| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Common Agricultural Policy
3. Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): How many representations she has received in the past month about the operation of the common agricultural policy. [126279]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): In the past month there have been 15 meetings and events that I, ministerial colleagues and officials from my Department have attended in which CAP reform has formed a major part of the discussions. Those meetings included individual farmers, farming unions, and environmental, consumer and landowner organisations, as well as Ministers from other countries. We have also received
around 30 letters and a number of telephone calls from hon. Members and members of the public about CAP reform.
Mr. Barnes : Following the CAP agreement in Luxemburg, what impact on third world agricultural imports and exports does my right hon. Friend seek from the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Mexico? Will the United States of America be influenced by the position adopted by the European Union and being pressed by the Government?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the European Union has already made an offer on the issues of market access and related matters, which lies on the table. The element of the negotiations on the world trade round that had not yet been dealt with was the issue of domestic subsidies, which was subject to the recent reform negotiations. I very much hope, and it will be the negotiating aim of the British Government, to improve the position and the access of developing countries, and to liberalise trade in general. With regard to the United States, I am strongly of the view that it will have been a surprise to all our negotiating partners that the EU has moved so far and made such major changes. We believe that that puts pressure now on others to take heed and similarly to consider what moves they should make to contribute to trade liberalisation, and there is some evidence that such rethinking is going on.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): With such advances in the reform of CAP, does the Secretary of State have a vision for the endgame on reform? Could we perhaps look forward to wholesale repatriation of the policy, and, if so, on what time scale?
Margaret Beckett: If by the wholesale repatriation of the policy the hon. Lady means that there should no longer be a common agricultural policy—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] It is no good Opposition Members saying hear, hear. It was not we who brought in the single European market, and it is not possible to have a single European market without having a common agricultural policy. What is important, though, is that the core of that common policy should be much more satisfactory than at present. That is what we have just secured.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from upland farmers, such as those who live and work in my constituency in the North York Moors national park? The reforms could have a considerable impact on those farmers who are on marginal incomes, working on marginal land in remote marginal areas. If she has not received such representations, will she consider coming up to the North York moors and meeting some of my constituents to hear what they think about the proposals?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, as ever. I am mindful of the concerns that he and others raise. It was very much part of our approach to the reform negotiations that we should have the capacity to deal with some of the problems and issues that reform will throw up, and we
were mindful, as were many other member states, of the impact on those who farm marginal land. My hon. Friend and his constituents will like to know that we are about to launch a consultation exercise in England on the options available to us under the reform agreement, and we expect to follow that up with a more detailed consultation later in the year, when the legal texts are in place and there is more detail on the implications. One of the reasons for seeking, successfully, to negotiate a national envelope was to give us room for manoeuvre to deal with the kind of issue that my hon. Friend raised.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): Does the right hon. Lady agree on the importance to farm businesses and others of making sure that there is a smooth transition from the current arrangements to the new system of payments? Given that her Department's figures, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), show that the Rural Payments Agency is late this year in dealing with more than 230,000 claims worth more than £95 million, what action is she taking to guarantee that the RPA will be capable of introducing the new system efficiently and on time?
Margaret Beckett: I entirely recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Although we were a little disappointed in some ways that the initial proposal date for reform in 2004 was postponed until the beginning of 2005, that will help us in securing a greater possibility of smooth transition. We are very mindful of exactly the point that he makes. The RPA has been suffering after the installation of new IT, which was much needed, but has certainly caused difficulties. The staff are working extraordinarily hard to overcome those difficulties, with a certain measure of success. I assure him that it is no wish of mine to see valuable reforms discredited because we cannot introduce them as effectively as we would wish.
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): Despite comments from Opposition Members, does the Secretary of State recognise that the significance of the mid-term review is that it gives the UK Government and other partner states more flexibility to meet national need? Will she begin a series of meetings with farmers and landowners, so that they can understand the nature of the reforms and plan their businesses appropriately?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right that we need to get out as much information as we can as speedily as we can through organisations such as the National Farmers Union and whatever other channels we can use. We shall certainly endeavour to do that. As I said, I have already identified a two-stage consultation process, but one of the potential advantages that we see in the reform proposals is that they will allow us to introduce greatly simplified schemes, so I hope that the issues will not be nearly so difficult to explain.
Common Agricultural Policy
4. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): What representations she has received on the proposals for rural development policy under the mid-term review of common agricultural policy. [126280]
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): We received 117 responses to our consultation on the Commission's CAP reform proposals, most of which commented on the rural development aspects. Like ministerial colleagues and officials from the Department, I have had numerous meetings over the past six months with a wide range of stakeholders. CAP reform was a part of those discussions, which included the wider rural dimension.
Miss McIntosh : Does the Minister agree that the new system will be overly bureaucratic and extremely expensive to apply? As the current Administration cannot cope with the present rural payments scheme, how will they cope with the new one, which has to be paid into a central pot from which we will get back only a certain percentage to spend in this country?
Alun Michael: I should point out to the hon. Lady that, for rural development, the package will mean that more funds have been switched from pillar one to pillar two under EU compulsory modulation. The implementation date has been brought forward a year to 2005 and the UK will get a bigger share of those funds, at about 11 per cent. We are working very hard to try to reduce the amount of bureaucracy that is involved in the England rural development programme. One has to accept that it involves a lot of bureaucracy, but we are trying to do all we can to use the mid-term review as an opportunity to simplify systems.
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): Does my right hon. Friend agree that rural development policy should include support for the development of biofuels, not only to give us an environmentally friendly fuel, but to create much-needed new markets for farmers? Does he agree that the key to that support is a reduction in duty rates? Are there any environmental reasons why there is such a large differential in the duty rate reductions given for liquefied petroleum gas and biodiesel?
Alun Michael: The complexity of my hon. Friend's question illustrates the mixture of issues that this matter involves. I agree that we want to see the promotion of biofuels and ministerial colleagues and I are looking at that issue. Of course, the mixture of technicalities, the question of bringing products to market and tax regimes are all part of the bigger equation.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): The Minister will appreciate that, under the mid-term review proposals, some farms will be eligible for all their land to receive payment under the new decoupled arrangements, while others such as those that have mixed arable and horticultural crops will still have to pay for all their environmental responsibilities, but not with money related to their whole cultivable land area. What will be done to respond to the environmental demands of those who produce horticultural crops either on 100 per cent. of their land or part of their land under the new arrangements?
Alun Michael: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, the choices that farmers made on previous occasions have implications. It is also worth pointing out that the Commission has committed
itself to making transitional arrangements for member states that are operating voluntary modulation; that should enable the UK to roll out the entry level agri-environment scheme, which is important for the industry as a whole.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |