---

 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 419
 

House of Commons

Thursday 22 April 2004

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Lords Reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons amendments, considered

Resolved,

That the Commons do not insist on their Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Siobhain McDonagh.]

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rights of Way (Mechanically Propelled Vehicles)

1. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): What conclusions she has drawn from the consultation on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. [167002]

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): First, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had to go to Luxembourg for a special Agriculture Council meeting, which is why she is not able to be with us this morning. I am pleased to say that there has been a successful outcome, and I have placed copies of her press statement in the Vote Office for the convenience of Members.

Secondly, it might be convenient for Members if I draw attention to the written statement confirming the three area arrangements for the single farm payment made by my right hon. Friend this morning.

In response to our consultation on the use of mechanised vehicles on rights of way, we received over 15,000 letters and e-mails, which are being analysed. Views on the main issues are strong but divided. I shall do all that I can to build a consensus on the way forward, but with such strength of opinion it is clear that leadership and action are required from the Government.

John Mann : I am all in favour of strong leadership and action from the Government. A significant number of Members have articulated their views on an early-day motion that I tabled. In the consultation, will the Minister take good note of the fact that many of those
 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 420
 
who are complaining are doing so about something on which the Government are not consulting? The issue is whether there is unrestricted, unbridled new access to new rights of way, rather than the placing of restrictions on people's perfectly rational and reasonable pastimes. In considering that, will the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather a long question. Perhaps this is an Adjournment debate subject.

Alun Michael: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. Many pieces of disinformation have been put around about the consultation. Issues such as whether use by horses 200 years ago should lead to the use of particular tracks by mechanised vehicles are serious, and unnecessary fears have been caused by the sort of disinformation to which my hon. Friend refers. We shall certainly consider all the experience and all the comments that have come in, in trying to design a way forward that is sensible, protects rights of way and protects the interests of all.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): Does the Minister agree that no one should accuse either him or those of us who have made representations on behalf of our constituents of acting with haste or being unreasonable? I spent an afternoon with the Southern Counties Off Road club and had a two-hour meeting with the Wiltshire Trail Riders Fellowship, as well as consulting every parish council, before making my representations to the Minister. My conclusion that it is unreasonable to carry on as we are is widely shared.

Alun Michael: I am happy to respond positively to what the hon. Gentleman says. I met representatives of the users of mechanised vehicles a couple of weeks ago after the end of the consultation, as I promised that I would, and I urged them to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. There are many responsible users who do not want to go somewhere that would cause damage, or to damage the interests of others, but there are others who take a different attitude. It is important to engage responsible users, rather than their responding to the sort of disinformation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) referred a few moments ago.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): The infamous Grimsell lane is in my constituency, and the decision made in that case seems to have extended the legal loopholes that are described in the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Today, I have received a letter from a constituent who refers to eight lanes in the area that are now being extensively used by motorcycles that did not use them in the past. There is also a perverse decision in connection with bridleway 54 at Walton, which I have put in front of my right hon. Friend for his response. We need a situation in which the danger, noise and rutting that has been created by some misuse in the area is controlled.

Alun Michael: I am happy to look at individual examples, and I know that my hon. Friend has taken a considerable interest in the topic over a period of time. It is worth saying that traffic restriction orders can be used.
 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 421
 
For example, in places such as the Ridgeway where those have not been used in the past, there is now co-operation between local authorities to make use of seasonal restriction orders. We need to get the right response for any particular lane or right of way. I am very pleased that so many Members are engaged in wanting to achieve the right way forward.

Dairy Farming

2. Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con): If she will make a statement on the effect of single farm payments on dairy farmers. [167004]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Government took the decision to include dairy payments in the single farm payment from 2005. As a result of earlier reforms, the dairy sector was running behind those covered in the 2003 reform, and this has made the position more complicated. There will be a net reduction in the support for dairy. Within that, some of the more intensive dairy farmers will receive less than they currently do, and some of the smaller, less intensive farmers will receive more. The eight-year transitional period should give time for dairy and other sectors to adjust.

Mr. Flook : Under the single farm payment, dairy farmers in Somerset who currently get £350 per hectare will receive only £220. Given that they get only 17p per litre for milk that costs them 20p per litre to produce, does the Minister agree that that spells disaster for Somerset's dairy farmers?

Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not. The amount that dairy farmers currently receive depends, of course, on their stock densities. It is not just the flat rate payment that will bring the dairy industry closer to the market, thereby helping it to become more profitable and market oriented, rather than subsidy oriented; the measures that we have introduced—not least the one announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and the adjustments to the areas will prove helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): A dairy farmer in my constituency whom I met last week farms an area of land 55 per cent. of which is categorised as disadvantaged, yet he has a herd of 170 cows and a thriving business. However, when the new payments are applied he may well receive far less than that received by farmers six miles away, who farm good land. It seems perverse that a man who has built up a sustainable business should lose out because his farm happens to be situated on what is called disadvantaged land. Will my hon. Friend look seriously at how we can help such farmers, and consider an appeals procedure?

Mr. Bradshaw: That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a change in the boundaries as originally proposed in February. When my hon. Friend studies them, he will realise that they will help the very dairy farmer he mentions.

Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): During a recent meeting in Witney, the National Farmers Union
 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 422
 
pointed out to me that because of the different regimes that will exist in Scotland, Wales and England, Scottish and Welsh dairy farmers could buy a market in milk quota. Does the Minister share the NFU's concern that that could lead to an even greater reduction in dairy production in England, and if so, what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Bradshaw: I certainly accept that such a thing is possible. It is the result of devolution, and of Scotland and Wales having taken different decisions on the implementation of common agricultural policy reform—but we still believe that our decision to implement it on a flat rate basis is the right one for England. We are aware of quota moving over the border, but to judge by the reports we have received so far, that will not be a serious problem.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Has the Secretary of State responded to the letter of 19 March from the Dairy Industry Association Ltd. on this topic? It points out the paramount need for dairy farmers to restructure their businesses in order to survive in the new commercial environment created by a reduction in support, and it fears that—even in the light of today's announcement on the new areas—sub-moorland farmers in severely disadvantaged areas will struggle to survive in their traditional way.

Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot say whether the Secretary of State has yet to respond to that letter, but in today's announcement she certainly took on board the concerns expressed by the dairy industry. Indeed, the changes announced today were supported by the dairy industry and by virtually all sectors of the agriculture industry. However, that is not all that the Government are doing to help the industry. As my hon. Friend probably knows, my noble Friend who speaks for the Government in the other place chairs the dairy supply chain forum, which is working with the dairy industry to try to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants: to make sure that the industry has a healthy and secure future, but one that is market oriented, not subsidy oriented.

Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): Is the Minister prepared to admit that because his Department has treated the House as a notice board rather than a debating Chamber, crucial issues of scrutiny have not been completed? Substantial issues affecting dairy farmers, tenant farmers and others have been unresolved, so the Government have had to back pedal and make today's statement—a written statement about severely disadvantaged areas.

In a written answer of 17 March, Hansard column 279, the Minister's colleague said that all the assessments that I had asked the Government to publish would be produced in a document "shortly", but it is now 10 weeks since that answer. Does the Minister admit that those assessments and the statement were made without any proper assessment at all?

Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not, and it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman, who is usually more reasonable in these matters, is accusing the Government of having listened to the concerns of the industry—which is
 
22 Apr 2004 : Column 423
 
exactly what we have done. It would be fair to say that many people within the industry had not expected the Government to adopt a flat rate payment for the implementation of CAP reform and were unready to consider the consequences of such an implementation. It was precisely after the announcement in February that concerns were raised by the industry. We have taken them into account and made an announcement to Parliament at the earliest opportunity—today.

---