Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 114)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
MR DUDLEY
COATES, MS
JUDY ALLFREY,
MS LINDSAY
CORNISH AND
MS DIANA
KAHN
100. So you think some of our present schemes
might qualify?
(Ms Allfrey) I would not go so far as to say that,
no. I would say that our schemes are targeted, and therefore are
a good example of measures of special merit.
101. Looking through the areas that are provided
for, in Article 20 to 22, one of the issues that this Committee
was concerned about previously was that, in the restructuring
and the efforts to shift money from price supports into this type
of scheme, the schemes should actually be valid and that we should
not have the sort of miles and miles of dry stone walling built
where dry stone walling never existed previously type thing, and
yet some of the areas which are identified, you have to question
whether they would not be open to just that type of manipulation.
Is this of concern to the Government, and, if so, what sort of
representations would you be making to tighten some of the criteria?
(Ms Allfrey) I think we come back to the problem that
this is a framework Regulation, so therefore you have to give
people scope to choose from a menu what is useful in their circumstances.
We have always tried to prioritise locally in our schemes, and
so only encourage stone wall renovation and building in areas
where it is appropriate, and we would expect other Member States
to do the same. And there are requirements for evaluation and
monitoring written into this Regulation, which should help, and
the Commission's screening process; the Commission have to actually
accept your programmes, and if you put forward a programme that
is blatantly inappropriate one would hope the Commission would
not approve it.
102. We all know that the CAP has been open
to quite substantial tinkering and fraud, and what have you, and
just to say this is a framework and people have to choose, there
must be some efforts to make sure that if there are proposals
like this they are valid ones and that it is not just a form of
income substitution for farmers?
(Mr Coates) Bearing in mind that the EU runs from
Finland to Portugal, and so on, the sheer diversity of the circumstances,
both environmental and in rural economy terms, does make it quite
difficult to have a single prescription in these sorts of matters
from case to case. We are quite clear, because we know from bitter
experience, that the Commission are not a push-over; when you
put a programme in front of them they do ask you searching questions,
and amongst the questions they ask are the ones Ms Keeble is driving
at, about whether this is income substitution by another route.
But there is a balance to be struck, given the diversity of the
EU, between the degree of subsidiarity and the degree of central
control. Our judgement is that the Commission are reasonably tough,
and the fact that there will not be huge amounts of money available
will also force Member States to prioritise reasonably. I am not
persuaded we should try to get much tighter rules in the Regulation
because I think sticking to a framework and relying on the Commission
to look at the programmes carefully and thoroughly is a not unreasonable
approach, but I fully recognise it is not the only approach.
103. Which brings me on to my next point, which
is, as you said, there is not much money in this, and some of
the goals, like an awful lot of what comes out of the EU, they
sound very good but you have to be a bit sceptical; support for
genetic diversity, I just wonder what happens when Monsanto reads
that. The other big one is extensification of farming, which is
a lovely idea, a shame it has not happened very much so far. Is
not this really just a bit of a fig leaf to continue life as usual
with the CAP, and what sort of pressure is the Government giving
to try to get—I cannot say beefed up—a more substantial
shift in agricultural policies?
(Mr Coates) As I said earlier, the Government's policy
remains that we should be looking for a more substantial shift
away from commodity support, and that will continue to be argued.
The specific point Ms Keeble mentioned about genetic diversity
is mainly about rare breeds, that is what that is about, particularly
of animals, so I think it is not really about the sort of point
that Monsanto might be interested in. The extensification has
happened, to some degree; for example, some of our agri-environment
schemes have required farmers to reduce the numbers of sheep on,
if I say it is Great Whernside I will probably be proved wrong,
but on some of the heavily-grazed upland areas.
104. There is just one final point, which is
that, again, this Committee has talked about the need to restructure
and looked last time at the proposals about retirement schemes
for farmers, and so on, and yet, if you look through the provisions
here, that type of shift in restructuring is not reflected, because,
on the one hand, yes, you have got retirement schemes, but then
you have also got support for young farmers and training schemes.
Again, do you think that, after some hopes that this was going
to produce some of the shifts that were needed, in that area,
some of the provisions and recommendations are, in fact, quite
contradictory?
Chairman: I think, to save time, we will go
on to two other issues, Mr Curry and I both have a question left.
I think I will bring Mr George in because he is asking questions
in this area, too, to enable you to give omnibus answers.
Mr George: Really, this is an overall, sweep-up
question, which really responds to your general welcome of the
draft Regulation; three staccato questions. First of all, given
the challenges in world trade negotiations and national aims to
shift from production support to other forms of support, is this
draft Regulation only a small consolidatory step? Secondly, what
effect have you envisaged the draft Regulation would have on agriculture
and the rural economy up to 2006 and beyond? Big questions. And
what obstacles do you see, still, in front of us, when I say us
I mean Europe, in the next WTO agricultural rounds?
Chairman
105. I think this will address Sally Keeble's
question about the nature of what it is we are actually dealing
with here.
(Mr Coates) May I try. I think there are some quite
big questions under all that. On the general point about the future
of agriculture and the rural economy, what has been happening
for most of my lifetime is a gradual reduction in the workforce
in agriculture and an increase in others in the rural economy,
some of whom are in employment and some of whom are not; but actual
rural population, in most parts of England, is rising rather than
falling. There are exceptions to that, but that is the general
picture. I would actually expect that general trend to go on.
I doubt whether this Regulation is going to alter that general
picture of a shift away from agricultural employment into other
employment and non-employment in rural areas, and I would not
expect either that it will radically alter the pace of that change.
So, looking at the very big picture, I would expect a continuation
broadly of past trends. Mr George made some points about obstacles,
and I think referred to the World Trade Organisation. In that
context, I think the simple answer is that the Commission envisages
that measures under this Regulation would meet the World Trade
Organisation's requirements, and we would hope that that will
be the case. We might not be 100 per cent convinced that everything
that might be done under it would, but we share the view that
we ought to be doing things in this area which do fit in with
the WTO current and likely future requirements. Just going back
to Ms Keeble's point, I do not actually think I see these elements
as necessarily contradictory. We have not, in the past, operated
either the existing young farmers or the existing early retirement
arrangements in this country, but there are Member States that
do operate both and they would certainly argue that part of what
one is trying to do is to oil the wheels of the inter-generational
transfer of land, and then if you add training into that you are
also ending up with a younger and better trained group of farmers.
Now we have not operated these measures so I cannot comment in
our circumstances, but I do not think they are necessarily in
conflict. They can be seen as part of an attempt to generate a
longer-term, more sustainable agricultural economy through the
bringing in of younger people into an industry which otherwise
is ageing, which is another thing that has been happening through
most of my lifetime, that the average age of farmers has been
gradually creeping up, here as well as elsewhere.
Ms Keeble
106. There is just one point which arises out
of that, which is, if that is the case, and if our competitors
abroad are able to use those measures to do that, then is not
that going to place the industry here at a slightly uncompetitive
disadvantage?
(Mr Coates) It is already the case that we do not
operate some of the measures which are provided for in this proposed
Regulation in their existing guises. Equally, it is also the case
that most other Member States do not operate some parts of the
provisions. I would have to check to be sure, but there will not
be many Member States who are operating absolutely everything,
because most of these are optional under the current rules and
would remain optional under this Regulation. Inevitably, yes,
you can argue that there is a level playing field point that arises
from that. I have to say that it is easier to allege that a playing-field
is unlevel than it is to demonstrate that it is unlevel, and,
in practice, there are all sorts of other things to do with land
law which also have such impacts, which are nothing to do with
any of these options, succession, for example, in particular.
So, of course, we will keep an eye on that sort of issue, but
being sure that you have always got an absolutely level playing-field
is probably beyond the wit of any of us.
Chairman: Thank you; absolutely, and I hope
it is not a level playing-field tonight, I hope it is sloping
in our favour.
Mr Curry
107. Yes, I would be amazed if we go in for
early retirement, given the deadweight cost, given the democracy
and the industry, which I suspect is how the Treasury would reason.
Anyhow; forestry. You may immediately say there is nobody from
the Scottish Office here, so we are not very clued-up, and if
that is the case I would much rather you say so, so we can get
it from the people who do know. But there is a brief reference
to the, this will help us to have a more coherent EU forestry
policy; now, leaving aside whether or not the European Union should
have a forestry policy at all, what implications, in practical
terms, what does this mean for us?
(Ms Allfrey) Currently, EC forestry legislation is
all over the place, it is in separate Instruments, different sources
of funding, different implementation procedures; this Regulation
brings these together to provide common rules for implementation,
coverage, same funding source, in most cases, which should make
it easier for Member States to provide a comprehensive, integrated
programme of the forestry assistance. As far as we in the UK are
concerned, at present what we do has largely been determined on
the basis of domestic policy and we take account of the availability
of EU funding and use it when it is available and fits our plans.
We expect to continue in that fashion, but the fact that EC funding
has been brought together and access has been made slightly easier
may mean that we are able to draw on some more EU funding than
we do at the moment, for the various forestry measures that are
available.
108. So the merit is largely one of codification,
is it?
(Ms Allfrey) Yes; rationalisation, yes.
109. And very much at the margin, in terms of
the utility we might want to make of it or any real impact upon
the forestry policy, insofar as the result we can see in Britain?
(Mr Coates) Yes, I think that is fair. It is not at
the heart of a shift, it is much more codification, yes.
Chairman
110. Two last questions from me, before we release
you. One, a small one, on the central issue. A lot of public attention
is paid to the future of organic farming, though I think some
of the wiser heads in the organic sector caution against expecting
too much from the contribution to UK agriculture overall. What
do these proposals mean for organic farming; is there anything
here?
(Mr Coates) We understand that support for organic
farming, certainly of the sort we currently operate, would be
possible under this Regulation, and it could be extended should
Ministers want to do that. You will be aware that we have published
a report of officials on the Organic Aid Scheme, that Ministers
have not yet taken a decision on that, on what to do about that,
but we would expect that everything in that report could be done
under this proposal, if it were adopted.
111. So organic farming will be a matter of
subsidiarity, as far as you are concerned, then?
(Mr Coates) Yes. We could give assistance to conversion,
as we currently do, and increase the rates of that, as the officials'
report suggests might be considered, under this Regulation, as
our present Organic Aid Scheme is under the 8existing agri-environment
regulation.
112. Thank you for that. My last question is
subsidiarity, because we all, I think, agree about subsidiarity,
and the Commission claims that this proposed Regulation does deal
with that issue, but you say that: "A number of issues are
left to be dealt with by Commission regulation(s) or in the process
of approving Member States rural development plans. In some cases
this will result in an increase in the Commission's powers."
Now it seems to me that there will be quite significant increases
in the Commission's powers, which does rather argue against your
and the Commission's claims for subsidiarity; is that just the
price we have to pay for equal treatment, the level playing-field,
equality of enforcement?
(Mr Coates) As I indicated in my earlier remarks a
few moments ago, there is, we think, a balance to be struck between
maintaining some degree of consistent framework at the EU level,
whilst allowing Member States the sort of freedom to administer
and implement schemes that they think are justified in the particular
circumstances, given the great variety of circumstances across
the EU. That inevitably means that some powers have to be with
the Commission, I think, whilst others would remain with the Council
of Ministers; that is true under the present arrangements in this
area, where under Objective 5b and under the agri-environment
regulation the Commission approve programmes from us now. That
principle is not changed by this Regulation, we will still have
to go to them, and, as I say, we know, from our own personal experience,
that getting Commission approval to a programme is not a push-over,
they do question us and they do test us. So I think we would want
to argue that there does have to be some balance struck. Now whether
this Regulation strikes it in exactly the right place is something
which could be debated, but our judgement would, on the whole,
be that, given the diversity of circumstances, it is difficult
to envisage anything very different from this Regulation.
113. Let us put one specific proposal to you,
as my last question. What about environment, hygiene, animal welfare
issues, do we actually need those to be laid down from the centre
to ensure that level playing-field across Europe?
(Mr Coates) I do not think I would want to comment
on hygiene or animal welfare, since they are beyond my remit.
I think, so far as the environment is concerned, you do get into
the sort of problem that the environmental issues on the Alentejo
and in Mr Curry's constituency, if I can just pick that randomly,
are very different, one is dealing with a completely different
set of landscape, of biodiversity circumstances, of cultural circumstances
and a very different rural economy.
Ms Keeble: Can you say what you are talking
about, because I do not know? I do not know where Mr Curry's constituency
is; what comparison were you making?
Chairman
114. What comparison are you making?
(Mr Coates) Between southern Portugal and Yorkshire.
You could pick any two parts of the Community almost, and there
are lots of very significant differences between the sorts of
environmental circumstances you find. And I think, given that,
it is inevitable that programmes vary, just as our environmentally-sensitive
areas vary greatly from one part of the country to another. If
you extend that across a Community that, as I said earlier, goes
from Finland to Portugal and Greece to Ireland the circumstances
are very different. I do not know that I can say a lot more on
that.
Chairman: No, I do not think you probably can,
Mr Coates. You have said an awful lot to us today, and we are
extremely grateful to you. We have given you a pretty good run
for your money and I apologise for making you work so hard. The
Committee is very grateful to you. Thank you very much indeed.
|
