European Standing Committee A |
|
Mr. Paterson: That is a helpful intervention. I have interpreted the second half of the motion as an endorsement of Government policy. I am unhappy because wherever I go around farming communities there are constant complaints about excess regulation and complexity. That is not put down just to legislation from the Commission, but to gold-plating—excessive, zealous embellishment of regulation by our national Government. That is confirmed on page 143 of the document, which states:
whatever that means—
Column Number: 21 The document worries me because it implies that there could be yet more complication. Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are two elements to environmental benefit? The first is to ensure that best practice is observed—in other words, that things are done in the way that they should be—which is what cross-compliance is all about. The second is to look for greater environmental benefit and things that it costs farmers to do, whether that involves encouraging biodiversity, setting some land aside or whatever else, for which they should receive a payment. That is what the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman referred discusses. We are talking about two elements, and it is in the interests of farmers that there should be a clear indication of both. Mr. Paterson: I fully understand the Minister’s point and I understand Government policy, but my contention is that the problems for those involved in trying to use such mechanisms are being exacerbated. The bundle refers somewhere to the 18 directives already down for cross-compliance on the single farm payment, but also mentions 34 measures to comply with the three axes of the new payments. My contention is that the system is becoming unnecessarily complex. That point is endorsed by the third parties in the document. I was interested by an organisation called PREPARE—Pre-Accession Partnerships for Rural Europe—which said on p. 226:
There is further criticism from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace that the measures are not green enough. The European Landowners Organisation made a telling point on p. 314:
The ELO made it clear that it has serious doubts about whether the EU can or should have as detailed control on rural development policy as option 2 suggests. It points out:
That very much endorses our thinking. We wholeheartedly support the concept of decoupling. We think it right that farmers should produce for the market and that production should not be driven by subsidy. As a party, we got Franz Fischler over here last year and I endorse everything that he said. He was frustrated that some member states had muddied the waters, so that when reform finally came out, it was not as pure as he would have liked. We support the
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for indicating general support for the overall objectives. I again make it clear, as I hope I did in my introductory remarks, our support for simpler regulation from the Commission to the member states, in order to achieve the greatest simplicity possible—certainly greater than at present—in how things progress. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 34 measures are too many. We want a simpler, objective-based format. It has been suggested to me that when the Commission runs out of letters of the alphabet with which to label the proposals, we shall be in deep trouble. I suppose that we could use the Welsh alphabet, which is slightly longer, but I am not sure that that proposal commends itself. Mr. Paterson: That was a very interesting intervention, because it shows that the Minister is perhaps coming round to the standpoint of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and myself. He said in questions that there is no need for a compulsory strategy right across Europe. To give our view briefly, the primary purpose of a farm is to produce food and it is right that farmers should produce food for the market. There are some splendid examples in my constituency, such as Muller, which makes yoghurt, and Anglo Beef Processors, the main supplier of meat to Sainsbury’s, which is working closely with the market and doing well. That must be the way forward and the primary purpose. Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I did not want to interrupt his list of constituency organisations that deserve a place on the record. However, would he not accept that simply saying that there must be flexibility and that things should be left to the member state is to risk not only having money spent by a variety of countries not on agreed objectives, including the environmental benefits that we have always said are so important, but regression in terms of what the finance is used for? It is a question of balance between simplicity and ensuring a level playing field across Europe because there is a consistency in the outcomes that are sought through the expenditure from the common agricultural policy. Mr. Paterson: That is a good point, which I was just about to come to. My worry is that many of the regulations seem to be jigged to address the problems of decrepit ex-communist infrastructures and rural economies, and may not be so applicable to the sophisticated problems that we have in the western part of Europe. It is a question of balance. My gut feeling, which I shall come to in a moment, is that the answer is more national controls so that measures can be adapted more closely to local circumstances. Briefly, because I know others want to speak, the first priority of farming is to produce food, but there are other primary products such as horticulture and forestry, which should not be interfered with by
One element that is missing completely is fuel. There is a debate about renewables, and we are strong supporters of biofuel and biomass, which would, in the case of biomass, give farmers a finished product. They would not just produce the raw biomass material, but with small 100kW generators each farm could, as long as it was below 800 ft, grow biomass and put that finished product—electricity—into the national grid and produce it for its own consumption. There does not seem to be any mention of that and I wonder how the Minister sees that matter tying in with the regulations. We totally agree with what Franz Fischler said when he came here: there is amenity value. That point was raised, and very well put, by one of the third parties:
It is clear that a public good is provided in the environmental and amenity benefits of farming, but there must be a much simpler way of calculating that. The Minister has already said that he is not particularly enamoured of the 34 measures and the three axes. There has to be a simpler way of assessing the matter than the 18 directives. That is where we really disagree with the Government, and where I have trouble with the motion. I see the process as excruciatingly complex, and it will put people off getting involved. My party are quite relaxed about the fact that there is a clear public good for the environment and in the amenity benefit, but there must be a much simpler system of assessment and paying people to bring them in. I am concerned, to return to our earlier exchange, that a lot of the regulations are geared to help to reconstruct decrepit east European economies and are not particularly geared to those in the west. I conclude that there is no longer a CAP. The variety of mechanisms is now so diverse, and the 25 nations so complex, that we would be better bringing the fifth pillar relating to the environment and amenity benefit under national control. 3.18 pmAndrew George: I was reflecting on an exchange during the question and answer session. As I said in one of my questions, the whole system that we have described, which the hon. Gentleman just touched on, is extremely complex and has been created over time. Among the many people I have met to discuss the issue there are few who are capable of seeing the whole picture. The last one I met who got their head completely around the issues involved is more likely to
I am concerned that that complexity creates an environment that is not so much fertile for farming as fertile for fraud and political inertia. Significant strides were made in the 2003 negotiations. As a result, important and welcome changes—perhaps the most significant in a generation—were made to the management of agricultural policy. However, there is still a tremendous amount to be done along the lines that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned a moment ago. There appears to be general agreement that we should move from pillar 1 to pillar 2 payments. I understand that farming organisations in this country broadly support the thrust of that approach to policy development. However, the system for pillar 2 payments is no less complex than that for pillar 1 payments. I want to raise several issues with the Minister, some on the basis of genuine inquiry, seeking clarity, and one on which I am afraid we still significantly disagree. Of course, one reason why Minister cannot be entirely certain and why the documents themselves are hedged with uncertainty is the budget-setting background to the documents and the agreements made so far. The Government have put themselves fairly and squarely in the centre of the six-nation 1 per cent. club, and one can understand why. Certainly every effort should be made to rein in and ratchet down unnecessarily profligate expenditure—one may view it as such—that cannot be supported. On the other hand, the Minister must accept that those nations are only six out of the 25 that are beginning difficult and protracted debates with the expectation of resolving the issues before June. That is the outcome hoped for by the Commission. The Minister will be well aware that many projects and organisations involved in objective 1 programmes and those involved in regional development work will be anxiously watching the outcome of the negotiations, which affect not only the future of CAP development in this country and our ability to shift payments from pillar 1 to pillar 2 but also the likelihood of, for example, regions securing objective 1 status. The two regions in question are west Wales and the valleys, which the Minister knows a great deal about, and Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, in which I have a personal interest. All of that is affected by the success or otherwise of the negotiations, so we must wait and see. The Government ought to have a plan B in their back pocket, if not further forward in their file. My anticipation is that they will not be successful in their negotiations on the 1 per cent. It appears that the mathematics of that are stacked against them, as I
As the Minister will understand, the area of disagreement in the last DEFRA parliamentary questions was the timing of the single farm payment within the six-month window from December 2005 until June 2006. For many farmers who are on the margins of survival a delay of another month could make the difference between surviving and not. Those farmers must plan financially, and some must go to the bank to secure a bridging loan to get them through a very challenging period. I do not say that it will be challenging for all, but for a significant number of farmers it will be. The Minister’s response on that matter, on the Floor of the House and today, is that the Rural Payments Agency faces a number of bureaucratic, computer and other challenges. I am sure that I sympathise, and I would like to understand, but the fact is that farmers face greater challenges. Those bureaucrats in the RPA—and I wish them no ill—will still be in their posts in June 2006, but many farmers will be struggling to survive over the period. The situation is not comparable. Alun Michael: The point that I have made a couple of times at DEFRA questions is that the February point for payment is what we consider achievable; that is the early point that we believe we can manage. It has not been plucked out of the air; it has been derived by considering what is necessary to develop the systems and to build in the fine-tuning of the Commission’s proposals. That can hardly be done until there is the necessary certainty. We have not closed the door on options for assisting farmers who have difficulty with the timing. The hon. Gentleman will accept that in future years there should not be a problem; however, there is a problem this year. I am very reluctant to allow an increased burden that could, through the attempt to make two payments rather than one, cause additional problems. However, we have not ruled that out. That is why, as the Secretary of State made clear at the Oxford conference, we are considering the options. The closer we get to the relevant time, the easier it will be to be clear about what we can offer to assist with the problem. Andrew George: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for my scepticism about the RPA’s ability to meet its February deadline. To underline my experience of the meeting of deadlines by Government agencies under the DEFRA umbrella I need only mention the national fallen stock collection scheme, which was delayed for at least a year from the date on which I was assured it would be set up. With no disrespect to the Minister, I do not think that farmers will be reassured by his statement that it is intended to make payments on the date in question. I raised this issue when I met the European Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, a few weeks ago. At that stage she was, while getting on
Mr. Paterson rose— Alun Michael rose— Andrew George: I give way to the hon. Member for North Shropshire first. Mr. Paterson: Does the hon. Gentleman favour giving a broad lump sum, of 70 or 80 per cent., or would he prefer the idea put forward at the NFU conference of the historical element being paid first and the newer area payment, which will be more complex, coming through later next year? Andrew George: Well, it amounts to more or less the same thing. As I recollect, the historical payment for this year is higher than 70 or 80 per cent. Whatever happens, I would prefer it if the figure were significantly more than 50 per cent. I believe that the bulk of the payment can justifiably be made early in the payment window and, where there is concern or a need for further analysis or arithmetic to be undertaken, the residue may be paid later in the payment window. I give way to the Minister. Alun Michael: In the course of the hon. Gentleman’s entirely justified name-dropping, he said to the Committee that Commissioner Fischer Boel, when asked about the staged payments, was unable to give a completely confident answer. I believe that what she said at the Oxford conference is that she thinks that there are no legal obstacles. It would be wrong for us to offer certainty until we are certain that the Commission accepts that there are definitely no legal obstacles. Pending that sort of certainty, it is reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to say, “I would like so and so to come back”. It would be better for farmers if one approach were adopted rather than another. I note those points. However, it would be wrong for us to respond positively until we have firm foundations on which to base a decision. It is worth pointing out that the historical payment is 90 per cent. this year, which is a major proportion and not the sort of figure on which errors can be achieved. I repeat the assurance that we are, with farm industry representatives, considering what can be done to make sure that problems are overcome, that there is certainty as soon as possible and that we work with banks and others to find ways of ameliorating any impact. We worked closely with the banks on the impact on farmers during the outbreak of
Andrew George: I am grateful for that answer. I agree with the Minister that it would be helpful for us to have legal certainty at this stage, at this moment in this Committee. I would prefer that certainty in order to make my repeated request to the Minister for a two-stage payment. However, as a Liberal Democrat who is as pro-European as the rest of our party, I say that we are not so unquestioningly and sycophantically pro-European that we do not recognise that there are occasions, of which this is one, where rules have been put in place for no earthly reason other than that they make for neat bureaucracy. I cannot see why it is of the blindest bit of interest or relevance to the European Commission whether the UK Government hand an agreed amount to farmers in one cheque or two. We could do away with a level of centralised compliance, if that is what the European Commission ultimately advises the UK. I would support the Government in challenging any Commission ruling that did not allow them to make two payments rather than one. We have given that issue a reasonable airing. There are many technical issues, some of which, biofuels in particular, the hon. Member for North Shropshire has covered. The Minister knows full well that further negotiations about sugar will take place. That is not properly covered in the papers before us, and it would be helpful if the Minister explained how he views the next stages of those negotiations, and in particular how he will ensure that the British sugar industry is properly and, I think, justifiably represented in future negotiations—after all, it is among the most efficient in Europe. Furthermore, we have agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which means that half, if not the bulk, of their imports come to the UK. Efficient sugar producers in the UK and third-world suppliers to the UK and other European nations share an interest in getting that issue right, ensuring that there is an adequate transitional arrangement and the rug is not simply pulled precipitously from under their feet. Mr. Paterson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the UK does not contribute to Europe’s sugar surplus and, as he rightly says, plays fair with the ACP countries, it should be those countries that contribute to the surplus which take the hit? The Commissioner was very blunt in Birmingham, saying that there will be cuts and price reductions. However, that is not fair on Britain’s producers, who do not contribute to the surplus; it should hit those producers on the continent who are over-producing. Andrew George: I agree. Any decision should be based on the efficiency of the production systems in each of those countries. That is why if those countries that are not so well endowed with efficient producers could have their quotas purchased and concentrated in
I am aware that others want to speak, and I have only two further points. First, there is a need to cut through the complexity and establish a clear vision for the future of farming. I am not sure that the Government have presented one. They have presented a technical explanation of where they are with budget setting and their desire to shift from pillar 1 to pillar 2, but I am not sure that they have a feeling for where farming is likely to sit in the rural community in future. If, as we can confidently predict, payments to farmers under pillar 1 decrease over time, the trend that we have seen accelerating in recent years will continue, as more and more farmers choose or are forced to leave the land. There will be fewer farmers, and the bedrock of our rural community will disappear. Alun Michael: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the future of farming, but does he acknowledge that the Committee is considering decisions taken by the EU through discussions the Commission and the Agriculture Council and so on, and that we must revise UK farming, particularly farming in England, by helping and supporting the industry, using European funds but not allowing that to dictate everything that we do? Does he acknowledge also that the strategy for food and farming, and the work done by Sir Don Curry and his team—work done not by a Department but by the industry working with the support of the Government—are the way to achieve the vision set out in the documents on the sustainable future for farming and food? Andrew George: I do acknowledge the work that is being done to try to reconnect farmers to their markets, and to develop niche markets. Anything that can be done to add value to agricultural produce will help, but the Minister will fully understand that, on a cross-party basis, we are moving away from agriculture subsidies, that are, in WTO terms, blue box support, and are moving towards green box support. That means that the benefits gained from public funds being invested in agriculture, either in the environment or in the amenity value of the management of the agricultural landscape, will be more obvious and transparent to the general public. That is clearly to the good, but ultimately we also want the structure of our traditional farms to be maintained, particularly in the west of the country, where farms are most likely to suffer as a result of the changes. My earlier question to the Minister, to which, with respect, I did not receive a clear answer, is whether the Government will reconsider the possibility of establishing a national envelope south of the border, as has been done in Scotland. As I understand it, there are two big advantages to using a national envelope rather than the method currently proposed by the Government. First, it ensures that funds can be re-directed to farms rather than to the general rural economy. Secondly, with regard to co-financing, which the Minister touched on in one of his answers, there is no requirement within the national envelope to
3.44 pmMr. Francois: My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire set out the Opposition’s position, and we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I shall speak briefly as a standing member of the Committee to touch on a question that I asked the Minister earlier. There is a procedural weakness in what we seek to do in European Standing Committees, which our proceedings today have highlighted very starkly. Negotiations continue, and the motion asks us to take note of the two directives. We want to fulfil our duties by pressing the Minister for detail, but he is between a rock and a hard place, because there is only so much information that he can release to the Committee: he will want to tell the Committee some things about the negotiations, but he will not want to put other things into the public domain while the negotiations are ongoing. Given that procedural difficulty, he has done the best that he could to square that difficult circle. Nevertheless, the rest of the Committee is in a rather invidious position in that we are asked to take note of a document, the final form of which we do not know, and the negotiations are ongoing. We are mindful of our responsibility, given that the final document will be subject to qualified majority voting—we have confirmed that through questions—and that we are therefore being asked to take note of a document on which the UK could, theoretically, be outvoted by its European partners. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 24 February 2005 |