The inquiries
2. In the course of Session 1998-99, as in any other,
we undertook inquiries of varying length and complexity. These
can be divided into five broad categories: in-depth examinations
of a particular sector; short, sharp responses to urgent issues;
slightly longer inquiries into matters of particular importance;
one-off sessions on key policy developments; and regular or routine
tasks which occur every Session. Taking these in order of magnitude,
it is self-evident that the number of inquiries of the first type
which can be properly addressed in any one Session is strictly
limited; in fact we held just one such investigation in 1998-99.
This was our inquiry into sea fishing which focussed on the key
issues of research, management, regulation and enforcement within
the UK fishing industry. The timetable for this work stretched
from July 1998 (when we announced our original terms of reference)
to August 1999 (when the Report was published), with oral evidence
taken over a period of some eight months. The programme included
two formal sessions away from Westminster, in Penzance and Peterhead.
In addition we made other informal visits within the UK to Newlyn,
Grimsby, Aberdeen, and Shetland and also abroad to Spain, Iceland
and the European Commission in Brussels for discussions with officials,
politicians, fishermen and others directly involved in the industry.
The Report which emerged from this investigation made many detailed
recommendations, the majority of which were well received by the
Government. Some issues remain to be resolved, for example, our
proposals for consideration of the individual transferable quotas
system. There have also been developments since which may have
influenced our conclusions were the Report to be written now.
One such would be the latest quota allocations agreed in Brussels
which applied the precautionary approach to an unexpected degree.
The fact is that the crisis in the catchable stocks has got worse,
justifying the need for the sort of radical options examined in
the Report. However, we stand by our overall conclusion that there
is a very bright future for the UK sea fishing industry and that
the Government has to play its part in helping to bring this about.
As an aside, we are proud to record that our Report on sea fishing
was the first select committee report to be debated in Westminster
Hall in December 1999.
3. The second category of inquiries is exemplified
by our Third Report of last Session on the UK pig industry. In
contrast to the sea fishing inquiry which occupied the whole Session,
evidence for this emergency inquiry was gathered over a very short
time-frame during which we interviewed eight sets of witnesses
within a fortnight in December 1998. This course of action was
instigated by our awareness of the deep crisis then affecting
the pig industry in the UK. We believed that it was incumbent
upon us to investigate the causes of this downturn in the pig
market and to explore possible means of mitigating its effects.
We felt so strongly about this issue that we returned to it in
our Fourth Report, criticising the Government's apparent lack
of consideration of our recommendations and demanding a better
response to the concerns of UK pig farmers. One year on, we welcome
with relief the signs of a slight upturn in the fortunes of an
industry reduced from 800,000 breeding sows in December 1997 to
650,000 now. The crisis is far from over and we are pleased that
the Government has recently acted to offer some assistance to
the pig sector.
4. The inquiry into the UK pig industry interrupted
our transition from one investigation which fell into the third
category of inquiries to another. Both our Second and Fifth Reports
involved a limited number of evidence sessions into an issue of
major importance which required careful consideration. Most of
the work for the inquiry into CAP Reform: Rural Development was
undertaken in Session 1997-98. Reflecting our ongoing interest
in the Agenda 2000 reforms, it covered the options and potential
difficulties of the then draft rural development regulation as
published by the European Commission and made various recommendations
for the approach to be taken by the UK Government, both in negotiating
the final text and in its subsequent implementation in the UK.
The regulation was agreed at European level in March 1999 and
has subsequently been adopted by the Government as the cornerstone
of its rural policy, thereby justifying the attention we paid
to the proposals. Prior to our receipt of the update contained
in the Appendix to this Special Report, we took oral evidence
from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods on the Rural
Development Plan for England in February 2000, in order to demonstrate
our continuing interest in this important issue.[2]
5. That same month we initiated a Commons debate
on our Fifth Report, Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis. This dealt
with a highly controversial issue and one for which we recognise
the depth of feeling and degree of sensitivity on all sides of
the argument. In the end, having examined all available evidence,
we backed the Government's policy of proceeding with the five-stage
programme proposed by Professor Sir John Krebs to address the
rising incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle and its serious
economic and animal health implications. We concluded that sound
science was the only basis on which the disease could be controlled
and that the Krebs approach offered the best opportunity to establish
this scientific knowledge, but we also made a series of recommendations
aimed at widening the scope of the research undertaken by MAFF,
particularly to include husbandry and possible transmission routes
other than badgers, and to take account of the concerns expressed
by many about the conduct of the field trial. At the time of writing,
we are disappointed that the trial has fallen so far behind schedule,
thereby increasing pressure for action in areas outside those
identified for inclusion in the experiment. Nevertheless, we maintain
our support for the trial.
6. These inquiries naturally occupied much of our
time over the Session but as a general rule we aim to retain sufficient
flexibility in our programme to enable us to hold one-off sessions
on issues of importance. This fourth category of inquiry allows
us to hold discussions with Ministers and explore major statements
or developments in a way that is not possible on the floor of
the House or through other means. During the course of last Session,
there were two occasions when we took such evidence, first from
Ministers of State at the Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions and MAFF on genetically modified organisms, and
secondly from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
on the outcome of the CAP reform negotiations. In the former case,
we were aware of the number of select committees looking at this
issue but we also recognised our own responsibility to monitor
the work of MAFF in such a controversial area. The short Report
which resulted from this session looked forward to future, sharply
focussed inquiries by ourselves into various aspects of the GMO
issue, an undertaking we have met this Session in our Report on
the segregation of GM foods. In the latter case, CAP reform was
quite clearly one of the most central developments of the agricultural
year. We concluded then that the modest reform package which emerged
from the Berlin summit in March 1999 represented a lost opportunity
and hindsight has not led us to change this judgement, a view
with which we suspect the UK Agriculture Minister and the European
Commission would have much sympathy.
7. The fifth and final category of inquiries covers
regular tasks which the Committee performs in order to fulfil
our remit to examine the policy, administration and expenditure
of the Ministry and its related bodies. This refers largely to
our yearly meetings with the Permanent Secretary of MAFF and the
Chief Executive of the Intervention Board to consider the MAFF/IB
Annual Report. By chance, in Session 1998-99 we published our
conclusions on two such reports, that for 1998 (including changes
as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review) and that for
1999. On both occasions, we concentrated on the main expenditure
plans, on the outturns for the previous year and on programmes
of particular interest to us within the mass of MAFF's activities.
These evidence sessions with the administrative heads of MAFF
and the Intervention Board are in some ways the most important
that we hold throughout the year as they allow us to hold the
Government directly to account for the way in which it spends
the money voted to it by Parliament. Last year we were highly
critical of the format of the Annual Report produced by MAFF which
made our task more difficult than it needed to be. We are pleased
that the Ministry has taken on some of our practical comments
as to the size and cost of the Annual Report in producing the
cheaper, more user-friendly edition issued this year.
Regular conclusions
8. In the Reports outlined above, we examined very
diverse subjects and made many recommendations which were highly
specific in nature. There are several common themes which emerged.
The first is the overarching need for the Government to consider
the competitive position of any industry when introducing new
regulations and charges. This involves awareness of the requirements
that proposed measures place on individual farmers, fishermen
and businesses, including taking into account the existing burden
of regulation and how new obligations add or conflict with it.
We have persistently recommended that the Government should conduct
audits of all burdens pressing on particular sectors in order
that all proposals for new measures can be placed in context and
that unnecessary obligations can be removed. Another aspect of
this is the need to demonstrate awareness of the position of competitor
industries in other countries, particularly other EU Member States,
including the costs imposed on them by regulation. We have repeatedly
expressed our belief that it is the responsibility of the Government,
through its diplomatic posts, to gather information on how other
countries are implementing EU legislation and on the general regulatory
climate within which other industries operate. The intelligence
gathered in such a fashion should routinely be fed into the decision-making
process on the implementation of measures within the UK and it
should be a priority for Government to make sure that the UK industry
does not face a tougher or more expensive regulatory burden than
that faced by its competitors within the EU.
9. Second, we have frequently urged the Government
to adopt a more open approach, involving the industry more in
consultation and in management. For example, in the fishing industry
we see many opportunities for devolving responsibility for regulation
to Producer Organisations and for involving the industry more
in directing science and the development of policy. By working
with the industry in this way, the Government is more likely to
gain acceptance of the necessity of regulation and to find more
practical means of enforcing it. This concept of "ownership"
and stakeholder involvement is a theme which runs throughout our
Reports.
10. Third, whilst our Reports are mainly addressed
to the Government, we also recognise the need for industry itself
to become more responsive to the market by producing the food
that customers want to buy. There is a clear role for trade organisations
such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Sea Fish Industry
Authority to assist in the development and implementation of cross-industry
strategies to bring together all elements of the chain to improve
marketing and customer awareness. However, it is up to individual
farmers and fishermen to respond to these opportunities and challenges.
Whilst neither we nor the Government can force them to do so,
we will continue to put forward suggestions for encouraging the
development of marketing skills and co-operation between producers
which we believe are essential to the future success of the food,
farming and fishing industries within the UK.
Relations with MAFF
11. The work of the Committee inevitably involves
more contact with MAFF than with any other part of Government
or outside party. It is rare for MAFF not to be invited to give
oral evidence during an inquiry and even rarer for us not to request
a written submission. On the whole, we have been satisfied with
the response of the Ministry to our various demands. Witnesses
have generally been available at mutually convenient dates and
most information has been forthcoming. We appreciate the pressures
on ministerial diaries but emphasise that if inquiries are to
comment usefully on current concerns, it is essential the Ministers
make themselves available to appear before the Committee as a
priority. We have also been disappointed at the long delays we
have experienced on some occasions in the provision of written
memoranda or responses to our Reports. We try hard not to set
deadlines which are too challenging but it greatly hampers our
ability to perform to a satisfactory standard if MAFF's contribution
to our work arrives late. For example, the memorandum published
as the Appendix to the current Report was requested in November
1999 with a deadline of 31 January 2000. It was received in April,
thus making this Report itself seem somewhat dated as an account
of our activities in a Session which ended over five months ago.
Of course, a speedy ill-considered response would be equally unwelcome,
as MAFF discovered when we criticised the initial reply submitted
to our Report on the UK pig industry. MAFF has stated in its Business
Plan that it "will facilitate the work of all ... Select
Committees by responding to requests for written information within
the deadlines they set".[3]
From now on, we will monitor receipt of memoranda against deadlines
to assist the Ministry in measuring its performance in this respect.
Committee membership
12. A comparison of the membership list at the beginning
of this Report with the attendance list contained in the Annex
indicates the extent of recent changes in the composition of the
Committee, with a turnover of 56% since November 1998. We would
like to record here our thanks to and appreciation of former members
of the Committee for their contribution to the inquiries carried
out in Session 1998-99, and especially to our former Chairman,
Peter Luff, who did an excellent job in steering us through such
a busy programme with skill and dedication.
Conclusion
13. Last year, we sent copies of the Report on our
work in Session 1997-98 to the Chairman of all other select committees.
Partly as a result of our efforts, the Liaison Committee which
consists of all such Chairmen has recommended that the production
of similar Annual Reports should be required of all select committees
by Christmas 2000. We are pleased to see the success of our initiative.
We believe that there is much value in publishing this short account
of and commentary on our activities during the previous Session
and in reminding the Government and others that inquiries are
not forgotten once the official reply has been published. Whilst
the format of future reports may change to reflect suggestions
from the Liaison Committee, best practice learned from other committees
or our own preferences, the principle which led us to take on
this annual task is a sound one and we look forward to producing
the report on our work in the current Session in a good and timely
fashion.
2 Minutes of Evidence, 29 February 2000 (Afternoon
Sitting), HC 292-i. Back
3 MAFF
Business Plan 1999-2000, para 3.10. Back
