Jane
Kennedy: The short answer is yes. We fully recognise the
importance of the uplands. I welcome the study by the Commission for
Rural Communities into the future of upland communities. I look forward
to remaining in close touch with the commission throughout its study so
that its findings can contribute to policy making in the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We are committed to rewarding
upland farmers for the environmental and landscape benefits that they
provide, and as a society we probably rely more heavily on them than on
other farming sectors. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments
in support of that objective and we share some of the concerns that he
expressed. Mr.
Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): I echo the comments made in
welcoming the Minister to her new post and also on the role played by
her predecessor. The Select Committee certainly benefited from
exchanges with
him. The
Minister will understand that article 33 of the treaty forms the basis
on which the CAP exists. The Lisbon process did not seek to modify
that, but does she believe that the terms of article 33 are compatible
with the general lines of modification that the health check seeks to
achieve when developing the common agricultural policy? For my greater
understanding, perhaps she can explain what the Government of this
country see as the current purpose of the common agricultural
policy?
Jane
Kennedy: The health check contains measures that go some
way towards achieving our objectives for the common agricultural
policy. In my opening statement, I said that we should like to see the
complete decoupling of direct payments for production. We believe that
public funding should focus on providing environmental benefits for
member states. Those are very big objectives for reforming the CAP, and
the health check is somewhat limited in its ability to achieve that.
Clearly budget issues are further down the line, and those discussions
will take place in 2011.
That is a
very short response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but
I know that he will have a number of other questions. The scope of the
health check does not include a review of the size of the CAP budget or
fundamental reform of the approach taken to the CAP. I have already
discussed our view about the
changes that need to be made, including the fact that we should move
away from pillar one. We could have quite a long discussion about what
the CAP should look like and perhaps we will return to that later in
the
debate. Mr.
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): I, too, welcome the
Minister to her new role. I apologise for the length of my question.
She will recall that in 2005, the then Prime Minister agreed to the
abatement of the United Kingdom rebate in the Budget, in so far as the
rebate applied to structural and cohesion spending in the new member
states of the European Union. We were told at the
time: “Alongside
this agreement we also agreed on a fundamental review of all aspects of
the EU budget including the common agricultural
policy.” What
is the Government’s objective in the review, and what, if
anything, has been
achieved?
Jane
Kennedy: The principle of subsidiarity states that any EU
intervention should be based on a clear and robust justification for
EU-level measures, demonstrating added value above the current system
at member-state level. I make that opening statement in response to the
hon. Gentleman’s question about cohesion.
Structural
and cohesion funds should be targeted towards less prosperous member
states, which have a greater economic transition to make to achieve
their potential than wealthier member states, and have less capacity to
fund investments domestically. However, that funding should be seen as
transitional aid, not a permanent subsidy. In the longer term, as the
less prosperous countries develop, a measure of their success will be
their no longer needing the funds, so structural funds in the richer
member states should be phased out. Given that aim, the priority should
be for “standard” competitiveness and employment funding
no longer to be available to richer member states. That is one of the
achievements that the hon. Gentleman has asked me to
cite.
Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome the Minister to
her interesting new role. It is sad to see the noble Lord Rooker
disappear; I cannot say that I always agreed with him, but you always
knew where you stood with Jeff. That was one of his great
strengths.
It is
appropriate that we are in Committee today to debate the health check,
because I want to raise an issue about animal health and the continuing
threat of animal disease. In the context of the CAP, to what extent is
the EU now considering—with particular reference to animal
farming at least—the idea of repatriating more and more of it,
because of the threat of animal disease? Bluetongue and avian influenza
are just two examples of cross-border threats. Is it not time
increasingly to consider the CAP in a national context? It has served
its purpose as a pan-European policy, because that policy is, of its
very nature, causing the threat that some of us think we should bear
down on.
Jane
Kennedy: The Commission is taking forward work on
financing measures as part of the Community animal health policy.
Revised arrangements for public animal health provision have been under
discussion since before the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001.
I may not give
an exact answer to my hon. Friend’s question; one thing that I
want to do—and this applies to all hon. Members’
questions this afternoon—is to study today’s
Hansard when it is published, to see how well I have answered.
If I need to provide further detail I shall be happy to write to hon.
Members to follow up today’s discussion, particularly because of
the role of the European Scrutiny Committee in this
context. I
am very much looking forward to getting to grips with the animal
welfare part of my ministerial brief. It is essential that the most
appropriate domestic arrangements should be developed for the effective
and efficient operation of the UK livestock sector. I am talking about
UK farming livestock, which would be the subject of the CAP health
check. Simply to wait for the proposals of the European Commission on
financing arrangements for epidemic diseases might create the risk of
such proposals being unsuitable. Being proactive also strengthens our
influence in the Commission and our negotiating mandate.
In that
context, it is important to recall that the member states with
long-standing cost-sharing mechanisms in place will use the experience
of the operation of such schemes to influence the future direction of
the European debate. I may not have answered my hon. Friend’s
exact point, but I hope that I have covered the area about which he is
concerned.
Mr.
Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for her earlier
answer. I raised the matter because the 2005 document to which I
referred stipulated that domestic reduction was not necessary for food
security. This summer, the Secretary of State implied that he did see
it as necessary, but last week, the Minister stated that there had been
no change in the Government’s strategy. She will understand my
confusion.
Before some
specific technical questions on the proposals, I would like to ask a
general question about the role that the Government take when trying to
achieve their objectives in the health check debate. The Minister will
understand from her previous Government roles that we do not get our
way in Europe by turning up at the Council of Ministers and saying,
“This is what we will have and what we want.” The process
requires weeks or months of discussion with other Ministers and
officials. Will she tell the Committee how many bilaterals her
predecessors or the Secretary of State have had with other Ministers in
Europe, or the Commissioner, about the health check? We will return to
whether the Conservative party agrees with the Government’s
approach, but from her point of view, how has she been trying to obtain
a health check decision that meets the Government’s objectives?
Will she give us chapter and verse? If she cannot, perhaps she would be
kind enough to write to me with a list of all those bilateral
meetings.
Jane
Kennedy: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman chapter and
verse—I will be absolutely up front about that. However, I am
conscious that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes the
subject extremely seriously. He has personally attended all the
Agriculture Council meetings to ensure that UK interests are
represented at the most senior level in Government. I hope that the
hon. Gentleman finds that reassuring. I will obtain the figures on the
number and level of meetings.
There has been
a great deal of progress on the agricultural health check. I was
interested to read the debate that took place in June in the other
place and the House of Lords European Union Committee’s report
on the future of the common agricultural policy—I have taken
that as an A-level text to study. I am pleased to quote directly from
the Lord Sewel’s seventh report. He
said: “the
Government and the Select Committee are not only in broad agreement on
the general direction of policy but are also in agreement on many of
the policy specifics. We both want a more market-oriented agriculture
that is sustainable and makes a significant contribution to the
environment, particularly in the area of climate
change.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June
2008; Vol. 702, c.
338.] The
debate that followed was very informative, and I hope that we can
approach these issues in a similar spirit and ensure that the shared
objectives of this House are followed through in representations made
at European level.
Kelvin
Hopkins: It was remiss of me not to say first what a
pleasure it is to attend the Committee under your chairmanship,
Mr. Chope, and to welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister
to her new post. Some of us are old hands at talking about the
CAP—we go on about it for ever—but it might be new
excitement for her.
There are a
variety of regressive aspects to the common agricultural policy. It has
already been touched on that some of the richest countries in the
European Union are those that benefit most from CAP subsidies. Does the
Minister agree that the CAP can never be called healthy while that is
so, and will she make that case robustly when she goes to meetings in
the European Union?
Jane
Kennedy: I said earlier that I believe there to be a role
for a common agricultural policy that has moved away from pillar one
objectives, and refocused the funding that member states provide on
environmental benefits and supporting the environmental impact that
farming and agriculture have across the European Union. I have also
said that with a larger European Union, clear priorities must be set
within the overall CAP to assist the economies of those member states
that need more support than those of the central 15 member states. The
CAP needs further reform, but the health check is a good step along the
way. The hon. Gentleman is right that it needs to be based on
objectivity, specifically on where the public will benefit from the
outcome of the policy.
Tim
Farron: With your permission, Mr. Chope, I
intend to ask questions on subjects other than hill farming, but I
would like to pursue the line that I followed earlier with the
Minister. I am grateful for her comments. She referred to the
commission of inquiry into the uplands, which is being led by the
Commission for Rural Communities and is very welcome. She is probably
aware that the Government will shortly be in a position to put to the
European Union the proposals for replacing the hill farm allowance with
the uplands entry level scheme. The Commission for Rural
Communities’ inquiry into the uplands will conclude in about 12
months, by which time if the UELS is in place, it may already have
killed the goose that laid the golden
egg, before we even get to the end of the inquiry. The Minister talks,
quite rightly, about making sure that we reward farmers for the
benefits they provide in relation to the countryside, the environment
and our ecology. Is she aware that the hill farm allowance currently
rewards farmers for doing things that they were already doing, which
are fantastically valuable for protecting our biodiversity, access to
the countryside and securing food production, and that if the upland
entry level scheme raises the bar so high that they cannot get over it,
those people will leave the uplands before the Commission for Rural
Communities has had time to
report?
Jane
Kennedy: Although I have not yet been up early enough to
catch the debates at 5 o’clock in the morning on “Farming
Today”, I have been reading the transcripts. There is an active
debate about the future of upland farming and hill farmers, and the
difficulties they face. I have already indicated that we appreciate the
role that they play in sustaining an environment that many of us enjoy
for recreation. I am conscious of that discussion, and from my short
introduction to it, I believe that a number of factors are leading to
upland farmers leaving the hills. The hon. Gentleman has touched on one
or two factors, but this is a complex area and one that deserves
examination in greater detail than this short question and answer
session can
provide.
Mr.
Jack: Taking into account her Department’s impact
assessment study and the report of the scrutiny Committee, which drew
our attention to aspects of sustainability and the environmental impact
of the mid-term review, will the Minister say why the word
sustainability does not appear in the Government motion for which they
seek the Committee’s support? All we are told is that the
Government want
to “direct
more public spending towards delivery of targeted public
benefits”,
which is an ill-defined
phrase and does not seem to sit easily with the last comments the
Minister was making about the importance of hill
farming.
Jane
Kennedy: As I said, the scope of the documents was set in
2005. The health check is intended to improve and reinforce the major
reforms of 2003, which broke the link between production and direct
payments and made payments conditional on meeting a range of
environmental and agricultural standards. The intention of the health
check is to pursue the principles and direction of travel established
then. The word “sustainable” might not be included, but
it is implicit in the motion. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I
am not even sure whether it is an oversight—that the motion is
perfectly adequate for what we are discussing, and I hope to commend it
to the Committee for approval
later.
Mr.
Clappison: The Minister has told us how the rebate is to
be spent, but the abatement of the rebate, which was agreed in 2005,
will carry a cost for UK taxpayers, which they would not have had to
bear had it not been for the agreement entered into by the then Prime
Minister. I appreciate that she may not have the figures at her
fingertips, but I would be grateful if she
could give an answer at some point in the debate, so that we can put
things in context. How much will the abatement mechanism cost the UK in
the budget period that we are discussing?
Jane
Kennedy: I hope to give the hon. Gentleman the detail that
he is seeking when I reply to the debate. As he will recall, the rebate
discussion at that time took place in the context of securing an
overall deal, which included significant reform of the CAP. Our
abatement in the current period remains fully justified. The rebate is
necessary because of the imbalances created by EU expenditure policy.
Without it, the UK would be paying more than twice as much net as
France and Italy, for example, in the period from 2007 to 2013.
However, the EU budget review will look at both expenditure and revenue
and will report later this
year.
Several
hon. Members
rose—
| 
