The Scottish Government

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment Richard Lochhead

"Shaping Scotland's Farming Future: The Need for a New Contract"

Oxford Farming Conference

January 6, 2009

Ladies and Gentleman, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today, especially as I'm told I am the first Scottish Agriculture Minister to formally address the Oxford Farming Conference since devolution. And I am certainly the first Scottish National Party Minister to address you in any capacity!

And I am sure that all of us especially Hilary Benn are aware that devolution has well and truly arrived when the agricultural ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now belong to the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein respectively!

So I am delighted to be here today to lend a Scottish perspective but I am even more delighted that you chose Scotch beef for the pre-conference dinner which set the tone nicely for my contribution today!

Oxford is of course an iconic event in the farming calendar. And as we look to the coming year, we know that yet again the industry is facing another unpredictable year ahead given the challenging economic situation that forms the backdrop to this conference.

Our farmers as you all know are used to dealing with unpredictability and 2009 will be no different but at least you take comfort from the fact that you are selling a product for which there will always be demand.

But given the industry's talents, determination and resilience, and with the support of your governments, I am confident that we can send out a message of hope and optimism to the industry and to consumers from this event.

As you know, the New Year season is a big deal for Scotland. New Year celebrations are a good illustration of how Scottish culture has a global influence. Across the world at New Year, people were linking hands and singing Auld Lang Syne.

That might sound like a digression. Or it might sound like an excuse to advertise that 2009 is Homecoming year in Scotland, our year of celebrations inspired by the 250th anniversary of the birth of our national bard Robert Burns.

Well you'd be right and I hope very much that all of you, Scots and non-Scots, will visit us in 2009 and enjoy the Homecoming events that are taking place the length and breadth of Scotland.

But actually it's not a digression, because food and drink, farming and crofting are at the very centre of our culture. Burns himself of course tilled the soil albeit he deemed himself a failed farmer despite trying his hand in four separate farms! Perhaps if the Oxford Farming Conference had existed in the 18th century he could have learned a thing or two.

And when people across the world celebrate Burns in the coming weeks, they will do it through food and drink as well as through poetry and song.

Unlike Burns or many in this room, I am not a farmer but I am lucky enough to represent a rural constituency - Moray in the North of Scotland.

And own constituency like Scotland is synonymous with food and drink.

I am lucky enough to have farm shops on my own doorstep - the Allarburn Farm Shop in Elgin, run by the Andersons, is just a five minute walk from my home in the centre of Elgin - that's where I bought a Scottish Gammon Joint for my family's New Year dinner and very tasty it was too - a joint packed at a local factory in Forres the neighbouring town.

I often take my children to Woodside Farm in Kinloss run by the Rhinds, a farm shop and cafe with a great play area for the kids, a good example of successful diversification.

Arable farmers in my constituency grow barley that becomes the malt that becomes the Scotch whisky, the most internationally successful food and drink product in the whole of these islands.

And its fair to say that farming indirectly sustains tourism in Moray - the biggest visitor attraction in Moray is the Baxters Food Group's Highland Village and the third biggest is the Glenfiddich distillery.

I am very conscious that my local farmers grow the raw materials that allow the food and drink sectors to prosper, and put my own constituency on the map internationally.

So for Scotland, more than for many other parts of the UK, food and drink and farming are central to our identity and our culture. That makes Scotland and Scottish agriculture distinct. That is one of my themes for today.

Structure

I will cover three areas this morning.

Firstly, I'll set out the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture, and I'll make the case for what amounts to a new contract between farmers and society through which that vision can be delivered. I'll explain that farming in Scotland has distinct characteristics compared with other parts of the UK; and therefore we need distinct policies.

In the second part of my speech I want to focus on one key part of the vision, namely food production.

Some of us have never subscribed to the view that food production and agriculture policy are unrelated and that food production is for the market alone to deal with. But even for those who did perhaps, the events of 2008 forced them to acknowledge that a responsible government can never take food production and food security for granted.

For the third and final part of my speech, I want to talk about how the decisions are taken which affect farming in Scotland. Devolution has brought benefits, but you won't be surprised to hear me argue that it has not gone far enough. I'll describe the benefits but also the weaknesses of the current arrangements, and make the case for a further shift in decision-making power, closer to those who are affected by the decisions. This will help us to make our vision a reality.

Scottish Government's vision for agriculture

So let me kick off with the Scottish Government's vision for agriculture in Scotland.

Seven weeks ago, I was in Brussels at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council that took decisions on the CAP Health Check, as of course was Hilary Benn.

Agriculture negotiations are a good example of the relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. There are many things that we agree on. For instance, during the health check we both wanted to bring other countries' modulation rates closer in line with our own but minimise the rate of progressive modulation.

But in agriculture policy there are also significant areas where our positions are different.

You may think that that's no surprise - two politicians from different parties disagreeing with each other. But it is not just different politics that results in different agricultural policy. Our differences, whether in policy or just in emphasis, are simply down to fundamental differences in the characteristics of our countries, and of the people we represent.

By comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland has distinct characteristics - its land, climate, population, culture and so on. The Scottish Government's vision for the future of farming, I believe, reflects that distinctiveness.

Now I don't want to my contribution to turn into a comparison between the Scottish Government's position and the UK Government's. But I feel compelled to point out, up front, some important differences between us.

First, the UK vision - commonly referred to as the DEFRA vision - for the Common Agricultural Policy is that the whole of the First Pillar should be phased out in the next few years. This is not Scottish Government's vision and, although I don't speak for them, - I expect the other devolved administrations take a similar view to me. We disagree with that, because without ongoing direct support, farming in much of Scotland, and in many other marginal parts of Europe, will struggle simply to survive. Many are struggling even now, with direct support.

Eighty-five percent of Scotland is classified as Less Favoured Area, with only 15% non-LFA: The ratio for England, for example, is the other way around with about 80% non-LFA and less than 20% LFA.

Hill farming in Scotland is going through hugely challenging times. In some parts of the country, the sheep population has fallen by 20 or 30% or even more since the peak in the 1990s.

Understandably, most primary producers I speak to express concern over the fall in livestock numbers, but none are surprised. When the CAP was paying headage payments, farmers and crofters had an incentive to keep as many stock as they possibly could. At that time, some producers were putting quantity before quality. With the move to decoupling, it was inevitable that numbers would drop.

However, I've also heard a number of farmers say that although their flock or herd size has gone down, their output of lamb or beef hasn't seen an equivalent fall, because with smaller numbers they've been able to focus on quality. So judging the precise impact of falling livestock numbers is indeed a complex issue.

Nevertheless, the speed and the scale of this change in livestock population in Scotland emphasises my point about the fragility of the sector. And numbers in certain parts of the country can only fall so far before we are left without a critical mass to sustain local infrastructure.

So, the direct support system needs to evolve and adapt. But it can't be removed in the foreseeable future.

And we shouldn't apologise for using the public purse to support agriculture. Energy, water and food are essential ingredients of life - the UK Government has chosen to subsidise the nuclear industry to the tune of billions of pounds, the water industry has benefited from public investment and still does in Scotland, so why should food be any different if it is deemed to be in the national interest?

Our second important difference from the UK vision document is that the UK vision focuses very heavily on the environment.

Now, the rural environment is hugely important to Scotland, and I'll describe that later. But a narrow approach that virtually ignores other public benefits from farming is the wrong one for Scotland.

There are a lot more public goods which farming in Scotland delivers, which people in Scotland and further afield value, and which are therefore worthy of public support. And that brings me nicely to Scotland's vision for the future of farming.

Biodiversity and the environment

Central to that vision is that direct support for agriculture is justified where farmers deliver public goods.

The list of public goods we are prepared to support does indeed include the environment and for very good reasons.

We are all aware of the link between farming and biodiversity for instance. What is distinct about Scotland is the sheer richness and intensity of the wildlife our country supports. We have an estimated 50,000 land species, including over 40 species of mammal and nearly 250 species of birds, which is half of the species of birds that regularly occur in the whole of Europe. That's partly because of the nature of our farming systems, especially in the hills, and partly because we've been blessed with varied geology and a range of climatic conditions: Atlantic, Alpine and Arctic.

So, the biodiversity supported by agriculture is important wherever there's farming but especially in Scotland.

Indeed other countries benefit as well, because bird species migrate.

Closely linked to biodiversity is landscape, which in turn is vital for tourism . In a survey in 2007, 72% of respondents said that the scenery, which is of course enhanced by active farming, was their main motivation to come to Scotland. In the Highlands and Islands region alone, tourism accounts for 13% of employment.

Our biggest environmental challenge is of course Climate Change. Here too, Scotland faces particular challenges and unique opportunities.

The challenges come from the fact that our farming industry is so dominated by grazing livestock that produce greenhouse gases. So meeting our ambitious Climate Change commitments will be very challenging indeed. Nor is it obvious at all how to deal with these challenges.

Actively reducing Scottish livestock will be unlikely to reduce emissions if people just bought the same amount of beef and lamb from other sources. And when you have land that's capable of carrying grazed livestock but not producing much else, should that land be used to produce food or not ?

Our challenge, therefore, is to maintain production but at the same time reduce emissions.

The opportunities come in two areas. First, Scotland is uniquely endowed with huge potential for renewable energy generation. It has more than 25% of Europe's wind and wave energy resource. It already produces 10% of its electricity from hydro power.

Second, Scotland has a huge concentration of carbon-rich soils. Our soils hold 2.7 billion tons of carbon, making them a huge carbon sink. Managing Scotland's land to prevent the release of carbon and maybe even increase carbon sequestration, is hugely important. This is an issue we have to all understand much better in the years ahead.

The Scottish Agricultural College has carried out a lot of good work showing how farm profitability could actually increase through carbon reducing behaviour. So there are many possible win-win opportunities.

Another public good is maintaining economic activity in remote areas. Our vision is for every region of Scotland to be thriving and sustainable.

Scotland has a lot of very remote, very sparsely populated areas. Our overall population density is about one-sixth of that of, say, the Netherlands.

We have mountain areas, and we have 96 inhabited islands. Edinburgh is further north than Moscow. And Shetland is a long way north of Edinburgh!

So remoteness matters to Scotland. And maintaining economic activity in remote areas includes the wider infrastructure as well as farming and crofting.

Linked to that regional economic aim is a social one about maintaining populations.

Our support for crofting illustrates our aim to retain the social benefits associated with keeping a population throughout Scotland.

In contrast to many areas, Scotland is not overcrowded and we actively encourage population growth as a driver of economic growth.

What the European Union calls the "territorial aspects" of farm policy, is a very important dimension of our agricultural policy.

So I now turn to the third and final public good.

Food production

Let me be clear - the central purpose of farming is to produce food for the world's growing population.

So maintaining a capacity to produce food is not only a public good but a global responsibility.

I firmly believe it would be irresponsible for any government to fail to make maintaining the ability to produce food a national priority.

Although food chains can't be turned off as easily as gas pipelines, we are wise not to become unduly dependent on other countries for our basic needs.

The public expect many outcomes from farmers in the 21st century - but their biggest expectation is, and will always be, that they are the nation's food producers.

And that should be the government's view as well.

Food security and food prices shot to the top of the agenda in 2008 vindicating the Scottish Government's decision shortly after being elected in May 2007 to begin work on our first national food policy to ensure that the future of food was a high priority right across government from health to education, from environment to enterprise to, of course, our agricultural policy.

Of course, public support for food production does not in any way absolve Scottish farmers from the need to be market-oriented. When we talk about food production, we mean producing food that consumers want and will enjoy and meets their expectations in terms of quality and sustainability.

As you well know, one of the main principles of CAP reform since the 1990s has been that farmers should base their production decisions increasingly on the market rather than on CAP payments or market systems. I'm not questioning that principle, and I will say more about market-oriented production soon. Nor am I suggesting that food security and self-sufficiency are the same thing; we all know they are not. But maintaining a national capacity to produce food is a benefit to the whole nation, and not a purely commercial issue.

By capacity, I mean having land capable of sustaining food production and a workforce with the skills needed for crop and livestock production. And we need the wider infrastructure as well. If we lose any of these components, they could be lost for ever.

Perhaps some countries are prepared to take these things for granted but in Scotland we are not.

Vision for Scotland's agriculture

So, my vision for Scotland is to have agri-food and land-based industries which:

· Produce for the market - whether that means food, energy or other markets such as tourism

· But which also produce public goods - Economic, Social and Environmental

· And which are appropriately regulated, not over-regulated

You might describe it as a vision based on natural resource productivity.

How do we use policy tools to deliver that vision in the future?

As I mentioned, it is absolutely clear to me that in the future there will be an ongoing need for direct support for farming, in recognition of the various public goods which I have set out.

What I would like to see for the future is a clear understanding about what the outcomes are expected in return for public support - essentially a new updated contract between society and farmers.

A contract that delivers first and foremost food production and helps the nation retain the ability to produce food. A contract to enhance and look after our environment, and that helps contribute towards one of the biggest challenges facing us, that of climate change.

In an ideal world the CAP would be delivering this already, but I sense it has lost its way. Partly because we're trying to deliver 21st century outcomes using, in some cases, post-war policy tools. And partly because the policy isn't clear - for instance what exactly is the Single Farm Payment and what is it designed to deliver?

I was struck during the Healthcheck negotiations how the whole issue of food security and food policy was virtually absent. Surely the CAP should be rooted in a clear policy context.

So in future we need much more clarity. On the one side, governments - on behalf of consumers and the national interest - should provide ongoing support for farming, subject to a clear set of conditions. This support should be underpinned by an appropriate level of regulation, to protect the environment from damage, ensure that our food is safe, and so on. On the other side, farmers undertake to produce food; and do so sustainably; and they will safeguard the environment and help us tackle climate change; and they will sustain rural communities through their economic activity.

Within this framework I still envisage different levels of support: a base level, to recognise the fundamental role of land managers in utilising Scotland's biggest asset in the public interest, and more targeted measures to incentivise innovation and more specific public benefits.

Another vital aspect of future policy is a firm link between payments and activity. Our policy tools need to ensure that you will only get the payment if you actively carry out the practices that deliver public benefits. My view and the industry's view is that our present policy tools must be much stronger and clearer in that respect.

Scotland in 2009

2009 will be a pivotal year for farming in Scotland.

Like the rest of Europe, we'll be taking decisions on how to implement the CAP Health Check. But in addition to that, we'll be deciding on the shape of our Less Favoured Area support from 2010 onwards. And I will be reviewing the SRDP, to see whether it's properly equipped to deal with the challenges of the economic downturn - as well as to take on board some of the lessons learned in the first year of the programme.

One of the challenges we face in 2009 is to understand better what's the best future for targeting support in Scotland.

I already have sections of industry wanting support to be concentrated on those that produce the most, and other parts telling me that these areas already get a disproportionate share, and support should be targeted where it is needed most - in the fragile communities that are more remote from their markets and where the challenges are greatest.

Perhaps that tells me that there is no simple one-size-fits-all solution, and that support needs to be shaped and moulded according to the nature of land and farming activity in different parts of the country.

This also tells me we need to avoid a flat payment across the whole of Scotland when we move from a historic-based Single Farm Payment to area-based payments.

Those of you farming in England know precisely what I mean - you had these very debates some time back. In Scotland we'll be looking to learn from the good bits of your experience - whilst, of course, avoiding the pitfalls. We think natural resource productivity would be a good starting principle, so that those who make responsible use of their land benefit accordingly.

Agriculture and the economy

Our vision for farming and land use is at the heart of our economic programme.

The Scottish Government set out in 2007 with a focused programme centred on a single national purpose - sustainable economic growth.

If sustainable economic growth for Scotland's people was a sensible goal nearly two years ago, it is even more vital now, in light of what's happened to the global economy. The Scottish Government's approach to the economic downturn is to help all economic sectors to cope with it, including the farming and food sectors, and that's something we're actively working on.

I've been looking for every opportunity to help. For instance, we're paying Single Farm Payment and LFA support as early as possible and more quickly than last year, to help cash flow. Indeed, we have already paid 93% of SFP into farmers' accounts and the first LFA payments are due to beginning arriving next week.

Part of our review of our Rural Development Programme will be to see whether the help we provide for rural businesses needs altering because of the economic situation.

Our environment agency and Scottish Natural Heritage are also taking steps to help rural businesses at this time.

Early figures on the employment impact of the downturn suggest that, so far at least, food and farming have not been as hard hit as some sectors but as the business pages have shown in the past few days they are certainly not immune. And of course the low level of the pound has brought a windfall increase in Single Farm Payment for some, as well as making our exports more competitive relatively speaking as illustrated by the strength of lamb market.

But if there are these small positives, they are against a most serious backdrop.

We are at a crucial stage now, when fragile businesses are facing the rigours of the economic downturn. At this time it is vital that governments take account of this when deciding on possible new regulatory burdens. The needs of Scottish farming in this respect will be considered at Scotland, UK and EU level.

An example is Electronic identification of sheep. I'm sure you're aware that we all have an EU obligation to introduce EID by 2010, but when sheep farmers say it could devastate their industry, because of our system that relies on the seasonal movement of stock, we must heed their warning. That's why in Scotland we've put in place a collaborative research programme, with industry, to identify and resolve the problems of EID, and I look forward to a visit by Commission officials next month, to look at our work and assist us in finding practical solutions. And I warmly welcome Hilary Benn's earlier comments in that regard.

But there are other areas which are beyond our control and which concern me. Is this really a suitable moment for the UK Government to press ahead with the responsibility and cost sharing agenda, for instance?

In the current economic climate, all administrations at UK, Scottish or EU level must be even more sensitive to the impact policy decisions have on the industries we represent.

So let me summarise Scotland's position:

Scotland needs policies of its own for farming and food, because Scotland has distinct characteristics and needs.

We care about farming. For that reason, the Scottish government's vision is a genuinely positive one, not just an attack on the EU budget disguised as a vision for agriculture.

And to deliver the vision, we need a new updated contract between farming and society, and that's what I will work towards.

Food and drink policy

Having placed our vision for agriculture in the context of our economic policy, I now wish to focus on food and drink and its importance to Scotland.

The agri-food sector in Scotland is of strategic importance to us. The sector matters in Scotland because the land it uses is one of our biggest assets, and because it is a major generator of wealth and economic activity.

Of course, different sectors are strategically important in different parts of Europe -finance, manufacturing and so on. You only have to observe the interventions of the various governments over the last few months to realise that there are parts of the economy on which governments place very high value.

The fact is that for many parts of Europe, the agri-food sector is strategically important; and Scotland is one of them.

We have an international reputation as a food-producing nation. The sector is worth 7 and a half billion pounds a year and we aim to grow it to 10 billion by 2017.

It makes me proud to see our successful, market-driven food companies producing world-renowned Scottish specialities like whisky and Scotch beef.

Scottish food and drink companies take advantage of quality markets, with our high welfare standards, a clean and green image, and a high level of trust between consumers and producers.

These are huge attributes that are the envy of many other countries and that we have to very carefully safeguard.

Everyone in the chain from farm to fork has a key role to play in maintaining Scotland's reputation.

That reputation has opened up key international markets.

But it's also about local produce as well. The increasing demand for local food is good news for farmers and opens up opportunities for food education and linking food producers with food consumers. And again I welcome Hilary Benn's earlier comments about country of origin labelling and trust he will recognise Scotland being a country of origin in that regard!

And just as we should all foster links between producers and consumers, so we need a better relationship between food producers and retailers.

The Scottish Government has opened a new dialogue with the supermarkets to encourage fair and responsible relations between them.

We held our first supermarket forum last year, attended by the chief executives or chairs of all the biggest players.

There is a long way to improve that relationship. We have much work to do, and the retailers have agreed to work with us.

I understand why many in the industry are increasingly anxious about the power wielded by major retailers. We are now in a position where decisions taken in supermarket boardrooms could effectively determine the future of food production in Scotland and the UK.

There are a variety of policy responses. Governments should support farmers who wish to work together to empower themselves. Many producers by-pass the supermarkets and sell straight to the consumer hence the increase in farmers markets and farm shops. And farmers and processors do of course seek a diverse range of customers so they are not wholly reliant on the supermarkets.

Governments can play a role in facilitating better relationships along the supply chain.

But this does not lessen the need for an appropriate legal framework. I'm fed up of hearing the horror stories from our suppliers in Scotland and I know that it's the same across the UK. The fall of our banks has thrown the issue of regulation of the market into the spotlight - inappropriate or weak regulation can come back to haunt us big style and attack the very foundations of our society.

I don't suggest that there are any easy answers, but it is important that governments take the views of our primary producers and the rest of the supply chain seriously and take appropriate action and soon.

Many of the relevant powers are reserved to the UK Government. I'll move onto devolution issues in the last part of my speech, but this is an issue that I will continue to raise with UK Ministers.

Market failure or abuses of market power can only add to the industry's economic pressures.

Producers have been under economic pressure for a number of years for a range of reasons and it's absolutely vital that their businesses keep pace with the changing world.

Making sure they're producing for the market, reducing their reliance on purchased inputs by using them more efficiently, protecting themselves against risk, diversifying into other income sources - these are all things that Scottish farmers, and no doubt farmers in the UK, must do, and are doing.

Every week I meet farmers with drive and energy, with the vision to grasp opportunities and overcome the obstacles they face whether by diversifying, expanding, reducing costs, changing the focus of the business - or in some cases, by choosing to leave the sector, because that's a perfectly valid business decision as well.

A degree of change over time is inevitable, and our sector has to continually adapt, just like any business.

To paraphrase the theme of this conference, the future of our farmers is in their own hands.

Agriculture and devolution

But nevertheless, farmers and the wider industry also require policy-makers to take the right decisions.

So finally, I wish to look at how and where the decisions are taken which affect farming in Scotland.

Devolution has proven hugely beneficial for Scotland. But you would be amazed if I said I would be satisfied with stopping there. More powers for Scotland would be better still, and a full seat at Europe's top table would be even better.

Since 1999, devolution has enabled Scotland to implement policies tailored to our own needs.

At our own level in Scotland, we have benefited from excellent co-operation between the government and stakeholders that I believe has resulted in better policy decisions.

Channels of communication can be short and clear, we can often get everyone round a table at the same time and reach a remarkably high degree of consensus. And as Margaret Beckett said at the time of the 2003 CAP reform, having a consensus of all your stakeholders behind you, puts you in a much stronger negotiating position. We have regularly managed to achieve that in Scotland and it has certainly strengthened my hand in successful negotiations with the UK Government or with the EU.

There are numerous examples of the fruits of this co-operation.

One example was the sheep welfare scheme we were able to introduce after the 2007 foot-and-mouth leaks in England - and our general approach to the crisis. There was no disease in Scotland, of course, that was a relief, but our producers were hugely affected nonetheless, particularly the sheep sector.

Another example is animal disease prevention. Industry and government together agreed that we must minimise the risk of Bluetongue 8 arriving in Scotland, and a compulsory vaccination programme, partly funded by government in the first year, was the best way to do this.

On TB, we have worked to develop a system of pre and post movement testing, to keep the disease out. These are all industry-led initiatives are underpinned by the Scottish Government's research programme.

And devolution has allowed us to take what we believe we the right decision on a whole host of issues ranging from set-aside to voluntary modulation.

So devolution has definitely helped. But there are still serious flaws.

Scotland does not have control over the resources we need to deliver an effective animal health policy. Despite devolution, too many decisions taken in Nobel House continue to have a direct impact on farms in Scotland. We have agreed with the UK government that this is no longer sustainable, and the devolution of animal health budgets is a high priority for our work with Defra and with Wales over the coming months.

As well as influencing the UK government, we'll need to be influential in Europe. Of course here Scotland is disadvantaged because we're not a member state. Despite that, I think we do a pretty well in terms of punching above our weight.

In an EU of 27, the Commission has over 250 so-called "regions" knocking at its door for access. Not all of them get through the door, but Scotland does.

But all of this is just making the best of a situation which is fundamentally flawed. Agriculture may be devolved, but too often when DEFRA sneezes, Scotland catches a cold! And when the UK Treasury knock on DEFRA's door, agriculture in Scotland takes a hit!

For devolution to work properly, Scotland needs to know that when the UK Government is negotiating in the EU it does so on behalf of the devolved administrations too.

I've explained at length today that Scotland has characteristics and needs distinct from those of other parts of the UK, and that the UK vision does not fit with them. It is absolutely vital that Scotland has its own vision and full control over the tools that will deliver it.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for your attention. I've set out Scotland's distinct vision for farming and farm policy and explained why it's needed. I've described the special importance to Scotland of food production and the joy and pride it gives me personally, every day, to be the Minister responsible for that great sector. And finally I've explained why the devolution settlement, despite its benefits, needs to go much much further so we can deliver even more benefits for Scottish farmers.

Referring to your Chair's earlier remarks, it's not for me to say whether it's better to be a farmer north or south of the border, that's for others! Perhaps with a growing world population it's a good time to be farming anywhere.

In Scotland, I will continue to devote my energies and enthusiasm to working with our farmers to ensure Scottish agriculture has a bright future, that we deal as best we can with the challenges that lie ahead and that we grasp all the opportunities - I believe it is in the national interest and in the interest of one of our proudest and most traditional sectors that we do just that.

RICHARD LOCHHEAD, MSP

CABINET SECRETARY FOR RURAL AFFAIRS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.