Official Report 183KB pdf
Members will have received a copy of the reply from the Minister for Rural Affairs and a note from the clerks outlining the informal briefing session held with representatives of the pig industry.
I do not expect that the pig industry will be too happy with Ross Finnie's reply to the committee. It does not tell us whether he has met Franz Fischler. I know that the letter is dated 21 December, but this committee still has to find out whether the minister has made the effort to speak directly to Franz Fischler in connection with the crisis in the pig industry.
That is particularly relevant to the letter that I received this morning, via Ben Gill, the president of the English National Farmers Union, from Franz Fischler. While the letter does not say, "Come and get it", it suggests that there are routes that could be explored that have not been. The point is that we need to know, on behalf of what is left of the Scottish pig industry, that the Minister for Rural Affairs has gone the extra mile in defence of that industry. At this stage, I am not convinced that he has done so. In his responses to this committee, to questions in the chamber and to written questions, we have yet to receive a definitive answer to the questions, "Have you been to see Franz Fischler?" or, "Have you been to see Gordon Brown?" We must have that answer, as must the pig industry in Scotland.
I agree. If one compares the two letters—that is, the letter from Franz Fischler to Ben Gill and the letter from Ross Finnie to the convener—the minister's letter is far more pessimistic than Mr Fischler's letter. Perhaps Mr Fischler can afford to be more optimistic in his letter to Mr Gill as he is not committing himself to anything. However, we must be sure that our ministers have explored with the commission all the possible chinks in the system that Franz Fischler has opened up in his letter, and that they have tried to pin him down to see whether there is any mileage in them. I am not convinced that those avenues have been completely exhausted.
The issue is not about who has met whom; it is about whether there is a mechanism available, as Alasdair just suggested, for state aid payments to be made that are not unlawful. The minister's letter is not encouraging in that respect. I am particularly concerned about his suggestion that, because both the meat and bone meal ban and the animal welfare provisions have been in place for some time, it is difficult for those issues to be considered as exceptional occurrences, which he cites as the key to opening the door to state aid.
Would it be appropriate for me to write to the minister again and to attempt to keep the questions that we are asking very simple, in an attempt to solicit simple answers?
We should add a question seeking details of what contacts have been made. There are many references in the letter and elsewhere about the Executive's informal contacts and other contacts. It would be useful to know who has been making those contacts.
The minister's letter refers to formal and informal contacts.
I still contend that the critical issue for this committee is not who met whom and when, although that may be of interest to members. As far as the committee is concerned, we are trying to find a mechanism through which we can establish whether funding can be provided to the British pig industry. In your reply to the minister, convener, it would be worth focusing narrowly on the specific points where we hope progress can be made.
I wish to raise a concern at this point, to seek members' comments. A significant number of letters have been produced in offices in Brussels and elsewhere in the European Union in response to communication from various organisations and individuals in this country. Has it come to the point where it would be appropriate for the committee to write directly to the European Union, to ask those same simple questions?
I would far rather go on what the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries says to us than on what he says to other people.
The questions should be simple and should deal with whether support for the pig industry constitutes state aid. Richard Davies was asking whether anyone has copies of the many letters that have been circulated. It would be interesting to correlate them, to establish the appropriate line of questioning in that letter.
Do you want those correlated questions given to you, so that you can—
Pass me copies of any relevant communication, so that it can be used for that purpose.
The only comment that might be worth adding relates to the well-attended rally in Edinburgh on our first day back after the recess. The committee should recognise that the pig industry was at the top of the agenda there.
That takes us neatly on to the petition on the pig industry, copies of which have been circulated. Does everyone have a copy? This afternoon, the Public Petitions Committee decided to pass the petition to this committee for consideration. How should we proceed in dealing with this petition?
The petition covers the same ground as we covered in our discussion with the minister. We should forward it to the minister with our letter, drawing his attention to the strength of feeling on the matter and the specific area in which the industry is seeking support. Whether the petitioners' requirements are met will be determined by the judgment that is reached on whether state aid can go ahead.
Is it the committee's view that, given the terms set out in the petition, it would be appropriate for us to offer our support?
It might be more appropriate to show the petitioners a copy of the letter that we are writing to Franz Fischler. We are exploring ways of getting assistance to the industry—whether that corresponds with what they are asking for is neither here nor there, as long as we can find some way of achieving our aim. That might be more helpful than to say that we are supporting their aims, only to get a letter from Franz Fischler saying that that is a total non-starter.
In the meantime, would it be appropriate for us to write letters to Ross Finnie and to Franz Fischler in support of the pig industry, to consider the petition in the light of the replies we receive and to decide how to proceed in support of the industry?
If there are no other comments on this matter, that brings us to item 10 on the agenda, concerning the appointment of an adviser for the investigation into changing employment patterns on rural communities. In the past, we have taken this item in private. I propose that, with the approval of the committee, we deal with it in private now.
Meeting continued in private until 16:12.
Previous
Correspondence