| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is a shame that that letter was not received, as it was fairly technical. The Minister did well trying to work out exactly what had happened.
I was slightly surprised when the Minister said that biosecurity did not exist on any farms.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness must not misquote me. Of course, biosecurity exists, but the old system was not an incentive to biosecurity. This system is a real incentive to biosecurity.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I accept the Minister's comeback. I was not wishing to score a political point, but I shall look at Hansard carefully, as I thought that that was precisely what the Minister said. Obviously, biosecurity and the control of the disease are enormously important; they go side by side.
The Minister challenged me on whether we would be willing to move to the new table value were we in government. I should have thought so. I cannot see a reason why not, but we have to consider the fairness of a new scheme. I notice that the Minister did not touch at all on my suggestion that the Government should do more about bovine TB spread in general. It is difficult to expect farmers to comply and do all that they can, while the question of the disease and the disease spread is not being dealt with. It has been going on for eight years and is becoming worse, as I suggested. Nearly 30,000 cattle were killed last year, which is an absolute disgrace. It is high time for greater action.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I certainly should have said something about TB and the dreadful effect on farmers throughout Great Britain.
The noble Baroness wanted me to say something about badger culling and the latest position on that issue. I shall do that shortly. There is consultation on badger culling that closes on 10 March. I emphasise that we are not shying away from making a decision to
10 Feb 2006 : Column 966
control badger culling to control TB, but any policy must be based on evidence that it would be successful in the long term and that such a policy would be cost-effective, practicable, sustainable and humane. Any badger policy would have to be part of what can be described as a holistic approach, which balances cattle and wildlife controls. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the chance to say that.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful for that. The one point that I tried to make was that new PCR tests and skin tests were possible. The more the Government can do in trying to sort out which tests react and which they can use, the better. That will help not only the Government but industry. It is difficult to have a balance between trying to control disease and disease in wildlife—it is not just about badgers, although it is predominantly badgers. I am grateful to the Minister for coming back to that point.
I take the Minister's point on the appeals system and the new set-up where the amounts will be based on healthy animals; I know that. He did not answer my question on the advisory group: he said that it would be set up. I did not know whether he had any information on whether it had been set up, whether they managed to get going, or whether it was still at an embryonic stage. Perhaps it is still at an embryonic stage.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity for this important short debate on cattle compensation. I urge the Government to ensure that the amounts given to farmers are dealt with at the same time as disease control. Otherwise, we will be back here in another five or ten years, all of us saying that it is totally out of control. There are, sadly, areas in the south-west where there are very few cattle because they have such a continuous problem. That is no way to deal with farming. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Cross-compliance) (England) Regulations 2005
3.40 pm
Baroness Byford rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 19 December 2005, be annulled (S.I. 2005/3459) [20th Report from the Merits Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, in moving this Motion, I will speak also to the Motion on the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment Scheme (Set-aside) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005.
The Merits Committee has again drawn the attention of the House to these two statutory instruments. The first is the cross-compliance instrument, SI 2005/3459; the second is the set-aside instrument, SI 2005/3460. The
10 Feb 2006 : Column 967
regulations change the arrangements for cross-compliance and for the set-aside management conditions that were put in place about a year ago in the context of the single farm payment.
When the instruments were first introduced, they were viewed with dismay by the farming community, which felt that they were a real threat. There is still a feeling that the UK Government have engaged in a massive gold-plating exercise. The annexe to the EU regulation defining good agricultural and environmental condition contained a mere 13 lines. By the time the regulation had been put into British law, that had become 700 lines. We are trying to get less regulation; this is ridiculous.
The cross-compliance instrument, number SI 2005/3459, consolidates two previous regulations. The purpose of the new statutory instrument is to refine the original provisions and introduce additional flexibility for farmers. That must be a welcome move, but we still have, on paragraph 3 of page 7, detailed prescriptions on waterlogged soil and strict definitions of when one can, or cannot, carry out a mechanical field operation. Indeed, in some circumstances, the Secretary of State's approval must be sought.
With ever-changing climate conditions of drought or heavy rain, farmers often have to make clear judgments in snap circumstances. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that careful consideration will be given in such circumstances. Who will do the inspecting? Will it be someone from Natural England, or is it the Environment Agency's role? How will somebody be able to apply to the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances? Have other EU countries put such detailed statutory instruments in their regulations? Nearer to home, what is the position in Wales and Scotland? Do they have an equally rigid regime?
The Minister's announcement that the bulk of single farm payments would be paid in February—by the end of March at the latest—was welcomed by all. In the past, many farmers received payments throughout the year. With the change to a single farm payment, however, those same farmers find themselves in dire financial difficulties. Will the Minister agree to keep a close watch on the progress of the outstanding applications, one of which I mentioned earlier? Many farmers are still unable to get their applications agreed.
Statutory Instrument 2005/3460 indicates that set-aside management conditions have been reviewed in the light of the first year of operation of the single farm payment. They are intended to provide greater legal certainty and provide legislative force for a number of exemptions to the set-aside rules. The Merits Committee on page 12 of its report, paragraph 43, states:
"However, we would welcome comment that the instrument demonstrates the complexity of the arrangements"—
standards, conditions and rules—
"which apply in these areas and that they underline the importance of providing clear and effective guidance to farmers who are required to comply with them".
The Explanatory Memorandum to the statutory instrument, at paragraph 7.4, deals with the use of pesticides and herbicides on set-aside land, and it mentions green cover. It indicates that minor relaxations are provided, allowing partial organic farmers to cultivate them for controlling weeds from 1 May each year rather than 1 July. They are welcome.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of the Minister. I hope that the department and the Government will continue to review the way in which cross-compliance is beginning to work in England. I understand that it is different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 19 December 2005, be annulled (S.I. 2005/3459). [20th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Byford.)
Lord Addington: My Lords, we have no real objections to the regulations. As regards SI 3459 as my noble friend has commented, this scheme is a good one and we should welcome it in the best interests of farming and the countryside environment.
As regards SI 3460, does it ensure easier ways forward for the use of organic crops, for which there is a demand. Will it be seen as allowing a greater way forward in that direction? There is demand for such crops, as opposed to other stuff which we have to dump on other markets.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |