House of Commons
Thursday 11 March 1999
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
The Minister was asked--
Coastal Zone Management Plan
1. Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in drawing up and implementing an integrated coastal zone management plan. [74077]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has policy responsibility for co-ordinating coastal zone management and his Department has encouraged the production of coastal management plans. They are produced on a local basis to address a broad range of local issues, including flood and coastal defence.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As he may be aware, I represent the constituency of Crosby, which is bounded by 20 miles of beautiful north-west coastline, for which a coastal management plan is currently being--
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not in order to read questions.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am so sorry, Madam Speaker.
I support the coastal management plan, but I want to ensure that people in my community, who have a vested interest in it, are part of the consultation team. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give me that my constituents, as well as the experts, will also be part of the consultation process?
Mr. Morley:
My hon. Friend made a powerful case on behalf of her constituents in our recent debate on the Select Committee report on flood and coastal defence. I assure her that local authorities are involved in the drawing up of coastal and shoreline management plans for flood and coastal defence, and local people can make representations. As a Member of Parliament, she can make direct representations. Given the powerful case that she has already made on behalf of her constituents, I am sure that she will not be slow to do so.
Common Agricultural Policy
2. Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): What progress he has made towards reform of the common agricultural policy in respect of environmental improvement measures; and if he will make a statement. [74078]
13. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North):
If he will report on the current negotiations on reform of the common agricultural policy, with particular reference to issues relating to environmental improvements. [74091]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
Negotiations on the agricultural aspects of Agenda 2000 reached a conclusion early this morning. My right hon Friend the Minister hopes to make a full statement to the House tomorrow.
Mr. Love:
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the successful conclusion of the negotiations in Brussels. The deal has been described by the Agriculture Commissioner as the most radical reform since the inception of the CAP. It is certainly a great deal more than was done by the Conservatives during their 18 years in government. It will be good for consumers and good for the environment. What funding will be made available under the reform for agri-environmental improvements?
Mr. Morley:
The agreement that has been negotiated offers benefits to consumers. The whole House will welcome that. The details on funding and the important measures in Agenda 2000 on rural development are matters for my right hon. Friend when he makes his statement tomorrow. All hon. Members will have an opportunity to ask detailed questions then.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West):
Does the Minister agree that the apparent shape of the package that has emerged overnight represents a considerable improvement on the position of only a week or two ago and that the National Farmers Union's description of it this morning as something of a mixed bag was probably accurate? Does he share my surprise at the comments of the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who described the deal as a failure because CAP reform would cost more? No political party in any member state has ever believed that a reformed CAP would not cost more in the short term before becoming cheaper in the long term.
Given the importance of environmental improvement measures and the wider rural development strategies to which the Minister has just alluded, does he agree that the final shape of the package must maintain the essential integrity of the British family farm unit? Without that basic building block, we will not have the necessary personnel in the countryside for the environmental and other rural development programmes that we hope the eventual savings from CAP reform will help to deliver.
Mr. Morley:
I agree that the impact on family farms must be taken into account in the final form of the package. I agree that it is surprising that there has been criticism of the cost of the package, because the original proposal suggested that there would be an initial increase
Madam Speaker:
I apologise to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), whom I should have called earlier because we are dealing with his substantive question. Please put your question now, Dr. Gibson.
Dr. Gibson:
Thank you, Madam Speaker. What are the Government's priorities for rural development regulation? Who will implement that regulation? Will local and regional bodies have a part to play?
Mr. Morley:
I can tell my hon. Friend the Government's priorities, although the final form of the package is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister to outline tomorrow in his statement. We wanted a significant expansion of the agri-environment budget and support for aspects of agri-environment, including organic aid. We also wanted provision for better targeting of support in the countryside, more transparent support to the agricultural community and support for the wider rural economy, encouraging diversification.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion):
I wish to emphasise, as others have done, that maintaining the environment as a resource for everybody means that we have to have people on the land and in the countryside. Can the Minister confirm that yesterday's agreement on compensation made no reference to degressivity--the reduction of compensation over time? Can he also tell us what will happen in that regard at the Finance Ministers meeting on Monday? Will he take the message from us that it is terribly important that there remains sufficient support for farming to protect the family farm and to ensure that we move towards a system of environmental management payments as the basis of agricultural support?
Mr. Morley:
I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, I am sure that he appreciates that it would be wrong for me to pre-empt my right hon. Friend's statement tomorrow.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish):
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that field boundaries are an important part of the English landscape. What money will be made available to help farmers maintain traditional boundaries? Hedges, ditches and walls are extremely expensive but very important if we are to protect the quality of the British countryside.
Mr. Morley:
Field boundaries are very important to the English countryside, and agriculture has a key influence on the maintenance and enhancement of field boundaries. We already provide financial support and inducements through our countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive area schemes. We want to enhance that through Agenda 2000. As I said, my right hon. Friend will be discussing those issues in his statement tomorrow.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
We look forward to getting the details of the package from the Minister in his
Mr. Morley:
The CAP has many disadvantages and any increase in the overall cost is bad for consumers. For that reason we were surprised that the Leader of the Opposition criticised all the main aspects of our negotiations to try to reduce consumer costs.
3. Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
If he will make a statement on the Meat Hygiene Service's charges. [74079]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
The Meat Hygiene Service charges licensed premises on an hourly rate basis for the inspection service provided by its official veterinary surgeons and meat inspection staff. The level of the charges is reviewed annually and is subject to a period of consultation with the industry and individual plant operators, which for 1999-2000 is still on-going.
Mr. Burnett:
I am grateful to the Minister and I hope that he will shortly make an announcement on small rural abattoirs. I should like to draw the House's attention to the predicament of the larger abattoirs, particularly in Torrington and Hatherleigh in my constituency which face a doubling of meat inspection charges from 1 April 1999. In Torrington, the figure is some £410,000 and in Hatherleigh it is £170,000. Those increases will be paid for by the hard-pressed farmer. In Hatherleigh last Tuesday there were some 18 officials inspecting 25 people working at the abattoir. Does the Minister really believe that it is necessary to have two, or sometimes three officials inspecting the same animal at the same time?
Mr. Rooker:
I fully understand and, indeed, share the concerns at the proposed increases currently being considered. Firm proposals have yet to be put to Ministers. There is nothing on our desks; negotiations and discussions are still going on and there will be full consultation with the industry before any final decisions are taken. We are receiving many representations, but the work is unevenly distributed throughout the industry. I understand that some 80 per cent. of cattle are slaughtered in just 20 slaughterhouses.
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West):
Does my hon. Friend accept that when farm incomes are plummeting, particularly in less-favoured areas, the charges imposed by the Meat Hygiene Service are regarded as disproportionately high and indeed punitive? Will he undertake to look again at the matter with a view to mitigating the burden that is imposed, particularly on small farmers.
Mr. Rooker:
The answer is yes, because that is implied in the fact that we will have consultations. The fact
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I congratulate the Minister on having the good common sense to issue a press release on Tuesday saying that he would reconsider the position of small and low-throughput abattoirs. Will he hold off levying the charges until the consultations are concluded--in other words, will there be a stay of execution for those abattoirs? Will he give us an assurance that he will be very careful when considering the definition of small abattoirs so that those in strategic areas in the rural environment are not excluded? The loss of those abattoirs would be devastating to the local economy, small farmers, niche marketing, animal welfare and a host of other concerns. This is a very serious matter.
Mr. Rooker:
By implication, I want to consider those matters. I do not want to hide behind the fact that European Union legislation drives and controls much of this. The definition of small or high or low-throughput abattoirs is not one that can readily be used to differentiate the charges. We can have some flexibility on how the charges are levied but we need the industry's co-operation.
Many people have urged us to charge on a headage rather than an hourage basis. That would be very unfair to operators who have invested huge amounts in larger-throughput abattoirs where the unit cost is very low. We must be very careful not to discriminate, but I accept the point about isolated abattoirs and the problems of animals having to travel long distances. It is a private sector industry; it is not controlled by the Government. We do not plan to introduce any compensation, as the industry would like, for it to reorganise itself.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter):
Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposals as they stand are unfair to small abattoirs? The owner of a small abattoir in my constituency estimates that his weekly costs will increase from £60 to £600 and that he will be out of business in a month. I urge my hon. Friend to act quickly. Am I right in thinking that the charges are to come in next month? We are talking not only about abattoirs but about butchers and consumers. The proposals go against everything that the Government are trying to do in encouraging local, high-quality production and local marketing of food.
Mr. Rooker:
I have to be careful what I say, because of the lawyers and our friends across the water. All hon. Members can tell their constituents to watch the bills and the charges. Many estimates have been sent in by butchers and small abattoir operators, but they should watch the actual charges. We are limited in what we can do to implement the new proposals because of the shortage of vets, as I have said to every hon. Member who has written to me. It is not as though everything can start 100 per cent. all at once. We will seek to concentrate the extra resources on the high-risk abattoirs, and in particular those that consistently score low on the hygiene assessments. We will cut no corners whatever in meat hygiene.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
Of course the Minister is right to target resources where the
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that in other parts of Europe the level of veterinary inspection in abattoirs is far lower than is required here. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already promised an investigation into the charges in the rest of Europe. Will any further increases, for whatever purpose, be suspended until the investigations into charging mechanisms and into European practices are complete?
Mr. Rooker:
On the new element of the charges regarding the specified risk material removals, the taxpayer has spent £20 million subsiding that work in the past year, because we extended by a year the period for which we did not charge. We cannot construct a policy on anecdotal evidence in Europe--
Mr. Paice:
I did not say that.
Mr. Rooker:
That was the implication. We seek much more precise and targeted official information about the practice in Europe. Some 10 or 12 member states currently face infraction proceedings from the Commission because they are not doing what they should be doing.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |