Andrew Arbuckle: Say whatever you want on CAP reform, but say it quickly

The nearest I got to making a resolution at the beginning of this year was a resolve not to get too involved in commenting on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

My reasoning was that resolving this issue was going to be a long haul, with months of talks to come before the framework was settled.

It must be obvious to all that until the European Union budgetary situation is sorted out, a great deal of energy will be wasted discussing issues which will then have to be abandoned if the subsidy cake is slashed as part of a cost-cutting exercise.

However, here we are, less than two weeks into 2012, and I cannot resist putting another penny’s worth into the discussion because CAP reform cannot be ignored. It is the elephant in the room. It will continue to be so until it is resolved.

Last week, Jim Paice, UK farming minister, used his slot at the Oxford Farming Conference to repeat his party’s mantra that there needed to be a scaling down in farm support and there was no better time to do this than now when commodity prices are high.

He claimed that this policy was gaining support in Europe but, as far as I can tell, the allies for any budgetary reduction remain the usual suspects and neither France or Germany, “the big two”, have even mentioned it – nor will they until their elections are over later this year and next.

Paice’s boss, Caroline Spelman, some 12 months previously, had given a more abrupt message at the same venue calling for a complete withdrawal of farm support. She later retracted these views or, rather, claimed they had been taken out of context.

This past week, her performance at Oxford concentrated on the wider role that the UK plays in the world scene, which is fine for a bit of non-controversial grandstanding. Her speech was, in the jargon of today, CAP “lite.”

This did not satisfy the 450 punters – or farming industry leaders as those who go to Oxford prefer to be called. She was hauled back by questions on how she would manage to reconcile the conflicting interests and priorities of England with the devolved parts of the UK when it came to thrashing out the CAP.

There were no flashes of inspirational light in her reported response which was because England had moved to area-based payments at the previous reform then they could pass on the lessons that have been learned.

Now, this is an area where all that is needed is advice and not agreement, as the devolved parts of the UK can choose the basis of their own area payment system.

Further, the advice coming from England on how they did it should only consist of “do not do it the way we did”, as for the past five years they have been in a right mess with late payments, incorrect payments and an extremely costly system.

Ms Spelman’s response to the question still leaves a vast chasm in how the difference in policies which the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish hold dear will be reconciled into an acceptable package with which the UK would go forward to the negotiating table in Brussels.

In her peroration on the UK in the world economy, she did make a reference to building alliances in Europe to oppose putting a top limit on individual subsidy payments in any reform of the CAP.

Now, that is interesting as this is one of the CAP policies which Richard Lochhead, cabinet secretary for rural affairs, has indicated he might be prepared to surrender when it came to the eyeball-to-eyeball discussions.

There we have an example of the differences within the UK that will have to be hammered out .

Politically, it may suit the Scottish Government to be able to grumble “We did not get our own way” if these talks on setting the UK stance do not proceed as it would like. There is, after all, a much bigger political game in Scotland going on as well, that of devolution max or even independence.

I will not go into that political arena as my worries are that even with a set UK position, Spelman’s personal record does not inspire a great deal of confidence in getting a good deal.

Think of the u-turn she performed on the privatisation of forestry and even just consider last year’s speech at Oxford. She may have previous experience in Brussels working with the NFU prior to her political career but does she have the steeliness and cussidness needed to hammer out a tough deal?

Perhaps we shall see this week when she makes a rare trip to Scotland, where she will visit Nigel Miller’s farm in Stow to discuss matters. I believe two hours have been allocated for the visit. The union president will have to be at his rapid speaking best to cover even some of the ground in that time.