Rural Affairs Committee, 02 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 2, 1999

Official Report 293KB pdf

---

Beef Exports

The next item on the agenda was raised in a letter that I received from a colleague in the Scottish Parliament—Mr David Mundell, an MSP for the South of Scotland—which has been copied for committee members. In this letter, David Mundell brings to our attention the issues that were topical last week. We thought that it was appropriate to include the letter, which was the only communication that we had with Mr Mundell, so that members of this committee who wanted to make comments on the contents of the letter, or the issues surrounding it, could do so today.

Mr Mundell has asked me to point out the fact that the agenda is incorrect in saying that the letter is about the French ban on British beef. I think that you will agree, having read the letter, that it is not about a ban, but it raises concerns that have been put to him, and to us all, and he felt that those concerns should be discussed in this committee.

I am sure that all members of this committee will share Mr Mundell's disgust at the fact that beef producers were feeding sewage to their livestock. We are all dismayed at the hypocrisy that is being shown by other European countries that refuse to accept Scottish and UK beef at the same time as their methods of production are under scrutiny.

I am not, however, sure what Mr Mundell is asking this committee to investigate. The sewage issue would be more properly investigated by the Health and Community Care Committee, as it is an issue of public health that falls under the jurisdiction of the minister for health. There are, however, other issues that we wish to examine: whether there is a level playing field, which is about more than the refusal of France and Germany to accept British beef; whether spinal cord material is removed from the feed of animals in other European countries as it is here; and animal welfare, particularly in relation to pig farming.

There is also an issue about the labelling of foodstuffs: not only about labelling that includes the countries of origin of the food that we eat, but about the labelling of animal feedstuffs. Farmers in this country will advise us that they were not aware that they were feeding dead beasts to their cattle. That is because of the way in which feedstuffs were labelled with information about protein content, carbohydrate content and so on. Farmers, therefore, did not know the origins of what they were feeding their cows. That is part of the problem that started the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. I doubt that French farmers have labels that tell them that their cattle feedstuffs contain sewage or human waste.

As Elaine has correctly said, there are huge issues to be addressed, but they are far too complicated for us to examine now. We should note the contents of that letter and move on, as we have a full agenda. I hope that that suggestion has resonance with the other committee members.

Can I be reminded of our time scale for examination of agriculture? The economic state of our farmers is, as everybody knows, so parlous as to be a disaster. This committee should examine that urgently. I know that we have a full agenda, but the situation is so bad. Farm incomes are going to total less than £100 million for the first time. Five years ago, farm incomes totalled £600 million. That is an enormous drop for the rural economy.

We must establish a time scale for that and it would be appropriate for us to discuss that now.

On the subject of Mr Mundell's letter, we had reached a point at which it was suggested that we note the contents of the letter. In addition to that, and given that health issues are raised, does the committee think that we should communicate to Mr Mundell that he should approach the Health and Community Care Committee?

I think that that is giving it too much weight. I am sure that Mr Mundell is very capable of writing to the Health and Community Care Committee without our prompting.

Okay. We will note the contents of Mr Mundell's letter.

Alex Fergusson raised the issue of the time scale of our investigation into the state of agriculture. I accept that it is a connected issue. Up to this point, we have looked at things issue by issue. However, Alex has a valid point. Because of the continuing decline in agriculture, it would be appropriate for us to develop a structure for our investigation, giving balanced representation to each sector of the industry. Would it be appropriate for us to consider that for a moment now?

I agree that we need some kind of overall strategy. At the moment, we are considering each area where there is a problem. Effectively, someone else is creating our agenda, and we are not getting an opportunity to consider all the issues of interest right across Scotland. As we have heard, there is a need for a strategic approach. I think that we should discuss that. It is not good enough to say that there is an issue here and an issue there, to spend a day looking at them, and then to put them off because something else comes on to the agenda.

At the moment, we are holding a structured investigation into housing, poverty and unemployment in rural areas. Would it be appropriate for us to develop a similar structure for our investigation into the problems that are facing agriculture in Scotland? Should we ask the clerks to work on that?

Does the Parliament have sufficient resources, especially for the clerks, to do that?

That is a difficult question to answer. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to put the onus on to our clerking team at this stage. Can you comment, Richard?

We will attempt to cope with whatever you ask us to do.

This is potentially a very big issue. There is a problem that requires immediate attention. If we undertake a very big investigation, we will be beyond the immediate problem and into the effects of the immediate problem, if that turns out to be as bad as we fear it might. If we go into the bigger question, we go into the future of the common agricultural policy. How do we limit our investigation, what parameters will we use and what time scale are we considering?

Regardless of what sector of the industry you speak to, two issues often come up. One is the need for a level playing field, which is a point that comes up again and again. We need to discuss whether there is substance to that point, and what we can do about it. The other is labelling.

I understand that the Minister for Rural Affairs is appointing someone to look at the industry. I do not think that there is much point in our duplicating what is happening in the rural affairs department if it is doing a study of the future of the industry. We can surely tap into its work and get a report. However, the two issues that I mentioned might be a good starting point for our investigation. We could make a difference by looking into them.

Initially, this committee acted to ensure that topical issues were raised and dealt with quickly. By proceeding that way, we may appear to be taking a piecemeal approach. We ought to avoid that. We need a structure. To make progress, we can take advantage of the investigations that we have already held and use them as part of a larger structured look at the industry and the effects that current circumstances are having on it. We will ask the clerks to suggest a structure, which we can discuss at the next meeting of the committee.