Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government. I am sure that he will recognise that it would be a wholly inappropriate matter for the Finance Bill. I shall explain, should I have the time, precisely what the implications of the Bill, or a similar amendment to the Finance Bill, will be. The objectives that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire and the Bill's sponsors seek to secure are properly a matter for public spending, whether through the rural transport fund, the fuel duty rebate or some other mechanism involving my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Mr. McLoughlin: I want to press the Minister on the matter. I am surprised by that answer. I do not accept it. Bearing in mind that, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced that there was to be a review of shipping, cabotage and the rights of shipping, surely it is a matter that could be accommodated--I will not say easily--in the Finance Bill.
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman indicated his full understanding of the difficulties with his Bill when we met last week, but it would assist in answering him and other hon. Members if I said a little more about the operation of the fuel duty scheme, to which the Bill refers, but to which few hon. Members have referred.
We have an efficient means of collecting Excise duties. They are collected essentially at an early stage in the production and distribution system. Road fuel duty is collected on delivery from the refinery, or import warehouse. There are few taxpayers. Those that pay are mostly household names from the oil industry. They are reputable, compliant businesses who pay a large amount of money to the Exchequer every month, on time and accurately.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 19 March.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for Labour Members to object to a private Member's Bill with which the Government have told me they agree in principle, and which also endorses the Government's own White Paper--which pledges:
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 March.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 March.
Bill read a Second Time, and committed to aStanding Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 March.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 March.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 19 March.
Order for Second Reading read.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 19 March.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic Adjournments),
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hanson.]
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West):
After today's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the outcome of the Brussels negotiations on common agricultural policy reform, this debate has become rather more topical than I had expected it would be. May I express my pleasure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), has returned safely from Brussels? It is good to see him in the Chamber. I shall have some serious questions for him about the rather important issue of how common agricultural policy payments and subsidies are administered.
I should like, first, to concentrate on the system for distributing the moneys that play such an important part in sustaining agriculture, not only in Wales but across the United Kingdom. Although I accept that the Government have made progress on the matter, there is great concern that the current system is inefficient and subject to wholly unacceptable delay, and that it needs to be reformed root and branch.
The second theme which I wish to pursue concerns the manner in which European Union regulations governing payments of subsidies are interpreted and the overall issue of fairness. There is a perception--I can vouch for it from my own constituency postbag--that the rules are construed rather inflexibly and unfairly by the Welsh Office Agriculture Department.
There is a perception that Wales has been the poor relation in respect of the administration of the system of payments and the resources and the information technology required to deliver an efficient system. The Government have acknowledged that, as they have commissioned a major review. I expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can tell us more about the progress on that.
Let us remind ourselves of the importance of CAP payments and subsidies to Welsh farmers and the Welsh rural economy. In 1997-98, the payments amounted to £230 million and no fewer than 20,000 Welsh farmers received some form of payment or subsidy. I understand that the payments account for some 50 per cent. of farmers' net incomes.
I need hardly remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that agriculture is in a difficult state. His Department's forecast for this year anticipates a drop in farm income of 41 per cent., leaving the average farmer in Wales with an income of about £6,000 per annum. If there were any need to disabuse the general public of the idea that small farmers in my constituency and in Wales as a whole are well off, the figures would speak for themselves. Farmers are going through a particularly difficult time as a result of world trading conditions and the aftermath of the BSE crisis. Farmers, particularly in the less-favoured areas in Wales, depend heavily on the hill livestock compensatory allowance.
Given the critical state of the Welsh rural economy, cash flow is crucial. The Government accept the need for public support for agriculture in the widest public interest, but we need a better system for delivering payments, which must be made more efficient and more timely.
A letter that I received recently from the National Farmers Union in Ruthin about the inefficiency of the present system stated:
On 15 December last year, the Secretary of State for Wales announced that he accepted the findings of the management consultants' report and that there would be a three-year project to revolutionise the payment system while retaining the present network of Welsh Office Agriculture Department offices. The aim to which the Government aspire is, in the words of the Secretary of State, to
Delay in payments is an important issue. Farmers have experienced severe problems, causing tremendous cash flow difficulties. On the death of a partner in a farm partnership, the Welsh Office Agriculture Department freezes all payments of subsidy to the farm until it has received the grant of probate. That can take up to a year, during which no payments are received. I should like my hon. Friend to review that issue, about which the Farmers Union of Wales is particularly concerned. Could not written assurances from a solicitor be accepted? I appreciate that the Welsh Office needs assurances as to
the identity of the right person for payment, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will adopt a more pragmatic approach.
My second main issue relates to the fairness and consistency of the application of the integrated administration and control system--IACS--rules, particularly in the light of European Union regulation 3887/92, with which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is familiar. My evidence is that it is applied inflexibly and unfairly. I appreciate that the European Union demands high standards of probity and accountability, and that there should be rules to prevent the risk of abuse, but rules should be for the guidance of wise men, not the blind obedience of fools. On many occasions, insufficient common sense and common justice have been applied. My hon. Friend knows of my keen interest in agricultural matters, reflecting my rural constituency, and I am due to see him next week to discuss some individual cases.
Mistakes arise as a result of the complexity of the paperwork. There are examples of claims being turned down because field areas were given in acres rather than hectares, because certain boxes were not ticked, because incorrect field numbers were given on the claim forms, because of a failure to submit a valid form due to ill health or because there was a mistake in copying an identification number.
I should like to refer to two cases, to which I do not expect a formal reply from my hon. Friend today. I am simply putting him on notice. He has received correspondence on the matter, and I look forward to a detailed response from him when I meet him next week.
The case of D. W. and E. F. Roberts of Tan-y-Crraig, Llangernyw, involves an incorrect forage declaration on the IACS form. There was absolutely no element of bad faith on their part. There was an error in so far as the field recorded on the form was the wrong one. That was due to the fact that the owner of the field had given my constituents the wrong number--an innocent mistake, which seems not to have been taken on board in the Welsh Office. I want the Welsh Office seriously to consider taking a sympathetic approach to that case.
The case of the well-established family farmersG. E. Edwards and Sons of Llanfwrog has also given me much cause for concern. There has been extensive correspondence between me, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his predecessor on the matter. It concerns sheep annual premium and hill livestock compensatory allowance claim forms for 1997, which were rejected because they were submitted out of time. Rather unfortunate circumstances surround the case, arising from the illness of the senior partner, who would normally have provided the paperwork. I ask my hon. Friend seriously to reconsider the merits of the case, which is very sad. I want him to think again about it, even if it means stretching the rules. He can do so justifiably because they allow sufficient scope for discretion in order to formulate solutions that are consistent with common sense.
What progress has been made in agreeing the recently published Commission proposals, which would permit the waiver of automatic penalties for certain types of error? I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend's response. Article 11 of the regulations to which I refer deal with the vexed issue of force majeure. The European Commission
accepts that, where the defence of force majeure is made, it can excuse claimants from failure to comply with certain conditions. How is that article interpreted? Does the Welsh Office have a definitive view? Is it a question for the Welsh Office Agriculture Department or for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here in London?
I speak as someone who has a predilection for adopting a legal approach, since I was a lawyer before I entered Parliament. Article 11 gives very wide discretion as to how to interpret force majeure. Clause 3 of the article says:
Clause 2 of article 11 refers to the need to lodge the invocation of force majeure
"We wish to reduce the impact on traffic and pedestrians caused by streetworks for utility companies"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. Whether any hon. Member objects to a measure before the House is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 31st March, do adjourn till Tuesday 13th April 1999.--[Mr. Hanson.]
Question agreed to.
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st March, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.--[Mr. Hanson.]
12 Mar 1999 : Column 681
2.32 pm
"The dramatic fall in farm income has been compounded in recent years by continued delays in administration and processing of applications by the Welsh Office. These delays are unacceptable and have contributed to severe cash flow difficulties experienced by Welsh producers, thus placing them at a serious disadvantage with their English counterparts."
As I said earlier, the Government have responded and, following a comprehensive review by the management consultants, Hedra, work is in progress on a three-year project to update the system. One of the key findings of the Hedra report was that the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, to which the task of distributing payments has been devolved--and it will subsequently go to the National Assembly for Wales--could not meet farmers charter targets. The report accepted that, for many years, the Welsh Office Agriculture Department had been operating under what was described as crisis management. There were severe problems with the IT system, which was regarded as outdated, and there were inherent difficulties in the paperwork and the forms.
"concentrate on treating farmers properly and releasing payments accurately, on time and with as few burdens as possible."
In the light of that, I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. First, what progress has been achieved? I appreciate that this is at an early stage, but an indication of what steps have been taken to implement the project would be much appreciated. Secondly, what resources have been put into the project? I ask that with particular regard to computer technology, which will form an important part of the updating process. Thirdly, when will the improvements come about? Fourthly, what steps will be taken to monitor the effectiveness of the changes? Fifthly, how will the system cope with recent and imminent changes to the common agricultural policy regime and the introduction of the all-Wales agri-environmental scheme, Tir Gofal, which was launched in my constituency last week? Sixthly, and crucially, will the Government consider accelerating the process of change from the anticipated three years to nearer two years or one year? If the implementation of the new computer technology is outsourced, why is it not possible to have real progress much earlier than in three years?
"Without prejudice to the actual circumstances to be taken into account in individual cases, the competent authorities"--
I query whether the competent authority is MAFF or the Welsh Office Agriculture Department--
"may recognize, in particular, the following cases of force majeure".
They include the death of the farmer, long-term professional incapacity, a severe natural disaster, and so on. What is significant, and what I do not think the Welsh Office fully accepts, is that the list is neither exhaustive nor determinative of what amounts to force majeure. I want the Welsh Office to apply its collective mind to how to interpret article 11 fairly and consistently.
"within 10 working days of the date on which the farmer is in a position to do so."
That must mean that the farmer must be aware of the circumstances that enable him to invoke the force majeure defence. That was not acknowledged in the cases to which I have referred.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |