Rural Affairs Committee, 14 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 1999

Official Report 147KB pdf

---

Agriculture Inquiry

Item 2 relates to the proposed structure of our planned inquiry into agriculture. A paper was circulated inviting comments, and I do not think that any were forthcoming. The paper attempts to set out the background to, and a structured programme for, an investigation into the current problems of the farming industry. It also includes a proposed remit for the inquiry, which reads:

"To assess the contribution of Scottish agriculture and public policy in support of Scottish agriculture to the full range of rural interests and to seek opportunities for policy changes that might increase this contribution."

Does anybody have any comments on the paper or the proposed remit?

I thought that the paper was very useful and helped us to progress by laying out the steps that we would want to follow. However, I would like the committee to consider some changes to the proposed remit, because I have two concerns about the way in which it is phrased. First, I would prefer the committee to concentrate on the overall strategy for dealing with agriculture, rather than just policy. The phrase that I had in mind to accommodate that point was, "To support the development of strategy and policies".

My other slight concern related to the last three words, "increase this contribution". I am not sure that our objective is necessarily to increase agriculture's contribution to the rural economy and society; it is to make it more effective and productive, whatever that might mean. Instead we might refer to "strategy and policies that contribute to the sustainable development of rural Scotland". That would allow for an increase in some sectors and a reduction in others. I do not need to tell you, convener, that agriculture is an ever-changing marketplace and that it is unwise to assume a constant increase in any sector.

Are there any other comments?

What would the revised wording be?

What I have in front of me is, "To assess the contribution of Scottish agriculture and public policy in support of Scottish agriculture to the full range of rural interests and to support the development of strategy and policies that contribute to the sustainable development of rural Scotland."

We will make a decision and circulate a revised version of the paper.

It is important that we have a strategic overview. However, we must ensure that we do not spend all our time considering things that have gone wrong. We should think about ways to improve the situation and take a holistic view.

You have hit the nail on the head. When we raised this issue initially, we perceived that we had no structure to deal with problems. We hope that the inquiry will create a structure on which we can hang the work that we have done.

It also impinges on our consideration of rural poverty, on which we can do further work.

It is important that we do not just bounce from crisis to crisis. I think that we have been doing a bit of that. We need to think about providing a framework to deal with agricultural and rural problems.

The original wording sought to make policy changes, but the Parliament does not have policies on agricultural and rural issues yet. We have inherited some from the UK and from Europe, but we do not have our own. We should think about policy development and seize the opportunity to do things differently.

Are there any other comments on the remit or the rest of the paper?

If there are none, I will ask Richard to read out the version of the remit that he has written down.

What we have now is, "To assess the contribution of Scottish agriculture and public policy in support of Scottish agriculture to the full range of rural interests and to support the development of strategy and policy changes which might increase its contribution to sustainable development."

Lewis discussed the word "increase".

The wording that I suggested was "strategies and policies that contribute to sustainable development."

In that case, we have, "To assess the contribution of Scottish agriculture and public policy in support of Scottish agriculture to the full range of rural interests and to support the development of strategy and policies which contribute to sustainable development."

Are we agreed that that should be the remit of the inquiry?

Members indicated agreement.

We will take this opportunity to develop a paper proposing how that should be set out. I hope that that will be available for the committee at the earliest opportunity.

As I said earlier, this might be a suitable opportunity to raise today's crisis.

As members probably know, the French Prime Minister said today that, during earlier negotiations with the UK Government, he had suggested that France could exempt from its ban British cattle that were exclusively grass-fed, such as Scottish Angus beef—that was how he described it. However, the UK Government rejected that offer. He suggested that a partial lifting of the ban along those lines might still be possible. This is an important matter, about which the Parliament needs to know more, since he was offering an exemption for most Scottish beef. Does the committee agree that the convener should write to the Minister for Rural Affairs to ask him to make a statement about the matter to Parliament at the earliest opportunity?

I am interested to hear other members' views.

We are all aware of the difficulties of persuading the French Government to adhere to European law on this matter. Its refusal to implement the lifting of the ban on British beef will concern every member of this committee. We must treat the explanations that the French Prime Minister has now given for his failure to lift the ban with a healthy dose of scepticism. The French negotiating position has failed to produce a result. While the offer may be worth investigating, we must start from the basis that it amounted to a public statement from a Government that has failed consistently to adhere to the rulings of the European Commission on British beef exports.

From a straightforward political point of view, my position is close to yours, Lewis. However, I am not averse to the idea that we ask for more details about what has happened.

Today's revelations put a new light on the French Government's refusal to lift the ban on British beef, as it may no longer ban the Scottish product. The enormous ramifications for the beef industry in Scotland justify an emergency statement from the Minister for Rural Affairs. It would appear that he was unaware of the negotiations that were going on in the background; the Parliament deserves to hear more about the matter.

I am concerned about how to identify grass-fed beef. We must be careful not to fall into a trap that would put our farmers through even more hoops, given their complaints about the problems with current BSE legislation. I am not averse to finding out more about the matter, but the industry has a lot to cope with already. Farmers would find it impossible if their cattle had to have yet another passport in order to prove that they have been grass fed. The French Prime Minister's statement may be just a political stance and it may not be possible to force his proposal through in any useful way.

I have no desire to let the French off the hook. Whatever the French Prime Minister may say, the French attitude has been appalling. I am sure that all members who represent rural constituencies have been appalled by the expedient behaviour of the French. I do not want the committee to be seen to give any comfort to the French Prime Minister.

We may decide that we want a little more information about what was said, but the situation also involves a point of procedure. It would be more appropriate for the convener to write to the minister than for all of us, as individual members, to write to ministers and invite them to take action on behalf of the Rural Affairs Committee. If we act as a committee, it should be done through the convener.

That is precisely what I was suggesting—that the convener write, with the committee's sanction, to seek a statement, not to the committee, but to the Parliament. Regardless of the interpretation one puts on Monsieur Jospin's motives for making his statement, and regardless of whether one thinks that the proposition was practical, it was made. If reports are to be believed, the minister did not know about it, and members certainly did not know about it. We deserve a bit more openness than we seem to be getting. A statement would be a good idea, if only to clear the air. We should apply sufficient pressure to ensure that we get one, given that the recess is looming.

The danger of Alasdair's proposal is that it would give credence to what is simply another episode in French diplomacy. The greatest trick in French diplomacy, as we know, is divide and rule; that is precisely what is going on here. If we walk into this trap with our eyes open, we cannot complain if the French run rings around us internationally. It would be entirely appropriate for the convener to write to the minister and ask for clarification of the story. To write to him seeking an emergency statement, on the basis that we believe what Lionel Jospin says just because he says it, is the wrong way for the committee to go.

I find that a compelling argument, but I am still not averse to the idea of asking for a straightforward statement of what has happened.

It is important to bear it in mind that Scotland's beef farmers, as well as the parties, would like a statement to Parliament. They will take a keen interest in today's developments, and the least that the Parliament can do is have its Minister for Rural Affairs make a statement on European negotiations on behalf of the UK over the beef ban.

It is not a matter of whether we believe Monsieur Jospin, although we should be careful before we call Prime Ministers of other EU states potential liars. We should get a statement on precisely what happened.

We are talking about a statement of fact. Regardless of the position in which the minister finds himself, there is a good deal of confusion.

I am concerned about going down that road, as it would appear to give credence to the statement that one sector of our beef industry is safer than the other. We would have to live with the consequences of that. It would play havoc with our overseas market in the long run.

This is not about getting into that argument. It is about getting a statement from the minister about what happened at the negotiations and whether he intends to take any further action. Asking for a statement is not equivalent to our making a judgment on the issue at stake. If it were, that could serve as a justification for keeping everything secret.

We must remember that it is by no means out of the question that, were Ross Finnie to make such a statement, he might receive a vote of confidence from the Parliament.

I am still not clear what members expect to achieve by having this statement. I am not accusing anybody of telling lies, but the French Government is saying that this was its position during the negotiations. We are supposed to respond to that by asking whether that is true and throwing up our hands in horror because nobody told us the details of the negotiation. The fact of the matter is that the recommendation was made to the European Commission, and accepted by it, that British beef is safe.

I do not think that we should send out any signals that suggest that some British beef is safe and some is not. That is what Jospin's statement is trying to imply. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of echoing that false division between safe and unsafe beef in Britain.

It is appropriate for the convener to ask the minister about his response to the negotiations. If we demand an emergency statement, it implies that Jospin's account is accurate and that the British Government should have leapt up to receive his offer with great joy. The committee should not send out such a signal.

At the moment, the only information that we have about what is alleged to have happened comes from the French Prime Minister—we are trying to establish our response to that. To assess the situation and establish whether the correct action was taken, we also need to establish the minister's response. Until we know the official response from the minister, the situation remains unclear. It would not be responsible of this committee to leave the situation with that degree of uncertainty.

I am not uncomfortable about seeking clarification of the facts. However, I agree with Lewis Macdonald that we should put out no messages other than "British beef is safe". We owe it to our farmers to put out that message. There is no such thing as a partial breaking of the law—the French are breaking the law in not allowing British beef into France. We should send out a strong message about the quality and value of British and Scottish products. We must be seen to be supporting our industry. To allow the French to manipulate us by implying that certain parts of our markets are safe and might be tolerated, whereas others are not, will not help. Even if the French let in small amounts of British beef, how many people will buy it?

Scotland has its own rural affairs minister, who is accountable to the Parliament and to Scotland's agricultural industry. As none of us knows the full facts, surely it is in order for the Minister for Rural Affairs to make a statement to Parliament on the matter. It is as black and white as that.

I will stick with my original proposal, convener. On behalf of the committee, you should write to the minister, asking him to make a statement to Parliament on the matter. It is up to members whether they support that proposal.

Since Alasdair has dropped the word "emergency", I am happy with that—it is appropriate.

Would you like to review the word "emergency"?

It is not an emergency—it is a claim by the French Prime Minister. However, it would be appropriate to ask for a statement.

I am not sufficiently familiar with standing orders to know the difference between an emergency statement and an ordinary one. The point is that I would like the minister to make a statement before the recess.

We have a proposal on which it would be appropriate for us to vote. Richard will read out the proposal as he has noted it and perhaps Alasdair can clarify that.

Alasdair Morgan proposed that the committee should ask the convener to request that the minister make a statement to the Parliament on the recent comments by the French Prime Minister.

I would like to insert the words "before the recess" at the end.

Okay.

Alex Fergusson has just arrived.

If you would prefer me not to vote, I will respect that. However, having heard the question, I am prepared to make a decision on the matter.

If you are aware of the proposal and of the nature of the division, I am happy for you to take part.

Can I just clarify that the proposal was that the minister be asked to make a statement on the French Prime Minister's remarks?

Yes.

I will read out members' names and take a vote by roll call.

Convener, I know that you are keen to have a division, but if it would help matters, I should say that I do not intend to vote against the proposal.

Does the committee agree to the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

The proposal is supported. With my tongue firmly in my cheek, I must ask members if there are any other issues to be raised under the heading of "Proposed Structure for Agriculture Inquiry". If there are no further issues to be raised under that heading, we will move to the next item on the agenda.

Item 3 is a draft report on the issues surrounding the Highlands and Islands agricultural business improvement scheme. We have agreed to take this item in private. Does that meet with the committee's approval?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private.

On resuming in public—