TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr David Curry, in the Chair
Mr David Drew
Mr Michael Jack
Mr Paul Marsden
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mr Lembit Opik
Mr Owen Paterson
Mr Mark Todd
Dr George Turner
_________
RT HON NICHOLAS BROWN, Member of Parliament, (Minister of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food), examined.
Chairman
1. Minister, we may well be more delighted to see you than you are
to see us.
(Mr Brown) It could not possibly be the case!
2. Thank you very much for coming. You will be on the Internet at
3.30 tomorrow afternoon. No doubt that makes you feel greatly reassured but
I am obliged to tell you that. We may not be allowed to use computers in
Committee in the House of Commons, the modernisation tide has stopped short
of anything as useful as that, but you will be happy to know that you are on
the Internet at 3.30 tomorrow.
(Mr Brown) Chairman, life is full of excitement.
3. We wanted to discuss the Action Plan with you because it is
clearly a significant document and there is a lot in it and we need to find
out what it adds up to. If I may, I am going to start by asking you a
question which you will probably have anticipated because I have asked it of
you in the past, but I think it will be very helpful to have it on the record
again because in the debates in the House you intervened. My question is as
simple as this: is it now the Government's policy that in the interests of
sustaining competitiveness amongst our farmers in relation to their
competitors that regulation both in terms of its extent, intensity and timing,
and the cost which is passed back to the industry whether to the farmers or
the abattoirs, should all be measured and imposed in relation to those faced
by competitor producers in the competitor industries?
(Mr Brown) It has always been my view - always been my view - that we
should not gold-plate the regulatory regimes that are common throughout the
European Union. When I became the Minister I examined a whole range of issues
and largely because of representations from the National Farmers Union and
others as well, I have to say, including individual Members of Parliament, I
set up three industry-led bodies to review the administrative regime, the
three key ones IACS, the CAP and the Meat Hygiene Service. We are also across
the Department looking at other regulatory regimes to see what we can do to
help the industry. My very strong view is that everything the Government
does, not just in my Department but in other Departments as well, should be
proportionate.
4. May I ask the second part again, if I may, in slightly different
terms. There is something called "full economic cost recovery" because the
Government of which I was a member introduced it, as I recall. Under that the
Treasury does seek that where the service is delivered for example to farmers
that they pay the cost of that service. There has always been a slight
argument as to what it constitutes but the doctrine is in place. In the
Action Plan you have alleviated a series of charges. Is it now the
Government's policy that full economic cost recovery cannot be applied if the
effect of it is to place charges on British farmers significantly greater than
the charges faced by their competitors?
(Mr Brown) The Government have not abandoned the doctrine.
Nevertheless, given the prevailing circumstance in the industry, we have had
three years of depressed farming income as the whole Committee is very well
aware, and given the effect on competitiveness, the Government, considering
all of the issues in the round, felt it right to alleviate charges that would
otherwise have fallen on the industry. The cost is being borne by the public
purse. You know and I know because we argue about it that there is this
debate whether the alleviation of the charges is new money or a burden not
imposed on farmers that would otherwise have been imposed - it is effectively
a semantic debate - and if the burden was due to fall on farmers and I wish
to alleviate it, I have to fight for that money within government. If I get
the money to carry the cost that is won in competition with other public
expenditure bids.
5. You will perhaps be reassured that when we had Mr Timms in front
of us looking at the integrated pollution control programme, we asked him the
question directly, "Does the Government believe its purpose should be to help
industry to be competitive?" and he replied monosyllabically "Yes." The
implications are, I am afraid, uncomfortable in the sense that either the
farmer pays or the public purse pays but that is a choice we all make. If we
look across to the Continent we find competitors who clearly are going to be
facing charges as a matter of policy and quite legally under the regulations.
(Mr Brown) That is of course something we have to bear in mind when we
are framing our policies because of difficulties in the domestic sector, and
for these broader reasons of fairness I have fought the farmers' corner as
sturdily as I can within government.
6. Finally, Minister, could I ask is the Action Plan a collection
of emergency policies in response to a crisis or is it a strategy?
(Mr Brown) It is supposed to sit alongside the Government's strategic
approach to the industry which we have discussed here before and in particular
to complement the announcement I was able to make to the House on 7 December
regarding the very ambitious plans we have for rural development regulations,
the Second Pillar of the CAP. I believe - and it is a view shared by my
colleagues - that there is a need across government to look at what more we
can do to help and also to look at how we can do things better. A lot of work
was put into preparing for the Prime Minister's summit right across government
and by the private sector and by the organisations representing farmers as
well and I think the approach the Prime Minister adopted is the right one, to
try and pull these different strands together and come to some conclusions
which are set out in the Action Plan. I think it is quite a significant
package.
Mr Jack
7. The plan before us this afternoon was borne out of the present
crisis in agriculture and the need to respond to it as far as the government
was concerned ---
(Mr Brown) Can I just say I think it would be right to do some of these
things anyway but you are right the present difficulties in the sector do set
the background to this. We are trying to do what we can to help the industry
get through.
8. You have quite clearly thought very carefully about the range of
programmes which are part of the plan. I wonder if you could share MAFF's
vision for agriculture over the next decade and perhaps tell us, in your view,
what sectors are going to expand, what sectors are going to contract and what
you see the role of MAFF being in the new world that you have created.
(Mr Brown) This is a very important question because the industry is
going through a period of transition and many of those who own and operate
farm businesses will be asking themselves how far the current difficulties in
the different agricultural sectors are cyclical and how far they are due to
structural changes taking place in international commodity markets and world
trading conditions. I believe the answer is a combination of factors but
there are some trends that are absolutely remorseless including a decline in
total numbers employed in agriculture domestically, an increase in the size
of farm businesses ---
9. Can you quantify it for the Committee?
(Mr Brown) This is the summation of a whole series of private sector
business transactions. I do not want to quantify it. You asked me where I
think we will be in ten years' time. We are clearly going through a process
of change. I believe the outcome, provided the Government's policies are
pursued in the way that they are being, will be that we will be able to assist
the smaller and medium-sized farm businesses to have a range of income
streams, not necessarily just conventional agricultural production, and that
we will have been able to assist all farm businesses to get closer to the
market-place but the overarching instrument here is not one over which I, or
indeed any of us, have complete control; it is of course the Common
Agricultural Policy.
10. This particular plan, Minister, includes a series of expenditures
and you will have had to have battled very hard with the Chief Secretary to
get this money.
(Mr Brown) I do not think I am revealing any great secret if I say, yes,
that is true.
11. From the way the Treasury operates, I know you will have been
required to have quantified some of the benefits that were going to result
from this because I am sure you will want to be able to measure the success
of what you are doing. Could you tell us a little bit more about what you
think the quantified results are going to be because you will have had to work
these things out otherwise you would not have got the money from the Treasury?
How are you going to measure the success of this plan because the Chief
Secretary will be no doubt calling you in and saying, "I have given you all
this money, are you doing better or worse than you were before?"
(Mr Brown) We have a range of targets ---
12. Such as?
(Mr Brown) For the success of our environmental stewardship policies we
are intending - I am not sure if this is in the public domain or not but I am
quite happy to share it with the Committee - to use the varying number of
birds that flourish in the schemes as a measurement of the success of the
intervention.
13. What about the sectoral impact because you deal with dairy, sheep
and cattle? Can you not tell us what the impact of this strategy/plan is, I
am sure people would like to know what arguments were put forward to say this
was the right and proper place to spend this money. There must be some
quantifying output that you are expecting from all this?
(Mr Brown) You cannot quantify it as easily as that.
14. I know it is difficult.
(Mr Brown) The purpose of the immediate assistance we are providing is
to help farm businesses get through what we acknowledge are difficult times
and in particular to get through to the time when the Rural Development
Regulation comes on stream. Just remember this is our principal instrument
for achieving farm diversification and non-farming solutions for the problems
of some farm businesses.
15. Just one last overview question. The theme running through this
plan is to suggest in the changed nature of farming that not all farm income
in the future will be derived exclusively from agricultural activity. Can you
share with the Committee any results of studies or work that you have done to
show us how the ratio will change over, say, the next five or ten years
between income that is derived from wholly farming activities and income going
into farmers' pockets that will be derived from non-farming activities?
(Mr Brown) The broad trends are clear.
16. What are they?
(Mr Brown) The trend for the size of farm businesses is for them to
steadily increase in size. As I said before, the total numbers employed
directly in agriculture is steadily in decline. Because these are all private
sector decisions made individually business by business, I think it would be
difficult to provide an objective forecast.
17. Your Ministry has done no model to tell us whether it is 90 per
cent agriculture and ten per cent other now and, say, 50/50 in five years'
time? You have got no feel for that? Yes you have, no you have not?
(Mr Brown) Yes, I can see the general direction in which things are
going and we want to help but there are a range of possible solutions for
farm-based businesses and ultimately the choice is for the farmer. The
government is there to help and to assist and to ---
18. But what do you think? You are the Minister of Agriculture, what
do you think is going to happen?
(Mr Brown) --- To candidly explain the way we think trends in the market
place are going. What it is not for us to do is take direct responsibility
for all these private sector decisions and somehow to assert the outcome. The
overarching point of course is the reshaping of the Common Agricultural
Policy.
19. To sum up, you have spent a lot of money against a range of
uncertain outcomes without a clear idea of how income streams are going to
develop over time?
(Mr Brown) No, I would not accept that as a fair summary of what the
Government has done or why. It is a party political point and if you want to
make it, it is your right to do so but it is clearly not what we have done.
It is a series of very targeted measures designed to meet current difficulties
and to help farmers get through to better times. I say more than that: on the
regulatory side I think it is right for government to address these questions
anyway regardless of the actual circumstances in the industry. I think it is
a fair point to make that current circumstances throw these issues into
sharper relief.
Mr Paterson
20. You mentioned getting nearer the market. What lessons could
British and European agriculture learn from the New Zealand experience?
(Mr Brown) Certainly in the dairy sector there is a lot to be gleaned
from the New Zealand experience. The core question is life without quota?
In other words, should the dairy regime be reformed in the European Union and
the quota system phased out as has happened in New Zealand or should we
continue with the current European model and, as the Committee knows, the
present model in the European Union was introduced in the early 1980s as a
temporary expedient and it is still with us now. I think the case for the
removal of the quota system and the phasing out of it over six years, the
famous "Gang of Four" plan put forward at Brussels, is absolutely right. I
stand by it. I think in the review of the dairy regime we will want to return
to it collectively as Ministers or to something very similar. I do not think
the present position is sustainable.
Chairman: Income tax of course was a temporary expedient as well. Mr
Todd?
Mr Todd
21. Clearly some members have difficulty moving away from the
dirigiste planning mode we have had in agriculture over the last 40 or 50
years. Is not the real future the development of enabling policy tools which
allow farmers (like other business people) to make their own intelligent
responses to the market-place, to assess risk and venture capital to achieve
an outcome and that precisely planning what an outcome will be in terms of
breakdown of incomes in the agriculture sector in the future as a direct
result of policy initiatives is something of a fool's game?
(Mr Brown) There is no precision in this, as I was trying to explain
earlier. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the government is helpless.
There are things we can do and I think the package of measures we have adopted
is the right package. It is a mixture of immediate aids and changes to the
regulatory burden and the initiative on planning is particularly significant.
I have to say the full package (including the contributions from the NFU) has
been widely welcomed.
22. Indeed, but the thrust of this package is broadly liberal in
market terms. We are enabling farmers to respond more positively by reducing
the regulatory burden here and there, by enabling through the planning process
change, and by reducing the burdens otherwise placed on them through direct
charges and so on, so the thrust of this package is consistent with an
increasingly liberal regime in farming in future?
(Mr Brown) I completely agree with that.
Mr Paterson
23. They wrote it!
(Mr Brown) Did they really? Very good!
Mr Drew
24. If I could move us on to agrimonetary schemes and the help that
you pursued. The best thing about it is we can remember it because it is 22
million for each of the different sectors. Have you now applied for the
agrimonetary support and when are you likely to hear whether or not you have
been successful?
(Mr Brown) We have applied and I am confident that we will be
successful.
25. Any idea when you will get it?
(Mr Brown) I do not know. The Department has been working on the
methods of making the payments. As you know, we need to put new arrangements
in place in the dairy sector because it is the first time we have drawn down
agrimonetary for the dairy sector but I have doubt we will be able to make the
payments crisply. In other words, I have no reason to believe there is
anything going wrong with it at all.
26. How would you describe then the Government's approach towards
agrimonetary aid now in as much as this is the third time we have been round
this loop and in better times we would hope not to be exercising this
particular route but it is there for the purposes we know? How would you look
at the strategy?
(Mr Brown) We are looking at it to give some countervailing support to
farm businesses because of the current difficulties in the sector. It is as
straightforward as that. As you know, the bulk of the money comes from the
United Kingdom taxpayer because of the Fontainbleu abatement and given the
current circumstances in the industry we believe that it is right to make use
of this instrument. I cannot say the Government is committed to doing it in
all circumstances. More than that, as the Committee knows, the instrument
itself is only of a limited duration.
27. Can you remind us when you expect the whole idea of agrimonetary
compensation to come to an end?
(Mr Brown) The current regime has two further years to run and the
ratios over which the monies are allocated - this is the permissive regime,
in other words the European Union regime - are that half the total funds
allocated are in the first year, that is this year; a third on I think all of
the regimes, for next year; and then the remaining sixth for the year after
so the regime itself is permissive and digressive and of course most of our
European Union partners do not see a need for such a regime beyond then
because of course they are all in the single currency arrangement.
28. Can I move you on to specific issues related to the agrimonetary
schemes. Clearly one important element was the releasing of the cap on the
support for the beef management operation. What is SEAC's advice now with
regard to the need for this Over Thirty Month scheme?
(Mr Brown) This is a very important question. What I have done is I
have requested the Food Standards Agency, to whom SEAC now acts as
professional advisers, to review all of the principal BSE controls and report
back to government in the autumn. The debate will also of course be informed
by the independent inquiry report into BSE which we are expecting late
summer/early autumn. We will be able to consider both what is contained in
the report and the advice of the Food Standards Agency. I asked them to look
at the future of the Over Thirty Month scheme to also look at the use of pig
and bonemeal and whether a commercial use can be found for that, and to look
at some of the issues relating to sheep as well. It is their professional
advice the government is relying on. I am not proposing any action ahead of
their independent advice and of course they can put their advice into the
public domain so everyone else can see it at the same time as Ministers.
29. Given the battle there has been over the weight limit, would you
be kind enough to say that the Government would not have liked to have gone
along this route if the EU had been more willing to be fairly liberal in the
interpretation of what monies would be paid or was it an inevitable
cost-cutting exercise because clearly there is only a limited amount of
resources and you have to allocate them in the best possible way?
(Mr Brown) We have lifted the weight limit. You are right, it is
necessary to get the consent of the Commission to do that and the Commission
have been very helpful and they have agreed. It is also true we are paying
for it. The extra cost amounts to something like 20 million, we estimate,
per year. That is a cost that falls on the domestic Exchequer.
30. If I can move on to the dairy industry then. Clearly in terms
of looking at the charging regime you have announced that you are going to
remove dairy hygiene charges but that this is subject to legislation. When
is this legislation likely to be introduced?
(Mr Brown) I think it has been introduced for England and the instrument
for Wales is expected shortly.
31. It is through SIs?
(Mr Brown) That is correct.
32. There is no problem with this, there is no delay.
(Mr Brown) It does not require primary legislation.
33. While we are on the dairy industry, I know I have asked you this
before but I will reiterate it because I think it is a key issue. In our
investigation on the marketing of milk we all got to grips with the wonderful
mechanism of IMPE. All I came to believe as a result of that is here we have
an industry that is principally in every country a domestic industry. There
is obviously milk flowing backwards and forwards and clearly we have always
imported from Australasia but within reason it is crazy we ever linked this
industry to currency movements. Is there not a case, whether we are in or out
of the single currency, for just negotiating with our colleagues to say,
"Let's decouple the dairy industry from all this ludicrous apparatus that is
causing so many difficulties in this country"?
(Mr Brown) I am trying very hard to get the Common Agricultural Policy
dairy regime reformed and re-shaped and also to get my colleagues from the
European Union to face up to the inevitable consequences of not re-shaping it
effectively. There are three schools of thought. There is the reform
movement and the rational case for reform, I believe, is gaining ground with
other Member States. There is a middle group who see the case for doing
something but worry about timing. There is a third group who are strongly
committed to what is called the European model of agriculture production
controls, intervention, all underpinned by economic protectionism. If it
would help, Chairman, I can give you the exact dates for the lifting of the
dairy hygiene inspection charges. The charge in England was removed with
effect from 10 May and in Wales with effect from 20 May.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Owen?
Mr Paterson
34. I have written to you and raised it in questions to your
colleagues about the problems of calves. Much as my dairy farmers would
welcome the 1 million on hygiene inspection, if Britain's dairy farmers could
get the prices current for French calves I would suggest that is worth 90
million.
(Mr Brown) I have not made a comparative study with the French market.
35. You can get 250 for a good bull calf in France and in the UK
because the export market is closed they go for nothing to the hung kennels
or for 10 or 15. The key point, you are absolutely right, is because the
export market is closed.
36. But we have a 90 million hole in dairy farmers' pockets. I have
put this problem to you on numerous occasions and I have to say your Ministry
does not seem to be taking the issue seriously.
(Mr Brown) We certainly take it seriously but what solution are you
advocating?
37. I would like to see the export industry re-opened.
(Mr Brown) So would I. That is the economic rational solution to the
problem.
38. What evidence is there you are really trying to get it opened?
I have written to you on many occasions in the last year and I do not get a
sense of real urgency. This is a 90 million problem and we have got a 1
million state refund.
(Mr Brown) You are absolutely wrong about that. I am trying very hard
to address the issue and there are a number of ways of doing it. The first
is to see if we can get the calf industry strengthened here in the United
Kingdom. We are working very closely in projects with the NFU to do that.
Secondly, we are talking to the Commission about the possibility of amending
the rules for the date-based export scheme so at least very young product
could leave the country on the bone rather than off the bone. It is a very
sensitive issue and we are in the early stages of these discussions but
clearly that is the rational way forward. There can be no BSE danger in very
young meat born from animals after the contaminated feedstuff issue was firmly
dealt with from August 1996. In other words, we have logic on our side but
we are not there yet.
39. When will we be there?
(Mr Brown) I cannot set a date for the desired outcome but it is an
issue on which I am pressing very hard.
Mr Marsden
40. Before turning to specific questions on hill farming, can I
follow up what Mr Jack was saying about outputs. The last time this was tried
was with the Five Year Plan in Soviet Russia and I do not think it was
tremendously successful but I was interested that you talked about specific
outputs in terms of the environment and countryside that are measurable to
some extent. Does this then not inevitably lead to the question do we need
MAFF to work separately from DETR or should there be the creation now of the
Ministry of Rural Development?
(Mr Brown) We are working jointly on these environmental targets because
clearly they are supposed to be achieved by the work of both our departments
not acting independently. You are also right to say that although we are
trying to find some way of measuring the outcomes, it is not an exact science
because of the nature of the yard sticks we have to use.
41. Hill farming. Hill farmers typically are one of the hardest hit
sectors. The Action Plan for Farming has said the Government will increase
support for hill farmers beyond the level specified in the Rural Development
plan. An additional 60 million is going to be made available to hill farmers
in 2001 and this is the third consecutive year in which an extra 60 million
has been found. Can I ask you how much of this increase do you expect to
retain in 2002 and thereafter? Is it possible to say at this moment in time
where the future lies?
(Mr Brown) I have no commitments whatsoever from the Treasury about next
year or the year after. The payment that was made two years ago was a
one-off payment to meet the fall in farm incomes and was not to be repeated.
The following year was a one-off payment, again not to be repeated, and this
is the third year we have done it. Yes, the regime itself is going through a
period of transition from headage based payments to an area based payment
system and of course the measure is now consolidated in the Rural Development
Regulation which we have had to submit to the European Union to cover a seven-
year period. There are some underpinning assumptions in what we have
submitted to the European Union but one of them is not a continuation of the
enhancement of the LFA. That does not mean that I do not see the need to keep
pressing on this issue and to make sure that what is done in the future
dovetails with the Rural Development Regulation.
42. So you would say it is still a priority outside of the RDF then?
(Mr Brown) Yes, I take the current position of hill farmers very
seriously indeed. It is perfectly clear that although farm incomes have been
hit in general the income of hill farmers have been hit hardest and we have
got to find a way through. A mixture of solutions as we have discussed many
times before. What cannot be the answer is an over reliance on direct supply
side measures, effectively livestock subsidies.
43. The Action Plan for Farming indicated that most of the money
could be used to increase LFA compensatory allowances and the remainder will
be used on a consultancy programme designed to improve hill farmers' access
to business skills. What proportion of the 60 million has been used to
increase the LFA compensatory allowances system?
(Mr Brown) The division is of the order of 50 million for the
enhancement of the LFAs and 10 million for business advice. I would stress
to the Committee the importance that I attach to intervening now with clear
business advice. We have got to help people who are running farm businesses
that have been in prolonged difficulty get their businesses through to better
time and, remember, there are a whole range of public interests in this not
just the need to try and help the farmers through. There are also
environmental considerations and landscape considerations and some of these
hill farm businesses are in some the most beautiful parts of the country and
we have clearly got a broader public interest in keeping it that way and
discussions on these aspects across government because the Department of
Environment has an interest in it as well as ourselves.
44. So can you give some examples of how the 10 million is going to
be used to enhance business skills? What tangible examples you can give?
(Mr Brown) We are hoping to buy in the extra expertise into the
Department of Trade and Industry's small business advice service and then to
be able to go to the individual farm businesses if the farmer wants it, it is
not a compulsory measure, but to be able to go through their own business
plans, point to the strengths, point to the weaknesses and then draw their
attention to a range of possible ways forward. We think now is the right time
to take stock.
45. I want to press this point practically. Are you saying you
envisage an agricultural consultant going out to meet the farmer and then
helping him to prepare a sort of Action Plan of his own?
(Mr Brown) That is exactly what I mean and, if necessary, to talk to the
supporting bank managers as well. The way forward may not necessarily be an
agricultural way forward, it may be a combination of things. If we are to
intervene, if we are to help people look to the future, now is the time to do
it.
Chairman
46. Minister, one of the few regimes where the UK has a significant
take in relation to what we give is the Sheep Annual Premium. Is it Government
policy that should become degressive?
(Mr Brown) There are about to be discussions within the European Union
about the sheep regime. We are in very close contact with other Member States
who have a particular interest as this. As you will know, and I certainly
know, we are a minority. It is ourselves, France and Ireland, who are not the
only interest but the principal interest. The review process has not yet
started. I think I am right in saying that, correct me if I am not.
47. The national interest in terms of pure take would be non
degressive, would it not?
(Mr Brown) I really do not want to commit myself at the outset to what
is going to be a competition within the overall CAP budget for resources.
Dr Turner
48. Can I ask a supplementary question. I want to clarify the 10
million because elsewhere in the paper there is a 6.5 million sum for support
for farmers in general to develop better business practices. I wanted to know
if it was a total of 16.5?
(Mr Brown) The extra money is for lowland farmers. The money you are
referring to is targeted at lowland farm businesses.
49. The total sum going is 10 plus 6.5?
(Mr Brown) That would be right.
50. Towards the small businesses.
(Mr Brown) Although the 10 is shared across the United Kingdom.
Mr Todd
51. Not just England.
(Mr Brown) No, it is not just England. I think the six is, I suspect ---
Dr Turner
52. We came to the ten in the context of hill farming and I wanted
to be clear whether the ten included the 6.5.
(Mr Brown) No.
53. Referred to more generally.
(Mr Brown) No, the two figures are different.
54. Different sums of money, the total is 16.5.
(Mr Brown) Yes, the 10 million is part of the 60 million announced for
the Hill Farm Allowance. We intend to spend 50 million as a direct aid, ten
million paying for the hill farm advice and a further six million is to offer
the same, not exactly the same but the same service to lowland farmers.
Dr Turner: I just want to be clear.
Mr Jack
55. Following Mr Todd's line of argument earlier on, the message you
have given us about the support for hill farmers is "one more one off payment
and then you are on your own, boys". Have you given notice of MAFF pulling
out support for hill farmers? Perhaps you could just enlighten us a bit as to
what happens when this last one-off really becomes a one-off?
(Mr Brown) I am sorry. I am being shoved a note in answer to the last
question which confirms what I said, I think.
56. Good.
(Mr Brown) I am sorry. I intended no discourtesy.
57. No, no. I know you did not intend any discourtesy. I shall repeat
the question. Mr Todd put us in a mind of thinking which said MAFF is not
going to be imposing prescriptive plans on any sector. If we follow that
logic, what you seem to be saying with this one-off final special offer of a
further 60 million pounds, part of that money going to business help, is
"after that, boys, on the hills, you are on your own".
(Mr Brown) No.
58. Right.
(Mr Brown) That is not what I am saying. It is not my intention that
the issue be left there. However, I am in exactly the same position as I was
last year and the year before, I am not in a position to announce an
enhancement of the LFA for the future financial years. I cannot give that
announcement. Indeed, I remember saying exactly the same to this Committee
last year.
Chairman
59. It may not be three hits and you are out, as it were?
(Mr Brown) You know perfectly well what sort of position I am in. I
cannot give a commitment that the Government will spend the extra money next
year. Indeed, I could not have given that commitment last year, and did not.
Mr Jack
60. Let me ask a question about where you feel happy as a Minister
of Agriculture providing help for hill farmers.
(Mr Brown) Yes.
61. What are the things that they do that you think they ought to
receive some financial assistance with?
(Mr Brown) I am very pleased that you link the concept of happiness and
being the Minister of Agriculture. It is very pleasant of you to appreciate
it that way.
Chairman
62. You are not in charge of the Dome at any rate.
(Mr Brown) As to our objectives for hill farmers, the purpose of the
Hill Farm Allowance as it is now consolidated in the Rural Development
Regulation is to provide compensation to farmers for the difficulties of
farming less favoured areas. That is the underpinning principle of the regime.
Should we rethink the basis on which we make the payments? I believe the
answer to that is clearly yes. We need to be more explicit about the public
interest that underpins making the payment. I think there are perfectly good
arguments for supporting hill farm businesses, including the environmental and
landscape arguments that I made earlier. There are also regional employment
aspects to this. Some of the hill farms are in very remote parts of the
countryside and it would be difficult to see what other businesses could be
sustained in the area.
63. For hill farmers, in spite of your earlier strictures, they can
look forward to some forms of continuing help from the Ministry of
Agriculture?
(Mr Brown) Yes, there is quite a lot of continuing help already factored
in for them in the Rural Development Regulation. More than that, I would have
thought they were uniquely advantaged to make use of the economic development
schemes that are contained within the Rural Development Regulation and on
which they can be advised by the business advice that we have just announced.
64. Given that many hill farmers who have survived current
difficulties have done so because they have already involved themselves in
business diversification, tourism for example, what potential have you
identified for development of further economic activity in the hills? I
appreciate you may not be able to want to go and say what is the rate of
return on the 10 million but you must have got some idea of what kind of
further potential for income generation lies in the exploitation of the assets
in hill farms?
(Mr Brown) These are individual private sector business decisions. The
Government is not being prescriptive about this. It really is a liberal
regime. What we do want to do is to get the businesses closer to the market
place. Clearly the lead in this has to be taken by the farmer himself.
65. When your Permanent Secretary comes before the Public Accounts
Committee at some point in the future, and they have to adjudicate as to
whether this expenditure is good or bad value for money, he is going to have
to be able to point to some kind of quantifiable output. Yet we do not seem
to be getting any feel as to what you think the potential is. Even if it is
a percentage increase, is it going to be five, ten, 15, 20 per cent more
income than hill farmers by virtue of their business activities, even if we
leave those undefined? What is the potential?
(Mr Brown) I do not think it can be quantified in that crude way. The
objective is clear: to prepare these businesses for a more liberalised market
place, to prepare them for less reliance on direct subsidies.
66. You cannot give us any hint of how that slope downwards is going
to go for less subsidy?
(Mr Brown) It depends on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
67. Some of these measures are domestic and they are in your gift.
(Mr Brown) Yes, well it is true that the Hill Farm Allowance is a
domestic measure.
68. Would you like to tell us about what is in your gift?
(Mr Brown) Other Member States have similar measures, so the competitive
effect throughout the European Union rather evens up. A main source of
support for hill farm business is just as it is for lowland businesses, the
Common Agricultural Support Regimes, both the sheep and the beef regimes.
Mr Paterson
69. You quite rightly mentioned the market again. Why are Britain's
sheep farmers disadvantaged by the Government's insistence on removing the
spines from 12 month old sheep? We are the only country that does this.
(Mr Brown) This is on the advice of SEAC and advice to Government now is
a matter for the Food Standards Agency. The advice has been clearly given and
the Government accepts it.
70. Are you pushing the cause to the hill farmers?
(Mr Brown) As I said earlier, I have asked the FSA to look - and they
will use the SEAC as their professional advisors - at a whole range of
measures we have in place and whether they are still justified.
Dr Turner
71. A very quick follow up, Minister. Diversification, of course, is
important to many farmers other than hill farmers.
(Mr Brown) Yes, absolutely right.
72. A key paragraph it seemed to me was the acknowledgement that
there was going to be a conference hosted by Nick Raynsford on revision to
planning guidance.
(Mr Brown) That is this Friday.
73. I may be slightly premature then. Clearly there are other
departments whose decisions are going to be very key to the success of this
particular part of the programme. Are you happy with the progress and co-
operation you are getting in the joined up government we are supposed to
enjoy?
(Mr Brown) Yes, I am, both officials and Ministers have worked very hard
to make a success of the summit and are working very hard to make sure we
follow up on each of the different action points.
74. You are confident the Rural White Paper is going to be able to
herald or we are going to be seeing signs of progress in the plan? Frankly it
is not what gets reported on the ground at the moment in terms of how farmers
see the planning guidance.
(Mr Brown) I am very well aware of it. I see farmers on a regular basis
to make sure I am in touch with what is going on on the ground. The Department
of the Environment has the lead on this issue, of course. It has
responsibility for the planning of the regime. There is a seminar to address
all of these issues arranged within Government. It is taking place this Friday
and I am attending, along with Elliot Morley. I am going personally because
I take this issue very seriously.
75. My fear is there is not enough sense of urgency elsewhere in
Government of the need to make progress. You are more confident than I that
we are going to see something done soon.
(Mr Brown) I have a sense of urgency about this issue. I do think it is
important. It does not make sense for the Government on the one hand to say
that we are putting money behind business advice and farm diversification
projects to get the farm businesses closer to the market place, even if that
means non agricultural income streams through the farm business, and then to
find that the Government's objective is thwarted by an over-restrictive
planning system. Clearly these planning issues have to be addressed at the
same time. It is the purpose of this seminar to identify the problems and to
try to find a way forward. I think the lead on this is of course the
Department of the Environment, not me, but I have overall stewardship of
progressing the Action Plan. This is a part of the Action Plan. I have to tell
you that I take it very seriously indeed because I regard it as an integral
component of our farm diversification plans.
Chairman: We are moving on to pigs. Mr Mark Todd.
Mr Todd
76. Restructuring, has that been okayed by the Commission yet?
(Mr Brown) We are in discussions with the Commission. The underpinning
principles have been agreed but there are points of detail to discuss.
77. With the design of the package itself?
(Mr Brown) The design of the package itself, as I think you will be
aware from your own discussions with the Commission, is the only package that
they will feel able to approve.
78. Have we managed to design the package so that it can be launched
now and it is clear?
(Mr Brown) No, I think there is still some fine tuning to be done. I do
not think there is a problem in principle. We are almost there. It has two
elements. There is the outgoers scheme and the ongoers scheme. As I have said
before, if I can, I want to backdate the outgoers scheme, in other words to
permanently take out capacity back to June 1998 is the date.
79. I have to say it is not an argument I have presented to a pig
farmer myself but is there a possible argument that we have to be careful that
we do not compensate for those who entered speculative markets at the time,
just after BSE was at its height and when the purchase of pork rose rapidly,
that we should not be directly state aid towards those who took the risk and
then found themselves with their fingers burnt? As I said, I have not been
brave enough to suggest that to a farmer.
(Mr Brown) No. I understand the point but it is very difficult to
separate degrees of virtue in this. The purpose of the outgoers scheme is to
permanently remove capacity and thereby, at least in part, stabilise the
market.
80. The balance between outgoers and supporting those who are staying
in but reducing capacity, has any thought been given as to precisely where
that balance will lie?
(Mr Brown) Yes. There has been some thought given to it. I do not want
to state a final balance, although certainly for the first year of the scheme
the balance in money terms lies with the outgoers rather than the ongoers.
That is what we anticipate. However, remember that we are going to take sealed
bids for the outgoers scheme, in other words people bid for the capacity which
is being taken out. I do not want to go much further. I do not want to say
anything which jeopardises what is, after all, a commercial arrangement.
81. Those who are staying in, will part of that support involve
assistance with marketing as well?
(Mr Brown) Yes, it does.
82. Obviously some additional marketing assistance has been given
previously earlier in packages specifically targeted at the pig sector.
(Mr Brown) Yes.
83. Have we reviewed how effective that additional help has been?
(Mr Brown) The help was given relatively recently.
84. About a million, was it not?
(Mr Brown) As you know, there have been changes in the market place. I
have to say, and maybe it is claiming too much for cause and effect, the
domestic market has strengthened considerably. I do think the measures we have
taken have at least in part assisted that.
85. Some further help on the marketing side to consolidate the
position of an increasing UK customer adherence to British pork would be money
well spent?
(Mr Brown) I believe that and, indeed, the Meat and Livestock Committee
has just launched a new and very hard hitting campaign to bring home to the
consumer the animal welfare benefits of the domestic product, and good for
them.
86. Finally, on this, there is still an element of persuasion to come
I think towards pig farmers to show them that there was no other way to define
an aid package. I am sure you regularly receive correspondence ---
(Mr Brown) I do.
87. ---- I still do from pig farmers who say "Well, there is a BSE
tax to compensate for, why not have money for that and a variety of other
purposes?"
(Mr Brown) Yes.
88. To what extent are we getting across the message that the aid
package that has been defined is the only route through the current burdens
that arise from the Commission?
(Mr Brown) I meet farmers' leaders and leaders particularly of the
different pig sectors regularly and I have explained this in terms. As you
know, I was quite keen to keep my foot in the door with the Commission for as
long as possible to see if it was possible to devise a scheme that would
explicitly meet the disposal costs arising from the precautionary measures
relating from BSE. More than that, again as the Committee will know, I have
twice been to SEAC to check whether there is some way of getting commercial
use into material or, on the first occasion, whether the ban was absolutely
necessary. The advice is very clear and the Government will stick to it.
89. One does note that SEAC have been given a further brief in this
particular action to once again review the measures.
(Mr Brown) That is correct.
90. Would one assume that they will look at this particular aspect
once more?
(Mr Brown) I have asked them to and I expect them to come back. As you
know there is a debate in the European Union that is moving in the opposite
direction, an increasing view that meat and bone meal should not be recycled
anyway.
91. Yes.
(Mr Brown) Since we do not we shall make a virtue of it and say so. Of
course, as you know, it is a cost the domestic industry bears, competitors do
not. It is a fixed cost so as the price comes down the effect of it bears more
heavily. I was very keen on looking at every avenue to relieve that but the
fact of the matter is if I was to make a proposal to the Commission it would
be knocked back under the State Aid Rules. I believe when the Select Committee
visited the Commission you explored this matter with Commissioner Fischler and
received the same view.
92. We received a very clear answer.
(Mr Brown) Yes.
Mr Opik
93. Minister, the outcome of this element is a bit like a retirement
scheme. Do you agree with that to begin with?
(Mr Brown) No.
94. I thought you might say that.
(Mr Brown) I can see where it is going.
95. How would you describe that scheme in that case?
(Mr Brown) It is a restructuring measure in order to permanently remove
capacity.
96. Okay. To rephrase my second question before I even ask it then.
If it is good enough for the pig industry surely there is a case to do the
same for dairy and the lamb industry? Perhaps by connecting the outgoer
scheme to some sort of ingoer scheme as well, we have to make sure there is
not an influx coming in at the bottom.
(Mr Brown) Why would we want to intervene to permanently remove capacity
from the sheep or the beef or the dairy sector. The Government does not
propose to make such an intervention and in any event these industries are all
constrained by Common Agricultural Policy instruments.
97. Are you saying strategically you would not be willing to consider
some kind of an outgoers scheme given that there are some ---
(Mr Brown) Are you really asking me about the early retirement scheme?
98. Of course I am.
(Mr Brown) You are. As you know, when I became a Minister I reopened
consideration of the scheme in the Department. If we could have made a go of
such a scheme I would have liked to have done so. I share that with the
Committee. I have said it before on a number of occasions. The reason that we
cannot is in summary because of the dead weight cost of the scheme.
Chairman
99. Minister, you used the phrase "permanently remove capacity",
would implementation of this scheme have any implications for our future
ability to build capacity in response to the same study market?
(Mr Brown) No, the only occasion would be those who have gone out of the
industry under this scheme could not come back under the capacity itself ---
100. It implies no limit on sow numbers.
(Mr Brown) It has to be removed. There is a separate proposal which is
under consideration amongst Ministers in the European Union as to whether
there should be some state by state overall constraints on capacity but that
is a separate proposition and, frankly, I am not sure I favour it.
101. Having gone through it with the fishing industry, I am not
sure that I would recommend it.
(Mr Brown) No, for probably the same reasons, I will wait until I see
the full proposal but I am not sure it is the right way forward, frankly.
102. We must move on but I am going to let Mr Paterson and Mr Jack
come in with very quick ones on the pig industry because it is important.
(Mr Brown) Yes, obviously.
Mr Paterson
103. It is the broader question of the problem of squaring very
real public demands for higher welfare standards in this country with the need
to keep our farm producers competitive. We have seen a head long collision
with the pig industry and many people have gone bust. How will you stop that
happening in the poultry industry where many poultry farmers believe that the
case directive will be pursued with the usual rigour in this country and not
in other countries?
(Mr Brown) We must all move at the same pace and at the same time.
Whatever the regulatory regime is it must be uniform across the whole of the
European Union. More than that, I was one of the Ministers, indeed I took a
lead in it, in calling for a report from the Commission on the obvious
external trade implications of imposing higher standards within the European
Union. Now, Commissioner Fischler is going to have to come back to us on that
point. As you realise, and I am sure the whole Committee realises, it is
intimately bound up with the agricultural discussions that are taking place
as part of the World Trade Organisation Round.
104. What is the timetable on the case directive as you see it at
the moment?
(Mr Brown) From memory, and perhaps it is a mistake to go from memory,
I think there is a 12 years phase in period.
Chairman
105. I think you have plenty of memory capacity behind you,
Minister.
(Mr Brown) Sure. It is not immediate but it is remorseless. Clearly we
need to plan for all of the factors, including the external trade issue. As
you know I would like to see animal welfare measures specifically included as
Green Box measures as part of the agricultural component of the WTO agreement
but we are a long way from that.
Mr Jack
106. Your colleague in the House of Lords, Baroness Farrington,
said in answer to a question that a restructuring scheme contains three
elements: a total exodus element, an outgoers element and a restructuring
element for those who want to remain in the industry. It is the last part I
am intrigued about. What types of measure are you either finding or hoping
the industry will pursue and, related to that, are you giving any help to the
industry to try and become more sophisticated in dealing with the pig cycle
and the implications that has on total numbers reduced?
(Mr Brown) Your question about the classic pig cycle is very shrewd. I
think because the decisions in the sector are individual businessmen's
decision, the cumulative effect of them is often not planned in a structural
way. It is clearly right that the industry learns to work more closely
together as an industry and to make these judgments collectively rather than
as a series of individual farm judgments. The classic economist would always
advise that as the cycle goes right the way down you increase production,
although it would take a very brave person to do it because production might
be well below the immediate cost of production. When the cycle is at its
height you get out and you reduce numbers. Again people at the height think
that the income will be sustained forever and experience shows that it is not.
107. With respect, Minister, that is a very interesting economic
treatment straight from Sanderson's Economics.
(Mr Brown) I was not aware of that.
108. It did not actually answer the question I asked. The question
I asked was what were you doing, if anything at all, to help the industry deal
with the scenario you pointed out. Could I have an explanation of what
Baroness Farrington meant in the context when she talked about a restructuring
element for those who wish to remain in pig production? What does that mean?
(Mr Brown) To answer your first question. We have encouraged the
industry to get together in a new national association and to discuss trends
in the industry amongst themselves. Now, more than that, I do not think we can
do. As I said earlier on, in answer to something Mr Curry referred to, there
are considerations amongst Ministers of the European Union whether Ministers
should go further. Frankly, I do not think it is the right thing to do. I will
wait to see the specific proposal. In the parameters that are open to
Government, in what is essentially a free market, we have done what we can.
Would it be wise to go further? I think not. It is for the industry,
essentially a collection of private sector businessmen, to take the lead in
market stabilisation, in other words doing what they can to try to even out
the effects of the classic pig cycle. On the question as to the two components
of the ongoers scheme, it is possible, it is our intention to spend some of
the money on market orientated measures, that is marketing, and also on
supporting quality assurance schemes, that is what is intended. In other
words, in summary, to help the industry win that premium for its product in
the market place. We have a good story to tell, we need to tell it loudly and
the Government wants to help with that.
Mr Todd
109. One last thing on that, what is the deadline for the scheme's
design and launch?
(Mr Brown) For the pig scheme?
110. Yes?
(Mr Brown) We are still in discussion with the Commission about it. We
do not want to set a deadline but we are very close.
111. The delivery of advice to farmers has already been touched
on. Defining the role of MAFF and the Small Business Service, the relative
roles and the responsibilities for providing expert advice is problematic. How
has that been addressed so far? You mentioned MAFF were effectively
subscribing to the Small Business Service, putting some money in?
(Mr Brown) Yes. We have thought long and hard about this. We want farm
businesses to think for themselves as businesses and to think very broadly
about how they get income streams going through that business so the business
itself will be sustainable over time. In particular we want to make sure there
is not an over-reliance on CAP supply side measures.
112. As you guess I second that view very strongly. What expertise
will MAFF contribute? They are obviously going to put some money in?
(Mr Brown) Yes.
113. Bearing in mind the Small Business Service would not be full
of people with knowledge of farming.
(Mr Brown) No, this is a very good point. We are in discussions now with
the Small Business Service about hiring in or contracting out the extra
expertise.
114. Any idea of when that shape and precise design will be
available?
(Mr Brown) At the minute it is being dealt with by officials but when we
have the details of the way forward I will be quite happy to share them with
the Committee.
115. That will be very welcome indeed. Would you be intending to
test trial or test run some of these advice packages in the particular areas
and work out what works best?
(Mr Brown) Clearly this will roll out. They cannot deliver it in just
one go. There needs to be a time frame for this.
116. Farmers vary hugely in their acceptance of advice.
(Mr Brown) Yes. It is not compulsory, it is something that farm
businesses can draw on. We hope it will be of service to them. What we have
in mind is a very thorough going business consultancy activity and a hard look
at trends in the market place - of course this will vary from farm to farm -
where that market place is going and what more needs to be done in order to
ensure a reasonable level of return on investment and frankly a reasonable
level of return to the farmer for the hours that are being put in.
117. Led by the DTI presumably?
(Mr Brown) We are the customer, as it were.
118. The DTI leads.
(Mr Brown) They are providing a business service, not an agricultural
service, a business service to our client group, of which agriculture is a
component and not the only component. We are using the Small Business Service
because we want farmers to think of their farm businesses as businesses.
119. How are you going to square with the possibility or
likelihood that many farmers will want a mixed package of assistance for
transforming their businesses and help with, for example, aid packages for
environmental objectives which may be administered either by yourself or
indeed in some other instances by another agency?
(Mr Brown) It is perfectly possible that the outcome will be a
combination of measures, some potentially drawing on the environmental schemes
where the farm acts as a partner with the public purse for securing desirable
public ends, partly traditional agricultural components and partly some non
agricultural income stream.
120. What they will get is a holistic approach, a one stop shop
for their needs in which the person they speak to may be well versed in both
the aid packages they may be entitled to but also the assistance they might
have for setting up a bed and breakfast operation or for something more?
(Mr Brown) There are a series of specialisms involved in this and the
idea would be that the Business Service would be able to call on specialist
advice for particular farm clients where appropriate. The intention is to
offer a very thorough package of business support.
121. That might include not just diversification but including the
quality of their farming operation.
(Mr Brown) That is perfectly possible.
122. This is certainly going to be a very complex package of
advice delivered by some extremely skilled people.
(Mr Brown) Yes. What is intended is radical and broadly focused and I
think absolutely right not just in what we are doing but the time at which we
are doing it.
123. These individuals certainly do not exist just at the moment.
(Mr Brown) We are very aware of that. The money that is being spent will
expand the advice service, there is no doubt about that.
124. When will the business angels descend from on high and start
to become available to farmers in my area?
(Mr Brown) We are targeting the autumn but I do not want to go further
than that at the moment.
125. I am sure the Committee listened to your offer to share some
more information. I think all of us who represent farmers will be delighted
to hear more for these people hit the streets.
(Mr Brown) As soon as I can put the details into the public domain I
will do so. I hope all of you who have farm constituents will encourage them
to take up the offer. This is free. There is no cost.
126. Certainly I will. To give a concrete example: if a group of
farmers were wishing to establish an enterprise to process some of the product
they produce locally and develop new products from it, that would be the kind
of initiative in which you would expect ---
(Mr Brown) The business advisers will be able to explain what support
measures are available. As you know there are a range of grants which can be
attached across Government.
127. Certainly under the new plans.
(Mr Brown) That is true. There are some supports already available under
the Department of Trade and Industry projects but of course the Rural
Development Regulation, as it comes on stream, will offer a steadily
increasing stream of funds for farm diversification projects and, indeed,
marketing projects.
Dr Turner
128. I want just to follow up on this. I was at the meeting with
the new head of Small Business Service and basically, as in many businesses,
you need to be in IT or you will not be in business. I just wondered, I saw
there was a study being done of farmers, users of and the need for IT, I
wondered what assessment you make of the current state of play? Does the
Department have some feel of how many farmers are in fact users and how much
work has to be done in that area?
(Mr Brown) There are two studies under way at the minute designed to get
the answers to the question you have just posed. The studies have not come to
a conclusion yet. As soon as they do, again I am happy to share the fruits of
them with the Committee. As well as that there is a trial project being
undertaken in the area you represent, in the Eastern Region, on the
administration of the Common Agricultural Policy electronically rather than
by paper transfer. That experiment is working very well.
129. A relatively modest number of participants compared with the
total number of farms.
(Mr Brown) That is true.
130. In other work we were doing it was suggested by the
representatives of the tenant farmers that the Government was being very
unrealistic in expecting farmers to have access - fairly universally
admittedly - to the use of IT for submissions and communications by 2008.
(Mr Brown) Yes, many small businesses, of course, do now use computers
to administer their own businesses. It is not an usual thing.
131. As an advocate for the industry within Government, would your
advice be that 2008 is a long way away, they need to act quicker than that
from where you see farming heading?
(Mr Brown) We have two projects under way at the minute to establish how
much use is made of the new technologies now. I think before making the
decisions, it is quite a good idea to establish the hard evidence. Rather
than be drawn on specific dates, I would like to establish the evidence first
and, again, I am quite happy to share it with the Committee when we have got
it.
132. I was accepting that it was sensible to make a proper
assessment of the starting point. I was really trying to get a feel for your
feeling of its importance to farming in the future and how quickly movement
would be desirable to the use of IT so that with the help of intelligent
forms, quite simpler forms and less bureaucracy, farmers can spend more time
farming and in their other business activities? I just wondered how urgently
you see farmers needing to address the issue?
(Mr Brown) There is no doubt whatsoever that the new technologies can
bring enormous benefits to farm business, I am convinced of that. How far
farm businesses are at the moment making use of the new technologies is what
we are seeking to discover.
Mr Marsden
133. Do you surf the net?
(Mr Brown) I can do, yes.
134. I just wondered how do you know?
(Mr Brown) My civil servants say "There is no need for you to do that,
Minister, we will do that for you".
135. Silver service. Can I just ask, coming back to the Small
Business Service, is the funding for it going to be spread equally across the
country? Are small businesses going to bid for the allocation or is it going
to be targeted geographically where it is felt that there may be a greater
need or greater demand from farmers?
(Mr Brown) Clearly it depends on take-up by individual farmers but the
offer of a free business adviser, a chance to pause and take a really hard
strategic look at how a business is going, is open to every farmer.
136. Basically it would be used on a "first come, first served"
basis until the funds are exhausted?
(Mr Brown) Yes, clearly if the scheme is heavily subscribed there will
be a need to prioritise the work. The offer is there for every farmer. It
will depend on take-up.
137. I think this will be one of the most important steps in terms
of better advice for farmers. I can imagine for the future this has got to be
one of the priorities for the Government, would you agree?
(Mr Brown) Yes, I strongly agree with that. I think the time is right to
think about where individual businesses are going. There are certain changes
which are foreseeable but, with respect to Mr Jack, not quantifiable.
138. Sure.
(Mr Brown) That in particular involves the support regimes. The current
situation is not going to endure.
Mr Opik
139. Environmental groups can act as a very useful business agency
at times to help farmers restructure but they were not included in the Downing
Street summit.
(Mr Brown) All sorts of people wanted to be invited to the Downing
Street summit and could not be. I regret that. We did try to put the
information that came out of that into the public domain as soon as we could
and to share it with others with a legitimate interest.
140. I accept that point. I was not going to complain about it.
(Mr Brown) Sorry. Pre-emptive strike.
141. I was going to say given that basically they provide free
advice for new ways of farming becoming viable, do you see them as a set of
organisations which could be tied into the kind of advice we are talking
about?
(Mr Brown) I am open to receiving representations from anybody who has
the best interests of British farmers and British agriculture, British
horticulture, at heart. Now, there are environmental groups, the organic
farming is an obvious example, who have developed their own method of
production stemming from their own philosophy and won a place for that method
of agricultural production in the market place.
Mr Todd
142. Just a couple of quick things. How are you going to market
the scheme?
(Mr Brown) The advice scheme?
143. Yes?
(Mr Brown) We intend to inform every farmer.
144. Direct mail?
(Mr Brown) Remember we are in contact with them.
145. Indeed.
(Mr Brown) If you think about it.
146. Most of them.
(Mr Brown) I accept that. Yes, we intend to tell people directly but
also through their unions and their representatives and, indeed, we will put
articles explaining it in the trade press.
147. Most business people listen best to advice from other
business people who have done it and succeeded.
(Mr Brown) Yes.
148. Do you feel that most farmers, therefore, would welcome
advice from a farmer who had actually succeeded in doing some of the things
that might be commended?
(Mr Brown) Frankly it depends on the individual cases. Circumstances
are going to be different but once the farmer has had the initial advice from
somebody who has taken a hard look at the income streams there may be
different avenues that they want to explore. There it is very important that
they are able to draw on authoritative special advice.
149. I am meaning more that they should be able to draw on contact
with people who have actually achieved something already.
(Mr Brown) I do not want to be too prescriptive about what I mean by
authoritative. Special advice will vary case by case.
150. To what extent have you already engaged people who have
succeeded in diversifying successfully in the input you are making to the SBS?
There are a number of farmers in my area who have been very successful in
diversifying, I am sure they would be delighted to share their success with
other people. Are those the sort of people you are talking about?
(Mr Brown) Work on all of this is under way now. As I said before, when
we have got the details finalised I am quite happy to share it with the
Committee. Yes, the sort of thing you are describing is the sort of thing
which has a useful part to play.
151. Turning to bureaucracy, the Red Tape Review Groups which
reported at the end of last year, it has been said that of the 98
recommendations 17 have already been implemented, 23 have been raised in
Brussels and 23 more will have been completed by the summer recess.
(Mr Brown) Yes.
152. Who says?
(Mr Brown) In as much as it is a matter for us, I say.
153. Yes. Right. Do the Review Groups continue in being to
monitor the effectiveness of their recommendations?
(Mr Brown) The answer to that is not formally, no, but if you are
suggesting that after one of my stocktaking exercises I get the Chairman and
the members back in to say how we have proceeded, I think that is a useful
suggestion. I am happy to take that up. The direct answer is it was tasked
and finished but I think that is a useful suggestion and I am going to pursue
it.
154. Good. One of the problems with asking regulators to
deregulate is their perception of having completed the task may not
necessarily be shared by those on the receiving end.
(Mr Brown) I think that is fair comment and I think it is a good
suggestion.
155. Okay. Good. Do I take it, also, that there is now going to be
a culture of competitive analysis in regulation in which we look carefully at
what other countries are doing to implement the same regulations as we have?
(Mr Brown) I want what we do to be balanced and proportionate but I am
interested in what our partners in the European Union are doing, particularly
where the regulatory regime is clearly in common. We have been asking
questions about the dairy hygiene service for example, about the meat hygiene
service charges, for example, to take two topical and controversial areas. I
did ask the attachs in the embassies in other countries to let me know what
other Member States did and certainly that advice informs the view that I
took.
156. Is that going to be an ongoing process? You will recall that
certainly I raised both of those particular issues in questions outside this
Committee. What I am keen to see is that we continue to focus as a regular
activity of our embassy that they monitor what other countries are doing in
the regulatory burdens that are constantly being reviewed and imposed and
changed around Europe.
(Mr Brown) I think that is right. All Agriculture Ministers are faced
with questions from their own farmers about the way in which the European
Union legislation is applied domestically and then the way in which it is
applied in other countries. Everybody assumes everybody else has a lighter
regime than their domestic market which is not always true, frankly.
157. Yes, although in the two examples you gave, which were meat
hygiene service charges and dairy hygiene service, I think our study did show
that sadly was true.
(Mr Brown) It certainly did and that is why I took the lead in trying to
get the situation changed here. Remember I got the meat hygiene service
charges at the end of what I can describe as a real discussion amongst
colleagues frozen for this year and confined to the rate of inflation next
year and the case on the dairy inspection charges I have to say, in fairness,
was well made by the NFU.
158. To prevent a repetition of that experience in which we
discovered that we were imposing uncompetitive burdens, there should be a
clear formal framework for reporting variances with other countries practices?
(Mr Brown) Of course I was not imposing these burdens, I inherited them
when I became the Minister and did my best to get rid of them.
Chairman: Now, I am conscious that colleagues have got Standing
Committees to go to and that includes your Chairman. I think it is about time
we finished the introduction and got into the more difficult questions.
Mr Drew
159. If I can move on to food safety and meat hygiene, we are
going to have a conversation on GM at the end. I will pass quickly on from
that topic. You set up a review of risk assessment and we are not unique in
that in the sense that everywhere we have been every country seems to have its
own view of risk assessment.
(Mr Brown) I did not set it up, I asked for it.
160. You asked for it. This is the May, Donaldson, Krebs body.
What does it constitute and when is it expected to do something?
(Mr Brown) The lead minister is the Secretary of State for Health. The
non ministerial government department which has policy responsibility in this
area is the new Food Standards Agency. The professional advice that comes to
the Agency, frankly it is up to them to determine but clearly SEAC have an
important part to play in this. It is my hope that they will report by the
autumn.
161. As far as farmers are concerned, as inevitably is the case,
they will believe it is a further case when the alarm bells should be ringing
because the worry will always be that there will be a case for perhaps
stronger regulation if risk based assessment shows that there may be dangers
in one way or another. How do we, if you like, make compatible the desire to
reduce charging costs of regulation and yet at the same time, given that it
is not in your departmental control, persuade others that there is a balance
to be struck?
(Mr Brown) This is a very important point and when the Food Standards
Agency was being set up specific provision was made within the founding
legislation for the Agency to advise in a proportionate way, in other words
that is a statutory obligation on the Agency. I have no power to direct the
Agency, indeed it would be absolutely wrong if I did have such a power. The
Agency is the Government's independent adviser and the whole purpose of
setting it up as an independent agency is to make sure it is the public
interest, the interest of the consumers, that the state collectively in its
decision making is putting first.
162. So your answer would be that they have to come up with their
own findings independently?
(Mr Brown) Exactly so.
163. Then you will have to look at what the repercussions of that
are in terms of charges, about whether charges may be increased, passed on or
whatever?
(Mr Brown) If there are public protection burdens, cost burdens, arising
out of recommendations of those who have responsibility for protecting the
public, there is a further perfectly legitimate debate about who should carry
the costs, whether they should be borne by the industry or by the taxpayer.
164. Or the consumer?
(Mr Brown) Or possibly the consumer. Because of the range of things
that I have done since becoming a Minister, it is clear where my view lies.
If it is necessary to regulate in the public interest, then there is clearly
a very strong case - not in all circumstances, but clearly a very strong case
- for considering whether the public purse should in fact carry the burden.
Chairman: Mr Todd on competitiveness.
Mr Todd
165. On the Agricultural Development Scheme, you are putting 1
million into a scheme which will be similar to that?
(Mr Brown) Yes.
166. How well has that scheme worked? Has it been over-
subscribed?
(Mr Brown) There are a range of bids. They are assessed by officials
within the Department on merit. Also on the earlier schemes there were some
very good schemes that had to be excluded because there was not sufficient
money. So yes, it is over-subscribed.
167. By how much? Is 1 million going to make a lot of odds or
not?
(Mr Brown) I do not have the figure, and I have to tell you in any event
that that would not be quite the right way of looking at it, because the
schemes are of variable quality.
168. That is a fair point. Taking the statement that the
Government will "encourage collaborative marketing through their joint
Building Business Advantage initiative", what did that mean?
(Mr Brown) Exactly what it says.
169. Yes, but what? How?
(Mr Brown) In other words, we would use the scheme to encourage the
projects. I do not quite see what you mean.
170. To go back to the concrete example I gave earlier of a group
of farmers who wanted to establish a joint enterprise to process and market
local food, how would they best approach the use of this?
(Mr Brown) The measure is targeted at supply chain initiatives, groups
working amongst farmers maybe to join a retailers' supply chain club, for
example. It is there to help with that sort of initiative.
171. So it is an encouragement process rather than direct aid and
support?
(Mr Brown) And an advisory one.
172. One of the key issues in competitiveness is business inputs
in farming, costs such as fertilisers, pesticides, chemicals and other kinds
of things like that. I regularly get approached by farmers claiming that they
can buy far cheaper materials overseas than are available in the British
market place. Does that concern you?
(Mr Brown) It concerns me enormously. The point is regularly made about
veterinary interventions, for example, but also in the horticultural sector,
in horticultural imports, it is regularly put to me that they are more
expensive here than they are in individual countries on the Continent. I
would like to see the establishment of common product descriptions and common
marketing across the European Union.
173. How are we going to address that?
(Mr Brown) There are discussions that take place on these trade issues
at official level.
174. One of the claims is that the British approach to licensing
of some of these products is restrictive.
(Mr Brown) There are also issues about which licences are applied for by
the manufacturers. In other words, it is quite a complex question, it is not
straightforward.
175. Turning to the financing of the Action Plan, how does this
fit with the Comprehensive Spending Review? All right.
(Mr Brown) There have been a series of frank exchanges.
176. Does that imply that you have already got whatever you might
have got out of the Comprehensive Spending Review now, and that some have
claimed that you have taken it early?
(Mr Brown) Regrettably, no. I continue to fight my corner as do other
Ministers, but the truth is that I am competing in the way that the
Agriculture Department competes with other claims on the public purse.
177. The support for research and development has been a subject
which has been raised by the Committee previously. What prospects are there
of at least maintaining the R and D budget that the Ministry currently
supports?
(Mr Brown) The departmental bid is under consideration in the spending
round. I attach enormous importance to the science base of the Department and
to our research and development endeavours and being as protective of it as
I can. I will not make a forecast, because these discussions are continuing.
178. The Committee is currently looking at one aspect of the
administration costs of administering this. Is it effective? One of the
difficulties is that out of this Action Plan you have got quite a lot more to
do, have you not?
(Mr Brown) Yes, and one of the things I am putting to the Chancellor is
that I need the money to do it.
179. Is it effectively conditional on the delivery of those
resources, that you drive through the efficiency changes that, amongst others,
are being proposed by the changes to the regional centres?
(Mr Brown) I am taking a hard look at what is proposed for regional
centres. There are a range of issues involved in that, if I can, for a
minute, take the Committee through them. Firstly, there is a very good case
anyway for examining the future of the Intervention Board, should it continue
as a stand-alone agency doing sterling reforms in the direction in which the
Common Agricultural Policy is going, or should we integrate its work into the
paying work that is currently carried out across the MAFF regional offices?
That is the first question. There is secondly a question of how we administer
the new rules about the regulations. The Committee will be aware that I set
great store by this, I see it as a growing instrument of the Common
Agricultural Policy. I am very keen for that to be administered as closely
to our partners in these arrangements - meaning the farmers - as it can.
Thirdly, there is a question of my Department's involvement with the
government offices of the regions. As you know, historically, for perfectly
good reasons - I am not making a political point out of this - the focus of
the Ministry of Agriculture was wholly rural, because client groups are in
rural communities not urban communities, but with the expanded role at
regional level for Government in general, should not MAFF be involved in that?
I believe we should. Then fourthly there are the considerations that arise
out of the two reports - the independent consultants' report and the Red Tape
Review Group report - about whether we should move to electronic transfer and
revise the way in which we administer the Common Agricultural Policy schemes,
in order, at least in part, to achieve efficiency savings and also to enhance
the service we provide to farmers. So that is a range of considerations.
These are not simple. I think it is right to consider all four issues
together, and clearly, even having accepted in principle the Red Tape Review
report - which I do accept in principle - there are huge questions about how
exactly to go about implementing it. That is not something we are going to
rush at, I have to tell you. I would rather get it right than get it early.
180. So at this stage no conditions have been set for radical
administrative reform leading to savings being a part of the condition for
supporting this particular package of measures?
(Mr Brown) No. Clearly, the objectives of other government departments
in this could be different in nuance from my own. If we are going to do this,
we are going to do it right, and on a programme that is agreed from the
beginning - if we are to do it - and I have not submitted a proposal yet
within Government.
181. Will that initiative be led by MAFF?
(Mr Brown) Clearly, the parameters for it, because it requires the
expenditure of monies upfront, even if there are savings to be achieved later,
must be set in discussion with others, but once those parameters are set,
provided it is satisfactory - which means that I can achieve the objectives
that I have just described to the Committee - then it will be led by MAFF.
182. The Action Plan suggested the setting up of a High-Level
Unit, as it is called, to co-ordinate the delivery of the plan. Who is in
charge of that?
(Mr Brown) Clearly, I am, as the Minister. They tell me I am in charge
of all sorts of things, apparently. This is something I want to discuss with
the new Permanent Secretary when he takes post on 1 June.
183. So this unit does not exist?
(Mr Brown) No, it does.
184. It does?
(Mr Brown) Work is progressing now.
185. But the unit does not exist in the sense of a clearly defined
group of people with a task in front of them?
(Mr Brown) I see what you mean. Whether or not this project can be
taken forward is something that is being looked at within the Department now.
186. I have slightly shifted tack, which is that the delivery of
the Action Plan apparently had a high-level unit attached to it.
(Mr Brown) Let us be quite clear about this, because it is a sensitive
matter. Are you asking me about the reorganisation of the regional offices?
187. No, I am not asking about that.
(Mr Brown) Because there is no unit yet to progress that.
188. But it is useful to know that there might be.
(Mr Brown) Although if it is to be progressed, it will be by a high-
level unit, and I will be in charge of it.
189. Good. The actual thrust of my question related to the High-
Level Unit that had been set up, in the terms that are used, to the delivery
of the Action Plan itself. Does that unit exist?
(Mr Brown) Yes, we have -----
190. Who is in charge of that?
(Mr Brown) The acting Permanent Secretary is currently in charge of it,
and the new Permanent Secretary will be in charge of it.
Chairman: Minister, a number of colleagues have asked for the floor.
I am going to ask them to be very brief and ask questions relating to what we
have just been discussing over the last hour or so, in case there are any
points which they feel they would like to pick up on, because I want to leave
time for ten minutes or quarter of an hour on the GM issue, to bring us up to
date. Therefore, I shall ask colleagues to be very crisp in their questions,
if you feel you can be relatively crisp in your replies, because I want to
give everybody a break before moving on to Standing Committees.
Mr Drew
191. I was going to go on quickly to look at the issue of
supermarkets and ask a straightforward question. When is this long-awaited
code going to be delivered now? What will be the sanctions if they break
ranks, and can we expect more of last weekend's "We're GM free and we're not
taking materials from those farms" leadership from the supermarkets?
(Mr Brown) On the question of the code, it is voluntary, and this is the
first time we have got the industry to sign up to a code. It sets out points
of principle announced at the summit. There is still detailed work being done
on it. The IGD (the Institute of Grocery Distribution) are taking the lead
on this for the industry. Frankly, I welcome the work that is being done.
Officials of the IGD have put in a lot of hard work on this. Clearly, though,
it is sensitive in the sector because, of course, the retailers compete very
competitively with each other.
Mr Paterson
192. A couple of times you have said that certain matters of
selling food are now entirely the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency.
What is your relationship with that organisation now? The one case that hit
the headlines is the closure of the Eardisley plant, which means that 350,000
Welsh lambs from the borders have had to find another abattoir. There are
very serious consequences from the decisions made by the Meat Hygiene Service
which is now under the Food Standards Agency. There must be some means by
which you can put the case for agriculture?
(Mr Brown) Yes, there is.
193. How will it work? How does it work?
(Mr Brown) The Agency's lead Minister is the Secretary of State for
Health, but they advise me on matters of mainline ministerial responsibility,
and clearly there is a two-way communication between us. It is particularly
important at the Council of Ministers where many of the matters of which they
have stewardship fall to be discussed at the Agriculture Council, because of
the way in which the institutions of the European Union work. So there is a
two-way dialogue, and relationships are in good order.
194. So going to that specific case, what have you done?
(Mr Brown) I have asked them for a briefing note as to the background on
the case. I have read it very carefully, and there are a number of matters
which are matters of law that arise out of it. In other words, the reportage
is not the whole story. I will not go further than that, because there are
matters that will end up in front of the courts. I have got to be careful
about answering.
195. It is more the point that the all-party pre-Select Committee
recommended that the Food Standards Agency could not perform the role of the
executive agency running the Meat Hygiene Service and in the same breath be
the policing agency. Are the Government having second thoughts on this after
one month?
(Mr Brown) Not that I am aware of. The Food Standards Agency has been
set up with the structure that we are familiar with. That includes the Next
Steps Agency, which is the Meat Hygiene Service, falling within its area of
competence.
Mr Opik
196. I have one question. There is a view amongst some farmers
that the free market is not really holding farm-gate milk prices at an
economically sustainable level, especially for small producers. Do you think
there is any case for investigating whether there is a way of holding those
prices up, given that a couple of pence on the milk price will not make a
great deal of difference between the farm gate and the consumer?
(Mr Brown) There are two extended factors that set the free rate for the
market place: the way in which the dairy regime operates, and also, of course,
the exchange rates between sterling and the euro. My belief is that the way
forward - the right way forward - is for the industry to make strategic
alliances through the food chain, so that each element in the chain can get
a decent return on what is put in. In other words, it is the strategic
alliances, which are effectively private sector alliances, which are the
future for the industry. As the sponsoring Minister, I do everything I can
to try to make these relationships as easy as possible and try to draw the
attention of those responsible to the enormous advantages of working co-
operatively.
Dr Turner
197. It is fairly traditional to solve problems in agriculture,
Minister, by giving farmers money. What is unusual in this is really the
business element, so driving down bureaucracy, giving proper business advice
and ensuring that possibly better use is made of IT - I personally think those
are the novel things. Government IT in the past has not covered itself in
glory in implementing, and there are in fact quite clearly many sceptics in
the industry. Government business advice has got a very mottled reception in
different parts of the country over the years. You have explained to the
Committee where the finance is coming from, but my own impression is that it
is going to be management that matters, and it is going to need overseeing
properly, with proper feedback and trialling and a whole set of management
techniques used to make sure we do not have disaster in this part of it.
Could you say a little bit about how you, at the top, are putting in place the
structures that will ensure that we actually get this novel part of the plan
to deliver?
(Mr Brown) I am a great believer in the business focused elements of
this package, and I fought very strongly for them. As you can imagine, there
are a number of choices to be made.
198. I appreciate that.
(Mr Brown) I really stand by what I said to the Committee earlier, that
now is the time to take a look at these farm businesses in the round, not just
focused on the agricultural component and the supply side measures, but direct
support measures. How will we monitor progress? I have a responsibility for
co-ordinating across Government the progress on the different action points
that came out of the summit. I have a regular review meeting with the
officials in my Department, so I can see how things are going, and here will
be a meeting relatively soon of all of those who were at the summit, all of
those who wish to come as participants, to review progress collectively. In
other words, I intend to drive this forward and to drive it forward in a
methodical way.
Mr Marsden
199. Do you intend to review and evaluate the Action Plan for
Farming?
(Mr Brown) We will try, but of course some of the outcomes do not lend
themselves easily to measurement - checking on the reconstruction element
this, for example. The price has strengthened in the market place. Is this
because of measures that the Government and the NFC have taken? I believe in
part yes, but it would not wholly be that. The problem of supply and demand
has clearly come closer into balance throughout the European Union.
Chairman
200. Minister, thank you very much. Now I would like to conclude
briefly by asking you if there is an update you have on the issue which was
obviously raised in the House last week about your unintended large-scale
trials of GM rape.
(Mr Brown) You are right, this should not have happened, and it was an
accident.
201. There were a number of questions raised in the House, and you
gave a number of answers some of which, by necessity, were holding answers -
the legal position, for example. There is some doubt about what actually
happened, such as was it mixed in Canada as grain, was it cross-pollinated,
was it mixed outside Canada in transit? I think there were several versions
given.
(Mr Brown) The cross-pollination almost certainly took place in Canada,
because of the proximity of two elements of a GM product, one used to cross-
fertilise the other which was sterile. What we believe happened is that that
process cross-contaminated conventional oilseed rape which was being used to
produce the seeds that were sold into the market place. That is what we
believe happened.
202. Could I ask you one question about process?
(Mr Brown) Incidentally, I put a technical note that explains this in
the Library.
203. Thank you, yes, we have it.
(Mr Brown) I hope you appreciate my difficulty in trying to explain
that.
204. No, it was almost as good as the Japanese description of
multi-functionality and the diagram on multi-functionality, so we are very
pleased about that. Can I ask you about process? You said in your statement
that the Government's advisory bodies had looked at the issue and said there
was no risk. When you say "looked at", just tell me, did they meet as a body,
or were the individual members e-mailed or telephoned? What was the process
and what was the question put to them?
(Mr Brown) You see, I am not the Minister directly involved in this.
205. I appreciate that.
(Mr Brown) Let us be quite clear about this. Responsibility for
ensuring the food safety issues now lies firmly with the Food Standards Agency
and the Secretary of State for Health. Responsibility on the environmental
issues lies firmly with the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am not
quite sure what sort of inquiry you want to conduct, but if you want to ask
about what happened with individual government departments, you really should
ask the Minister responsible. I am quite happy to answer for Government as
a whole, but if you want to get into specifics, you really must get the
appropriate answer from the appropriate Minister.
206. As you know, this is obviously of topical interest, and we do
want to give you the opportunity to bring us up to date.
(Mr Brown) Surely the crucial point is this. Nobody is saying that
there was a public health danger. The advice is very clear, and nobody is
asserting otherwise. That is the starting point. On the environmental
questions, the advice to Government is that there is no danger to the
environment, and that is the advice to Government.
207. If the offending rape - let us leave it in those terms at the
moment, for shorthand - were collected and processed into oil, would the
amount of GM adulteration still be likely to leave the resulting oil as being
capable of being classified as GM free because it would be under 1 per cent?
(Mr Brown) This has actually happened, of course. There were two
sellings, and with the first one it had been collected and processed, and of
course there is no discernible difference because of the nature of the product
and the nature of the process.
208. So the answer is yes?
(Mr Brown) It is completely indistinguishable, absolutely
indistinguishable.
Mr Drew
209. The question I raised with you on Thursday on the statement -
and I have thought more about it since - is that we have got the possibility
now of the North Americans perhaps even talking about a carousel of action
against the EU on the basis of bananas and hormones in beef, and yet they
cannot, because we have now proved it, segregate their GM from their non-GM.
This was what you would term "a tragic accident", but some of our report shows
how difficult it is to segregate. Is it not about time we gave them the
message that they are picking on us in terms of risk assessment, but we need
to be picking fault with them, and if they do not get it right we will have
to take measures?
(Mr Brown) On the long-running banana dispute, nobody has tried harder
than the UK Government to bring it to a resolution. On the beef hormone
issue, the advice that we have here domestically is different from the view
taken by our European Union partners, and we have stood robustly by the
science, because we believe that is the right way forward, and to be
threatened with carousel retaliation is completely unacceptable.
210. But the parallels are there with their inability to trade
fairly.
(Mr Brown) We have no selfish interest in it at all. We do not grow
bananas, we consume them. The reason we are doing that is to try to help the
people in the Caribbean.
211. To me, Minister, the parallel, I suppose, is their
willingness to engage in unilateral action on the basis that they clearly do
not trust the way in which we are working in those two sectors, and yet we
have to rely on them to say they are capable of segregating their GM from
their non-GM, and they cannot do it.
(Mr Brown) There is a clear need for international agreement in this
area, and the advice I have is that we are close. You are absolutely right
about that. My officials are in communication, and I am going to be in
communication, with the other Ministers from France, Germany and Sweden who
are also affected by this. We will be expecting the Commission to take the
issue forward.
212. But the Americans made it absolutely clear to us when we were
there on the Select Committee visit that they had no intention of signing the
Montreal Bio-Safety Protocol, they just see that as a pure irrelevance.
213. Yes. Frankly, you are right, that is not the way forward.
Mr Paterson
214. You have just stated that the food aspect of this question is
the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency?
(Mr Brown) That is correct.
215. Then you whizzed the ball down to the Deputy Prime Minister
on the question of the environment.
(Mr Brown) I would not put it quite like that, but his department has
the responsibility, and that is how it should be.
216. Yes, but in this field, what are you are responsible for?
(Mr Brown) Agricultural production and, as the Chairman has pointed out,
any agricultural production of GM product in this country that there is, and
for seed integrity.
217. Can you elaborate on "seed integrity"?
(Mr Brown) The seed listing system is a responsibility of my department,
and of course it is now quite a controversial area because the seed that came
into the country was not as described.
Mr Opik
218. Given that organisations and environmental groups such as
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have highlighted exactly this kind of
danger as one of the reasons why they have been against our involvement even
at the current level, what would be your response to them and also to the
public, given that it does definitely compromise many of the reassurances that
were given not by you, but by certain representatives of the Government in the
past?
(Mr Brown) Fortunately, because of the nature of the GM cross-
pollination - in other words, the GM product is made sterile - there is not
an environmental danger in this country. The Government - and it is the
Department of the Environment who are in the lead - are introducing testing
of seeds that come into this country, and that will be in place from 1 June.
219. We were lucky this time, but it could happen again, surely?
That is the big worry, is it not?
(Mr Brown) Nothing that has happened is in any way damaging on food
safety grounds, nor is it damaging to the environment.
Mr Marsden
220. I think the public accept that there is no danger to health.
I think they are maybe still a little bit sceptical about the issue of the
impact on the environment, but over and above all that it is still a public
relations disaster in terms of the way it has hit the Government, the way the
media will of course run and run and run with it. Do you not think, though,
in these circumstances, that it would have been the right course of action to
take quicker action to be able, for instance, to destroy the crops to reassure
the public that there was no danger? If you therefore say no, because you are
still convinced that there is no danger to health and the environment, and you
still believe that there is no danger to the environment in the future, then
why not simply step back and say, "Let's open up these trials", because
clearly there should not be any further impact that the public need to worry
about?
(Mr Brown) The products that are being trialled, the agricultural
commodities that are being trialled, are not the same as the oilseed rape
product that was inadvertently released. Because of the nature of the
product, the advice that I have is that there is no damage to the environment.
That now seems to be accepted by most responsible commentators on this,
although of course there are those who are opposed to GMs in principle, who
object because it is an objection to the family in principle, but that is not
quite the same thing.
221. What words of comfort can you give specifically to organic
farmers?
(Mr Brown) There is not any organic oilseed rape, and it is very
difficult to see what this product, even if it could cross-pollinate - and the
chances of it doing so at all are remote - would cross-pollinate with.
Remember, there is no organic oilseed rape for it to cross-pollinate with.
Dr Turner
222. Thankfully this has proved to be, I think, a storm in the
tabloids in terms of its importance to health or the environment, but clearly
there are some questions which would arise in terms of prevention of anything
serious happening. One is what testing does take place of seed to see that
we are getting is what we think we are getting? Secondly, I was impressed
that on this occasion the technical explanation as to why we had a sterile
seed depended upon an understanding of what had happened. I wondered if there
were any tests that could be done on the seed we have got to check that the
technical explanation is well founded, and whether your officials have ensured
that those checks have taken place? Really I just wanted to know if there are
any lessons to be learned? Have we checked the explanation ourselves in terms
of testing? Secondly, are there any lessons to be learned in the testing of
what we receive from overseas?
(Mr Brown) I have received no advice to the effect that the technical
explanation that I put in the House Library cannot be relied on, and it has
not been challenged at all.
223. Could I suggest that it should be challenged? Can we check
it?
(Mr Brown) The whole purpose of putting it in the public domain is that
those who have a different view on the science - and remember, I am a
generalist, not a scientist - can come forward and say so, and nobody has done
so.
224. But would you accept that it would be sensible at least to
ask our scientists whether they can check from the seed whether the
explanation fits what they find in the seed?
(Mr Brown) I have not explicitly done that. If you would like me to do
that, I will.
225. I personally think we should check that explanation, because
frankly, given the atmosphere of distrust of scientists and of explanations
given by international companies in this area, it would seem to me - and it
may not be possible, I accept, I do not know enough about genetics to know -
that we should at least check that what we have got is consistent.
(Mr Brown) The explanation that has been put in the House Library has
been presented to Ministers without any warning caveat from officials, so the
implication is that the specialist advisers to the Government accept that it
is an accurate description. Nor has it been challenged by any independent
specialist in this area, and, of course, it is now in the public domain. If
you would specifically like me to seek the assurance -----
226. I would.
(Mr Brown) ----- explicitly rather than implicitly - and I believe I
have implicitly - I will do so.
227. Then could I ask, has the question been considered in terms
of a more general testing, sampling and checking of the seed that we receive?
(Mr Brown) Yes.
228. Is that something that does happen, or will happen?
(Mr Brown) It will happen. Yes, it has been considered. Yes, it was
being considered before this happened, and the Secretary of State for the
Environment was anyway putting in place checking arrangements which will be
in place by 1 June.
Chairman
229. Minister, it is the Chairman's privilege to end at Mornington
Crescent, as it were. You said in the House that you need to reflect upon
segregation distances. You were asked a question, and I think you said, "You
are on to a good thing", in response to a particular Member asking the
question.
(Mr Brown) Yes, that is exactly right, and I stand by that.
230. What may flow from that remark, then? What did you envisage
happening as a result of that?
(Mr Brown) That there are discussions at official level, between my
officials and officials at the Department of the Environment who have the lead
in this area, because, of course, the purpose of segregation levels is for
environmental protection purposes. Those, of course, are not the only
elements. There is also now a seed purity question as well, which prior to
the advent of GMs was not really thrown into sharp relief, but one could argue
that it is now. So that is why I am reflecting on this and my officials are
reflecting on this, with officials of the Department of the Environment. It
is important for both of us.
231. The last question is, in the light of this event, do you
think perhaps that with the determination or the scientific fraternity
volunteering that they would not persist in the technology of terminator
genes, perhaps there is something to be said for terminator genes?
(Mr Brown) There are clearly two sides to this question. Developing
countries object to terminator genes, because it locks them into annual seed
contracts and they cannot use the seed as renewables. That is the
conventional agricultural objection to it. The case for, of course, has been
demonstrated by this accident. It means that what has happened can be
contained. So there are clearly two sides to this.
232. Minister, thank you very much indeed. We have got you away
in two hours and we are grateful. We always enjoy our sessions with you. We
look forward to other sessions with you. I am afraid we are rather condemned
to meet like this.
(Mr Brown) I look forward to that too, Chairman.
Chairman: On that note of mutual satisfaction, we can part till the
next time. Thank you very much indeed.
