| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Convention on the Future of Europe
10. Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): What assessment she has made of the implications of the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe on processes for reaching decisions in the EU on environmental policy. [126286]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Convention's proposals would leave the main elements of that process largely unchanged. However, we do not support the proposal to create a single Legislative Council.
Mr. Lazarowicz : I am pleased that, in its final proposals, the Convention restored environmental protection as one of the EU's core objectives after its removal from the original draft. Will my hon. Friend assure us, however, that the Government will ensure, in the negotiations to follow, that it remains one of the core objectives? Given the exchange that has just taken place on air fuel, does he agree that there is a strong case for the EU to have a greater role in co-ordinating environmental protection on a Europe-wide basis?
Mr. Morley: We think that issues such as air travel and pollution should be dealt with in the Environment Council, but I assure my hon. Friend that the statement about environmental protection in the constitution is considered important and is fully supported by the UK. We shall want to ensure that it remains.
Angus Robertson (Moray): During its analysis of implications of the draft EU constitution, what conclusions has the Department reached on why the concentration of marine biological resources is to be an exclusive competence, while the common agricultural policy is not? The Leader of the House was unable to explain that to the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday; can the Minister explain it to the House today?
Mr. Morley: I can certainly give an explanation relating to the common fisheries policy, which has always been an exclusive competence of the Commission. The constitution states the position exactly.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly): Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the draft constitution for the European Union, which include greater powers for the European Parliament, will make further reform of the common agricultural policy more likely?
Mr. Morley: I think that there is an argument to be had on that point on both sides. We want to ensure that we do not have a hugely bureaucratic, cumbersome and slow decision-making process in the European Union. We recognise that it is important to involve the European Parliament, and there is a very strong role for co-decision, but it has to be balanced against the need to take quick and efficient decisions without excessive bureaucracy.
Fallen Stock Directive
11. Sir Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): What representations she has received from representatives of the meat trade about the costs involved in the implementation of the fallen stock directive. [126287]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): There is no such thing as the fallen stock directive, but I have received a number of representations about the costs of implementing the ban on the burial of fallen stock under the EU animal by-products regulation.
Sir Archy Kirkwood : I recognise that the policy thrust is right and I acknowledge that the Government have done a lot in this area to date, but will the Minister assure the House that he will talk urgently to his counterparts in the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales to try to establish a common, UK-wide disposal scheme? But in doing so, will he pay particular attention to the very large oncosts that some small butchers are having to deal with in terms of meat and bone refuse and off-cuts? In the course of their work, they are having to pay far bigger charges than certainly I expected. Does he understand that this is becoming an awful problem for Britain's butchers?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, we do recognise that this is a serious problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot provide subsidised collection for retailers because it is against EU state aid rules; we can subsidise national collection only from primary production. I shall take on board his request that I speak to my colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—indeed, I have done so already. We are continuing to work hard towards a successful national scheme.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): Is the Minister aware that hunts provide a very considerable service in dealing with fallen stock, and that if the Government are determined to go ahead with banning hunting, a real animal welfare issue will arise? For example, it is very difficult to get animals with broken legs to a slaughterhouse; often, they have to be transported great distances and endure considerable suffering. Will the Minister consider that issue and see what can be done to ease the problem?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am aware of the role that hunts play in the removal of fallen stock, but I do not think that it is quite as significant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. A small minority of livestock farmers are involved, and they, of course, are also free to join the national scheme.
Rural Community Transport
13. Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): If she will make a statement on funding of rural community transport. [126289]
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Funding for rural community transport schemes is available from a wide range of sources. They include the Department for Transport's rural bus challenge, which provides start-up funding, and the Countryside Agency's rural transport partnership and parish transport fund programmes. Long-term funding is available through the bus service operators' grant, and local authorities can also use their
revenue support grant, and capital resources provided through the local transport plan system, to support community transport schemes.
Norman Lamb : I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that the Countryside Agency has done a great deal to encourage and facilitate the development of community transport throughout the country, but is he aware of the very real concern that exists that, as the pump-priming money comes to an end, there is no sustainable funding to take its place? What is he doing to deal with this issue, and is he prepared to meet representatives of the Community Transport Association and other interested parties to discuss their concerns further?
Alun Michael: I am happy to confirm the importance of community transport, and I have met several people involved in a number of schemes in the past year. It is also worth noting that community transport plays an increasingly important role in rural areas generally. In recognition of that and as part of the Government's public service agreement target for improving rural services, we aim to increase the percentage of settlements in England benefiting from community transport to more than 50 per cent. by 2006. Pump priming through the Countryside Agency is meant to be just that: pump priming to help kick-start the availability of those activities. I listed in my original answer the various places from which support for community transport schemes is available.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): Does the Minister understand the difficulties that local authorities and council tax payers face when rural bus services are funded for three years only? In the fourth year, there is a big hit on the local authority, causing council tax bills to rise even higher. If the services are worth funding, surely they are worth funding indefinitely.
Alun Michael: It is a little odd to suggest, on the one hand, that we should be helping to pump prime while, on the other, complaining when funds are taken away. Local authorities have a role in developing rural transport for their local communities. Through the local transport plans, they are required to produce bus strategies and to consider how to integrate conventional bus services with health and community transport as part of an integrated public transport network. We have tried to provide funding to enable people to realise that innovative schemes based in local communities are an important part of the solution to the problems in rural areas, in which the Government have made a large investment over recent years.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): As the Minister says, that there are 5,000 community transport schemes, running about 60,000 buses across rural areas. People throughout the countryside are extremely concerned that an overspend in the countryside and rights of way right-to-roam mapping exercise has resulted in a drying-up of the pump-primed funding through the Countryside Agency. Bizarrely, visitors to the countryside—walkers—have been given priority for Government funding over those who live in the
countryside. Will the Minister reconfirm the central importance of community transport, particularly to the 25 per cent. of rural people who do not own a car, many of whom live in remote areas and are socially excluded? Does he accept that we need not only pump-primed funding, but long-term sustainable revenue funding for those vital services?
Alun Michael: That was a bizarre, ill-informed and muddled question. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that no cuts of the sort about which he talked have been made. The budget for the rural transport partnership has increased since last year by £2 million to meet demand. A hold was put on the "vital villages" expenditure by the Countryside Agency, which was grappling with the problems of success. It had so many applications that it decided, rightly, to prioritise to make sure that money went to the places where it was needed most. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is embarrassed when he looks back at the 18 years of Conservative government, during which his Government did nothing to help rural communities in the way that this Government have done.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |