APPENDIX
Meeting between three members of the Committee
and representatives of the rural community in Norfolk, at Easton
College, Norwich, on 3 October 2002
Participants (from the Committee)
Rt Hon David Curry MP
Rt Hon Mrs Gillian Shephard MP
Mr Keith Simpson MP
Structure of the meeting
The meeting began with the formation of topic groups to consider
rural issues, the state of competition in agriculture, marketing,
'public goods', reports on Foot and Mouth Disease, and the Mid-Term
Review of the CAP and the World Trade Organisation Doha Round.
Summary of discussions in topic groups
Rural issues group
The questions addressed included:
- What is the effect of a depressed agricultural
industry on the economy of Norfolk?
- What are potential alternative industries?
- What needs to be done to stimulate growth in
these areas?
- Are there particular hurdles to developing new
business activity in rural areas?
- Are there any significant workforce issues?
- Are there any significant infrastructure or planning
issues that hold back development?
Agricultural competitiveness group
The questions addressed included:
- What is 'success' in terms of agriculture?
- What sectors of agriculture might be competitive?
How?
- How critical is the strength of Sterling?
Marketing group
The questions addressed included:
- Does farming need to reconnect with the consumer?
If so how?
- Will the Food Chain Centre help? How should it
operate? What should be its priorities?
- How important is the local food concept?
- Is regional or national branding valuable?
'Public goods' group
The questions addressed included:
- What would be desirable public goods?
- Is there general agreement on this or are there
significant differences?
- How can these be funded in a fair and economic
way?
- Would the Broad and Shallow scheme deliver the
above? Does farming need to reconnect with the consumer? If so
how?
Foot and Mouth Disease group
The questions addressed included:
- Does the need for better biodiversity have particular
dimensions for day-to-day practice?
- What are the implications of maintaining the
current 20-day standstill requirement?
- What are the implications for auction markets
and marketing arrangements in general?
- Are there any social or economic implications
from consideration of the above?
International developments group
The questions addressed included:
- What do the current Mid-Term Review proposals
mean for Norfolk farmers?
- Do they favour smaller family farms against larger
producers? Is this desirable?
- Do they pass money from the UK to Southern Europe?
- Will the proposals support a move to liberalise
agriculture?
- What should Europe's approach to the Doha Round
be?
Report of the Plenary Session
The Plenary Session considered the reports of the
topic groups. A number of key issues emerged, including, very
strongly, the strength of sterling. Other issues were also of
concern.
Concern was raised about the 'gold plating' of legislation.
Mr Place cited the Agricultural Wages Board, and asked
why it was that farming was the only industry unable to pay the
minimum wage to unskilled and casual workers. Mr Van Cutsem
raised the 'idiotic' 20-day restrictions on the movement of livestock,
which was causing 'mayhem' in the livestock industry. The United
Kingdom was the only country in Europe which had such a restriction.
Another example was the pesticide Birlane which was to be phased
out in the United Kingdom by the end of next year, but which in
Europe would be used until 2006.
The question was raised of whether the Agricultural
Wages Board was still needed. There was 'gold plating' of its
activities, and of the Working Time Directive. It was agreed that
the Working Time Directive would have huge implications for seasonal
work in the agricultural industry.
Fears were expressed that the pig industry in East
Anglia would die out. Problems cited included the strength of
sterling, diseases such as swine fever and foot and mouth, and
new transport legislation. Mr Fisher raised the issue of
the Assured Combinable Crop (ACC) Scheme. He said that he had
given up storing grain on his farm because he could not renovate
the buildings to the required standards and no discount was available
for being ACC registered. Mr Richardson brought up examples
of the 'gold plating' of legislation. In particular, he raised
the question of the revised welfare code for pigs which he said
included 20 additional requirements.
Ms Holmes from the Rural
Group of the Transport and General Workers Union, which represented
employees on the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB), said that the
introduction of the national minimum wage had highlighted the
abuse of casual workers in agriculture. For many years, there
had been no increases to the AWB rate paid to casual workers and
until recently the rate was £2.69 per hour. She also said
there was both a shortage of skills and a shortage of labour in
agriculture.
Mr Kemp agreed with Mr
Richardson's earlier comments on the pig industry and said that
he had recently closed his unit which had employed eight people.
Prior to the closure he was buying 400 tonnes of pig feed for
the herd every month and was producing 25 tonnes of pork per week.
It was likely that this gap in the market would now be filled
by imports. Mr Agnew recounted his experience with the
Anglian Industrial Crops (AICG) Scheme which was part-funded by
the European Union and involved planting renewable crops. There
was no market for the crops grown and he, and others, had lost
money. Mr Stangroom described a similar experience with
the AICG.
Ms Cranbrook, from the
Country Land and Business Association, emphasised the importance
of grass land in the Eastern region. Grass could only be maintained
by livestock and there needed to be a market for this livestock
in addition to that provided by the supermarkets. She argued that
the livestock industry was faced with over-regulation and such
regulation was increasing, for example, the 20 day rule and the
regulations relating to the disposal of fallen stock on farms.
Fallen stock was a problem in East Anglia. Carcasses were picked
up within 48 hours and had to be taken to the nearest renderer
in Kent or Huddersfield. There was a need for an infrastructure
to create the industrialised agriculture which the Government
wanted and it was 'absurd' that dead animals should be carried
hundreds of miles. Ms Cranbrook also said that, under proposed
European regulations, all blood from abattoirs would have to be
rendered at very high temperatures and there was only one place
in the country that had the facilities to do this.
Mr Howell, the Norwich
Livestock Market Chairman, agreed that the industry was over-regulated
and was being destroyed by imports. He said the 20 day rule was
making it very difficult and there was no scientific justification
for it. Mr Tuck, from the National Pig Association, argued
for stronger import controls on food coming into the UK. He said
that the UK spent £1.5 billion on the foot and mouth problem
and probably £1 billion prior to that on classical swine
fever. However, it was possible for someone to come into this
country with a kilo of meat from anywhere in the world. The Government
needed to make more efforts to stop food imports that are not
produced to UK standards.
Mr Dixon from the Norfolk
Rural Community Council said that there was a lack of an infrastructure
to support diversification of employment in rural areas. In Norfolk
there were a lot of people working on low wages though there were
a number of schemes available, through the Learning and Skills
Councils, which aimed to develop additional skills. There were
also other problems affecting rural communities, such as a lack
of affordable housing. A large number of relatively wealthy people
moved into rural areas and this pushed up house prices. People
who bought second homes in rural areas should be required to pay
full rate council tax to ensure that they contributed to the local
community.
Mr Draper, Benjamin Foundation
and North Norfolk Charitable Trust and a lay Canon of Norwich
Cathedral, endorsed previous comments. He suggested that there
was an inherent conflict between local opposition to planning
proposals and the need to provide affordable housing. The latest
census report showed a large number of young people had left the
area and this was a threat to the community. Mr Fowle asked
why local farmers did not grow more hemp which could be used for
homes and other goods such as car body parts and paper.
Mr Cabbell-Manners, a
District Councillor for North Norfolk and a farmer, suggested
that the planning system prevented farmers from diversifying.
The Government needed to pass legislation to force District Councils
to accept farm diversification. Ms King from Norfolk County
Council argued that, in terms of local Government finance, sparsely
populated rural authorities were losing out to urban authorities,
particularly those in the north of England. Compared to metropolitan
areas, services in sparsely populated areas were more expensive
to provide. For example, in a rural area, it cost ten times more
to supply services to elderly people to enable them to live at
home.
Ms Artis, East of England
Tourist Board, raised concerns about the number of bodies involved
in rural policy at a local and national level. For example, funding
for the Regional Tourist Board came from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport; Defra and the Countryside Agency were both involved
in other issues affecting rural life.
Ms Ball from the National
Pig Association Helpline argued for more accurate labelling of
food. She suggested that a large amount of imported products are
turned into sausages, pâtés, and pies and it was
not clear where the meat was produced.
Other rural issues were raised. On the question of
education, it was asserted that children did not have any concept
of where their food came from and this should be addressed in
schools. Delegates also expressed concern about the closure of
rural post offices and the potential removal of the facility for
pensions and other benefits to be issued at local branches. Attention
was drawn to the recommendation of the Policy Commission that
a permanent food chain centre should be established and it was
suggested that this should be based in Norfolk.
At the end of the plenary session, the Rt Hon
David Curry MP, Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Select Committee, made some closing remarks. He said that
while he was tempted to enter the debate about the issues raised,
he was mindful of his constitutional position as Chairman, and
would therefore summarise the issues raised.
On the issue of a level playing field, the Government
had to decide whether it would permit enriched cages in poultry
production; European countries had been given the choice about
whether to do so or not. This had the potential to create inequalities
between the UK and countries from which it imported poultry products.
The British Government had said it would permit the enriched cage
but it was now under pressure not to. There was a question of
balance between welfare concerns and competition issues. In this
context, Mr Curry raised the difference between how much
more consumers say they are prepared to pay for 'welfare-friendly'
meat and what they actually buy when given a choice. In addition
to inequalities between the UK and other countries in Europe,
different rules in Scotland raised the prospect of inequalities
between different parts of the UK. For example, the Scottish Executive
had introduced a more flexible system in relation to the 20-day
restriction which the UK Government should examine. Disparities
between the rules in Scotland and the rest of the UK were likely
to become increasingly common.
Mr Curry had received
representations from the horticultural industry about pesticide
use and from his own constituency in Yorkshire he was aware of
the importance to farmers of issues such as on-farm burial. On
the question of renewable crops, he suggested that the sensible
reaction was to say that if we could make it work economically
then we would want it to work. There was therefore a need for
some 'hard-headed' analysis of whether it was going to work or
not. There was no point in doing something if it had a net cost
but if it could work economically then it made a great deal of
sense. He noted the comments from the delegate about hemp and
referred to the fact that sheep's wool could now be manufactured
into a type of insulating material. It had better thermal capabilities
than many of the conventional products and its increased use would
be of great assistance to that sector.
He commented that delegates had not spoken a great
deal about the environment but there was a very important point
made about grassland. He agreed that grassland needed livestock
and in particular a mix of livestock: where there was a mixture
of stock there was greater biodiversity. He also thought there
was some dislocation within Government departments. Some had lost
the sense of what they were supposed to be doing.
Mr Curry noted that the
Select Committee had carried out an inquiry into illegal meat
imports and members of the Committee were surprised by the 'lightness'
of the regulations. At Stansted Airport there were notices on
the walls about imported meat, but there was none in the middle
of the carousel where passengers congregated to wait for their
luggage. Inspection was very haphazard and split between different
authorities. There needed to be sensible joined-up Government
to make sure the checks were effective. As delegates had pointed
out, there had been a change in European Union legislation to
prevent the import of meat except in hermetically sealed containers.
He would have preferred a straight ban.
Delegates had raised a range of issues. On the question
of pig farming, the effect of farmers deciding to close businesses
had significant local employment effects. The same would apply
across the livestock sector but the pig industry was a particularly
labour intensive sector. In contrast, dairy farmers in Mr Curry's
constituency had told him that they could manage a herd of 120
cattle without additional labour. There was therefore little incentive
to expand and take on employees and new plant. Farmers were encouraged
to 'hang on' rather than diversify. This did not help the wider
economy and led to a lack of dynamism in the agricultural sector.
Mr Curry agreed with the
speaker who was talking about the need for skills and technologies
in rural areas. When in the past he had been asked what was the
one thing he would do to help in his part of Yorkshire, the Settle
area where the foot and mouth outbreak started, he had replied
the introduction of broadband. He said he had been approached
by cottage-based and local-based industries saying that they would
put their businesses in his constituencies if they had the technology.
His part of Yorkshire did not have the necessary technology and
neither did Norfolk.
He was not going to be tempted into the issue of
housing as the EFRA Committee already had a very large remit.
Although he said 'amen' to a lot of what had been said about housing
in Norfolk, the problems would be even worse if there was a National
Park in the area. It was difficult to introduce low-cost housing
in a National Park and those areas which were not part of a National
Park but which were in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
This raised problems with obtaining planning permission. When
people came to his constituency surgeries, three times as many
people came to ask him to stop a planning proposal as came to
ask him to facilitate one. There was a need to get people to understand
more about what was happening in their communities and to get
a greater lobby which actually wanted to see people living in
the countryside, especially young people. The countryside population
was ageing and this was one of the reasons it was difficult to
buy accommodation: starter homes in his constituency cost about
£45,000 and that was the bottom end of the market.
On the issues relating to local government finance
raised by the delegate from the County Council, he was slightly
torn. He felt that what she described as a pull to the northern
metropolitans was slightly less than she had indicated. Population
sparsity was a real problem. If delegates thought that Norfolk
was sparsely populated they should come and have a holiday in
North Yorkshire because that was 'super sparse'. Sparse areas
received special help in respect of under-fives and there were
special grants for primary schools. There had been nothing for
secondary schools in very sparse areas, but extra help was now
available. The Government's proposed new local government financing
system, which he described as a small earthquake with not many
casualties, was almost identical to its predecessor. It would
apply to the local government distribution from the following
April. If delegates wanted to fight on that issue, they needed
to start 'manning the barricades' because those decisions would
be made very shortly.
On the issue of joined-up thinking, Defra had had
a rough ride. It was put together in the teeth of the foot and
mouth outbreak and by a Government that thought the whole of MAFF
was a 'ghastly' department which operated for the benefit of the
farmer and gave us foot and mouth disease and BSE. No Government
had ever come into office so disliking part of its own equipment
of government. It had taken a long time to get some morale back
in the department. None of us was helped if the department felt
that it was subject to a permanent scourge of public scorn. However,
he was increasingly struck by the incapacity of Government departments,
in terms of the workforce they can deploy, to deal with some of
the extraordinarily complicated measures they had to administer.
If the meeting had gone into the environmental field
in more detail, he thought delegates would have seen the extent
to which Governments were getting overwhelmed by the sheer amount
and complexity of issues which they have to administer. That was
a much broader question. With different organisations, such as
the Countryside Agency and the Regional Development Agencies,
it was sometimes very difficult to say who did what, why they
did it, and how do we know if we were getting value for it.
In conclusion, Mr Curry said that the session
had been structured very carefully and had been extremely useful.
| 
