SCOTS Project - www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk

Document : 1153
Title    : Scottish Parliament: Committees: Rural Development: Official
Reports: Meeting 34, 2002
Author(s): Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Copyright holder(s): Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: © Scottish
Parliamentary copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the
Queen's Printer for Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary
Corporate Body.

Text

Session 1 (2002) 
Scottish Parliament
Rural Development Committee
Official Report 
Meeting No 34, 2002 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
17 December 2002 
CONTENTS

Tuesday 17 December 2002


RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 34TH MEETING 2002, SESSION 1 
  
ORGANIC FARMING TARGETS (SCOTLAND) BILL: STAGE 1 
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION 
Seeds (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/520)

Seeds (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/526) 
Poultry Breeding Flocks, Hatcheries and Animal By-Products (Fees)
(Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/529) 
Sheep and Goats Identification (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2002
(SSI 2002/531) 
Plant Protection Products Amendment (No 3) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI
2002/537) 
Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI
2002/518) 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
34th Meeting 2002, Session 1

CONVENER

*Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con)

DEPUTY CONVENER

*Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

*Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
*Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab)
*John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
*Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTES

George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Mr John McAllion (Dundee East) (Lab)
Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
John Scott (Ayr) (Con)

*attended

WITNESS

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green)

CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE

Tracey Hawe

SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK

Mark Brough

ASSISTANT CLERK

Catherine Johnstone

LOCATION

Committee Room 3
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
17 December 2002 
Scottish Parliament

Rural Development Committee

Tuesday 17 December 2002

(Afternoon)

[THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 14:04]

The Convener (Alex Fergusson): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I
welcome committee members, witnesses and members of the public to this
meeting of the Rural Development Committee. As always, I ask everyone to
check that mobile phones are turned off.

We have received apologies from Irene Oldfather, Richard Lochhead, Jamie
McGrigor and Mike Rumbles. Elaine Smith is having trouble starting her car
and Alasdair Morrison has been delayed. Fergus Ewing should be here
shortly.

Organic Farming Targets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Convener: Item 1 on our agenda is the third day—and conclusion—of
evidence taking on the Organic Farming Targets (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
As members will be aware, we have already heard evidence from a range of
interests and from the Scottish Executive.

I welcome Robin Harper to the committee. I know that he has been with us
throughout stage 1. I hope that he will excuse the low quantity of members
present and that he is impressed by their quality.

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): How could I say otherwise?

The Convener: Exactly.

Following Robin Harper's presentation on the bill to us two weeks ago, for
which I thank him, we have received a further written statement from him
that has been circulated with committee papers. I am grateful to him for
that.

I remind members that, unusually, we must consider at stage 1 the financial
memorandum to the bill. Robin Harper may want to deal with that issue; he
will certainly be asked questions about it later. I invite Robin to make an
introductory statement.

Robin Harper: Thank you. I am happy to answer questions on the financial
memorandum, of which all members have a copy.

Concern has been expressed that the target figure of 20 per cent that the
bill will set is unrealistic and unattainable—utopian even. However,
there has been much talk of targets—not all of it from the organic
sector. At their annual conferences this year, both the Scottish Labour
party and the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of setting targets. We can
choose from a range of figures. For example, Wales has chosen a target of
10 per cent by 2005, and I understand that a Europe-wide target of 20 per
cent may be under consideration. Twelve countries across the European Union
have adopted targets.

The principle of setting targets is important. They offer something that is
tangible, quantifiable and, above all, useful. I would like the target of
20 per cent to be achieved, but I accept that that would be possible only
if infrastructure were in place to stimulate demand as well as production.
That is why the bill requires the Executive to produce a plan.

I accept that a target of 20 per cent is challenging—rightly so. The
purpose of setting a target is to have something to aim for. If the target
were not challenging, the bill would not be necessary as the target could
be achieved without the need to legislate. However, it is necessary to put
the target figure into its proper perspective. If the target is not
achieved, the Executive cannot be criticised if it has taken steps to help
producers, conducted research, assisted with local markets and endeavoured
to stimulate production. The purpose of setting a target is to ensure that
resources are made available to stimulate the organic sector. By resources,
I do not mean financial resources alone. It is equally important that
attention is given to issues such as research and markets, and that a
joined-up, strategic approach—co-ordinated by the Executive—is taken.
Countries such as Denmark and Sweden provide good examples of such an
approach.

If the committee considers that, in setting a challenging target, the bill
has gone too far, it should specify in its stage 1 report a target figure
that it considers realistic but that would require the Executive to take
action to achieve it. In those circumstances, I would be happy to lodge an
amendment that took account of the committee's view. Through the bill, I am
trying to achieve action from the Executive. I accept that, for the bill to
be effective, there must be a realistic prospect that the action taken will
result in the achievement of the target.

As I indicated in my response to the evidence that has been received to
date, the Executive is to be held to account by the Parliament. The bill
requires the Executive to report annually on measures taken, measures
proposed and progress to date. Using that report, it should be relatively
easy for the Parliament to judge whether the Executive is making the best
possible endeavours to achieve the target.

All that I can ask of the Executive is that it uses its best endeavours to
stimulate and facilitate the market supply of organic produce, which should
reduce the amount that we import. It is interesting that the action plan
published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in July
this year set an ambitious target for the percentage of the organic market
in England to be met by domestic production. Setting a target and helping
stakeholders meet it is a positive approach that I urge the Scottish
Executive to take in Scotland.

The schedule required much deliberation about which measures it would be
best to include in the legislation and which it would be best to leave out.
We believe that the result is a robust framework for an action plan that
will provide the basis for the delivery of the target over 10 years.
Paragraph 1 of the schedule refers to the plan's interim objectives.
Clearly, setting appropriate goals and milestones is crucial if we are to
make meaningful progress that is transparent to all stakeholders, including
the Parliament. Setting achievable goals over short periods will develop
the confidence that the organic sector badly needs if it is to move
forward.

Paragraph 2 of the schedule refers to the resources and financial
assistance that would need to be deployed. The schedule sets out the
direction that the plan will take, and the planning of resources will
become easier when a series of targets is in place. The funding of the
organic aid scheme in its existing or revised form would be detailed in the
plan, which would offer to converting farmers the security that continuity
of funding would be available for them to meet their targets. Other
resources and finances would also be identified under this part of the
plan, bringing together under Executive control different contributions
from a mix of agencies.

Paragraph 3, which covers "Other assistance", is primarily concerned with
the provision of information and advice, and paragraph 5 is concerned with
"Research". A range of actions could come under those headings. The paper
on the DEFRA organic action plan that I submitted to the committee last
week points to actions that have been adopted in Sweden, Denmark and
England. We have examples from other countries, if required. I am
particularly concerned about how the issue of the lack of detailed
assistance in planning conversions can be addressed. Providing a day and a
half of free advice, as happens in England, would be one small action that
could be adopted in the plan and which has been costed in the financial
memorandum. Another important area for development is work with processors,
which has been recognised in the DEFRA plan.

Paragraph 4 of the schedule concerns the market for organic products and
their marketing. Actions that could be developed under this part of the
plan range from the provision of marketing grants and the development of
supply co-operatives to public procurement. Paragraph 4(b) also identifies
the issue of local markets. I envisage initiatives to develop further
farmers' markets and to build links between parts of a local food-supply
chain.

Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 6 specify that the plan must include
details of other stakeholders and their activities and of how the Executive
will co-ordinate its activities with them. A strong co-ordinating function
is needed to bring all the players and activities together and to ensure
proper dialogue throughout the supply chain, from producers to retailers
and consumers' groups. Overall, the bill offers an appropriate balance
between the forces of market pull and Government push. The bill sets out a
flexible but robust framework that will not tie the Executive down to
unrealistic actions but enable it to work towards a defined goal over the
next 10 years in partnership with the organic sector.

The Convener: Thank you. We move straight to members' questions.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Forgive me, Robin, but I want
to go right back to the basics and probe a couple of matters in the policy
memorandum to get them clear in my mind. Paragraph 2 of the policy
memorandum states:

"The long-term aim of the Bill is that there should be more organic food
produced and consumed in Scotland, contributing positively to sustainable
development. It is expected that increasing production would also help to
reduce the proportion of organic food that currently requires to be
imported."

If I may, I would like to tease out what might underlie that policy
objective. It is clear that producing more organic food in Scotland does
not necessarily lead to more consumption of organic food, and that any rise
in consumption would not necessarily be linked to an increase in
production. It is self-evident that we could consume more organic food
without producing more of it, although one can understand why it might be
appropriate to link the two activities.

Let me link contributing positively to sustainable development with the
question of imports. Is it beneficial to sustainable development globally
for Scotland to produce organic food when the alternative might be that
third-world countries could benefit from producing organic food for us to
consume in Scotland? Their sustainable development might thereby be
promoted. Might not that be a preferable global outcome? That is a big
question, but it is fundamental to that policy objective.

14:15

Robin Harper: I am not sure whether it is fundamental to that objective, in
that the bill tries to address sustainability in Scotland.

Research shows that the bulk—70 per cent—of imported organic food
consumed in Scotland comes from Europe. One of the baselines is food miles.
For example, is it advantageous for a country such as Kenya, where there is
a shortage of food, to grow beans that are put on jumbo jets and flown into
the European market for consumption in expensive restaurants in Paris,
London and Edinburgh? I argue that if the price of the air transport of
those beans were calculated in terms of damage to the environment, people
would realise that it is unjustifiable environmentally. Green groups in
Kenya—with whose green party I am in touch—and throughout the world are
developing strong green arguments for local trading systems to strengthen
local trading in the third world.

When Ethiopia was suffering from starvation, it still exported peanuts to
the rich world. The problem with food in Kenya was not so much that it did
not have enough, but that distribution in the country was poor. Where there
are genuine surpluses of food in third-world countries and where
populations are not suffering from malnutrition, they should be able to
export to the European market. That is a bigger question than the question
of organics and must be addressed by a worldwide agreement on fair trade
rather than by one on free trade.

Stewart Stevenson: I do not greatly disagree with anything you said.
Nonetheless, the policy objective of the bill is related to sustainable
development. I seek to discover whether you think it appropriate that we
should subsidise farmers in Scotland to deny farmers and the economy in
Kenya—to use your example—the opportunity to deliver a high-value,
high-margin product that would sustain and develop the economy of Kenya and
other third-world countries. Do you think we should subsidise our internal
sources of production at the expense of sources of production in the third
world? I agree that there are other issues and I accept that we cannot grow
certain crops because of our climate, although the uplands of Kenya are not
much different from our own in some ways.

Robin Harper: That is an argument against subsidies to all farmers. The
subsidy to organic farmers, who grow arable crops such as beans, is 0.1 per
cent of the total agricultural subsidy given to farmers in the UK. The
amount of money that is diverted into organic agriculture is not
significant.

Stewart Stevenson: Can I just—

Robin Harper: No, because I have not addressed your entire question.

Stewart Stevenson: I will come back on the finance point.

Robin Harper: You are looking at a different set of figures.

There is no argument against importing crops that can be grown only in
third-world countries. However, there is a very strong argument about
worldwide sustainability in local trading for local food, in so far as such
trading is possible, and about future sustainability in the world. We have
a lot of unnecessary trade. Why do we export as many chickens as we import?
That is done because of the way in which the market is constructed—it is
not constructed on the principles of sustainability.

It must not be forgotten that organic targets have been set throughout
Europe, and the bill attempts to move farming towards sustainability not
just in Scotland, but throughout Europe. That also means that it should
encourage, as far as possible, measures such as the development of direct
local trading, farmers' markets and direct selling to supermarkets by local
producers. Those measures would cut travel times and the amount of fuel
used to transport goods. Do not forget that, in future, we might pay more
realistic fuel prices that are related to the amount of damage that burning
fossil fuels does to the environment.

Stewart Stevenson: I recognise that the bill is part of a wider agenda but
nonetheless we must consider it on its own merits. That is what I am trying
to do—I am not confronting some of your other arguments in any way.

I want to focus on costs. Table 3 in the financial memorandum suggests that
the costs up to 2014 will be £138 million. Sometimes I complain about
figures, but that is quite a substantial figure that we would be investing.
The policy memorandum mentions displacement of exports. How much would the
£138 million that would be spent on conversion in Scotland reflect money
taken out of a Kenyan farmer's pocket?

Robin Harper: Sorry. How much—

Stewart Stevenson: If we were to spend £138 million in Scotland over 12
years, which is a relatively substantial period, how much would that take
from third-world farmers' pockets, given that we are putting that money
into the industry to compete with them?

Robin Harper: That would be impossible to quantify. How much would the
£440 million that goes to supporting conventional agriculture take from
third-world farmers' pockets?

Stewart Stevenson: I accept that point.

Robin Harper: You said a few moments ago that you were considering the bill
on its merits, yet you consistently come back to the international aspect.

Stewart Stevenson: That is because you specifically state in the policy
objectives that the bill aims to

"help to reduce the proportion of organic food that currently requires to
be imported."

Robin Harper: A large proportion of that organic food comes from Europe. We
import crops that can be grown here from European organic farms, and the
penetration of our market is largely from European competitors. The bill is
not specifically designed to stop imports of bananas, cocoa and coffee
beans, for instance. It is not designed to block imports of goods that can
be grown only in third-world countries.

Stewart Stevenson: I pass the baton back to the convener.

The Convener: I will ask you more about the financial aspect and how much
you think your bill would cost in the existing budget. Are the current
levels of payment under the organic aid scheme sufficient to attract the
levels of conversion that you need to meet the 20 per cent target?

Robin Harper: One can only express the hope that that is so. The figures
are laid out on pages 6 and 7 of the explanatory notes. As I said, the sum
that goes to organic farming is very small. The total agricultural subsidy
that is paid to farmers is £440 million. The agri-environment
budget—which, as the committee knows, incorporates the OAS—was £29
million in 2001 and only 8.4 per cent of that went to the OAS. If we count
only the area of land that we hope will benefit most from the bill—the
arable and horticultural area—only 0.1 per cent of the £440 million will
go to that. Projections show that the figures will remain relatively small
in the future.

Concerns have been expressed that the provisions in the bill would impinge
on the rest of the agri-environment schemes. Because a member's bill is not
allowed to be presented in a way that will cost the Executive money, we had
to present the bill in a way that meant that we could see a way forward,
which we can. There would not be less money for the other agri-environment
schemes, but unless more money is forthcoming under the present
arrangements, the organic aid scheme would eventually take up about half
the funding and the other agri-environment schemes would not be able to
expand.

Obviously, things are changing within the European Union and there is the
mid-term review. There is increasing pressure for more modulation, which I
know is not generally popular in the farming community, but it might have
to come. Increased modulation would mean that the worries of the other
agri-environment schemes and the concerns that have been expressed by
Scottish Natural Heritage, for example, would be allayed because our scheme
would be able to go ahead and more money would be available for rural
stewardship.

The Convener: I might come back to that later.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): Before I ask my questions, I
will go back to the previous couple of questions. You are talking about
agri-environment schemes' almost being cut if there is no new money for the
bill.

Robin Harper: Such schemes would be restricted. I will quote a figure in
paragraph 29(b) of the explanatory notes, which states:

"at no time during the 10-year period does the OAS expenditure account for
more than 50% of the funds available under the agri-environment schemes."

After 2010, there would be a steady decline in OAS expenditure. That is
what we worked out based on a 20 per cent target's being reached. If a
lower target were set, the provisions would cost considerably less.

Rhoda Grant: The matter is about striking a balance. I am not sure whether
you are aware that the committee has received many representations from
people who want to get into the rural stewardship scheme. An awful lot of
people who want to get into the scheme are not able to get in because of
the points system and the way in which funding is allocated. Concern has
been expressed that the organic aid scheme top-sliced the agri-environment
scheme so that the more money that went into organic aid, the less there
was for the rural stewardship scheme. You are saying that in the perfect
world you would want those two schemes decoupled.

Robin Harper: Absolutely. It is a matter of considerable regret to us that,
in the preparation of the bill, we were faced with having to lump
everything into the same budget. That has meant that, if one heading is
increased, another has to be decreased and vice versa. If, for example
rural stewardship is increased, OAS has to decrease. In the preparation of
the bill we had to work out the financial memorandum as if nothing was
going to change and as if that would make it a perfectly honest and
acceptable memorandum that that did not depend on what might happen in the
future.

I remind the committee that, if it decides to recommend that the bill
progress to stage 2, the figures can be played with. It would be possible
for the committee to say that 20 per cent is unrealistic. It would also be
possible for the committee to say that, because it did not want the bill to
exert pressure on other schemes, the bill should proceed using a reduced
percentage. The committee will have to decide on that question of balance.
It could do so in the hope that a future Executive might decouple organic
targets from other schemes and, by so doing, make more rational decisions
about its support for agriculture.

14:30

Rhoda Grant: I return to Stewart Stevenson's question about imports from
the developing world. Do you have figures that show how much of the organic
produce that we import from the developing world we could produce at
home—although the climate is obviously different here? Is there a figure
in the financial memorandum that shows how much we would seek not to buy
from the developing world? There might be no other source for certain
produce.

Robin Harper: At no point in the preparation of the bill did we envisage
that its implementation would impinge seriously on imports from third-world
countries. I am particularly keen on fair trade agreements with the third
world, as are many of the people who worked on the preparation of the bill.
We did not think that such research would be necessary in the preparation
of the bill, because the major effect of the bill—indeed, almost its
entire effect—would be to substitute home-grown produce for organic
imports from Europe. We would grow our own organic potatoes, kale, beef,
lamb, pork and so on.

Rhoda Grant: At the moment, a percentage target figure is shown on the face
of the bill. Have you considered whether to insist that targets are
included in the action plan, rather than set them on the face of the bill?

Robin Harper: We considered how much we could remove from the face of the
bill. As members can see, the bill is slim and we hope that it is easy to
understand and would be an effective instrument. Targets need to be
included on the face of the bill for the simple reason that farmers and the
market need the confidence that that gives them. I have a prepared
statement that I am happy to share with the committee.

Although the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development pointed
to the role of the organics stakeholder group as the group that will define
Government actions for organic farming, the stakeholder group was
established only three days before the launch of the bill. Its single remit
is to advise the Executive and it has no budget and no long-term remit.
Indeed, its remit was switched midway to include the establishment of an
action plan. According to the Sunday Herald, that was at the behest not of
the Minister for the Environment and Rural Development, but of the First
Minister, although I do not know how seriously to take that suggestion.

Are we confident that the organics stakeholder group will deliver anything
significant for organic farming? It certainly bears no resemblance to any
organics stakeholder group in any other country within the UK or the EU.
Scotland is falling well behind most other EU countries in the development
of its organic sector. We have a large area of land under conversion, but
there is a gross imbalance between upland and lowland areas, which has
resulted from a purely market-driven approach being taken.

If we put targets into the action plan, but not in the bill, the industry
will not grow. It must have a strong push of commitment from the Executive
to match the pull of the market. That push-pull balance is the basis of our
approach in trying to develop the sector. I have not heard yet why Scotland
is such a special case that it should not establish targets and an action
plan—12 other countries have done so, two through legislation. The fact
that we are so far behind is one of the reasons why we need not only
legislation, but targets on the face of the bill; we are almost at the
bottom of the league in Europe in developing organic farming.

Rhoda Grant: One of my concerns with having a blunt target on the face of
the bill is that it might end up skewing organic farming toward the most
easy conversion that would fulfil the aims of the bill, rather than ensure
that organic production is built up equally over all sectors. For example,
we have heard about organic milk production's being greater than local
demand. Maybe that could be slowed down and work done to make organic
cheese locally in order to use that milk surplus. Is a target on the face
of the bill a blunt instrument that will not advance the aims of the bill?
Rather than put the targets on the face of the bill, the bill could state
that the action plan and targets would fulfil certain aims.

Robin Harper: You talked about skewing OAS support toward the easiest
option. That is precisely the situation that we have at the moment; 85 per
cent of the OAS payments go to rough grazings and only 15 per cent to other
organic production. The bill would redress that imbalance. You will note
that the bill is sectoral in that it refers to arable land, improved
grassland and rough grassland. It addresses the present imbalance. The most
obvious example is that it is difficult to finish lambs in Scotland. The
bill will encourage lowland farmers to convert some of their land for
finishing lambs. That would reduce animal travel distances and enable lamb
to be sold properly as Scotch lamb in international and European markets,
which could be of great advantage to lowland and upland farmers.

The Convener: Do you know of any research that has been carried out that
shows the extent to which there is a market for organically produced lamb?
You rightly mention that 85 per cent of current organically farmed land in
Scotland is upland ground. A huge number of organic lambs are coming on to
the market, but not many of them can find a market.

Robin Harper: One is conscious that the lamb market has over-supply
problems. The market for meat in the UK grew last year by 43 per cent and
lamb saw the most significant growth. Despite that, the lack of low-ground
finishers resulted in many organic lambs being sold on the conventional
market. The application through the bill of specific sector targets, rather
than a single arbitrary target, will enable sectors that are lagging
behind, such as lowland finishers, to be focused on the action plan. There
is a lack of co-ordination in the marketplace, but I could not tell you—

The Convener: Is not the truth of the matter that there is an enormous lack
of research even into the environmental benefits of organic farming in
upland farming, which is where the bulk of the conversion has taken place?
You mentioned that the vast majority of organically farmed land in Scotland
is upland.

Moreover, although you say that the bill will redress the problem, you have
compiled table 3 in the financial memorandum under the assumption that

"the same area of each type commences conversion to organic in each year
between 2002 and 2010."

I presume that that takes into account what you would refer to as the
imbalance between the different amounts of land. If 85 per cent of organic
land is used for upland farming and you want to skew the bill towards more
necessary types of organic conversion—if I can put it like that—will
not that cost considerably more, given that the conversion rates for upland
farming are much less than they are for arable farming?

Robin Harper: As I said, an action plan would address that issue. The
bill's target is to convert 20 per cent of all agricultural land to organic
farming. It is clear that a co-ordinated action plan would consider upland
grazings and decide whether it would be sensible to offer as much extra
support for conversion of such land.

That said, the convener is right: our costings are based on 20 per cent of
each category. However, that is because, when we were preparing the bill,
we did not want to be too prescriptive. Although we had to prepare costings
of a possible future scenario, the bill does not dictate what that scenario
should be. It is only sensible to address imbalances at the end of the
process, when the greatest imbalance will become apparent. There would be
no sense in giving a lot more money to upland grazings if a lot more money
needed to be given to lowland grazings in order to redress the balance. I
should repeat that the preparation of the financial memorandum dictated the
way in which we presented the figures.

The Convener: However, do you concede that if the bill is to be skewed—as
you wish—towards ensuring that more arable ground than upland ground is
converted, it will cost more than the financial memorandum suggests?

Robin Harper: Yes.

The Convener: And if a 20 per cent target has to be met?

Robin Harper: The bill will not necessarily cost more. It might, but if we
say early on simply that there are enough upland grazings, we could balance
the money that would be given between the other two areas.

The Convener: I am not asking the question as a criticism. I am just saying
that if the bill will cost more than the current arrangements, we should
say so.

Robin Harper: I do not think that it will necessarily cost more.

The Convener: Okay.

You have frequently mentioned the crying need for an action plan. Indeed,
in your introduction, you said that your one desire was to get Executive
action in the organic sector. However, do you concede that the presence of
the stakeholder group—which, by a remarkably coincidental piece of
timing, was launched two days before your bill hit the press—shows that
you have succeeded partly in your task of getting some Executive action?
Furthermore, why do you think that, given the make-up of the stakeholder
group, it will not produce an action plan that is likely to go some way
towards the target that you want to achieve?

Robin Harper: I cannot second-guess the Executive, nor can I second-guess
what the stakeholder group will say in its report, which I think will be
published in February. We hope that that report will recommend the
development of an action plan. However, I feel strongly that, with just a
few months to go before an election, the group is a diversionary tactic.
After all, the Executive has not committed itself to the development of
organic farming in the past three and a half years. What has caused this
volte-face, this Damascene conversion, to an apparent possible commitment
to organics? As I said in my introduction, I do not see the group as being
substantive; indeed, it verges on the chimerical.

14:45

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): I would like an
action plan to be produced that is practical and achievable and that has
the broad support of everyone who is involved in food production. At this
stage, I want to ask a few general questions, as that is what we are here
to do. I do not intend to concentrate on minutiae.

We want to encourage consumption of organic food. You may believe that it
is better for people to eat organic products, but you have introduced a
bill that sets a target for increasing production, rather than consumption.
I presume that you thought very carefully about how to pursue the issue.
Did you consider introducing a bill that would set targets—either
legislative or in a programme—for consumption, rather than production?

Robin Harper: We did so at first, but we realised that Government cannot
control consumption, although it can encourage it. Government cannot by
fiat make people consume organic products. The bill would not make farmers
become organic producers—it would rely entirely on the will of farmers to
respond to the encouragement that they are given to convert. However, the
bill would require the Executive to produce an action plan that would
encourage the market for organic products. The Executive would be required
to encourage procurement programmes for schools and hospitals, for example,
which would secure a steady market for organic produce and focus
consumption of that produce on people in hospitals and schools, who need
the best food that they can get. As happens in Finland and Sweden,
schoolchildren should be encouraged to eat fresh fruit and vegetables.
Those are measures that Government can introduce.

Fergus Ewing: You are right to say that Government can influence what food
is produced more readily than it can influence what food is consumed and
you have chosen the former. You want more land to be used for the
production of food by organic methods—20 per cent of arable land,
improved grassland and unimproved grassland. How can you match consumer
demand with increased production? If the production targets are met, much
more food will be produced organically. That increase must be matched by an
increase in consumer demand and the major retailers must be fully involved
and engaged in the process. I find it difficult to see how that could be
achieved, even though the market for organic produce has grown by 50 per
cent or 30 per cent over the past few years. Is there not a danger that the
market will be flooded with lamb or milk that has been produced organically
but for which there is insufficient demand? Would not the price of organic
products fall, which would cause organic farmers to lose the premium that
they find essential at present?

Robin Harper: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is of
the opinion that the premium to which Fergus Ewing refers is not a premium,
but the price of the product. Some people believe that organic produce
automatically deserves a much higher price than other food. One hopes that
over a long period the bill would introduce economies of scale that would
allow farmers to make the same kind of profit from producing organic food,
while allowing it to be sold at lower prices.

To expand on that, we need balanced measures, including a target. In
Sweden—as we heard from Nic Lampkin—an action plan with targets was
established through a legislative route, and the views of the Swedish
organic sector were represented in a pan-European research project. It is
obvious that continuously increasing production helps development. More
production leads to more stable availability—availability is important.
That, in turn, helps new marketing initiatives because people see the
product coming and realise that they can market it, and processing
industries dare to invest in expansion. Increasing production also
decreases the disadvantages of small volumes in the distribution chain,
which is especially important for supermarkets. An increase can lead to
lower costs, lower consumer prices and increased willingness to buy organic
goods. More sells better: the experience of Sweden and Denmark is that
increased production works.

Fergus Ewing: I know that Robin Harper likes to cite the example of Sweden.
I woke up extremely early this morning and decided to read Robin's latest
written response to the committee. Somebody said that that makes me a sad
person, but I do not think that that is necessarily the case. I noticed
that you cited the example of Sweden in it. We have heard evidence that, in
some lines of assistance, the level of support that is available to organic
farmers in Sweden is seven, eight or nine times what is available in the
UK. Is not that a missing element? If it is, do you think that that level
of support can be justified, bearing in mind what Stewart Stevenson said
about the third world and competing demands on the Scottish budget?

Robin Harper: It is difficult for me to say what is happening in Sweden. We
are not asking for seven, eight or nine times more expenditure. We are
asking for an increase from £5 million this year to £15 million in four
years' time. That is only three times as much. We are not asking for an
increase in the support for individual farmers; we are asking for wider
distribution of the support. Nonetheless, we would like to see that support
continue, if possible, although we could not incorporate that in the bill.
There are many calls for support for organic farmers to continue beyond the
present five year cut-off point. I have heard people say that some organic
farmers would be quite happy to bargain for a slightly lower starting rate
if they could continue to receive the support beyond five years.

The comparative figures at the back of my written response should show that
the level of support in Sweden is not nine times the level of support in
this country. However, I cannot find my copy of the submission. Perhaps we
can return to that in a minute, when I have that information.

Fergus Ewing: It would be interesting if we could receive rather more
detailed statistics about the level of financial support for various budget
lines in various EU states. As you probably heard at previous meetings, I
do not believe that there is a free market in food production because of
the common agricultural policy. The situation is further complicated
because, although the level of support for food-production support schemes
is the same in most EU countries, the level of support for organic farming
is not the same. There are vast differences in the amounts that are paid.
That is a further complication, which will inevitably make it more
difficult for some Scottish farmers to do what you would like them to do.

Robin Harper: The bottom line is that farmers in other EU
countries—including English and Welsh farmers—all get more support than
Scottish farmers. If Scottish organic farmers are to compete, we must get
closer to a level playing field than we are at the moment. Currently, we
are way behind in that kind of support.

Fergus Ewing: Alternatively, there should be only one level of support.

Robin Harper: I believe that the Commission is considering a more level
playing field for support for organic farming throughout Europe, but I
cannot give details of that because the discussions are on-going.

Fergus Ewing: I noticed that, but that level playing field would take even
longer to construct than the ones that were to be built for 2008.

The Convener: I want to tease out one issue in relation to on-going
payments, which seem to be common in Europe. I notice that you are not
asking for such payments. Why not?

Robin Harper: Again, that is because of the strictures of the financial
memorandum. We hope that a future Government would consider such payments,
but because of the nature of back-bench bills, the financial memorandum and
the bill cannot suggest extending the funding in that way. Of course, there
is a strong argument for extending the funding.

The Convener: I asked the question because some people would rather have
on-going payments than the conversion rates. Have you given that route any
thought?

Robin Harper: That would be up to the Executive through the production of
an action plan. Research at the Rodale Institute in the United States shows
one encouraging development, which is that after an initial dip in
productivity following conversion to organic farming on arable land,
productivity continues to increase for 20 years until it is fairly close to
the productivity that can be achieved on conventionally farmed land. In
other words, the difference between productivity in the two sectors
decreases with time. That suggests that on-going payments could be tapered
towards the end of a 20-year period.

Fergus Ewing: You mentioned that you want children in schools and patients
in hospitals to have access to the best food and more fruit and vegetables.
We all want that, although how we get children to eat food that does not
comprise fast food and confectionery is a problem. Given Professor
Pennington's evidence last week, do you accept that the case that organic
food is necessarily better for people is, at best, unproven?

Robin Harper: No, because I do not think that Professor Pennington's
evidence suggested that. He conceded that it can be shown that some organic
foods—but not all—are more nutritious by weight. For example, a pound
of organic carrots has a lot more solid matter than a pound of conventional
carrots because there is more water in the conventional carrots. The same
goes for organic meat. People who have bought and eaten organic meat know
that it is of considerably higher quality than some conventionally produced
meat. Increasingly, research shows that some organic foods contain greater
quantities of vitamins, although not necessarily vitamins that people would
be short of if they ate a healthy diet of conventional foods.

The other side of the matter is that, particularly for people in hospital,
it is an advantage to have food that is guaranteed to be pesticide free and
herbicide free. Because of the way in which we control conventionally
farmed foods, there should be no health worries about properly produced,
marketed and stored conventional foods. However, it is not a bad thing to
give young children and people in hospital as much herbicide-free and
pesticide-free fresh fruit and vegetables as possible.

15:00

Fergus Ewing: I do not argue with that theory, but the other proposition is
more debatable. A few moments ago, you seemed to accept that if
conventional food is produced according to standards and stored properly
and safely, it is good. However, you seem to be implying now that, although
such food is good, it should not be fed to children or patients.

Robin Harper: I did not say that.

Fergus Ewing: That was the implication.

Robin Harper: No. That was not the implication. I stated that some organic
food can be shown to be substantially more nutritious. I am confident that
if we do more research, it might be possible to show that many more organic
foods are substantially more nutritious, and it can be guaranteed that they
are free from herbicides and pesticides, which is not a bad thing.

Fergus Ewing: There is an action plan, to which you referred, to develop
organic food and farming in England. In your opinion, what is missing from
that plan?

Robin Harper: I have not studied the plan to determine what might be
missing from it, but it would be better, even from the English organic
market's point of view, to have targets. It may be that, because so much
progress has been made with the action plan, the Government in Westminster
is genuinely committed to supporting organic farming to a greater extent,
and its recent actions suggest that it is moving in that direction.
However, the fact that the English organic sector is progressing further
than the Scottish sector is not an argument against its also incorporating
targets.

I was involved in some of the discussions during the preparation of the
Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill that was introduced at Westminster
and, if a team sought to reintroduce such a bill, I would give it my
support. I would like to see the inclusion of such a bill in the next
Labour manifesto.

The Convener: Perhaps I should warn Robin Harper that Stewart Stevenson has
spent the last 20 minutes using his calculator. Please reveal all, Mr
Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson: Section 1(1)(a), which contains a typo of "that" instead
of "than", refers to

"a target for the percentage (being not less that 20 per cent) by area of
each category of land".

Do you want 20 per cent or more of arable land, 20 per cent or more of
improved grassland, and 20 per cent or more of rough grassland?

Robin Harper: Yes.

Stewart Stevenson: What is the relationship between land usage? Sheep and
cattle, depending on what stage of finishing they are at, can move between
improved grassland and rough grassland. Is an arbitrary 20 per cent for
each category appropriate?

Robin Harper: I am very happy for the committee to debate those figures and
to suggest amendments to them at stage 2. I am also happy to propose
amendments. In preparing the bill, we did not feel that we could suggest
that it would be better to have separate figures for each category of land.
Of course, the Executive would be in a position to do that during the
preparation of an action plan, as would the committee if it decided to take
further evidence.

I would have thought that an action plan would drive towards the 20 per
cent target for each of the categories of land. We do not expect that the
amount of land in conversion for each category would be exactly the same at
any one point, as some areas would need to play catch-up. The implication
is far from being that each category would or should reach 20 per cent,
because an action plan would rationalise organic development for each of
them.

As I said clearly in my opening statement, the bill would compel the
Executive to produce an action plan to do everything possible to achieve
the 20 per cent targets. The words that I used were that the Executive
could not be criticised if it did not reach either the overall 20 per cent
target or the individual targets within each of the three categories of
land.

Stewart Stevenson: I take it that, if the Executive were to achieve the
overall target of 20 per cent through the conversion of 808,793 acres of
rough grassland to organic farming, Robin Harper would not necessarily find
that attractive. However, it would be attractive to the Executive because
it would reduce the cost of organic conversion from £138.168 million to
£29.9 million. Would that not be rather tempting for the Executive? That
is not what Robin Harper is after, is it?

Robin Harper: No, it is not. However, the terms of the bill would enable
the Parliament to hold the Executive to account if the Executive produced
results that ran counter to the bill's intent, which is to produce a
balanced development of organic agriculture in Scotland.

As I said at the beginning, we could prepare the financial memorandum only
on the basis of a blunt set of figures that give a rough idea of what the
bill would cost. If I can put it this way, our preparation of the bill
required that we produce a financial memorandum that did not get too
complicated or go into perhaps 15 or 16 different what-if scenarios for
each category of land and for each set of costs.

Stewart Stevenson: I understand that point perfectly. My question is not
about the bill's intention; the bill states specifically:

"The Scottish Ministers shall ... publish ... a target for the percentage
(being not less that 20 per cent) by area of each category of land".

If Robin Harper is now saying that the target is just a sort of sighting
shot, I would like to hear what the balance would be between the three
categories of land.

Indeed, I draw Robin Harper's attention to the fact that the bill's
definition of arable land includes set-aside land. Therefore, although the
bill sets a target of 20 per cent of arable land being converted to organic
farming, that definition means that the amount of land that would be
delivered as usable arable land would probably be in the order of 16 per
cent rather than 20 per cent.

I am trying to see what kind of numbers would create a system that could
deliver land that could be exploited for organic farming. There is no point
in converting to organic a huge amount of rough grassland—the eventual
target could be just under 800,000 hectares—if that land cannot be put to
a sensible use. If the increase in organic rough grassland were not related
to an increase in organic improved grassland, animals would not be able to
move from the rough grassland to the improved grassland and retain their
status. I do not see the relationship between those. That goes to the core
of my concern—

Robin Harper: But that relationship—

Stewart Stevenson: Just a tiny second, Robin.

That goes to the core of my concern about the nature of the target that has
been chosen. I am not against using targets—that is not my problem.
However, the choice of a percentage of land area causes me difficulties.
If, for example, you had wanted to introduce a bill that set a target for
the consumption of organic food or for the consumption of locally produced
organic food, I might not be having this difficulty. I do not know whether
the practical details of the bill would deliver a set of resources on farms
that was consistent in achieving the right balance between arable land,
improved grassland and rough grassland. Arguably, the balance that we have
at the moment, with rough grassland making up 85.7 per cent of the overall
organic area, to use your figures, might be right. I do not know.

Robin Harper: People who are trying to finish their lambs in Scotland will
tell you that the current balance is not right. The organics sector is
quite happy with the idea of split targets. By identifying those three
categories, we are getting into a loop that I would like to break out of.
The action plan should address all the concerns that you have expressed;
that is why it is in the bill. The action plan, as produced by the
Executive, which will relate to the three categories, should ensure that
there is a balance and that the amount of money that goes to arable land,
improved grassland and rough grassland is controlled to produce the best
result. The bill would not compel the Executive to do anything other than
set an overall target of 20 per cent. That does not mean that, in the
progress towards meeting the target for Scottish land that is converted to
organic status, there will not be considerable differences between the
amount of converted land in each of those three categories at the end of 10
years. However, the action plan should produce the best balance.

The figure of 20 per cent is aspirational. If the committee decided that
there should be different targets for each category of land and the
Executive could do the research that would enable it to set those different
targets, I would be happy to accept that.

Stewart Stevenson: I put it to you that, while this committee and the
Executive could do that, you are the member whose bill this is and I will
do you the justice of believing that you have done far more research on the
subject than anyone in this committee. It is beholden on you to suggest
what amendments might be necessary to the bill, rather than simply
producing a figure of 20 per cent. I think that we agree that having 20 per
cent in each category gives us a blunt instrument. I have genuine
difficulty with this point and I wish that you would say something that
would help me to support you.

The Convener: I have a slight worry about the lack of research that has
been done into whether it might be necessary to increase or decrease the
levels in various categories in order to address the market as it stands.

Robin Harper: Research is covered by the action plans. The Executive's
first action plan would require it to conduct that research to allow it to
produce sound figures. I am a member of the smallest party in the Scottish
Parliament. It is true that I am backed by all the organic groups in
Scotland, of which there are 80 or so, but we have little money for
research. We rely on research that other people have done. The first action
plan that the Executive would follow would contain many elements that would
address all sorts of inconsistencies that exist at the moment. The idea of
having three action plans is to ensure that the situation develops in a
logical, consistent and well-researched way over the 10-year period.

The target of 20 per cent is an ambition. Only if the committee believes
that that is unreasonable and completely unattainable in any category of
land should we reduce it. However, we must have an aspirational target that
sets out the most that we can achieve in any category.

We must place farmers in a secure position, ensuring that for the
foreseeable future they have a market for the food that they produce. The
organic sector is happy with the target of 20 per cent across the
categories. The figure is in line with the targets that other countries
have set. Other European countries are already producing 9 or 10 per cent
of their food organically and are now looking forward to the next 10 years.
Do we want to reduce the target to 10 per cent, in order to reach in 10
years' time the point that the rest of Europe has reached now, or do we
want to set a target that is more aspirational and to work hard to achieve
it?

15:15

The Convener: You say that the organic sector is very happy with a target
of 20 per cent. One witness who gave evidence to us on behalf of the
Scottish Organic Producers Association said that he was not happy with
targets at all. SOPA represents a considerable proportion of organic food
producers in Scotland.

Robin Harper: SOPA is slightly divided on this issue. Some members of SOPA
are worried about targets, but others would like them to be introduced.
That is all that I need to say on that point.

The Convener: I want to touch on the environmental benefits of sustainable
farming, if I may use that wide-ranging term. You regard the bill as a
considerable step towards sustainable farming. Would it be fair to describe
that as one of the key drivers of the bill?

Robin Harper: Yes. The environmental benefits are a key element of the
bill.

The Convener: Is it fair to say that there are already measures that enable
such benefits to be delivered to the same extent in differently managed
conventional farming systems as in organic farming systems? I am thinking
in particular of the organisation LEAF. I cannot remember what the acronym
stands for, which is most embarrassing, but I am sure that you will be able
to enlighten me. Do you agree that there are ways—free to the taxpayer
and leaving more money in the agri-environmental pot for the rural
stewardship and organic aid schemes—of delivering environmental benefits
without subjecting an agri-environmental budget that is already stretched
to further stress?

Robin Harper: LEAF stands for Linking Environment and Farming.

The Convener: Thank you.

Robin Harper: Only a tiny percentage of the agriculture budget is allocated
to organic farming. Giving more money to organic farming would not involve
taking much out of that budget.

Some agri-environment schemes have specific and proven benefits. I am
informed that LEAF has yet to prove through research the impact that it has
had on the environment. The organisation does not yet have market
recognition. Organic production offers a more comprehensive ecological
approach to farming. LEAF is about making conventional farming more
efficient with less impact. That is a good option for the 80 per cent of
Scottish farming that would not be organic, and we encourage it
strenuously. However, only organic farming provides all the environmental
benefits of sustainable farming.

I am thinking not just of wildlife, insect life and microbial life, but of
soil quality. There is a substantial amount of research on soil quality,
which demonstrates that soil quality in organic farming is much higher.
There is a higher carbon content and better water retention—not that that
is a concern in Scotland, except in some dry areas. As a general principle,
organic farming delivers identifiable and well-researched benefits for soil
quality as well as for general wildlife quality.

The Convener: I thank Robin Harper very much for his efforts this afternoon
and for answering all the questions so ably. One of the joys of not having
too many committee members present is that members get to ask all the
questions that they want to. I hope that Robin Harper agrees that we have
covered a wide range of aspects of his bill. As I said when I introduced
him, I congratulate him on the work that he has done on bringing the bill
to this stage. I do not have experience of producing a member's bill, but
it must take an enormous amount of effort.

We will consider our draft report on the bill at our next meeting, which
will be on 7 January 2003. A draft report will be circulated with the
agenda papers, which should be issued on Friday. I seek the committee's
agreement to the proposal that, as is now traditional, we consider the
draft report in private. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: I propose a short break.

15:21

Meeting suspended.

 
15:28

On resuming—

Subordinate Legislation

The Convener: Agenda item 2 concerns six pieces of subordinate legislation
to be dealt with under the negative procedure. We will go through them one
at a time, but I will not read out all the titles.

Seeds (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI
2002/520)

Stewart Stevenson: I have no particular difficulty with the regulations.
However, in the changes to the handling of cereal seed in particular and
fodder plant to a lesser extent, I am slightly concerned about the omission
of any provisions to prevent cross-contamination by genetically modified
organisms. I suggest that it might be useful to hear from the minister on
that issue. Given that we have a time limit of 17 January, there is clearly
an opportunity to do that, unless I am mistaken.

15:30

The Convener: We have to report by 13 January.

Stewart Stevenson: That would give us one committee meeting in which to
hear from the minister.

Fergus Ewing: I notice that the regulations will allow seeds to be
transported in an unsealed container. If seeds are transported in that way,
we will lose the security that comes from knowing that the container is
sealed. That might lead to further agitation of the current public concern
about GM crops. I would certainly like to hear whether the minister could
allay any such concerns. Perhaps he would accept an early new year
invitation to come and meet the committee.

The Convener: I wonder whether members might feel that we could address the
issue by letter.

Rhoda Grant: If the minister cannot attend, perhaps we could send a letter.
Obviously we would be giving him short notice.

Stewart Stevenson: I am content to send a letter as a second but less
favourable option.

The Convener: We could determine the minister's availability. However,
given the short notice, we would have to accept it if he could not come,
especially as we have to report by 13 January. Fergus Ewing has picked up
on a valid point and we would certainly seek robust assurances from the
minister.

Fergus Ewing: We do not get much notice, do we? I think that this is the
first time that the committee has seen the regulations.

The Convener: My concern is not the notice that we have received; it is the
minister's availability on 6 January, which is the only date on which we
are meeting before 13 January.

Fergus Ewing: There are two ministers. One of them could come. We do not
need both of them.

The Convener: In fact, we have two dates—6 January and 13 January.

I am sorry. I am advised that we are meeting on 7 and 14 January; 6 January
is a Monday.

We will write to the minister to invite him to attend and to speak to this
subject on Tuesday 7 January. If he can do so, that is all well and good.
If not, are members content to leave it to me to put our concerns to the
minister by letter?

Stewart Stevenson: If the matter has to be dealt with by correspondence, I
would like to have the opportunity to discuss it at our meeting on 7
January before we come to a conclusion. If the minister is not present, he
might or might not like the conclusion.

Rhoda Grant: I am concerned that, if we leave the discussion of the letter
that we are going to send until 7 January—

The Convener: I was hoping that the letter could be left to me. I will
e-mail it to members for their approval.

Rhoda Grant: That is fine.

The Convener: I hope that, by the end of this week, we will have determined
the minister's position. If I have to write a letter, I will e-mail it to
members this week so that they can get their responses back to me. I am
leaving the country first thing on Friday morning, so I will get the letter
signed off on Thursday.

Stewart Stevenson: The minister might not be back from Brussels by then.

The Convener: As Fergus Ewing rightly pointed out, the minister has a
deputy. Do members agree to follow that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Seeds (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/526)

Poultry Breeding Flocks, Hatcheries and Animal By-Products (Fees)
(Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/529)

Sheep and Goats Identification (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations
2002
(SSI 2002/531)

Plant Protection Products Amendment
(No 3) (Scotland) Regulations 2002
(SSI 2002/537)

Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002
(SSI 2002/518)

The Convener: As there are no comments on any of those statutory
instruments, does the committee agree to make no recommendation to the
Parliament on them?

Members indicated agreement.

15:34

Meeting continued in private until 15:52.


This work is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The SCOTS Project and the University of Glasgow do not necessarily endorse,
support or recommend the views expressed in this document.

Document source:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-rural/or-02/ra02-3401.htm

Information about document and author:

Text
Text audience
General public: Audience size: 1000+

Text details
Method of composition: Wordprocessed
Year of composition: 2002
Word count: 10831
General description: Committee Report. See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/index.htm

Text medium
Web (webpages, discussion boards, newsgroups, chat rooms): 
Text publication details
Published: Publisher: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body
Publication year: 2002
Place of publication: www.scottish.parliament.uk

Text setting
Government/politics: 
Text type
Report: Written record of speech (e.g. hansard, legal proceedings, minutes of meetings): 

Author
Author details
Author id: 908
Surname: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body