Rural Affairs Committee, 03 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Friday, December 3, 1999

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Petition (Pesticide Tax)

The next item is initial consideration of a petition from the National Farmers Union. The introduction of a pesticide tax is a reserved matter and, apparently, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is exploring alternatives to that tax with the industry. The petition requests the Scottish Parliament to oppose the introduction of such a tax and the committee has to decide whether to express a view on the matter.

I will declare an interest. As a user of pesticides, I am diametrically opposed to the introduction of any pesticide tax.

Oh well, in that case—

However, I am prepared to listen to any other comments, of course.

I think that we agree with you. As enough penalties have been imposed on the agricultural and farming communities in Scotland, I am happy to support your suggestion that we oppose the introduction of the tax.

Although we all have concerns about the burdens that have been placed on agriculture, the initial proposal for a pesticide tax laudably addressed environmental concerns by reducing levels of pollution. It is not a case of placing another burden on farming. However, the proposal did not receive a particularly warm welcome from the majority of respondents to the DETR's consultation. We need to find out what other alternative methods of reducing pollution without imposing burdens on farming are being explored by both the agrichemical industry and the Government. We need more information about such partnership models.

What Dr Murray just said assumes that farmers, if they have nothing better to do, are quite happy to go out on a Thursday afternoon and spray a field. That is patently not the case. I cannot accept that a pesticide tax will reduce the use of pesticides. Farmers do not spray fields wantonly that do not need spraying, particularly given the current economic circumstances in agriculture.

I quite agree. Just as the fuel escalator tax has not served its purpose of reducing fuel consumption, most academics now say that the proposed pesticide tax will not achieve its aim. We should therefore support the petition.

The DETR has consulted and come to the conclusion that other methods need to be found. The DETR is the lead department as the tax is a reserved matter, so I suggest that we forward the petition to the DETR, draw the views expressed in it to the DETR's attention and leave it at that.

I agree.

Is that the view of the whole committee?

I tend to agree. I am a bit doubtful about accepting petitions about an issue on which the goalposts have moved since the petition was submitted. Much of what we are talking about is no longer being proposed. If the situation had not changed, I would have liked to consider the matter in more detail, instead of taking a broad-brush approach and saying that taxes on pesticides are either good or bad. The suggestion is sensible.

Can I assume that Lewis's proposal is unanimously accepted?

I draw members' attention to the fact that there is an understanding that, as a matter of courtesy, the committee's response to the petition should be passed to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee before it is issued publicly. I trust that members are content for that to happen.