Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 14 July 2003