TRAVELLING to Brussels and back in one day is not to be recommended, but that is what a group of journalists and several farmers did last Monday. The purpose of the trip from the farmers' angle was to put the case to the agriculture and rural affairs committee of the European Parliament that the proposals to introduce electronic identification (EID) for every one of the 40 million plus sheep in the EU-27 are simply unworkable.
We left Edinburgh at 6:50am and had a comfortable flight, but descended into something approaching chaos with Brussels in the midst of a one-day strike of virtually all public transport. Fortunately, we were lucky to be travelling in the company o
f Alyn Smith MEP as he and his colleagues have priority for taxis at the airport.
We had a busy morning, including a useful briefing at the Bureau d'Agriculture Britannique. Lunch was a pleasant experience in the MEPs' dining room, but the real business of the day was just about to begin.
The agriculture committee is one of the busiest in Brussels, and little wonder with the common agricultural policy consuming around 40 billion (£32bn) each year. Neil Parrish, an English MEP, chairs the committee and pretty effectively at that.
We were surprised to be told last Monday's proceedings were special in that the committee would hear short presentations from seven speakers representing Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Each speaker was allotted three minutes and warned not to exceed it. John Cameron, that father figure of Scottish agriculture, set the scene. Needless to say, he did exceed his three minutes.
All the speakers made a sound, but differing presentation, but the bottom line was that individually tagging of sheep under extensive conditions is a non-starter and would lead to a further reduction in Europe's already depleted flock. MEPs then had their turn at making points and raising issues. Smith, the only Scot on the committee, made a good impression and is clearly well up to speed on this subject.
But I was particularly struck by the fact that there was cross-party support for the farmers' case. It was also clear that many MEPs were only then coming to appreciate just what the commission's proposals would entail. But it is clear that far too many of the proposals cooked up in Brussels are driven by the commission and its officials and seldom by MEPs.
That became obvious when Kai-Uwe Sprenger, the director of agriculture, argued that the proposed regulations must proceed and that EID would be a fact of life from 1 January, 2010. Then, in probably clear breach of normal procedures, several of the farmers had a real go at him.
Sprenger was openly accused of being out of touch with reality, but he showed not the slightest inclination of backing down. I was later assured that Sprenger is normally very affable. If that is the case, then the sooner he gets his boots on and visits several real hill farms in the UK and Ireland the better.
Ed Bailley from Wales had earlier made the point that even under ideal conditions EID is at best no more than 93 per cent reliable. Those ideal circumstances related to using the technology in an abattoir, but that would still mean seven out of every 100 lambs would be barred from the food chain. That is utter nonsense, but the failure rate is likely to be much higher in field conditions on a cold wet day.
The current system of batch recording the movement of sheep is adequate and robust. Sheep farmers are not totally opposed to the use of EID recognising that it may suit some systems, especially with pedigree flocks. However, they want to see it introduced on a voluntary basis. That seems eminently sensible.
Parrish in his remarks from the chair made it plain that even at this late stage he will try to force a rethink. However, the big problem with virtually all matters European is that once the commission makes its mind up admitting that something is not based on practicalities is very difficult. But I do think that the exercise was worthwhile.
LAST Thursday morning was certainly less exhausting but still highly informative at the annual general meeting of the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) in Edinburgh. Chief executive Professor Bill McKelvey delivered a masterful presentation covering a wide range of topics. I was particularly intrigued by his vision of one day having a "rural university of Scotland".
SAC is clearly in good heart with the operating surplus for the past year more than doubling to £735,000 with overall debt well under control. However, finding the resources of future capital investment in the current economic climate may prove problematical.
Finally, I heard a grouse from a farmer who reckons that with an annual salary listed at £194,000 McKelvey is overpaid. Nonsense, he is worth every penny.
