Andrew Arbuckle: Spelman's honeymoon may be over, but she could have a point

SO FAR 2011 has not been too good for Caroline Spelman. The honeymoon period for the UK minister who will head the Common Agricultural Policy talks came to an abrupt halt at the Oxford Farming conference last month when she suggested that agricultural subsidies should be reduced prior to them being eliminated altogether.

Then last week, she wrote to Brussels calling for a "very substantial cut" to the self same CAP budget.

On both issues, there has been a storm of protest from the politicians and the farming leaders in the devolved countries. On both issues the concern is that Spelman's policy view is radically different from their own.

On future CAP policy, their preference seems to be in line with the findings of the Pack report which now links in to the so far published views of the European Union Agricultural Commissioner.

And in this past week we heard from a leading civil servant how much the "Scottish solution" is being favoured by Brussels.

So far, so settled then?

Well I wonder what happens to the Scottish position if there is a change of government after May? Will any new Scottish Government take a different pitch on CAP?

And to add a little fuel to that suggestion, last week the Lloyds TSB survey of Scottish farmers revealed that 30 per cent did not like the Pack proposals against the 19 per cent who did. The other 51 per cent were still undecided.

So there is no universal support for Pack, much though the man tried to accommodate the multitude of interests within Scottish agriculture and marry them to European thinking.

And we must not forget that so far we have not heard from the third leg of the CAP decision making process in Brussels; the Council of Ministers. The views of the European Parliament and the European Commissioner will have to be tempered by their political priorities.

Sometimes the horse that makes the early running does not cross the line in pole position.

Then there is the big issue of how much cash there will be in the CAP. It is not in the scheme of things for leaders of lobby groups and politicians of opposition parties will come out and agree to cuts.

So through every headline it is necessary to work out the agenda of the speaker and in this Spelman, in putting forward a view less money should be spent on the CAP, is no different from the rest when she puts the case for the UK government which is determined to reduce the country's overall debt by half in the coming five years.Everyone agrees the UK is in a big economic mess with the only issue being how to get out of the financial hole. Equally every man woman and child believes any cuts should not affect them.

Referring back to the Lloyds TSB survey, one response showed that 25 per cent of Scottish farmers made a profit without the single farm payment. That figure rose to 50 per cent for arable only farmers. So for all those farmers the subsidy cash was a bonus.

Under these circumstances, it is surely not unusual for a UK government minister to suggest that less goes into the pot. But change does not come easily. We have seen the students protest, the council workers protest and I am not surprised when farming leaders protest about any proposed reduction in CAP spending.

However, they might consider the survey figures which show a surprisingly high figure for those who can live without their subsidy "snuggle blanket".

That view may not be popular but it does suggest Spelman has a point. I note that there is now a movement called Fairness for Farmers in Europe which is calling for the abolition of subsidies apart from those in less favoured areas.

Just think if that came about, you could rule out slipper farmers because there would be no subsidies for them to squirrel away.

Just think - with no subsidies there would be no market distortion. If you wonder what that means just ask egg producers who are currently suffering financially from new producers coming in having received chunks of rural priorities cash.

Just think - there would be no need for inspectors crawling over farms measuring whether or not a small triangle of land had been claimed under the current subsidy rules.

Just think - no longer would supermarkets be the major beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme

Most of all, just think - the next generation of farmers might not be disadvantaged when compared with those who have historically received cash. That is to say there would be no need for a new entrants' scheme.

All of this in a world where food production is now high on the agenda and where food producers should be more valued than in the past.

It might be better than an ever more complex CAP.