---

 
20 May 2004 : Column 1077
 

House of Commons

Thursday 20 May 2004

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Ipswich Market Bill

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Haskins Report

1. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): If she will make a statement on the progress her Department is making towards implementing the Haskins report. [174399]

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I intend to publish a refreshed rural strategy for England later in the spring. The strategy will include a full response to the recommendations coming out of Lord Haskins's rural delivery review. Good progress is being made with stakeholders to develop this response.

Dr. Cable : I thank the Secretary of State for the positive tone of her reply. How does she propose to reconcile the approach of Lord Haskins, which is to deal with inefficiency and overstaffing in DEFRA through decentralisation, with the approach set out in the Chancellor's Gershon process, which is to deal with overstaffing and inefficiency by centralising decision making?

Margaret Beckett: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the impact of the Chancellor's proposals. There is no difference of view between us that the decentralisation of delivery processes would be highly desirable, and that is entirely consistent with reducing perhaps unnecessarily full core activities at the centre.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although Haskins has made many good recommendations, the true test is what is happening in rural areas? We must ensure that some of
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1078
 
the good programmes that have been put in place by the Countryside Agency and others are allowed to continue. Does she agree that we need to ensure that that happens?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely agree that there are at least two important aspects to Lord Haskins's proposals, one of which is that we should have more effective organisation of the agencies and organisations that relate to DEFRA. The second, which is much more germane to the ordinary citizen in rural areas, is what happens to the plethora of rural funding streams; I believe that Lord Haskins identified between 70 and 100 of them. I have asked the Department to examine, as its first priority, how we can simplify this area to give better delivery of services to customers in rural areas.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): The Secretary of State talks about her rural strategy, and she will be aware that there is a plethora of organisations involved in the provision of flexible labour in agriculture and horticulture, particularly related to the work of gangmasters. What steps will she take, in the light of the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to ensure that the Government at last appoint a Minister with the power to rationalise and make policy in this area effective?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee report, which was published only yesterday, deals with a good number of the Committee's thoughts on that matter. I have not had a chance to study it, although I shall of course do so. The Government are conscious that this is an extremely difficult problem, with which successive Governments have grappled without success. We hope to be more successful.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/ Co-op): The Secretary of State will know that, as resources are moved from the Countryside Agency to local authorities and regional development agencies, concerns remain in rural areas that the money intended for improvements to the countryside might be swallowed by other budgets and that, instead of the delivery of projects, there might be delay or even destruction in some circumstances. What assurance can she give the House that that is unlikely to happen?

Margaret Beckett: Of course I understand that anxiety, and I seem to recall that great concern was expressed when the regional development agencies were first set up. However, it will be within my hon. Friend's memory—as it is within that of most of us—that, during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the RDAs were very helpful and supportive. Many of those anxieties have therefore not been realised. I can assure him that we shall monitor the situation carefully to ensure that the right support goes to rural areas. That will also be part of the remit of the new, slimmed-down Countryside Agency, which I am sure will be robust in its observations.
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1079
 

Fallen Stock

2. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): When she expects to introduce a national collection scheme to assist livestock farmers in disposing of fallen stock. [174400]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): It is expected that an industry-led scheme backed by Government funding will be introduced in the autumn of this year.

Mr. Rendel : Obviously, the scheme should have been introduced before the regulation was introduced last July. We were promised then that it would be introduced by the new year. Is it not deeply depressing that we still have no definite date for the scheme—merely "the autumn of this year"? Will the Minister guarantee that any farmer who does not have an abattoir within easy reach of his or her farm will not be prosecuted if they do their best to dispose safely of their fallen stock on their own farm premises?

Mr. Bradshaw: Farmers are expected to comply with the regulation, although local authorities, which are responsible for enforcement, have been told to implement it with a light touch before the scheme is up and running. I share the hon. Gentleman's regrets about the length of time that it has taken, but this is quite a complex matter. It involves trying to get agreement across all the livestock and other sectors involved. We have now achieved that. It is an industry-run scheme, it has buy-in from the industry and those who run it are confident that it will be launched this autumn.

Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): Does the Minister recognise that any future ban on hunting with hounds would reduce the options available to farmers? Will he acknowledge that in 2003, 143 hunt kennels processed 500,000 carcases, free to local farmers? There will be further problems if that is not recognised and if there is a ban. Will he also tell the House whether the EU—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradshaw: If the hon. Lady checks, she will find that the vast majority of hunt kennels charge for the service—they do not provide a free service. We acknowledge that hunt kennels play a role, but it is small in terms of the amount of stock they collect and dispose of, and it is sensible for them to develop this service as an alternative source of income. Those on the board who administer the scheme, and representatives of the collection and disposal industry, assure me that a hunting ban would have absolutely no effect on their ability to dispose of fallen stock. There is plenty of capacity available within the industry.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The Minister says glibly that any ban on hunting would have no effect whatever on the fallen stock company that was set up this week. Why, then, did he announce that 146 of the registered collection centres will be hunt kennels, and that about 80 per cent. of the countryside of England will not be serviced by anybody apart from
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1080
 
hunt kennels? Will he not pay some tribute to the valuable service that they have given to the countryside over many years? Will he acknowledge that whether or not hunts charge for collection—most of them do not—they collected 600,000 carcases last year, at a cost of £3.5 million? What would he do if hunting were to be banned?

Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my answer. I quoted the chairman of the board of the National Fallen Stock Company, who assured me that a ban on hunting would have no impact whatever on the industry's capacity to dispose of fallen stock.

Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): Will the Minister reassure the House that farmers in remoter rural areas will not be disadvantaged by excessive charges for the collection of their fallen stock compared with those in areas closer to collection centres? Given the Government's evidently mañana attitude to a regulation that should have been acted on more than a year ago, do they believe that it is an effective and worthwhile scheme that is making a significant impact on the biosecurity of livestock farms?

Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we gold-plate all EU regulations, although perhaps that is the new Liberal Democrat approach to these matters. I take on board his concern about livestock farmers in remoter rural areas. I am aware, for example, of the concerns of the sheep industry in the remoter parts of Wales, although the National Sheep Association supports this scheme. One of the advantages of the new scheme is that it is a pay-as-you-go scheme, so it is likely to drive down prices. We already know that at least one collector in Wales has said that he will reduce his prices once the scheme is up and running.

---