Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
14 MAY 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
MS MANDY
BAILEY
Q20 Mr Jack: Minister, you are pouring
oil on troubled waters yet again. It seems that for whatever reason
in this country we end up rushing up against a deadline with badly
designed badly thought out legislation. Four years ago you and
the department set off with the Council of Ministers with a clear
objective in mind. What will you and the other Ministers on the
Council do to get the Commission to be more practical in its proposals?
It is no good coming to the Committee and us bashing you and you
saying, "But we have done this, that and the other thing".
The facts are that this is another classic example of last minute
activity, with the hallmark of fridges all over it, and where
you have not sorted out the job. Why?
Mr Morley: Perhaps I can make
it clear that this is not going to be a fridge-type situation.
I am absolutely clear about that. There is not the slightest chance
of that. The point that you make is a very fair one. You know
the way in which the EU functions and its procedures. I think
that there is room for improvement. I do not doubt that. Part
of the problem is that when you negotiate with the Commission
on regulations of this kind, different Member States have different
priorities in terms of what they want. Of course, such matters
tend to be done as a package. Sometimes to get the package one
has to accept aspects that you personally, as a Member State,
may not feel are absolutely ideal. There is one area on which
we have been pressing the Commission. We have established in this
country quite a good system of regulatory impact assessment so
that we have an idea of the cost and implications of UK domestic
legislation. We have been pressing for the EU to follow a similar
procedure, which I think would address some of the points that
you make. My understanding is that they have signed up to that.
The Commission is going to introduce impact assessments. I believe
that that will be an improvement in relation to these kind of
regulations.
Mr Jack: I wish you well in that.
Q21 Mrs Shephard: I would like to
ask you about the national collection scheme. You wrote to all
livestock farmers in April telling them about the new rules and
asking them to register an interest in joining the scheme for
collection and disposal.
Mr Morley: That is right.
Q22 Mrs Shephard: You sent the letter
to 111,000 livestock farmers. How many farmers responded to your
letter? What proportion of livestock holdings want to participate
in the scheme?
Mr Morley: We have the detailed
figures. I can let the Committee have them as they stand today.
Approximately 30% have signed up or given us an indication that
they would like to join. I am afraid that that number is inadequate.
As it stands, we do not have enough livestock farmers willing
to join the scheme to make it viable. I have spoken to the NFU
today about that and they have asked if we would extend the deadline
for another couple of weeks, until about 28 May. As you know,
the NFU, and indeed all the farming organisations and livestock
associations are very supportive of the scheme. They want to have
a last push on their members to see whether they can improve that
figure. I have agreed to that because I think that for the sake
of a couple of weeks it would be a shame not to give people the
maximum opportunity. I am afraid that if the figures do not improve
the scheme will not go ahead.
Q23 Mrs Shephard: What had been your
hope in terms of the percentage of response?
Mr Morley: We made it clear that
we needed about 50% of livestock holdings to sign up. I must confess
that I am surprised that we have not had that number. This is
a very good deal.
Q24 Mrs Shephard: How do you explain
that?
Mr Morley: I really do not know.
I know that it can be difficult sometimes to get a response from
farmers. Often they leave things to the last minute. I am surprised
and I know that that is the view within the industry itself. Many
people thought that this was an exceptionally good deal. I cannot
explain why the uptake has been so low.
Q25 Mrs Shephard: Do you think that
all farmers are aware of the fact that the law is changing around
them?
Mr Morley: Yes. This has been
debated in the farming press for well over a year. I do not believe
that there is a farmer in the country who is not aware that the
law is changing on this.
Q26 Mrs Shephard: Do you think that
they are aware that it affects them?
Mr Morley: That I do not know.
Q27 Mrs Shephard: The figure would
suggest that they do not.
Mr Morley: Bear in mind that this
national collection service is not a prerequisite of the regulation.
I have been asked this and been assured this on numerous occasions:
there is adequate capacity in this country in the traditional
means of collecting fallen stock, to meet the requirement. This
national scheme, therefore, is not an essential part of the by-products
regulation. It is an attempt to have a convenient national scheme
for livestock farmers and to bring down the prices. It is a voluntary
scheme. Farmers always have the opportunity of making their own
arrangements, rather than join the national scheme. It may be
the case that most of them have already adequate arrangements
and do not feel the need for this scheme.
Q28 Mrs Shephard: There are a number
of possibilities. How up to date is your database?
Mr Morley: Our database is pretty
up to date. It is probably better than any other organisation.
I would not like to say whether there is an odd farm that did
not receive the letter. Because the fact that we were writing
to all livestock farmers is so well known, the odd few who did
not receive a letter have rung up DEFRA and demanded one. Of course,
we have made sure that they have one.
Q29 Mrs Shephard: What about the
unsupported sectors?
Mr Morley: The unsupported sectors
are better than average about signing up.
Q30 Mrs Shephard: I put it to you
that there has been uncertainty and confusion about the introduction
of the scheme, not least because a number of farmers have to use
other agents to dispose of their waste materials. I believe that
there may well have been confusion about who ultimately was responsible.
I have cases in my own constituency about which I have written
to your department—without a reply so far—in order
to get that confusion cleared up. There are such matters as when
does the scheme come in; if there are delays, who is responsible;
and am I within the law if I am still doing this on 2 May? I am
not sure how much confusion exists within the sector. If the examples
in my constituency are anything to go by I would say there still
is a fair amount of confusion despite everyone's best efforts.
Mr Morley: As we all know, sometimes
people manage to get confused no matter what the situation is.
Overall I do not think that there is confusion. In terms of who
is responsible, there is no argument about that. If a farmer has
fallen stock, it is his responsibility. There are no two ways
about that. In relation to fallen stock generally as an industry
by-product, it comes under the polluter pays principle. It is
an industry responsibility. We are prepared to help the industry
and, as you know, we spend about £30 million a year on fallen
stock collection for a variety of reasons. That comes under our
statutory obligations in relation to TSE testing. However, we
are not under an obligation to pay for the collection, but we
do in those sectors. The £30 million underpins the national
fallen stock collection. Over a three-year regressive period,
we have had some additional funding in order to get it off the
ground. People are free to make their own arrangements and many
people do. I have pointed out on a few occasions that fallen stock
is not a new issue. It has been with us for a very long time.
Farmers know how to deal with it. It is true that many farmers
did bury, although they should not have been doing it under the
1999 regulation. The recommendation from the scientific committee
of the EU is that widespread burials should cease for a variety
of sensible arguments which I have put in the submission to you.
Q31 Mrs Shephard: As you are aware,
some people keep farm animals as pets. That must be a trickier
question. I would imagine you rely on the press.
Mr Morley: We do. Again we have
to be reasonable and proportionate. If people keep farm animals
as pets in many cases they come under farm animal regulations.
Q32 Chairman: Minister, if your acceptances
came from holdings that represent, let us say, 80% of livestock
held in the UK, but represented only 45% of the registered holders,
would that still be insufficient numbers to go ahead with the
scheme?
Mr Morley: I think we would have
to break that down. We break it down by holdings. It is a matter
of what makes the scheme viable. To make it viable the subscription
element has to make up the shortfall in the money that we put
in from DEFRA. Some of it is longer term and some is shorter term.
The scheme has to be viable and at the moment it is not.
Q33 Chairman: That is introducing
a slightly different criterion to the one that we have had. Up
to now I had assumed that you had to reach a certain threshold
of enrolment.
Mr Morley: That is right.
Q34 Chairman: That is defined in
terms of holdings, presumably, except for those very few areas
that are exempt like the Highlands and Islands, Lundy and the
Isles of Scilly?
Mr Morley: That is correct.
Q35 Chairman: Are you now saying
that once subscriptions are sufficient to deliver in financial
terms the subscription income to make the scheme viable, that
you would consider going ahead even if you had not hit the threshold
numerically?
Mr Morley: We can be a bit flexible
on the threshold if we had the subscriptions, but the calculations
show to bring that subscription income you would need about 50%.
That was always in the original calculation.
Q36 Chairman: That is even if the
holdings which represented the largest amount of the stock had
themselves subscribed so they were the biggest subscribers?
Mr Morley: We will take that into
account but we do have to bear in mind of course that the bigger
holdings—and we have got the best response from the bigger
holdings—may have the biggest demand as well. That has to
be part of the equation in terms of the viability of the scheme
Q37 Mr Drew: On the back of that
and coming back to my favourite topic of small holdings, pets,
whatever you want to call them, did you consider looking at a
registration process whereby we actually register all farmers
and make it one of the requirements and look at ways in which
we can use the change in the CAP regime to account for how this
can be properly funded?
Mr Morley: We are giving thought
to issues like that although they are not necessarily related
to this regulation. In our consultations in the Animal Health
and Welfare Strategy, issues such as registration have come up,
not least because it is very important to have a very good database
of all livestock holdings. An example of that at the moment, Chairman,
is the issue with poultry and avian influenza, and we do need
to know every poultry unit in the country. We have to address
issues like that. They are separate from this regulation although
they are certainly in our mind.
Q38 Mr Wiggin: If the average UK
farmer signs up, that is only £11 million, which probably
is not enough. That is 111,000 farmers each signing up with £100
each, it is not enough money.
Mr Morley: You have to bear in
mind that we have £30 million available, we are prepared
to contribute more, yes, that is enough in terms of the calculations
that were given, although the top-up on the £30 million up
to maximum of £10 million in the first year is a three-year
regressive system.
Ms Bailey: Could I just explain
that those figures were English figures and we would hope it would
be a UK scheme. Letters have also gone out in Scotland, Wales
and in Northern Ireland and those figures are not included in
the response that the Minister has just given you with respect
to (a) the numbers we wrote out and (b) the responses we have
got. Those other figures are still being analysed.
Mr Morley: They are English figures,
although I understand they are not dissimilar. Is that right?
Ms Bailey: Not dissimilar in terms
of percentages but it would give you different overall values
in terms of total amount of revenue raised and so on.
Mr Morley: Just to be clear on
that.
Q39 Mr Wiggin: Can I ask a little
bit about the detail. For example, if a hunt or a renderer becomes
part of the scheme, are they obliged to pick up all the fallen
stock and what will the period be from the death of the animal
to the time at which it has to be rendered? Is there a time limit?
Mr Morley: I can certainly say
that the intention is the same day, but these are details which
the renderers and the participants in the scheme need to work
out. This is not a DEFRA-run scheme. DEFRA is not in the business
of collecting dead animals. What we are doing is helping the industry
set up a scheme. We did envisage if the scheme went ahead to have
a management committee which would involve farmers as well. I
really wanted this to be an industry-driven and industry-owned
operation.
| 
