EU-Norway talks, and I hope he will take the opportunity today to spell out the detail and clarify whether it will actually deliver the level playing field that the industry is demanding.

The problems with implementing the landing obligation will get more acute when it is introduced for the demersal fleet in 2016, which is probably the source of the greatest concern. Progress has, I think, been pitifully slow over the last year, and time to develop workable solutions is now running out. It is going to be a whole lot more complicated to implement a discard ban for the whitefish fleet simply because it is a mixed fishery, and our fishermen are working in a context of quota shortages, choke species, lack of flexibility and a system of single species quotas that is simply no longer fit for purpose.

I raised the issue of choke species at the last fisheries debate, and the situation has not really changed. A good example that Peterhead fishermen have raised with me is saithe. They are seeing a lot of it, they do not have much quota for it, and it is low value, with no big market, but it is also quite a big fish, so selective gear is not going to help. What do they do? They cannot land it; they cannot discard it. Will they have to stop fishing for everything else? That would cripple the industry—and very quickly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has on previous occasions raised similar concerns about dogfish on the west coast of Scotland, with the one difference that there might actually be a market for that. If we are to have any hope of making this landing obligation workable, we absolutely need to move away from single species quotas. We need flexibility between adjoining ICES areas where there is evidence that it is the same stock, and that an appropriate quota is available. After speaking to industry leaders yesterday, I wonder whether we really need to look at some sort of phasing-in, because this process is not currently on track. I will be interested to hear the Government’s perspective on that.

I have focused on the landing obligation because it will present serious challenges to the industry a year from now if we do not get it right. We need to be absolutely clear about the fact that discarding is a symptom of poor fisheries management. It is not the fault of the fishermen, and it needs to end. We are in danger of making parts of our fleet unviable, with untold consequences for our processors, our supply chains, our exports and our fishing-dependent communities, such as those that I represent. Discarding has been caused by poor political decisions, not by fishermen, and it is incumbent on us to find solutions to it that are workable and do not jeopardise people’s livelihoods.

Let me end by saying a little about the December Council, and emphasising to the Minister that there must be no cuts in effort for the Scottish fleet next year. I hope he will assure me that the Government will make that a priority in the negotiations. I am very glad to learn that he will be at the Council meeting; given the severity of the issues affecting the south-west of England, it would be a dereliction of duty if he were not there. However, I fear that the spirit of the 2012 concordat with the Scottish Government has been lost in DEFRA’s revolving doors over the last couple of years, because it is not working as it should. Given that 87% of the United Kingdom’s key stocks are landed in Scotland from Scottish vessels, we ought to recognise that Scotland has an important interest. The Government need to work with their counterparts in Edinburgh—and, indeed, in other parts of the United Kingdom—to make the concordat operate much better than it is operating now.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, because Members behind me who represent big fishing interests are waiting to speak, and the hon. Lady had a fair amount of time in which to do so.

Our fishermen do a difficult and dangerous job in circumstances that are quite challenging enough without our making them worse. We need a workable discard ban, and we need it very quickly. This is the biggest challenge that the Scottish industry is currently facing, and Ministers have an opportunity to step up to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I want to carry on because I am conscious of the time.

The hon. Member for St Ives asked about the roll-out of the discard ban. I think that fishermen sometimes forget about the various elements, and flexibilities, in the discard ban. If there is high survivability, fish can be put back. There is inter-species flexibility whereby someone who has, for instance, a lot of cod that they do not have quota for can count it as haddock. We start with the fish that define the fishery and finish with the smaller species. There is a de minimis exemption for people who cannot avoid doing anything else. We can borrow and bank quota from one year to the next.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) talked about the omnibus regulation. The legal position is clear: the new regulations take precedence over previous ones. The omnibus regulation was supposed to deal with that. As she said, there has been a bit of a problem in getting agreement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and that is now at the stage of trialogues.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) asked about The Hague preference. We plan to invoke that in the usual way. We have also secured extra whiting from Norway through the EU-Norway deal. In recent years, we have diverted an extra 300 tonnes specifically to the north-east. The quota uplift that he mentioned will be finally decided in the December Council.

I hope that I have covered as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. As I said, this is a challenging December Council. These meetings have a habit of going late into the night, although last year’s was an unusual exception. There are many challenging issues to address. I hope that I have managed to assure hon. Members that I am fully conscious of their concerns and will be going there to get the best possible deal we can for our fishing industry in the context of the science.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

Since last year, water companies have been able to introduce schemes and they are doing so, but it is important that they take their customers with them and look at what works in their area. The schemes are not funded on a national basis. As I understand it, the Labour party’s proposal would not be funded on a national basis either, but in water company areas. It is important to look at the situation in each area.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

5. What progress has been made on implementation of the landing obligation for fisheries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The North sea and North Western Waters regional groups agreed a discard ban for the pelagic sector earlier this year. Those plans were subsequently approved by the European Commission and will be implemented from 1 January. The Government are now developing the regional discard plans needed to support the introduction of the demersal landing obligation from January 2016.

[Dr Whiteford]

The landing obligation comes into effect for the pelagic fleet in three weeks’ time and the revised regulations are still not in place. Of greater concern to me, however, is that there will be no consistent compliance regime for our boats and boats from non-EU countries fishing in our waters. That is unacceptable and it is undermining confidence in the policy before it has even got under way. Will the Minister look once again at the proposals brought forward by the industry to sort this out, and speak to the Commission?

[George Eustice]

I have had many discussions with the industry on the importance of having a level playing field on enforcement. Norwegian boats and other third-country boats with access to EU waters are required to abide by the discard plan. On enforcement, we got agreement at the EU-Norway deal just last week to ensure that that is now discussed. A working group will discuss how we ensure a level playing field.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend has been an enthusiast for this event coming through his constituency. He raises an important point. We will be looking to use all opportunities we can to promote British foods. Major sporting events are an excellent way for companies to showcase their products. UK Trade & Investment Yorkshire and the Humber is bringing in a series of buyers from around the world to meet local companies at a “meet the buyer” event at the Carriageworks in Leeds on Wednesday 2 July. Many of those buyers will then travel on to the International Festival for Business in Liverpool.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Our egg producers have been outraged to learn that Italy will face no financial penalties for its failure to implement the EU directive that outlaws battery cages. Our poultry farmers have invested millions of pounds to comply with the law, and, as a result, have put themselves at a competitive disadvantage in a very tough international market. Why does the UK implement EU directives that other countries see fit to ignore, and what will the Government do to support our poultry sector?

[George Eustice]

The Government have consistently raised concerns about other member states not complying with the rules on battery cages that were introduced two years ago. It is fair to say that the Commission has taken this matter seriously and has brought some cases against some member states in the European Court of Justice. We continue to maintain pressure on the Commission, but I believe it takes the matter seriously and is taking the appropriate action.

Rural Communities

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Committee on their report and the issues raised in it.

I believe that all Members taking part in today’s debate represent rural communities, and I am no exception. In fact, Banff and Buchan has one of the highest proportions of any constituency in these islands of people living in the countryside or in very small settlements. Although there are many positive things to be said about rural life, it undoubtedly presents day-to-day challenges and generates a lot of extra costs, not all of which are justifiable. Those costs put huge pressure on the household finances of people on low and middle incomes who live in rural areas.

This is an extremely broad topic to debate in limited time, but I wish to touch on a range of public policy issues where rural communities have distinct needs and where I believe Westminster is currently letting them down. Many of those concerns echo the issues that other Members have raised, and the first is the cost of getting about.

Petrol and diesel prices are significantly higher in my constituency than in urban areas or less remote rural areas. People in areas such as Aberdeenshire and Banffshire are much more dependent on private cars than those in other parts of the country. They have further to travel and very few public transport options—we have no trains at all in my constituency, and as one would expect in a remote and not densely populated area, bus services are not particularly frequent.

I am concerned about the fact that more than 60p in every pound spent at the pump goes straight to the Exchequer. That means that there is a disproportionate, largely invisible and unavoidable extra tax on people who live in rural areas and have to cover long distances to access shops, amenities and public services and often to get to their work. Those people often have no option other than to use a private car. That places an additional tax burden on rural businesses and households alike, which will not be fully mitigated by the Government’s fuel rebate measures.

It is not only the cost of road fuel that adds to household expenses. It is a supreme irony that although North sea gas comes ashore at St Fergus in my constituency, many people living in the surrounding rural area—including, probably, some who work at the gas terminal—are not on the gas grid and have to depend on more expensive forms of domestic heating. My part of the world is one of the colder and more exposed parts of Scotland during the winter months, and everyone, without exception, has taken the hit of soaring energy prices in recent months. The points raised earlier about that issue by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) were salient, particularly on the energy market.

People who are off the gas grid tend to spend a higher proportion of their income heating their homes and are more susceptible to fuel poverty. Even those on respectable incomes, who one would think are doing quite well financially, find that they are not because it costs so much to heat their homes through the winter. One simple and cost-neutral way the Government could help low-income households that are off the gas grid to stay warm in winter is by making winter fuel payments to those households in advance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) recently brought forward the Winter Fuel Allowance Payments (Off Gas Grid Claimants) Bill, which would provide for the early payment of the winter fuel allowance to pensioners whose homes are not connected to the mains gas grid, and whose principal source of fuel is home fuel oil, liquid petroleum gas or propane gas. Bringing forward payment of the winter fuel allowance would allow low-income consumers who have no access to reduced tariffs and no possibility of changing supplier, to fill their tanks prior to the onset of winter, at a time when prices tend to be a little lower. Unlike those of us who get quarterly bills, those with oil tanks have to pay large four figure sums up front to fill them, and it would cost nothing for the Government to simply re-sequence payments for those affected.

Another key issue for our rural communities is postal services. Our post office network has shrunk dramatically over the past 10 years, and it is critical to protect our remaining post offices in rural areas. Often the post office will be the last business in a village, and the last vestige of any accessible financial services. A reliable universal mail service is essential to businesses in rural areas and to efforts that encourage the growth of such businesses, particularly as online retail continues to expand and create new opportunities. If we are to re-energise small businesses in the rural economy, they must have access to a full, reliable and—above all—reasonably priced postal service that will ensure they can send and receive packages quickly and efficiently. We must recognise that post offices are an essential piece of our economic infrastructure in the digital age. Despite all the good intentions and words, however, the reality is that postal services continue to decline. Until we see the establishment of more Government and financial services in post offices, the future does not look all that bright.

Given that the regulator has already removed price caps from every service apart from second-class mail, I have little confidence that it will provide rural consumers and those in remote areas with protection against big price increases in postal services. The record of regulators in other privatised industries has shown how ineffective a protection they can be—we need only look at the energy market to see that in action.

Another aspect of our essential rural infrastructure is broadband and mobile connectivity, and a lot of attention has been paid to that today. Parts of my constituency are still black holes for phone reception, and many households in rural areas have wholly inadequate broadband speeds, if they have it at all. Sizeable areas of my constituency are simply not online. Moreover, in areas where broadband is available, it is comparatively expensive and people will pay around £40 or £50 a month for a service that they would easily get for less than £10 a month in London. As somebody who pays phone bills in both areas, I know that there can sometimes be a £45 difference in the monthly charge. That hidden cost for people in rural and remote areas does not necessarily come to the fore very often, but even when they have access to the internet, they are likely to pay through the nose for it.

To my mind, the underlying problem is the way that spectrum licences have been issued. It is all very well to say that 90% or 95% of the UK will have broadband by a certain date, but if the remaining 5% is mostly in rural Scotland, that is a problem. As Government services increasingly move online, digital exclusion is becoming an ever more pressing problem in rural areas, compounding economic exclusion and the existing challenges of rural life that already create a lot of hurdles for people in our rural communities. Other countries in Europe with similar geographical challenges have done a much better job than the UK of delivering access to mobile and broadband connectivity, and we could—and should—learn a great deal from them.

I will conclude by touching on agriculture. The economic vitality of our rural communities is underpinned by our agricultural industries and the food and drink processing and distribution sectors that derive from them. In many parts of rural Scotland, common agricultural policy support is essential to the viability of primary producers and the sustainable development of our rural areas. CAP rural development funding has played a crucial role in enabling the 52% rise in exports of food and drink since 2007, mainly by investing in the facilities and infrastructure that those businesses need to grow.

However, keeping up with our neighbours in Europe is increasingly difficult. Historically, Scotland has had low levels of CAP support relative to the area of land in agricultural use. Currently, we receive an average of €130 per hectare, compared with an EU average of €196. Within the UK, Scotland’s €130 per hectare compares with an English average of €265 per hectare, a Welsh average of €247 per hectare, and a Northern Irish average of €335 per hectare. Therefore, compared to other parts of the EU and UK, Scotland has been short changed on the CAP for a long time, putting our agricultural sector at a competitive disadvantage. In that respect, moves towards convergence are an important step in the right direction, but Scotland’s rural communities will not benefit from that process because the UK Government have decided to use the £230 million convergence uplift they received because of Scotland’s historically low levels of support to plug gaps in CAP funding elsewhere in the UK, instead of using it as intended.

By 2019, Scotland will have the lowest levels of CAP funding per hectare of any country in the EU—money that could be used to make tremendous investments in our rural communities, improve our rural environment, and support jobs and economic growth in rural areas. Scottish farmers, those living in rural areas and running rural businesses do not want special treatment, but they do want equitable treatment and parity with their neighbours in the UK and the rest of the EU.

Around 30% of Scotland’s economic output is generated by the rural economy, so the issue is critical for our future development. With better support, we could do a whole lot better and on all those issues—rural development funding, fuel costs, heating costs, postal services and broadband—the UK could, and should, be doing a lot more to support rural communities such as the one I represent. I hope Ministers will use their opportunities in the remainder of this Parliament to give the issue the priority it deserves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

It is difficult to remove the six-day movement rule because it was a key measure that was brought in to combat the spread of diseases such as foot and mouth. We are clear that we want to get rid of unnecessary regulation, but we do not want to do anything that would compromise animal health or safety. I am willing to talk to the hon. Gentleman about this particular point. It has been raised with me by farmers. However, it is not a simple matter because we do not want to jeopardise animal health.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Wholly disproportionate financial penalties for minor and often unavoidable regulatory infringements, such as lost ear tags, have been a characteristic of the common agricultural policy in recent years. What guarantee can the Minister give that the new regime will distinguish between wilful disregard of the rules and the unintentional and inconsequential infringements that are currently being penalised?

[George Eustice]

These issues are a devolved matter. We are looking at the rules in England. The hon. Lady is right, although the EU regulations do emphasise the need for proportionality in the application of sanctions. The regulations are being reviewed. We are making the case to the European Commission that there should be changes to the rules from the beginning of 2015 so that the sanctions are more proportionate. The negotiations are ongoing.

Fishing Industry

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

As some of my best friends are Spanish, I hope they are not following the debate too closely. I am sure Spain would wish reciprocal access rights for our fisherman in its waters. Perhaps we can reach agreement on that basis.

The new laws will allow countries working together regionally—under my definition of regionally, which does not necessarily include Spain—to move away from micro-management to true regionalisation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said, to a legally binding commitment to fish at sustainable levels.

Our report was so good that I would like to highlight one or two points. We called for decentralisation, rather than the Commission handing down, and for more research into selective fishing methods, which are important. We called for a cipher mechanism to reallocate fishing rights away from slipper skippers, and we called, again, for a register. My hon. Friend the Minister would not forgive me if I did not mention again our call for a register of who owns the current quotas.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. My understanding is that the register was due to be published before the end of 2013. I am conscious that we are almost halfway through December. Is it still on track?

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister and the House will have heard what the hon. Lady says. I await the Minister’s reply with great interest. The House sits for another whole week and I am sure we stand prepared to hear from the Minister on his return not just that he has brokered a good deal for Britain, but that he wishes to publish the register of fisheries.

I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak. I pay tribute to those who fish our waters and put themselves in harm’s way to bring fish to our plate. I pay tribute, too, to those who called for this debate. I wish the Minister great success in his negotiations on Monday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate and welcoming the new Minister to his first annual fisheries debate?

This is an appropriate day to remember those who have lost their lives or been injured at sea. We have to remember that fishing remains an inherently dangerous occupation, and those who take on the risks of harvesting our seas deserve our utmost respect. Today’s debate is also an opportunity to express our gratitude to those who serve in the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. The mission does a tremendous amount of good in our fishing communities, and from speaking recently to the superintendents in Fraserburgh and Peterhead, it is clear that the demands on their welfare provisions are intensifying in these austere times.

We should also pay tribute to our coastguards and the volunteers of the RNLI lifeboats. Earlier this year I joined the crew of the Fraserburgh lifeboat aboard the “Willie and May Gall” for one of its regular training sessions. Luckily for me, it was an usually calm evening off Kinnaird head, but it gave me a fantastic insight into the commitment and courage of the men and women who train all year round so that they are prepared for emergencies when they arise. I want to thank publicly Victor Sutherland and his crew for that opportunity, but above all for the service they give—and, indeed, the service the lifeboat crews in Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Macduff give to the communities I represent and the service provided by all those RNLI volunteers around our coast who give their time and risk their own lives to save others.

This has been a difficult year for the fishing industry in Scotland, particularly in my part of the world. Last December, shortly after our last fisheries debate, the east coast was hit by a massive storm that combined with high seasonal tides and the direction of the wind to cause extensive damage to our ports and sea defences. Our largest ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh sustained considerable structural damage, as did many of our smaller harbours. One factory in Peterhead was completely destroyed. I saw buildings near the shore in Fraserburgh that had been moved off their foundations. People living near the shore in Peterhead had to be evacuated from homes that had lost their doors and windows, and further damage to processing factories was only averted by swift action to repair sea defences in the immediate aftermath of the storm. It was a sobering reminder of the power of the elements, but its aftermath has also been a testament to the resilience of our fishing communities.

Things are not yet back to normal by any means, but the repairs are well under way, with ports seizing the opportunity not just to repair, but to improve their sea defences and invest in new developments. The further round of emergency grants announced by the Scottish Government this week and European fisheries funding is supporting 45 projects around the Scottish coast and will enable over £11 million of investment in our fishing communities. Businesses in my own constituency have been major beneficiaries, most notably Peterhead port authority.

Yet Scotland only gets £46 million of the UK’s EFF allocation, which fails to reflect the size of our fishing industry and compares very poorly with the levels of funding available to other fishing nations such as Lithuania, and also Denmark which has £100 million a year in EFF funding although it has a population of a very similar size to ours. Overall, Scotland accounts for 7% of the EU’s wild fish catches and 12% of EU aquaculture, yet we get only 1.1% of fisheries funding. By any measure, our fisheries are being short-changed, and disasters like the one last year expose the vulnerability that this creates.

However, the challenges we have faced this year have not just been weather-related. This has also been a particularly difficult year for our nephrops fishermen, given the scarcity of prawns during the first half of the year. That has caused real hardship in parts of the fleet, including in my constituency, and great anxiety because we do not know for sure what caused the problem, as it is a well-managed, sustainably harvested stock. The prawn catches have bounced back more recently, and those most adversely affected have access to hardship funds, but it does bring home the need for flexibility in the common fisheries policy so that parts of the industry are not left high and dry in such situations.

The other challenge, of course, is that the mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faroes rolls on. The Minister should know that I deeved his predecessor regularly on this issue over the last three years. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North suggested, the impasse has big implications not only for our pelagic sector, but for the white fish fleet and our fish processors. It is also a factor in the hold-up of the talks between the EU and Norway, which should have been taking place this month, but have now been put back until the new year. I am told there is some new momentum towards reaching a deal on mackerel. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to update the House on that, and can I urge him not to accept a deal at any price, and to defend our industry? Mackerel is our most valuable stock, and we must protect access to EU waters and ensure there is equity between EU member states and Norway.

I acknowledge the work that has been done to reform the CFP. Finally, at long last, we have a deal. To my mind, the move towards regionalisation, and the moves to maximum sustainable yield, will pay dividends in the medium to longer term and set the policy on a very different course. This represents progress that is long overdue.

The new landing obligation, or discard ban, has dominated the debate and has been widely hailed as the centrepiece of the reformed CFP. I think everyone without exception wants to see discarding come to an end. Those of us who have campaigned against discards know that it has, without a doubt, been the worst symptom of the structural problems within the CFP. I do not want to rain on anyone’s parade, but we have already heard about some of the contradictions that will be created by that discards ban, and the House needs to acknowledge that we still have some way to go to find a way to make that ban workable in practice.

There is inevitably by-catch in a mixed fishery, and our fishermen are going to need quota to be able to land it. The Scottish Government ran a trial earlier this year with a pair team of vessels on a “land all you catch” basis, with a view to informing the implementation of the discard ban. The trial was supposed to run until December, but it ended in August because the vessels ran out of quota for hake, which is currently abundant in our waters. This problem of “choke species” is not going to go away, and we need to find ways to deal with it. In this case the choke species was hake, but in other waters it will be other species, and therefore in future our fishermen are going to need quota for non-target species and unwanted catches. There are massive financial implications for vessels that need to lease in quota for by-catches, and if we are serious about stopping discards, then we need to secure the extra quota to allow it to happen. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks about the prospects of the Commission providing fishermen with the additional quota to cover the fish they are currently forced to discard so that we do not end up in the situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), where they have got fish on board that they cannot land and cannot discard. Are they going to eat it on board? It is hard to know what fishermen are supposed to do and how they are going to stay within the law.

I know that the talks that start next week will only be addressing stocks that are wholly within EU waters, and the important discussions with Norway on key shared North sea stocks like cod, haddock, whiting and saithe will not be happening until we are into the new year. However, once again the big issue will be cod quotas and the flaws in the cod recovery plan. We know that cod stocks are moving in the right direction, and in fact cod mortality is now at its lowest level since 1963, when assessments started. Fishermen and scientists alike are telling us that cod is more abundant than it has been for 50 years. However, the CRP threatens to derail the progress made in recent years. Last year, common sense prevailed and there was recognition that rigid adherence to the plan would be counter-productive. The same applies this year. If the proposed 9% quota cut goes ahead, it will inevitably lead to an increase in discards, which is exactly what we are trying to prevent. In my view, we need to continue following the science—in this I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—and the science indicates that a small increase in the allowable catch for North sea cod will enable the stock to keep growing and keep our long-term outcome of a sustainable fishery on track. I hope the Minister will promote that objective in the forthcoming talks, and I seek his assurance on that today.

I also seek a commitment from the Minister that he will not let days at sea be reduced any further, and that he will support an effort to freeze this at 2012-13 levels. Automatic reductions in days at sea will not give the fleet enough time to catch its quota, and that can only increase risk to our fishermen.

A great deal rides on the forthcoming negotiations. As everyone else looks forward to winding down for Christmas, December is a particularly tense and anxious time of year for fishing communities and everyone who works in the fishing industry. I wish the Minister well for the negotiations, and urge him to defend robustly the interests of our fishing and processing industries at these talks.

CAP Budget

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Caton. I am pleased to see at least a few other hon. Members taking an interest in recent developments on the common agricultural policy, and in particular the convergence uplift.

Common agricultural policy funding secures the vitality of farming in Scotland, and it is instrumental in the sustainable development of our rural economy. I represent one of the most rural constituencies anywhere in the UK, where farming underpins a healthy food production sector and a range of successful agricultural industries, and supports vibrant towns and villages. The investment we make in our farming sector through the CAP generates jobs, creates sustainable livelihoods and ensures effective land stewardship. Without it, our environment, economy and communities would be immeasurably poorer.

Earlier this year, agreement was reached on the future shape and direction of the CAP. There will be some substantial changes, but most significant for the purposes of today’s debate is the requirement for more equitable distribution of CAP funding, known as external convergence, across the EU. That has enormous significance for farmers in Scotland, because historically Scotland has had very low levels of support relative to the area of land in agricultural use. Scotland receives an average of €130 per hectare, compared with an EU average of €196 per hectare. In the UK, the English average is €265 per hectare, the Welsh average is €247 per hectare and the Northern Irish average is €335 per hectare. Compared with other parts of the EU and other parts of the UK, Scotland has been short-changed on the CAP for a long time, which has put our agricultural sector at a considerable competitive disadvantage. In that respect, moves towards convergence are an important step in the right direction.

Last week, when I questioned Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the matter, I received a response that was based on average farmer payments, which concerned me because it betrays either a worryingly poor understanding of what the convergence uplift is or a shameless attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. Average farmer payments are completely irrelevant to the calculation of the convergence uplift. I appreciate that the Minister is quite new to his role and might not yet fully understand the technicalities of how the convergence mechanism is calculated and what it is intended for. That is why it is so important to clarify that the convergence uplift has nothing whatever to do with individual farm size, which varies across Europe, depending on the landscape, climate and model of farming. The convergence uplift is calculated on the basis of average payments per hectare and nothing else. It is intended to benefit those whose support per hectare falls below 90% of the European average.

The convergence uplift is a mechanism introduced by the EU to ensure that member states with payment rates of less than 90% of the EU average rate per hectare receive an uplift designed to close the gap over the next six years. Although England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all above that threshold, Scotland is well below it —so far below, in fact, that it brings the UK average down. That is why the EU has awarded the UK a convergence uplift of €223 million. That is money designed to level the playing field, calculated on the basis of the average payment per hectare across Europe. It is money earmarked for Scottish agriculture.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She has laid out a conclusive argument for Scotland getting its fair share of the money. Does she agree that it is essential for the Scottish and UK Governments to get together and deliver a coupling deal for the benefit of Scottish farmers?

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. There has been an unprecedented degree of co-operation in the Scottish Parliament on the matter. DEFRA has succeeded where many have failed in creating unity among the warring tribes in the Scottish Parliament.

There was a sense of disbelief in the Scottish farming community on 8 November when the UK Government announced that they had decided to split the convergence uplift four ways, rather than using it for its intended purpose. That disbelief has quickly turned to anger and a sense of betrayal. Last week’s Scottish Farmer called it an “act of grand larceny”. Last week, when I met with Scottish farming leaders—some of whom, I believe, are here today—we discussed what representations they might make to Ministers to look again at the issue and, at the very least, bring forward the promised review from 2017 to deliver progress towards convergence over the next six years. Yesterday, along with other Scottish MPs, I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland, which appears to kick that possibility into the long grass by reiterating that no changes will be introduced until after 2020. I appeal to the Minister to look again at the need for convergence in the UK. Will he consider his review timetable and get round the table with stakeholders to work out how the convergence uplift can be used for its intended purpose?

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I agree that the review is very important, and I am sure she agrees that the UK Government must map out how they will achieve the EU target—which I believe will be implemented in 2020—of convergence towards the EU average of €196 per hectare.

[Dr Whiteford]

I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns from a constituency perspective, because his constituency, like mine, is set to suffer some of the worst impacts of the Government’s approach. He makes an important point, and I hope the Government are listening.

The UK seems to be saying that it will simply ignore convergence until the next round of CAP negotiations. We are asking the Government to listen to the voices of the farming community and to work with stakeholders to ensure that convergence happens as the EU intended and that the convergence uplift comes to Scotland. The coalition parties have enjoyed an enviable degree of loyalty over the years from parts of the farming community, but that loyalty is not blind. Trust is a precious commodity in politics, and the Minister would be wise to listen to the farming community, even if he will not listen to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and me.

The issue has prompted a great degree of cross-party co-operation and collaboration at Holyrood. Will the Minister commit to meeting the cross-party representatives of the Scottish Parliament—the SNP, Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokespeople—who wrote to the UK Government recently requesting a meeting? As they pointed out:

“These receipts only exist because of Scotland’s current position. All other parts of the UK are above the threshold set by the EU for external convergence, and it is only because of Scotland’s extremely low average level of Pillar one payments per hectare that the UK as a whole fell below the threshold and qualified for an external convergence uplift.”

They made the important point that

“Passing on this uplift to Scotland will also not entail any deductions at all for farming colleagues in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.”

They went on to say:

“The European methodology focused entirely on per-hectare levels of payment, and the within-UK decision must be on the same basis.”

It is important that Members of this House understand how support for farmers in Scotland compares with support for farmers in other parts of Europe, so they can see that Scottish farmers are asking not for special treatment, but for parity of treatment with their neighbours and competitors. In Denmark, for example, the area eligible for pillar one funding is less than two thirds the size of Scotland’s eligible area, but Denmark receives more than one and a half times as much pillar one funding—€964 million, compared with Scotland’s €596.6 million. That means that Denmark’s per-hectare pillar one rate is almost three times the Scottish average pillar one rate. Denmark’s pillar two rate of €31 per hectare is more than two and a half times as high as Scotland’s rate of €11 per hectare. The Czech Republic also has a smaller eligible area than Scotland does, but the Czech Republic gets one and a half times as much money to fund pillar one. Its average pillar one rate per hectare is almost twice that of Scotland, and its pillar two rate is more than 10 times higher, at an average of €116 per hectare.

Even closer to home, our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, who have a similar amount of eligible land under pillar one, get twice as much funding as we do, which means that the average Irish per-hectare pillar one rate is more than double the Scottish average, while its average per-hectare pillar two rates are more than 10 times the Scottish average. I could go on and list every single European Union member state, because each and every one of them, without exception, will receive a higher per-hectare rate than Scotland in both pillar one and pillar two by 2019. Let us be clear: if the average rate of payment in Scotland had been increased to €196 hectare, in line with the EU average and the objective of all member states by 2019, Scottish agriculture would have benefited to the tune of €1 billion over the next six years. Instead, as a peripheral region of a member state that places a low priority on the rural economy, Scotland’s per-hectare rate will drop to €128 by 2019 and could fall as low as €108 if all the eligible land comes into the system.

The same is true for pillar two. Although our rural development budget will rise by 7.8% in cash terms, in real terms that amounts to a 5.5% cut over six years. By contrast, 16 member states argued successfully for uplifts in their rural development funding. Ireland has secured nearly €2 billion, compared with Scotland’s £478 million. Finland has secured even more. With that kind of rural development funding, we could make transformational step changes to Scotland’s rural economy. We could create more jobs, help farms to diversify, improve amenities in our rural communities and strengthen environmental sustainability. Instead, Scotland will continue to have the lowest rural development allocation per hectare in the whole European Union.

Quite frankly, it is an insult to the intelligence of our farmers to pretend that the deal is anything other than profoundly lousy. For the Government to claim largesse, by suggesting that 2% additional flexibility on coupling in some way compensates for the failure to deliver adequate core funding, has been described to me as “quite pathetic”. As one farmer put it to me, “We’re supposed to be grateful to get the crumbs from a cake that should be ours by right.” Just to clarify, the 2% flexibility on coupling brings with it no extra money. It would merely allow us to divvy up the pot differently, to target more resources at the livestock sector, where they are most critical. The serious point is that an extra 2% coupling makes a negligible difference to beef farmers in Buchan, some of whom are set to take sizeable hits under the new regime. What they want and need is the option to go up to 13% coupling, like those member states that face similar challenges and that have successfully negotiated the ability to do so.

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is being generous with her time. She sets out a compelling argument for the Minister to meet the cross-party group, which supports her position, from the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible. Would she say that he needs to give the date on which he will do so?

[Dr Whiteford]

I hope that an outcome of today’s debate will be not only meetings with the Scottish Parliament, but meaningful engagement with the National Farmers Union and other stakeholders. The farmers and crofters of Scotland desperately need a resolution. The sense of outrage is palpable in rural communities, going well beyond the farming communities that are the primary producers in the agricultural economy.

The convergence uplift has come to the UK only due to Scotland’s woeful position, languishing at the foot of the international table for pillar one and pillar two cash receipts. Scotland has the lowest levels of agricultural support in the European Union, yet the Secretary of State for Scotland believes he has delivered

“a fair, positive and stable package for all parts of the UK”.

He is demonstrating plainly that, far from being Scotland’s man in the Cabinet, he is the Tory’s spokesman in Scotland, defending an utterly indefensible decision. I will be interested to see whether the Minister can stand here today—an historic day in Scotland, when we consider our future and the future of our country—and repeat the Secretary of State’s claim with a straight face.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I want to make progress; I will get to the point that I think the hon. Gentleman will address in a moment.

The point has also been made that Scotland has the lowest per-hectare payment in the UK and that, by virtue of that, Scotland should have received additional funding. There are a number of points to make about that argument. First, the so-called convergence uplift was calculated based on a UK average payment. Secondly, the lower per-hectare payment in Scotland is due to Scotland’s extensive moorland, which has yielded lower levels of production and, therefore, has historically attracted lower subsidy payments than other parts of the UK. Thirdly, it is important to note that Scotland still makes payments based on historic subsidies received by farm holdings in 2001, which means that those areas of land that had been most actively farmed, and generally still are most actively farmed, receive more money than the unfarmed moorlands.

Scotland’s low per-hectare payment also needs to be viewed alongside the fact that Scotland has the highest average per-farm payment in the UK, at about £26,000, compared with just £17,000 in England, £16,000 in Wales and £7,000 in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that she has no respect for that argument, but it is legitimate. Scotland has bigger farms, and the land there has historically been less intensively farmed. I think that the public will realise that if Scottish farmers are getting payments of almost £26,000 a year, they are getting far higher payments than the UK average, which is currently only about £16,000.

[Dr Whiteford]

It all depends how one cuts the figures. In fact, the majority of Scottish farmers—50% of them—receive CAP payments of less than £10,000. Obviously farming is more extensive in upland areas of Scotland, which can skew the figures, but it is important to understand the median average payment, rather than the mean average payment. Either way, it is irrelevant to the convergence uplift.

[George Eustice]

I do not think it is irrelevant. As I said, the reason why Scotland has historically had a lower allocation is that there is much more moorland, which is not farmed as intensively. One can make the argument that there are differences within that and that some small farmers get less than £10,000, but that is also the case in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. The principles are set, but Scotland’s average farm payment is among the highest in the EU. In fact, only in the Czech Republic, where there are still huge collective farms, is the average payment received per farm higher than in Scotland.

Finally, it is important to note that there have always been wide variances in the per-hectare rate paid, both between member states and within member states. Countries such as Latvia and Estonia receive less per hectare than Scotland. I should also point out that the Government’s approach in allocating the cut equally across the UK’s Administrations is consistent with the approach that we adopted earlier this year when allocating the UK’s structural funds. Of those, Scotland received €795 million, which represented an increase of €228 million compared with the amount it would have received if the EU’s formula had been used, so Scotland received an uplift of sorts when it came to the allocation of structural funds, because the UK was willing to depart from the EU formula and adopt the approach that we have taken historically. We must accept that if we are to be consistent and take the historical approach, Scotland might lose in some areas, but it might also win in others. It has undoubtedly won from our adoption of the historical approach to structural funds.

In announcing the allocation of CAP across the UK, the Government have also committed to undertake a review of the allocation of CAP funding in 2016, at the same time that the European Commission will be undertaking a review of the 2014 to 2020 EU budget. The president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, Nigel Miller, has made a strong case for us to do the review early, and I am keen to meet him to discuss some of his concerns.

Let me say to hon. Members who have raised points that I speak regularly—almost weekly—with the devolved Assembly. One thing about the farming and fishing ministerial brief is that we deal extensively with all our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. The next time I visit Scotland or other devolved Administrations, I am more than happy to discuss the issue with politicians there. I am a great believer that we in the UK are stronger working together. DEFRA has a good track record of engaging closely with our partners in the devolved Administrations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

One area we are looking at in our consultation is how to develop an agri-environment scheme in pillar two. We are keen to build on the fantastic track record we have in these areas. It has always been the Government’s position that we can do more for the environment by spending through pillar two rather than through pillar one. That is why we have aimed to keep as simple as possible the greening measures in the conditions for the single farm payment.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Earlier this week, I met leaders of the Scottish National Farmers Union who had come all the way to London to express their deep concern that the CAP convergence uplift, which the UK received only because of the historically low area payments in Scotland, is to be split four ways. Does the Minister accept the principle of convergence and, if so, will he look again at how to bring the review process forward before 2016?

[George Eustice]

As the UK Government, we have had to take an approach that is fair to all parts of the UK. The reality is that farms in Scotland tend to be larger and the per hectare rate has been lower historically because the land is less productive, but the average farmer in Scotland receives about £25,000 a year, the average farmer in England receives approximately £17,000 and the average farmer in Northern Ireland receives less than £8,000. On that basis, Scottish farmers are getting more than farmers elsewhere in the UK.

Topical Questions

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) not only on securing the debate but on all his work to drive forward the all-party group’s report.

The impact of livestock production on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is complex and highly contested. The report does an admirable job of highlighting some of the difficulties associated with carbon footprint modelling, particularly on measuring the impact of carbon sequestration, but that is only one aspect of a much bigger picture.

We need greater recognition of the urgent need to address climate change, and we cannot escape the reality that cattle and sheep produce a lot of methane, but it has become increasingly evident that that is not a zero-sum game; there is an increasing body of evidence showing the significant environmental benefits associated with livestock farming. When we look at both sides of the carbon balance sheet, we see that, overall, methane emissions from ruminants are only one part of the footprint of agricultural production and that cattle and sheep farming, which have been central to our culture for millennia, play a positive role not only in enabling sustainable land use but in maintaining our carbon sinks, protecting biodiversity and creating livelihoods in rural communities.

Those issues are extremely pressing in Scotland, because livestock farming accounts for a high proportion of land use—significantly higher than in other countries of the UK. More than 82% of our agricultural land is grassland, some 70% of which is rough grazing. Those are huge carbon sinks—the Scottish Agricultural College estimates that they represent 80% of the UK’s carbon stocks—so the extent to which carbon sequestration takes place on grassland is very important. We do not yet have enough consistent evidence to reach definitive conclusions, but we know that changing the use of that land could have very adverse consequences, not just for greenhouse gas emissions but for biodiversity and the livelihoods of our farmers and rural communities.

In the past, I have heard simplistic arguments for switching from livestock to arable production, which is a total non-starter in most of Scotland. Some 85% of Scottish land is less-favoured area, and much of it, especially on higher ground, is not suitable for crops. Our climate, combined with marginal land quality, makes arable farming an unviable proposition in many parts of the country. As much of that land is a carbon sink, bringing grasslands and rough grazing into cultivation would, frankly, be destructive and irresponsible in climate and environmental terms; it would increase, not decrease, greenhouse gas emissions.

By contrast, a great deal can be done to maximise the sustainability of livestock farming without compromising livelihoods. Research by Scotland’s Rural College as part of the “Farming for a Better Climate” initiative shows there are lots of simple, practical steps that farmers can take to minimise and mitigate the impact of livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions, from how they manage grazing land to how they use fertilisers and manage waste and slurry; there is also the kind of energy, bedding materials and feed that they use, and even the breeds of sheep and cattle that they rear. Let us not forget that that account cannot end at the front gate—the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who is no longer in his place, made a point about transport costs—it is also about other aspects of the supply chain, such as packaging and processing costs, all of which potentially have an environmental impact that can be reduced to bring better produce to consumers.

I represent a constituency famous for producing some of the finest beef anywhere in the world. Indeed, Buchan was known as the stockyard of Britain in the days when we still had trains. We are proud of the beef and lamb that we produce in the north-east, but livestock numbers have fallen across Scotland in recent years. As several colleagues from Northern Ireland have said, this has not been an easy time for livestock farmers, who face a range of challenges that are outwith the scope of today’s debate.

When people stop farming, the land stops being stewarded and communities start to diminish. Before we make rash policy decisions, it is important that we have a much better understanding of the role of carbon sequestration. We do not have enough of an evidence base yet, but policy should be based on knowing what we are dealing with and how we can best use our land sustainably. We should recognise that livestock farming is one of the most sustainable ways to manage, maintain and steward grassland and land that is not suitable for cultivation.

I hope the Minister will take on board the all-party group’s concerns about the methodologies used by DEFRA to measure the climate impact of beef and lamb production. I also hope he will recognise the contribution that cattle and sheep farming make to sustainable land management, food security, biodiversity and the well-being of our rural communities.

Common Agricultural Policy

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am disappointed that we have such a short amount of time to debate these issues. We are talking about complex, extensive regulations that have significant implications for my constituents and everyone else who farms or works in rural industries or lives in a rural community, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK.

The Minister did an admirable job of setting out the structural flaws of the CAP, but he was a bit less forthcoming in presenting an alternative to it for the 60% of farmers who would not have a viable farm business were it not for the support they receive from the CAP. It is important to remember that the CAP is not only about market support; it is also about land stewardship, food security and sustaining resilient rural communities. I think we are all agreed that the CAP is a profoundly flawed system, but we have to be pragmatic about where we are in the negotiations and how we defend our rural communities and get the best possible deal for our farmers.

I will try to rattle through some of the issues in what is a short time frame, but I will be unable to say everything that I had hoped to say. I am pleased that there will be more flexibility for greening measures. I also think that the proposed definition of “eligible pasture”, which would include non-herbaceous grazing—in other words, heather—will be of significant benefit to upland farmers. However, I would still like more flexibility, so that people can qualify for greening measures through a number of options. I hope the Government will seek to resolve outstanding issues in the negotiations next week.

Another welcome step is the definition of an “active farmer”, which should help to tackle the long-standing problem of “slipper farmers”, whereby some people have received large sums of public money with little accountability or public benefit. I hope that will also form part of the final agreement. The flip side of the “slipper farmer” problem is that not nearly enough support was given to new entrants in the previous CAP. It is important that new entrants have a level playing field in entitlements with established farmers. Under the proposals, they should be eligible for an initial grant of entitlements in the first year of the new scheme, so long as they can show that they have been actively farming. New entrants should also be able to receive support from the national reserve.

The issue of the proposed cap on basic payments to individuals has been controversial in some quarters, but I personally think it is a progressive measure. A small number of large farm businesses receive levels of direct payments that are totally unjustifiable. We have to be transparent and accountable in how we use public money. It is only right that the redistributed surplus should be made available for more beneficial forms of rural development. I am pleased that the Commission proposes to increase CAP transparency by publishing the details of CAP beneficiaries and the money they have received.

Another controversial issue has been the use of coupled support, which I wanted to say more about. I know that progress has been made, particularly on the different views that exist across the UK about what is needed in certain circumstances. All I would say is that the beef sector is critical to the economy of north-east Scotland. It anchors hundreds of jobs in the rural economy and gives a welcome boost to exports, which is important. I have raised the issue of the compliance regime many times with Ministers over the last couple of years. I am glad that there is a more proportionate set of proposals on the table, which means that farmers will not be penalised for small oversights or administrative errors.

However, the big issue is the overall budget. In the context of austerity, we all understand that the overall pot is smaller, but the UK has negotiated itself the lowest share of the CAP budget of any EU member state. On average, member states get €72 a hectare, whereas the figure for the UK has fallen to €20. I do not think farmers want to be subsidised, but they do want to be on a level playing field and they want to be recompensed for their efforts to comply with European regulation.

I think we went into the CAP reform negotiations with a very strong case for a bigger share of the CAP budget for Scotland, but that is not what has come out. Compared with farmers in neighbouring countries—and, indeed, farmers in other countries and parts of the UK—Scottish farmers continue to get a very raw deal, even though many are stewarding land in environmentally responsible ways, providing a basis for a much bigger food and drink export industry. I do not think it is right for farmers in Scotland to get significantly lower payments than their counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Nor do I think it right that those farming comparable land in Ireland receive €70 a hectare, in Finland €158 a hectare and in the Czech Republic €83 a hectare.

We need basic fairness in the system, and we just do not have it. Under pillar one, Scotland’s rate is so low that it means that the whole UK external convergence mechanism will benefit the UK by about €60 million. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that can come to Scotland. I hope that while we have a CAP system, we will continue to fight for the best deal for our farmers. I hope that Ministers will do that.