VI. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
55. The following are the Committee's summarised
principal conclusions and recommendations:
(a) DANI pointed out
that the operation of the Fontainebleau rebate mechanism means
that, as well as bearing the whole of any nationally funded expenditure,
the United Kingdom Exchequer in effect meets 71% of the cost to
the Community budget of any new European Union expenditure in
the United Kingdom. Equally though, we note that such Community
expenditure could be viewed as a mechanism for levering a total
of some £1.40 of public expenditure for each pound of taxpayers'
money used (Paragraph 15).
(b) Payments for 2000
and 2001 under the transitional compensation arrangements operating
in respect of direct payments as a result of the introduction
of the euro could be doubled if the provision for a national contribution
is implemented. While our remit does not extend to taking a view
for the UK as a whole, the situation in the relevant sectors in
Northern Ireland in our view fully justifies the Government paying
the optional element in 2000 and we so recommend (Paragraph 16).
(c) Until the Commission
publishes its calculations, it is not possible to evaluate either
the likely benefits to the farming industry in Northern Ireland
or the potential costs to the Exchequer of the permanent arrangements
designed to compensate producers, in Member States outside the
euro zone, for currency-induced falls in prices. Given the current
difficulties faced by the industry, we hope that the Government
will give very careful consideration to the potential opportunity
presented by these compensation arrangements (Paragraph 18).
(d) We welcome the
publication by MAFF of informal, non-statutory, guidance on the
interpretation of country of origin legislation, but doubt whether
it goes far enough. As the guidance is non-statutory, it will
be for the courts to decide whether labelling, such as describing
as 'British bacon' bacon made in the UK from imported meat, is
misleading. This may in turn rest on the view the courts take
as to whether the curing of pork constitutes a 'substantial change'.
We would prefer to see appropriate statutory provision made; given
the higher profile given to animal welfare following the incorporation
of a Protocol on Animal Welfare into the Treaties, it is not clear
that a labelling scheme that set out to ensure that a consumer,
anxious to make an informed choice on the basis of the welfare
standards of the animal from which the meat had been produced,
had such a choice, would necessarily be incompatible with Community
law. We recommend that the Government, in consultation with the
Commission, seek to develop such a statutory scheme (Paragraph
21).
(e) We recommend that
the Government and the pig industry seek promptly to devise a
meaningful scheme to aid pig farmers over additional pig offal
disposal costs in the UK that will provide long-term benefits
to pig farmers and will also comply with EU state aid rules (Paragraph
33).
(f) We recommend that
the Government examine carefully, in the event of its approval
by the Commission, the scheme introduced by the Government of
the Republic of Ireland to aid border pig producers, to see whether
it would provide a suitable model for providing at least some
limited assistance to Northern Ireland pig farmers, whether or
not any other broader aid scheme can be devised (Paragraph 34).
(g) We hope that the
Government will take full account of the criticisms made of the
present sheepmeat régime in its participation in the review
and any subsequent re-negotiation of that régime (Paragraph
38).
(h) It appears anomalous
that the region of the United Kingdom with the lowest rate of
BSE incidence cannot in practice take advantage of the arrangements
to export beef. There is clearly a need for the Government, beef
producers and processors to work together to seek to devise appropriate
arrangements. This may involve changes to the current arrangements
for slaughtering and processing cattle in the Province to make
it economically viable to handle cattle in smaller batches. The
Government should in its negotiations with the Commission and
fellow Member States seek to ensure that restrictions disproportionate
to the risk inherent in exports of beef from Northern Ireland
are removed at the earliest opportunity(Paragraph 44).
(i) The Environmentally
Sensitive Areas Scheme is of benefit to farmers in Northern Ireland
who work in some of the most adverse areas. We recommend that
a high priority is given to clearing existing commitments and
to reopening the enhancement element of the Scheme (Paragraph
48).
(j) We note that considerable
emphasis is being placed, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere
in the United Kingdom, on marketing home-produced agricultural
products on quality grounds. While we believe such an approach
to be eminently reasonable, we note with some concern the evidence
given by NIAPA about consumer perception in Northern Ireland of
the relative importance of animal welfare and source of origin.
These are among the least important issues for Northern Ireland
consumers, who apparently place much greater weight on convenience
of location for purchase, the convenience and quality of the product,
and its value. It is therefore clear that a substantial publicity
effort is likely to be required before customers in the Province
place greater weight on aspects such as origin and welfare (Paragraph
50).
(k) We hope that the
Government will ensure that the needs of sectors other than those
covered by the CAP reform package are fully kept in mind (Paragraph
51).
(l) We believe that
the importance of the export trade to many sectors of the Northern
Ireland livestock industry should be an incentive to improving
product quality. We would like to see farmers and processors working
together where appropriate to enable full opportunity to be taken
of high value-added, high quality marketing opportunities. There
may also be benefits in more mundane quality improvements: according
to the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters' Association there is at
present a 2% better yield from cattle finished in Great Britain
(Paragraph 52).
(m) We would like
to see the Government bring forward ways of improving farm succession.
Although we received no evidence that there was at present any
harmful effect from succession difficulties, we recognise the
vital role played by farmers in preserving the countryside and
a healthy succession policy is one way of ensuring a continued
commitment to this vital activity (Paragraph 53).
(n) We welcome the
contribution made by diversification, but recognise that it does
not by itself represent a solution to problems of rural areas
(Paragraph 54).
|
