Examination of witnesses (Questions 340
- 359)
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
and MR STEPHEN
TIMMS
340. Could I ask, on a slightly different but
related tack, about the evolution of these public registers which
we have already got in place but which are obviously going to
be beefed up somewhat? I am intrigued to read that you can only
exclude mentions on that register on the grounds of national security
or commercial confidentiality. What do we mean by "national
security" there? There is some nervousness in the industry
about possible animal welfare or, more particularly, animal rights
action against certain holdings. I wondered what this national
security issue is. Is that already in the statute?
(Mr Meacher) The answer to that is that I do not know.
I am very surprised. I must say, I cannot immediately see how
national security would be involved here, but again I will get
that looked into and write a letter to you.
Mr Drew: Thank you.
Mr Mitchell
341. The Chairman should not fuel all obsessions,
but is it correct, as was suggested to me by a couple of correspondents,
that the size limits were introduced at that level because most
French family farms fell below them, whereas most units of production
for poultry, for instance, in this country are above them—that
is to say, they are 40,000 birds, for example?
(Mr Meacher) I cannot possibly comment on that. It
is true that the Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that
the coverage in the case of the UK pig and poultry industry is
substantially higher—something like 58 per cent—whereas
the EU average is about 38 per cent. I think that reflects the
fact that holdings in the UK, which may involve a number of installations,
are generally on a much larger scale.
342. Thank you for that little crumb to feed
Euro-scepticism.
(Mr Meacher) You never miss a chance, Mr Chairman.
343. No, I shall not. It was the French who
insisted on putting this in. There is one further question which
I put to the Environment Agency and which they could not answer
because it is a policy issue. Why bring this in for poultry farms
at 2003 when on 1 January 2003 the new Caged Bird Welfare Regulation
comes in requiring them to reduce the numbers of birds by cage
by one—in other words, there is going to be a steep drop
in the size of many units of production and a real problem of
adjustment and investment in new cages at the same time as the
IPPC comes in? Why not put it back a year?
(Mr Meacher) One can always find reasons for not applying
regulations.
344. But you are applying them at a time of
maximum chaos.
(Mr Meacher) Again, I have not myself considered that.
I think it is basically a matter for MAFF but again I will look
into that and again we will give you a view on that. I am not
sure that it would have the major effect which you seem to be
suggesting and I would have thought there could be arguments for
trying to introduce these regulations at the same time rather
than one after the other. But we will look into that.
Mr Mitchell: Thank you.
Mr Marsden
345. To follow that up, who decided to introduce
the IPPC regulations for poultry farms in 2003 and pigs in 2004?
(Mr Meacher) The Environment Agency.
346. Funnily enough, when I asked them that
question, they said the DETR and, when pressed, they said ultimately
it was the minister.
(Mr Meacher) I can certainly say that it never came
across my desk that the order of application of IPPC to different
sectors should be decided by ministers. It is possible that it
went to MAFF, it certainly did not come to me. I am surprised.
This is a technical question. I accept that the state of the pig
and poultry industry, and in particular agriculture as a whole,
is sufficiently serious that there are clear political implications
in that.
347. So would you be prepared to investigate
the reasons for that? Perhaps the answer has arrived—a piece
of paper has been passed to you.
(Mr Meacher) I do not think that answers it! It merely
says, "The order of phasing will be in DETR regulations",
well we know that, of course it will be in the DETR regulations.
The question was, who made that particular choice. I am saying
it certainly did not come to this minister.
348. So you are prepared to investigate with
MAFF and with the Environment Agency to find out the reasons for
that and find out the basis on which this has been derived?
(Mr Meacher) Certainly.
349. My colleagues on the Committee have eaten
away at most of my line of questions on IPPC charges but let me
see if I can gather together and clarify some of these questions.
Based on the fact that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
have proposed charges which are about half those from the Environment
Agency governing the England and Wales IPPC, how can charges for
the same inspection process be so different?
(Mr Meacher) I did try to answer this earlier. There
are two elements in the charges. One is the application charge
and the other is the annual subsistence charge. In the case of
the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the application fee
is substantially higher but—
Mr Todd
350. Higher than what?
(Mr Meacher) Higher than the UK application fee.
Mr Curry
351. England.
(Mr Meacher) But the subsistence charge, or the annual
charge, is lower. So I do not think one can directly make those
comparisons.
Mr Marsden
352. We have been told that the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency are proposing a charge of a minimum of £7,894
for initial registration and the annual charge is £2,674,
ie still half of both.
(Mr Meacher) Certainly as compared to the figures
which I indicated originally of 12 to 18,000 for the initial application—these
figures are the ones which the Environment Agency provisionally
came up with and which we have asked them now to look at—and
£7,000 in subsistence charges. I accept they are substantially
higher.
Mr Todd
353. In both cases.
(Mr Meacher) In both cases on the figures you have
quoted.
Mr Marsden
354. Why?
(Mr Meacher) You should have asked, and perhaps you
did ask, the Environment Agency.
355. We did!
(Mr Meacher) They picked the figures. We have said
they are high. Rather than simply make comparisons with what may
be decided in Scotland, we have to look at whether they are fair
figures in terms of regulatory effort, and our judgment is that
they are high and that is why we have asked the Environment Agency
to look very carefully at them.
Mr Jack
356. So the Environment Agency are just plucking
numbers out of the ether, are they?
(Mr Meacher) No, I am sure they are not doing that.
I am sure, if you ask the question, and I believe you did, you
will have received their answer.
Mr Jack: Their answer was very simple. They
said that the Scottish Agency got more grant-in-aid than they
did and that is what was reflected in this differential of charges.
Would you agree with that?
Mr Mitchell: I think that is an unreasonable
question. What they said was they were going to consult with the
Scottish Agency.
Mr Curry: No, they said they got more money.
Mr Mitchell: They said they got more money and
that was, it was inferred, subsidising the lower level of charges,
but they also said they were going to consult with the Scottish
Agency on the basis of charging. Let us carry on with Mr Marsden.
Mr Marsden
357. They also said that they thought you had
made a mistake and should have done so in the first place. Moving
on though, would you therefore be consulting with your Secretary
of State for Scotland and, if appropriate, the Scottish Parliament,
to find out how we can compare these two sets of figures and perhaps
find a common charging scheme?
(Mr Meacher) Under devolution, of course, charges
are determined in each separate case. There is no requirement
for them to be comparable.
358. There is no requirement, it is whether
you would be prepared to.
(Mr Meacher) Of course, we will look at the Scottish
situation, but I repeat, the real issue is that the charges should
be fair and equitable for the regulatory effort involved and that
they do not bear harshly or unfairly on the industry.
359. Very well. I know some of my colleagues
have supplementary questions, but I have one more question to
ask. You may have answered this. Have you made any assessment
of the impact of the IPPC charges on the competitiveness of UK
agriculture?
(Mr Meacher) Since the IPPC charges have not yet been
determined, and since—
| 
