Examination of Witnesses (Questions 700
- 719)
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP, MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
ROGER PRITCHARD
AND MR
JOHN OSMOND
700. If you breakdown your bid, say £18
million in the Spending Review, how much is going to the Regional
Assemblies and how much is going to English Nature?
(Mr Meacher) I cannot answer that, firstly, because
those decisions have not been made. The Regional Development Agencies
are extremely important. They have been lobbying us very hard
and saying they are under-funded considering the targets, the
objectives we have given them and, of course, local authorities,
local wildlife sites and biodiversity. As we all know, it is the
oldest cliche in the book, politics is the art of making choices
between priorities, and it is extraordinarily difficult as all
ministers find.
701. What is the coordination between yourself
as Minister and that of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament
on this issue?
(Mr Meacher) That again is a very relevant point because
of course the devolved administrations have responsibility for
environment and biodiversity. We all know as sensible people that
environment and biodiversity does not know national boundaries.
It is far more sensible that we have agreed plans; that we work
together and coordinate. I, of course, have regular contact with
my opposite numbers. At this moment there have been no issues
on which I can say that there are glitches in agreed countrywide/UK-wide
proposals on the environment, but it is the responsibility of
the devolved administrations.
702. How do you see the reaction in terms of
what you have identified to poor coordination as to who is going
to solve it? Who do you see as a key player in that respect?
(Mr Meacher) First of all, those which put at risk
the achievements of UK national targets—and we have got
national targets under the Biodiversity Convention and under some
of the EU Directives, for example, the Habitats Directive. To
the extent that there is EU law or international obligation involved,
then there is an override, of course, and I would have the authority
to require the devolved administration to carry out their responsibilities.
I hope that never happens; it certainly has not happened; and
at the moment there is no sign of it happening. On matters where
the UK does not have international obligation it is by negotiation
and by agreement. Obviously, if there is serious disagreement
I would speak to the minister concerned, and we would have to
try and reach an agreed position. As of now that, again, has not
happened but that is how we would handle it.
703. It is not then more likely, given that
where there is obviously tension or potential for obvious tension,
were we to get to the stage where we were dealing with different
forms of government in a different party within power, would that
then make your job almost impossible? We are not talking about
Tories, we might be talking about Nationalists.
(Mr Meacher) I hope not. I think it would be extremely
unfortunate and unwise for a political party to play politics
over biodiversity. I think this is an issue which is not basically
party political. People do see it as an issue on which everyone
has a stake. I think point scoring, being difficult and being
intransigent, would actually rebound. If that happened, and no
doubt it will happen sooner or later, we do have to seek cooperation,
but I would expect to receive it.
Mrs Ellman
704. Regional Assemblies and Regional Chambers
are the indirectly elected part of, the regional structure in
England as we have it now. Certainly in the north-west environmental
groups are very much involved there. Do you feel the government
could use the Regional Assemblies and Regional Chambers perhaps
more positively to support biodiversity?
(Mr Meacher) Yes, I do. I immediately wonder whether
in fact we have issued guidance, and it would only be guidance
to regional assemblies, but I think it is the case that we have
not. Unless I am advised otherwise, I think it is something I
will take up and pursue in line with your suggestion.
Mr Donohoe
705. 70 per cent. of the farms in the country
will not be covered by the agri-environment scheme even after
expansion of that scheme. What steps should be taken to protect
the countryside in these farms?
(Mr Morley) First of all, Chairman, I would like to
emphasise the fact that we have committed £1 billion over
the next seven years to agri-environment schemes, which is probably
the biggest expenditure on biodiversity and environmental management
of any department or any organisation in this country—it
is a very large amount of money. It is true there are a lot of
farms who are not within the stewardship scheme, but of course
there are other aspects of environmental management which we encourage
either voluntarily or statutorily. It is also the case, with that
significant increase in money, we will be able to double the stewardship
scheme. For example, last year there were 1,600 applicants to
go into stewardship that we accepted; this year we plan to accept
3,000 applicants. Also, in areas where there has not been an uptake
yet—and we do recognise within agri-environment schemes
there are gaps in it, for example, the arable areas in the east
have a lower uptake than some of the more mixed farms in the west,
central and upland areas—we do have schemes such as our
pilot arable stewardship scheme, which has been a very successful
scheme, it is very promising. With that extra funding we do have
the opportunity now for extending this in other parts of the country.
It is one of the areas we want to look at as a priority when we
draw up our future spending.
706. Why should more funds be given to farms.
There are those who think they are junkies for subsidy and here
we come along with something else and you are having to pay them
to take control of an issue that they tell us themselves they
undertake. That is one of the strengths of argument made in the
past. Here we are again giving further monies to the farms. Why
are we doing that? Is it necessary?
(Mr Morley) Yes, it is necessary because there is
no doubt that changes in agricultural practice, intensification
of agriculture—much of it driven, I have to say, by the
way the Common Agricultural Policy works which, in some cases,
encourages damaging intensification—has had a very detrimental
effect on biodiversity within this country and we must tackle
that. The concept of agri-environment schemes is to make up income
foregone. If you apply measures which benefit the environment
but reduce the income of the individual farmer or landowner then
that is supposed to be reflected in relation to the payments.
There is the issue which you are touching upon that there are
huge sums of money going into production subsidies—there
is no doubt about that—it is something like £3 billion
a year in the UK alone, and our position from MAFF and the government
is that this is not sustainable.
707. Much of that money is probably doing damage
to biodiversity, and then you are giving them further money to
correct that situation. Is there anybody sitting there working
in an audit of the biodiversity within a particular farm and saying,
"Wait a minute, you are getting [whatever it is] in one direction,
when in the opposite case we are supposed to fund you for the
protection of the biodiversity". There is something wrong
in there, is there not?
(Mr Morley) There has been something wrong there,
you are absolutely right. No-one would deny that we have a situation,
particularly in the past, whereby the Ministry of Agriculture
was actually grant-aiding drainage of wetlands, it was grant-aiding
the ripping up of hedgerows, and we are now in a situation where
we are grant-aiding putting hedgerows back and grant-aiding making
areas wet. You are quite right, there is an illogical approach
to this. What we are trying to do is grasp the issue of biodiversity.
We have built it into our whole mission statement as a department
in terms of environmental improvement and environmental management.
We are building it into our whole approach as a department right
across our policy objectives in terms of achieving biodiversity
outcomes; and we are strongly arguing for complete reform of the
CAP; and that complete reform must be a move away from these production
subsidies—they just cannot go on in their present form.
Mrs Dunwoody
708. How much effect are you having, because
it does not really matter how many plans for biodiversity you
announce if somebody in Brussels says, "Tough, we are going
to actually change the way people are paid and that means wiping
out all things you have been trying to do"?
(Mr Morley) Brussels can also use that influence to
actually influence things and the way people are paid for the
good, for the better.
709. Yes, but how much effect do you happen
to be having? You have been there three years, and that is not
just something you have suddenly thought of.
(Mr Morley) I think we are having an effect. Although
I would admit that the outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations
in reforming the CAP did not go anywhere near as far as we would
want to have seen it from the UK position (and I absolutely accept
that, Chairman), where we were successful, and I think significantly
so because it is a quantum leap in the whole structure of agricultural
policy in Europe, is to get agreement on the so-called second
pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy which is the framework
we are now implementing in the UK (in the case of England the
English Rural Development Plan), which is the framework for shifting
those production payments away from the production side and over
to the agri-environment and rural management site. That is a significant
breakthrough, and that is where the £1.6 billion is coming
from through that scheme, which includes modulation, which itself
is the beginning of a shift in this country of production payments
over to agri-environment payments, which we are implementing.
We do have more to do on this and I absolutely accept that; but
the framework has been put in place. That was very much driven
by the UK who argued for that very strongly, and I think that
is a significant change within the CAP.
Mr Donohoe
710. So the £1.6 billion is coming from
Europe, is it, not the Exchequer?
(Mr Morley) It comes from four areas. Part of it comes
from Europe in relation to funding; part of it from the department's
existing allocation; part of it comes from modulation, which is
shifting some of the production subsidies over into agri-environment
payments; and part of it comes from matched funding from the UK
Treasury, so for every pound we take in modulation the Treasury
puts a pound in as well.
Chairman
711. Field margins, this battle with the EU
and their auditors. Where are we up to?
(Mr Morley) We are waiting for a response from the
Commission in relation to the proposals that we have put forward.
We thought we had a very sympathetic response from Franz Fischler,
who is the EU Commissioner responsible, and what we are arguing
for is that there should be a change in the regulations that would
allow Member States the flexibility of actually dealing with issues
such as field margins. We have also discovered it is not just
the UK which is affected by this; there are other Member States
which share our concerns, and of course, that is helpful in terms
of pressing for changes.
712. So if I am ploughing up some land this
autumn, do I leave the margin or do I plough the margin?
(Mr Morley) The situation is that we have managed
to get a one-year moratorium on this.
713. I thought that was this year.
(Mr Morley) Yes, it is for this year, but the decisions
in relation to ploughing and planting are not at the stage where
those decisions have to be taken. That is more for round about
October. But it is a fair point, Chairman, and we do have to try
to get this resolved in time for the next planting season so that
farmers are aware where they stand.
Mrs Dunwoody
714. But that will only presumably affect spring
planting, and the question you were being asked was what to do
in the autumn. We all know, with the extraordinary way in which
the Community organises its meetings and affairs, no major decisions
of this kind will be taken until well into November, possibly
the beginning of December.
(Mr Morley) The Commission are aware that there is
a timescale on this in terms of people planning. They know that,
therefore we expect to get that decision in time to advise farmers.
Mrs Dunwoody: Famous last words.
Chairman
715. That was one of the things that applied
to all farmers, was it not?
(Mr Morley) Yes, those in receipt of arable subsidies.
716. What about trying to make sure that there
were some minimum conservation measures which actually applied
to all farmers in return for a lot of money?
(Mr Morley) I think that is a very fair concept, Chairman,
and we are giving consideration to that as part of cross-compliance
measures. The DETR commissioned a study on various options and
we are looking at those options at the present time. What we have
to do though is look at any kind of environmental measures that
are easily understood and easy to enforce. There may well be opportunities
for doing this in relation to the field margins issue, but there
is still work being carried out on that.
717. Do you agree with the Game Conservancy
Trust that shooting birds improves biodiversity?
(Mr Morley) I think the management that goes along
with game shooting certainly does improve biodiversity, yes.
Mr Olner
718. Do you think Ministers will apply cross-compliance
to meet the UK's obligations under Article 3 of the common rules
Regulations to ensure environmental protection?
(Mr Morley) It is possible that we would apply it
on that basis. As I say, what we have to look at is the kind of
measures.
719. Possible? Probable? Will do?
(Mr Morley) There are a number of issues to resolve
on this, Chairman, which are not easy. First of all, you have
to decide just what measures you would want to apply, what kind
of environmental benefits you would get with those measures, how
you would enforce those measures to ensure that they were being
complied with, and there are a number of complex issues there—issues,
however, that are not insurmountable, in my view. I think it would
be possible to have some form of cross-compliance that would bring
environmental gains. The issue is what form that would take and
how you would apply it.
|
