§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for delaying his Christmas holiday and mine, but I offer no apology for raising this important subject. The short Adjournment debate on the issue three weeks ago raised more questions than it provided answers, so it is important to examine again a matter that affects the entire Scottish agricultural industry and similar industries.
The Minister must be aware of widespread anger and anxiety at the effect of his Department's attitudes and actions. I have been a Member of Parliament a long time, but I have never experienced lobbying as extensive as that relating to this subject by not only farmers but representatives of all the ancillary industries, who came to the House to express their great concern and request that the Minister change his mind and take appropriate action.
This is not a party political issue. It is an agricultural matter first, as is signified by the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who supports the agricultural industry's plea to the Minister, and of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), representing the view of the Labour party. All parties are telling the Minister that something must be done —that he should listen to the industry's arguments and produce action that allows it a level playing field in the European context.
There is genuine and continuing anger about this. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that nothing can be done, that it is all settled and that he is stuck with EC rules and cannot do anything about it, or that the statistics involved in calculating the base area are immutable and unchangeable. That is not good enough, because the industry genuinely feels let down and discriminated against on that issue. It is an issue which simply will not go away. Nor can it be swept under the carpet or ignored by the Government. By its very nature, the base area and the set aside problem will recur year by year and, unless changes are made, will be a cumulative problem and burden on the industry.
The purpose of the debate is to allow the Governnment to explain more fully the basis of their actions and get to the truth regarding the base area situation. I know that the Minister feels that he has been misunderstood and that false statistics have been used. This is his opportunity to get the record straight. What cannot be disputed is that the 5.4 set aside penalty being imposed on the industry will cost the industry dear unless something is done to alleviate the situation.
The industry is concerned about the direct consequences of such a Scottish set aside penalty. More than 20 per cent. of arable land in the main grain-growing areas will be set aside next year despite output having declined by some 20 per cent. this year. If the policy is carried out, I am told that Scottish farm incomes will probably fall by about £20 million as a direct consequence. Producers' net margins could drop by up to 57 per cent. The increased set aside is likely to hit the spring barley crop in particular, reducing production by about 300,000 tonnes. Those are the concerns of the industry and I hope that the Minister will react and provide a solution to them.
I am told that users of Scottish grain, especially maltsters, distillers and oat millers will have to source a 1431 sizeable proportion of their requirements outside of Scotland. That is a crazy situation for our industry to be in. The lost acreage will reduce the turnover of Scottish merchants and co-operatives by £33 million, which includes lost sales of £3.5 million in seed, £2.5 million in fertiliser and about £1.4 million in agrochemicals.
Unless it is changed, the consequences of the decision will reverberate throughout the whole of the farming industry and its ancillary industries. For example, the haulage industry reckons that lorry movements will be reduced by about 13,000 trips. That means lost opportunity, lost income and lost job opportunities unless something is done. That is the general picture, but it also applies in individual cases. A farmer in Angus said to me:
On this farm it means a loss of income of £5,000 for 1993-94, makes it uneconomical to retain my one employee and involves a 36 per cent. increase in my set-aside area for 1994. This is on a typical 320 acre arable farmBoth globally and specifically, the measure can be damaging to the industry unless action is taken.The Government cannot simply wash their hands of that responsibility. Nor can they ignore the genuine anger and fears throughout Scotland's agriculture and ancillary industries. The agriculture industry has a right to expect the Minister to defend its interests when it is facing such financial problems. It now looks for an urgent political response. If action is required in Europe, action must be taken in Europe to defend one of Scotland's fundamental and crucial economic interests.
The Minister has said that the "base areas are correct", and that there is "no discrepancy whatsoever" in the statistics. He is sure that the overshoot is "a real one".
I should like to challenge those assertions, because they have been at the root of the Government's inaction in the face of this crisis situation. The Minister believes the data to be unshakable, but two sets of data were used to calculate the set-aside base area: the June census returns and the set-aside payments made. The base area for Scotland was worked out using actual set-aside payment figures and was not based on the June census returns.
While England is better off by some 11 per cent. using the actual rather than the census figures, Scotland is 140 per cent. worse off. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department must have known that. Yet as late as November 1993, the Department was using two sets of data, despite the fact that it knew in the summer of 1992 that the base area calculation was to be on 1989-90 and 1991. Yet it made no attempt to reconcile the massive discrepancy involved. In other words, it was a disaster waiting to happen, about which only the Scottish Office knew and about which only the Scottish Office could do something.
The claim has been made that the set-aside figures are higher in Scotland because a few farmers mistakenly included the area that they registered for set-aside and not the area for which they were claiming. Why did the Department not take that up at the time in 1989 and 1990? It is normally a very fastidious and efficient Department. The Minister has enormous expertise available at his disposal within the Department.
If there is a difference of 0.1 hectare in the total submitted on their forms, farmers find that their forms will be sent back to them pronto, yet these enormous global discrepancies are appearing. The census forms clearly paid a part in the present problem. Like many other statistics, agricultural census data are useful in portraying trends, but 1432 are less accurate in absolute terms. However, it appears that the Scottish Office was issuing two differing sets of data from different sections of its Agriculture and Fisheries Department.
The census unit figures show a mean average that closely corresponds with the integrated administration and control system, and therefore with the accurate data. The Scottish Office appears to have used actual payment figures to calculate the base area, at a far lower and therefore punitive overshoot level. To my mind, that seems to be the core of the present problem. The Minister, however, has stated that the Scottish Office figures are "absolutely accurate". Yet I have a note from the Scottish Office stating:
Set aside: Please note we are currently revising all June census data under this heading for every year it has been collected. We know many farmers have entered incorrect areas when completing their census form. Please disregard any set aside data previously supplied.It is dated 10 November 1993—only last month—so those are hardly immutable and absolutely accurate figures on which the Minister bases his overshoot case. That view is also confirmed in correspondence that I have received from farmers.If the Minister believes that those statistics are absolutely reliable can he explain why the total area of agricultural land in Scotland dropped from 5,967,551 hectares in 1986 to 5,364,003 hectares in 1987? That is equivalent to a drop of 11 per cent. According to the June census, the amount of land in agricultural use remains at that lower figure. Why does an area of land the size of Tayside disappear from statistics that are supposed to he immutable and absolutely accurate? I should be interested to know whether common grazing has been taken out of the total.
Perhaps the Minister can also explain why the area devoted to roads, yards and buildings, as recorded in the June census for the years 1982 to 1992, varies from the mean by minus 15 per cent. to plus 25 per cent. Why is such a gigantic variation of 40 per cent. acceptable to the Scottish Office? Roads, yards and buildings do not just materialise and dematerialise, but that is what has happened according to the reliable, immutable statistics on which the Minister has based his case. So far he has said that he will brook no further changes to them.
The doubts about the statistics and their effect on agriculture are grave enough to enable the Minister to argue in Europe about the base area in order to ensure a better deal for our agricultural sector.
The statistics have been used to impose a massive financial penalty on Scottish agriculture. Why did the Scottish Office declare to the European Commission an overshoot of 16 per cent., before it realised that some farms had been wrongly classified as belonging purely to the less-favoured area category? Those farms were split between LFAs and non-LFAs. Surely that problem should have been foreseen when the base figure was being calculated. A glance at the size of the LFA figure should have warned the Scottish Office, because it was far too high, but it used that figure to declare an overshoot of 16 per cent. It then had to rush to negotiate that down to 5.4 per cent. At least that action has established a precedent, because the Scottish Office changed those supposedly immutable, absolutely accurate statistics.
The Scottish Office changed the figures relating to the LFA and non-LFA split, but no allowance was made for 1433 the fact that the percentage area of crop in LFAs could vary from season to season. That is yet another possible variation in the supposedly immutable statistics.
The Minister set a precedent—I am glad that he did so —by using IACS forms in 1993 to adjust retrospectively the LFA and non-LFA split. Given that it is not possible to pinpoint the LFA and non-LFA crop on such split farms, can the Minister confirm that it was only possible to estimate the area of land included in the LFA base area? I am told that it is not possible to calculate that figure accurately. The answer derived must have been a guesstimate because it uses figures which, by their nature, cannot be accurately substantiated.
The Minister was prepared to argue the 16 per cent., overshoot down to 5.4 per cent. on the basis of the figures quoted, but he should go one further. He should follow the example of the Germans and argue to get the set-aside penalty reduced further.
For the purpose of the June census, the split farms were returned as LFAs, but we know that that return has always been false because the estimated number of LFAs is greater than the number that exist. It is on the basis of that miscalculation that Scottish agriculture now faces a swingeing set-aside penalty.
The Minister should consider Scotland in its international context within the European Union. So far only two countries have officially admitted to an overshoot in their base areas—Scotland has admitted a 5.4 per cent. overshoot in non-LFAs and Germany has admitted an overshoot of 9.7 per cent. Germany, however, has had that overshoot reduced to 1 per cent. and is now arguing for a further reduction. Scotland's overshoot was reduced from 16 per cent. to 5.4 per cent. as a result of the figures submitted, but the Scottish Office has now stopped arguing its own corner.
The English figures are due out soon, and it is thought that the original substantial undershoot will be reduced close to the English baseline limit. The Minister should also consider the example of Spain. It had reported an overshoot, but, because of a drought during the three base years on which calculations were based, the Spaniards are sorting that problem out, before their figures are submitted.
If I were at the Cortes and I were a Spanish Member of Parliament, I would find that the Minister would agree and would do something about the matter. If I were a German Member of Parliament, I would find that the Minister would go further and ask for more reductions to the much reduced levels that had been achieved. Fortunately, I am a Scottish Member of Parliament; unfortunately, however, I am arguing with a Minister who appears to be remaining static over the 5.4 per cent. figure.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro)The hon. Gentleman may be surprised.
§ Mr. WelshI hope that I shall be surprised and that the Minister will make an appropriate announcement. As I would be the first to criticise his mistakes, I would also be the first to congratulate him if he does make an announcement. It would be the result of calls from representatives of the sector and hon. Members of all parties to reverse a decision that should not have been made in the first place.
1434 The Scottish farmers are asking the Minister to fight on the political front and to reconsider the Scottish figures and, like his European counterparts, to take that political battle to the Commission before penalties are imposed. Scottish cereal growers already have the highest rate of set-aside and the highest reduction of production in Europe. Unless that 5.4 per cent. figure is withdrawn, further excessive penalties will be imposed on the agricultural sector.
In a recent Adjournment debate, the Minister stated that the scheme was entirely voluntary and that farmers do not have to use it and can grow as much as they wish. My reading of his own example of a 600-acre farm is that farmers would be 56 per cent. worse off in 1994 and 77 per cent. worse off in 1995 if they stayed out of the scheme. Far from the Minister's claim that the income of a 600-acre farm would increase by 17 per cent. in 1994, I am informed that farmers would face reductions in profitability of between 28 and 56 per cent. next year and between 51 and 77 per cent. in 1995. Farmers' returns will remain reasonably static, as the scheme intends, only if there is no penal set-aside imposed on the sector.
The Minister said that English farmers are growing malting barley over and above feed barley, which is, he said:
perhaps being grown ineffectively in Scotland."—[Official Report, 24 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 560.]Such comments only make Scottish arable farmers feel that they do not have the support of the Minister in charge of agriculture. If the Minister thinks about that comment, which was perhaps made in the heat of the debate, he may wish to withdraw it or to clarify it further.The farmers are facing an acute situation. Who is to blame? The Government say that it is not them and that they gave a clear warning over a year ago on overshoot penalties. The Minister said that the farmers are to blame and that Scottish farmers were:
No doubt following what their college advisors or other experts told them.He said that the farmers have tried to maximise their share of £80 million taxpayers' support available to them on a voluntarily scheme. The Minister is accusing Scottish farmers of greed and Scottish colleges and advisers of offering bad advice. I find that incredible. The Minister is also attacking his own Scottish Office officials who worked hard to advise farmers at meetings throughout Scotland about the new scheme.The whole exercise has been Treasury driven. The Minister was keen to point out the total amount of cash that has been provided for the agriculture sector and that the £20 million loss should be put in that context. He should also acknowledge that politicians created the set-aside provision as a mechanism to reduce cereal production and to stabilise incomes through a period of transition. Politicians created the system in Europe to ease dislocation during that period of transition. If that system is the bedrock of change in other parts of Europe, why single out Scotland for extra financial punishment? Is the measure Treasury-driven rather than agriculture-driven? There must be more than a suspicion that it is. Compensation given by Europe is designed, as the Minister will know because of his background, to redress the balance against prices falling to world levels. Set-aside payments leading to lower production and oil seed payments replacing crushing subsidy paid to crushers are all measures introduced to help the industry through a period of transition.
1435 I must refer the Minister to the heart of the matter, which is the base area calculation. I believe that the Council of Ministers met at 6.50 this morning, and that the base area of the new Länder in Germany is to be increased by 181,000 hectares to take account of a statistical error. I hope that the Minister will continue to ensure that Scotland is treated in a similar fashion. Let him join his German colleagues who succeeded in securing a reduction from 9 to 1 per cent. and who have now gone further, securing that extra concession from the Commission.
I believe that penalties that would otherwise apply in Scotland because of the overshoot in the base area will be reduced in line with the procedure already used for the new German Länder—namely, the progressive application of the levy. Will the Minister clarify that? If the penalties are reduced in line with the arrangements for the new Länder, it will be on a reducing scale. But there will be overshoot next year and, although it may be less, a penalty on overshoot remains.
Can the Minister clarify whether the new move through the EC Commission applies to the base area or purely to the payments? If it applies to the payments alone, it is a palliative and the problems will continue, because it is the base area calculation which lies at the heart of the difficulties facing the industry and which will cumulatively impose a penalty on it in coming years. Is the derogation for both payments and set-aside or for payments alone? If it is for payments alone, the root base area problem will not be solved.
If the base area difficulty remains, will the Minister look again at base area size to ensure that it truly reflects the reality of Scottish agriculture? Unless that is done, the problems will return to haunt us year after year, and the problems and anxieties of the past traumatic months will remain. Agriculture is too important to Scotland and the Scottish economy to be treated in this way. I ask the Minister to give our industry the sort of level playing field that his European counterparts have fought to secure for their industries. I hope that he will clarify the base area issue and tackle that problem, which lies at the heart of the difficulties that the industry faces.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)I thank the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for allowing me a couple of minutes. I doubt whether I have ever known a time when Scottish farmers were so upset. I am deeply concerned at the breakdown in communications between agriculture and the Department. That needs to be mended. It is important that the good relations enjoyed in the past continue.
My views on Europe are well known to the House. We are supposed to be at the heart of Europe. I want to be sure that farmers in Scotland cannot point the finger at the Government and say, "We are not at the heart of Europe because we are not being treated in the same way as everyone else."
§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on his contribution to the debate. Let me also remind the House that my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. 1436 Strang) have been closely involved in the debate generally and share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the overshoot in Scottish agricultural payments.
The points about the German treatment were well made. I understand that the penalty has been reduced to about 10 per cent. of what was originally suggested. Can the Minister say just how the Germans have managed to achieve that and whether the British Government can secure a similar deal for our producers?
My second point is that Opposition Members have always had grave doubts about the whole principle of the set-aside programme. Is it not disgraceful that Scottish farmers are being prevented from meeting a demand for barley? I thought that the whole point of the reform of agriculture was that we should match supply to demand, not that we should restrict Scottish producers from providing cereals for which there is a demand and so support jobs in the ancillary industries.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro)I am grateful to those hon. Members who have participated in this important debate. They made valid points.
Just a quickie to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh): he quoted a sentence about "ineffectively producing barley". I must say that I winced at that when I read it the next morning. Something must have happened in Hansard. I certainly did not say that and, if I did, I did not mean it.
I welcome the debate because it gives me a further opportunity to answer various points that have been made in the press over the past few weeks. It is essential that farmers should not be misled and should know the true position about the overshoot that has occurred. I can announce good news from this week's Agriculture Council in Brussels, which finished earlier this morning.
The issue is detailed and complex. A good deal of misleading material has been circulating, hence my public rebuttal last week of the claims that my Department's figures were inaccurate. The statistical position has not changed, in essence, since we last discussed the matter in the House.
The overshoot is a real one. When we brought in the CAP reform package in 1992 it was a major United Kingdom victory—a point acknowledged by the National Farmers Union of Scotland at the time. We all have our views on set-aside. I have never been an enthusiast because I do not like to see agricultural land lying fallow or with a poor level of husbandry. I do not think that it is a good principle, but it is there and it is bringing a huge amount of money into agriculture.
The agreement was that the base arable area would be the average of the last three years before the CAP deal was struck. There was no discretion about which three years to use. Farmers had to use the three previous years, as laid down by the regulation. There was a discretion to divide Scotland into two base areas, specifically to allow our large high-yielding specialist arable farmers to benefit from the higher rate of payments available to them under the scheme. We did this with the agreement of the union, which was enthusiastic about it.
The Scottish base areas are correct; there is no discrepancy in the statistics. I specifically emphasise that it was correct, and a formal requirement under the EEC rules, 1437 to include in the base area the land that farmers actually set aside in the base years, and not the land that they might have thought about setting aside at one time or other. There is a considerable difference between the two.
The failure to realise this has contributed to much of the confusion within the industry. For example, some 6,000 farmers registered an interest in the five-year set-aside scheme whereas only 780 have entered the scheme. I once again give a categorical assurance that the figures used in my Department in relation to overshoot are accurate. Officials take great care and expend considerable efforts in their statistical work. It is a matter of regret that others have misunderstood or misinterpreted them. People did not choose to question the figures that were used to defeat the MacSharry proposals last year.
§ Sir Hector MonroNo, I will press on because I have something important to say.
We do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose to repeat all that I said during the previous debate about the LFA—non-LFA split, but I must stress that it was with the NFU's agreement and encouragement that the Government secured that split so that the grain-growing areas of the non-LFA would receive more grant to reflect their higher yields than grain growers in the LFA region.
It is important to reiterate that the compensation under the scheme is substantially in excess of that required to overcome any fall in prices that may have occured. Compensation rates under the scheme are very generous, and it is not surprising if individual producers have claimed every possible hectare in their IACS forms, as it is their right to do. It is wrong for those producers, and others, to try to discredit the base area figures because of the collective result of the individual actions of some farmers. We must face up to what has occurred. Over a year ago, my Department gave a clear warning about the penalty for any overshoot over base area.
Participation in the scheme is entirely voluntary. Farmers are not obliged to join; they may sell as much arable crops outwith the scheme as they wish without setting aside land. If farmers do apply, there is no obligation on them to do so on all their arable land. They can be in the scheme and still grow grain over and above what they have applied for in terms of compensation. They are, however, collectively responsible for their individual actions. Those are, quite simply, the rules of the scheme.
Compensation rates will rise substantially in 1994. The increase will be combined with other increased payments to Scottish farmers so that the total direct agricultural support available in 1993-94 is estimated at some £300 million, an increase of almost 60 per cent. on this year's support of £188 million. Against that background, it is not credible to talk—as many have—about a spiral decline in the rural economy as a result of the overshoot.
Today, the Ministry is starting to issue payments to farmers under the scheme. A total of £64 million will be disbursed among 9,000 farmers. By the end of March next year, some £93 million will have been paid under the scheme. That is a huge sum in anyone's book. It should be remembered that the farmers did not have that £93 million last year; it is new money. The scheme is voluntary, and is 1438 there to help farmers withstand any fall in the grain price. I know that we have had a frightful harvest, but, by and large, the fall has not been substantial.
As the hon. Member for Angus, East explained the Spanish position very clearly, I shall not explain it again; nor shall I say any more about Brussels. Let me deal with a more important point. The hon. Gentleman did not give Ministers much credit for beavering away fiendishly over recent weeks to try to rectify the position resulting from the overshoot. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been doing superb work in Brussels over the past few days, and has come up with a very satisfactory solution this morning. I give her great credit for what she has achieved. She will add to what I have said about set-aside—and, indeed, the whole issue —in a written answer later this afternoon.
Changes in the rules have been agreed specifically to alleviate the penalties that have applied in Scotland. Both the cut in hectare payments this year and the uncompensated set-aside penalty next year will be very much reduced. The arrangements are expected to be comparable to those relating to the German Länder. Those arrangements ensure that only 10 per cent. of the penalties due for the 1993 overshoot will be applied. If there is another overshoot in 1994, only 20 per cent. of the new penalty will be applied, and only 50 per cent. will apply in the event of an overshoot in a future year. The full penalty will apply only from 1996 onwards.
"Ten per cent." means 10 per cent. of 5.4: the penalty will be 0.5 per cent. The uncompensated set-aside in 1994 will be reduced from 23,000 hectares to around 2,300—a relatively small percentage in terms of overshoot. I stress that if we had the same overshoot in 1994—and we really must try to ensure that that does not happen—the figure would be 20 per cent. of 5.4: that is, 1 per cent. That represents a substantial improvement in the position of farmers in Scotland. If the 1994 overshoot were 23,000 hectares, the uncompensated set-aside in 1995 would be reduced to 4,600. All in all, that is a spectacular improvement in the position that farmers have got themselves into this year.
§ Mr. WelshDoes that derogation apply to both set-aside and payments, or only to payments? I am sure that all farmers will welcome this respite, but if it does not apply to the base area the problem will recur.
§ Sir Hector MonroI hope that I have already explained that the payment this year will be 0.5 per cent.—10 per cent. of 5.4—while the uncompensated set-aside will be reduced from 23,000 hectares to 2,300. That is a very small amount, when it is spread over the whole of the non-LFA area. It is an important victory for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it has been warmly supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, both of whom have been beavering away in Europe to achieve a satisfactory solution. However, as Scottish farmers, we must understand that we must not overshoot again because, as has been proved, the problem builds up and will prove detrimental to the overall payments.
I in no way underestimate the large sums coming into Scottish agriculture this year as a result of the scheme. It was wrong of the industry, the millers and others to say that £20 million would be lost to the rural economy when I am putting £93 million into it. I do not understand how the 1439 hon. Member for Angus, East came up with the astonishing equation that the rural economy will be £20 million worse off when £93 million of absolutely new money is entering the Scottish agricultural scene.
The new scheme is extremely satisfactory for Scottish farmers and it is something which they should greet with open hands—I am sure that they will welcome the cheques that are already being sent out this week. I hope that farmers will realise that the change means that we shall have to continue to make the payments that were in the pipeline earlier in the week but that the additional money will be sent to them as soon as we can carry out the necessary administrative work.
Bearing in mind that the compensation rates will rise in 1994 and that there have been other increases in payments to Scottish farmers, the total direct agricultural support available in 1993-94 is estimated to be some £300 million, an increase of 60 per cent. on this year's support of £188 million. That makes it one of the best deals that the Scottish farming has had for many a day. That is true not only for the grain and arable sector but for the livestock sector, where payments have substantially increased and will overtake the income lost because of the reduction in the hill compensatory allowance. The extension of the suckler cow payment will mean that the same will happen for cattle.
We hope that with the continuing high level of the annual sheep premium, the farming community will realise that it is being well looked after by the Government, particularly in the less-favoured areas and hill areas. Of course, in the highlands and islands a special additional payment is also being made this year, so I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is here.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerMy hon. Friend's comments will have done much to restore confidence and faith and to allay the concerns that brought me here this morning. I congratulate him and his colleagues on what they have achieved.
§ Sir Hector MonroI am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We have made a significant announcement today, which shows that we have been doing all that we possibly could to alleviate the serious problem of overshoot. The position has now been clarified and the payments will go ahead, but I must issue a warning.
The Government want to help farming and ensure that the farming community receives the greatest possible income because of all the hazards of rural life. In exchange, however, we must ask farmers to try not to overshoot in the coming year. They will perhaps find ways of setting aside other areas of land, thereby not reducing the area of land under crop, especially grain. No one grows better malting barley than we do in Scotland and I do not want the quantity to be reduced. We want to help our distilleries further—they have already been helped by the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the Chancellor. We want to give the Scotch whisky industry the very best quality malt so that it can provide the best drink available anywhere in the world.
All in all, we are going away from our Christmas recess feeling that a major problem has been resolved, and that farmers can enjoy their cheques and use them—as I know they will have to—to maintain the quality of their output and the environmental advantages of living in Scotland. I hope that they feel that the Government have worked very hard to resolve the problem and that that is now satisfactorily resolved.
-
c1440
- Royal Assent 34 words