Examination of witness (Questions 700
- 706)
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2000
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY
700. The other thing which is folklore in British
farming is they are not supported in the same way as other nations.
That is what they say. They argue because there is ongoing support
for organic farming as well as during the conversion period that
they are under-aided in the UK. Do you believe in principle that
you should be, in fact, determining policy, taking into account
the level of subsidy and support elsewhere so as to produce a
level playing field? Do you think that is a matter of policy?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I think it is a fair point to make
that we should look at what other European countries are doing
in relation to their support regimes. It has an impact on competitiveness,
I think that is a very fair point. We have had a discussion on
conversion payments and I am not convinced on conversion payments
simply as a production method. I do think there might be an argument
for ongoing support as part of an agri-environment organic stewardship
scheme. As time goes on it is an option we can consider.
Chairman
701. If we do that could we be sure we do not
get too bound by the needs of administrative convenience to have
a scheme which is too rigid? One of the criticisms of stewardship
at the moment is it is rather rigid in the way it is applied and,
of course, the ecology is different from dale to dale. One does
need locally tailored and locally managed schemes which I know
are more difficult to administer if they are going to be effective.
I am putting that in as a shot.
(Mr Morley) Sure. I am always willing to look at the
administration and the bureaucracy of any schemes. You do have
to have some administration because, of course, you are talking
about public money here and public accountability and that is
quite right and proper. The way we are applying stewardship on
a scoring system, a priority system, means that you do get very
good quality schemes to put forward. Stewardship does have the
flexibility to have different schemes in different areas, different
regions, different objectives. Indeed, you can apply that within
organic farms as well. The point I would make to the Committee
is I do not think that farmers can argue for an automatic right
to state support without consideration of what they give back.
I think if we are going to have ongoing support for the future,
not just in the organic sector but generally speaking, there must
be a return in relation to what the community and society gets
for the money which goes in. I think organic farmers can make
a case for the return that they give, I think they can do that.
They must make a case in terms of the benefits and they must not
just say "We deserve it because it is entitlement".
Mr Mitchell: They are expanding their organic
production much further and faster and on a bigger scale than
we have. Now long experience of the EU tells me that when that
happens there is one of two courses operative. One is that they
are splashing out more dosh and the other is that they are cheating.
Conventionally that is normally the case because they have lower
standards or they are fiddling it in some way.
Chairman: This is known as a Mitchell question.
Mr Mitchell
702. From your experience, which is it?
(Mr Morley) It is money frankly because countries
like Austria and Denmark have taken a policy decision. In relation
to their agri-environment budget that is the priority they want.
They want to put a lot of money into organic farming and they
have, Denmark particularly. Of course we have a number of priorities
in the UK within our agri-environment programme. We have ESAs,
10 per cent of the country is in ESA. It is a big chunk of this
country actually and, of course, that takes up a fair bit of money
within the ESA. We have a rapidly expanding stewardship budget,
in fact we are proposing to double our stewardship budget because
that gives us a range of benefits. Of course, organic is part
of our agri-environment approach. We just decide in the UK different
priorities and different approaches. Personally I am convinced
of the environmental benefits that we get from organic farming.
I think organic farming is a good thing, I want to see it expanded,
and I am more than ready to argue for the necessary resources
to do that, as I have been doing, and the resources are increasing
significantly. But, I also have to be a realist myself and at
the moment on organic farming we are approaching three per cent
and that means we have 90 per cent of the countryside conventional
farming. We still have problems with farm animal and bird species.
We have a whole range of environmental problems and I have to
think about schemes to do with those problems and tackle them.
That means it is quite right and proper that we do have this split
in priorities between organic stewardship and ESAs to reflect
the different nature of farming. Now, over time, if organic expands
and there are different changes, then of course you can adjust
these budgets. They are not set in stone. But, at the moment,
I think the way we budget reflects the kind of priorities we have
to have within our society.
703. Are the consumer pressures greater in other
European countries? I would have thought a priori that
consumer pressures for organic would be stronger from, perhaps,
Germany and the Nordics, the Scandinavian countries, but not as
strong, say, perhaps in Italy or in France where they eat horses,
where they will eat anything, and so not as strong as here. Where
is the strongest consumer pressure coming from?
(Mr Morley) I think the strongest growth is probably
in the United Kingdom at the present time, but there has always
been strong consumer demand in Austria and Denmark, which is reflected
partly by their farming patterns. I do not have the figures for
Germany and France but, of course, they are big sophisticated
markets and I guess there is big demand there as well.
Chairman
704. Minister, finally: if you like, this is
a Curry question. We have been talking about English organic policy.
Now that we have devolution and we have differential policies
there will be no level playing field in the United Kingdom, if
one can put it in those terms. The new upland grants differentiate
between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is there
a UK organic policy? Are there significant differences between
what the devolved administrations are doing, in comparison to
what we are doing, which might have influence upon where production
develops in things like, for example, organic livestock production
or wheat production?
(Mr Morley) At the present time, the differences are
not significant. You argue quite rightly, of course, in saying
that we do have devolved administrations and so they do have the
freedom to set their kind of standards. But it comes back to the
point that Lembit was making: that it is not to anyone's advantage
if we have lots and lots of different standards which vary widely.
It is beneficial for all of us, for Government and for farmers,
to have agreed standards we can all work towards. That, of course,
includes organic aid schemes. So there are not huge differences
between us in the way that we operate. But, of course, the devolved
administrations have the right to decide their own priorities.
That is quite right and proper.
705. Minister, thank you very much indeed. This
has been a very useful session. There is one piece of information
you are going to let us have in writing, and anything else you
would like to send upon reflection.
(Mr Morley) I will check what I said, Chairman.
706. You will be able to check it on the internet
tomorrow morning.
(Mr Morley) That is very efficient.
Chairman: No doubt there will be competition
from the Florida recount. Thank you very much indeed.
|
