---

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Over recent years, we have seen a welcome revival in the planting of orchards, which has been encouraged by the Government through agri-environmental schemes and also locally. Somerset county council has been active in promoting the replanting of traditional apple varieties. It is thus perverse that we are switching to reverse gear.

Once those ancient varieties are lost, they are gone for ever; they will not be recovered. Genetic diversity is as important in arboriculture as in animal breeding, in which I declare some interest as, at one stage, I was a member of the Rare Breeds Association and bred a rare breed of pig.

Is the loss inevitable? I think not. I know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has held discussions with representatives of the industry and others, and I hope that the Minister may be able to expand on the results.

Let us deal with some of the possible avenues for escape. First, there is the definition of "permanent crop". There is some flexibility in the definitions. I understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the Department has already exempted some permanent crops, such as withies, hops and asparagus beds. If the definition is amendable in that form, why not do so with apple trees?

One of the growers—a gentleman who was a commercial-scale grower—told me how absurd he thought it was that the raspberry canes that he had on part of his land were eligible for single farm payment grants, but the top fruit that he had on other parts of his land was not. Where is the logic in that? Another gentleman pointed out to me that, under the new scheme, someone who grows a field of potatoes—a very valuable crop, but not one with a great landscape value—will receive a benefit, but those who have beautiful orchards, whether of apple or cherry or whatever, will not. That seems perverse.

Secondly, there is dual use. Orchards were never included, per se, in the integrated administration and control scheme, but traditional orchards are grown over a sward that is very often used for grazing. Under the old scheme, traditional cider orchards used for grazing for more than six months of the year qualified as forage acreage. Although those orchards did not qualify, per se, for subsidy, they were nevertheless included in the bundle. I understand that the Department is reconsidering the position on that—I hope that it is—because the arguments about dual use are just as pertinent now. I also hope that the Minister can give us some further thoughts on his conclusions.
 
20 Apr 2004 : Column 271
 

Thirdly, although I have seen nothing in writing, there is talk of an upper limit on density as a working definition for what is a traditional, as opposed to a modern, commercial orchard. I have heard the figure of 50 trees a hectare mentioned. That is a step in the right direction, but most traditional orchards that I have seen come closer to about 50 trees an acre, rather than 50 trees a hectare. Clearly, if we can refine that definition, there is scope for finding a workable yardstick for exemption.

Fourthly—this applies in the fully commercial world—will the Minister say whether it would be possible to register land for eligibility for payments as and when it reverts to other crops within the normal 30-year rotation? There is a perverse situation at the moment in that land would normally be used for other crops after 30 years, but unless people do that before the end of this year, that land will not qualify for single farm payments. That seems not to be the intention. If the Minister could help us with that, he would at a stroke dispel many concerns that might cause the premature destruction of orchards.

One of the Department's counter-arguments is that orchards will continue to qualify for the countryside stewardship scheme. That would be fine but for the fact that, as the Minister knows, the countryside stewardship scheme is closed to new entrants at the moment. No application can even be considered until 2005. By then, the growers whom I represent will have had to take commercial decisions about what to do with their land. I fear that it will be too late by then, even if the countryside stewardship scheme provides all the support that we hope it would. We need absolutely clarity now, not a wish list for the future.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. The countryside stewardship scheme is open each year for a window. Although the scheme may change next year, because we are moving into the new arrangements post-CAP reform, there will be a similar window next year. Contrary to the impression that he seems to be giving, if this year's window in the countryside stewardship scheme is missed, it is not over for ever and a day. I can certainly assure him on that point.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not what I meant. The point that I am trying to communicate is that there is no capacity to apply for inclusion in the countryside stewardship scheme now, before 1 January 2005. Before that date, a person must have either removed the trees from their land in order to qualify for the single farm payment scheme, or not done so. People are having to take that decision without knowing with certainty whether they will be included in a countryside stewardship scheme. They need clarity.

The other point raised in correspondence by the Department is that the sums do not add up. The Department says that the cost of grubbing up is £1,000 per hectare, and when that is taken into account, no one will grub up. No one in my part of the world recognises that as a reasonable figure for the cost of grubbing up. The cost would be far less—the Department's figure is hugely inflated. I do not know where the Department found it, but I hope that it is not basing its policy on that
 
20 Apr 2004 : Column 272
 
figure, because it is unhelpful and reduces the Department's credibility in the eyes of those with whom it is dealing.

I do not think that the destruction of orchards is the Government's intention. It is an unanticipated consequence of the policy and it can be avoided. The acreage involved is not huge—it is estimated that there are 16,000 acres of orchard, of which perhaps 5,000 acres are in danger of being lost by the end of the year. Saving our orchards is entirely in line with stated Government policy: supposedly the whole point of the reform is to benefit benign forms of cropping and agriculture, which orchards exemplify in the clearest possible way.

Can anyone imagine this debate happening in any other country? Can anyone imagine traditional and ancient Burgundy vineyards being destroyed and even whole grape varieties lost because no one foresaw the consequences of a policy? Such a thing is unthinkable—yet we in Britain seem to be prepared to lose those things that are most precious and best define our landscape and our culture. I hope that the Minister will find a way to stop that happening.

8.17 pm

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on obtaining this debate and on the way in which he introduced it. His speech contained a subtle mixture of bad and good information, although I entirely accept the lists of names of his constituents and of the distinguished varieties of apple that grow in his constituency. I am happy to confirm that we are anxious to protect biodiversity, which is helped by the existence of traditional orchards. However, in much of the coverage given to the matter, environmental issues have become muddled with questions of subsidy in relation to modern commercial orchards. That is why I am pleased to have had the hon. Gentleman's main concerns confirmed this evening. I understand the reasons for those concerns. A sensible debate is needed, but the public debate has been confused and clarification is needed.

Some of those who intervened in the debate seemed to suggest that there might be an advantage to growers in other countries—France was specifically mentioned. There will be no benefit in any other member state. Apple trees and others will be treated as permanent crops. In countries that are taking the historic payment route, there will not even be the possibility of acreage that has been used for apple trees qualifying for a flat rate, because there is no flat rate; it is only the flat rate element of the single farm payment that comes into play. In that respect, the concern that has been expressed is quite out of proportion.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the subject falls under the portfolio of my noble Friend Lord Whitty, and I have brought a fresh mind to the issue in my preparations for today's debate. My incredulity has mounted because yet another issue has been reported in various inaccurate ways, as Lord Whitty said this morning. I concur with him, and advise anybody who owns a traditional orchard or is contemplating the purchase of one not to read the headlines about getting
 
20 Apr 2004 : Column 273
 
an entitlement of £340 a hectare if the rules are changed. That is nonsense—it would take eight years to get more than £200 a hectare, and in the meantime there are better returns on the land and the orchard. Grubbing up to qualify for the area payment would make sense only for commercial or intensive growers—their position is quite different from people with traditional orchards—whose trees have reached the end of their useful life. They would take a commercial decision to grub up anyway, and any gain from area payments would be small compared with the income from a successful apple plantation.

The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to rotation. A grubbed up commercial orchard would usually be left fallow or put to another use for 15 or 20 years, or perhaps longer, as he suggested, and the grower would plant other land in the meantime. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at that issue and are seeking a solution, including the possible use of the national reserve and other options, but that is not the substance of our debate. English Nature has expressed concerns about biodiversity, and we are exploring definitions of, for example, grazing land, which may help to protect it. However, that is different from opening up subsidies for commercial orchards—the issues have become confused.

---