| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Common Agricultural Policy (EU Review)
4. Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): What progress has been made in the EU review of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [258779]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): The CAP health check was, on balance, a step towards our long-term view of the CAP. In particular, it removed about half the remaining production-coupled payments. We will continue to press for further reform for the benefit of farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment in the forthcoming European Union budget review.
Mr. Moore: The hill farmers in my constituency are in an extremely precarious economic situation. Many are being forced to reduce the size of their flocks and herds, or even to contemplate getting out of farming altogether. Does the Secretary of State recognise that those farmers are vital to the well-being of their local communities and the management of our environment? If so, will he ensure that in the next fundamental review of the CAP we retain enough flexibility for the different parts of the United Kingdom to give long-term support to hill farmers?
Hilary Benn: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of hill farming, and join him in paying tribute to the work that hill farmers do. It is tough farming, undertaken by some of the toughest farmers whom I have met.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about future negotiations, but we have already taken one significant step, which we announced not long ago, in replacing the hill farm allowance with the upland entry level scheme. The fact that that has been so widely welcomed reflects both a recognition of the Government’s commitment to supporting hill farmers, and our hard work in listening to feedback about what would help them when we were drawing up the scheme.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Does not the CAP cost the taxpayers of the European Union far too much and benefit far too few people? Agriculture represents about 1.5 per cent. of the aggregate EU GDP and about 5 per cent. of people in the EU work in agriculture, but almost half the EU budget is consumed by it. That cannot be allowed to continue for much longer, can it?
Hilary Benn: As my hon. Friend and the House will know, it has been a long-standing aim of the UK Government to reform the CAP in order to address some of the difficulties to which he has drawn attention, and as I said, the health check was, on balance, a further step along the way—although there were some steps forward and also one or two steps back. In the end, the Government’s objective is to support farmers for the public goods that the market will not reward them for, which is why we have argued long and hard for a shift of resources from pillar one to pillar two. Agri-environment schemes are extremely important; we celebrated their 21st anniversary last year, but the truth is that this is a long, hard slog, because different EU member states take a different view about the need for reform.
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): Farmers are often hampered in producing food by regulation associated with the common agricultural policy. Given that only one animal out of all those tested in England and Wales last year under the fallen stock scheme proved positive for BSE, is it not now time to review the ban of on-farm burial and lighten the burdensome and costly regulation that farmers have to endure?
Hilary Benn: I take the hon. Gentleman’s more general point about the cost of regulation, which is why we have been vigorous in, for example, trying to get the best deal we can on electronic identification of sheep. We have made some progress, but as he will be aware, not enough member states are worried about the matter to change the nature of the regulation itself. On his specific point, what is most important is that we act on the basis of the veterinary advice that we have about risk. I undertake to come back to him with a further response to the matter he has raised, but managing the risk and making sure there is no risk to the public has to be the overriding consideration in dealing with BSE.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab):
Did not the Secretary of State put his finger on it when he said that reform is opposed by a large number of other countries? There is broad consensus across the House
and, I think, the nation on the need for CAP reform in this country, but we have to persuade Dublin and France and Madrid to think differently. To that end, will the Secretary of State bring in some of the Church charities that campaign on opening up trade for the third world, and ask them to talk to the Churches and equivalent charities in Ireland, France, Spain about fighting for a real alteration, because there is no use in our agreeing to this in Britain if we cannot persuade our partners elsewhere in Europe?
Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend, who has great experience in these matters, of course, is absolutely right: in the end, we have to get agreement across Europe to make the change. The agricultural policies that are pursued in Europe do have an impact on some of the poorest farmers in the developing world. That is relevant to the question of food security, because an urgent task that we face is to support a growth in agricultural production, particularly in the developing world, to feed a rising population, and that is harder for a farmer to do if they do not have a market and cannot see an incentive. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that we should encourage this debate, looking at all aspects of the importance of agricultural production and at making sure Europe has the right policy, but in the end we have to get consensus.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State endorse the point about reducing the burden of regulation, and he will know of his own Department’s target to reduce the burden by 25 per cent. by next year, but is he aware of the research by Open Europe showing that, far from reducing, the burden is actually increasing dramatically? It estimates that the cost of the regulations that derive from the EU but are interpreted and implemented here is now £1.2 billion, an increase of a massive 47 per cent., and even more seriously, that home-grown regulation—regulation that originates in this country, and largely in his Department—has increased by 275 per cent. since DEFRA was established in 2001. Therefore, rather than waiting for any review of the CAP, when is the Secretary of State going to get a grip on what his own Department is doing and start to lift the burden on our farmers?
Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman would like to draw attention to the specifics of the home-grown regulation to which he is opposed, it would be interesting to hear what he does not want us to do. As he knows, the vast bulk of the regulation comes from Europe and the nitrates directive, for example, was agreed not by a Labour Government but by his party in 1991, so it would have to answer for the form that that took. We worked very hard last year to implement the changes that were required under that legislation in such a way as to minimise the impact on farmers.
I have already indicated what our position is in relation to electronic identification for sheep. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have been fighting the pesticides regulation because we do not think that the case has been made, particularly given that there has been no proper impact assessment in Europe. A message that could be sent from both sides of the House to Europe—both in current circumstances, when times are tough, and more generally—is that we should do the things we need to do to deal with problems, but we should not add to farmers’ responsibilities if it is not strictly necessary.
Pitt Report
5. Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): When he last met Sir Michael Pitt to discuss the recommendations in his report, “Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods”. [258780]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): I last met Sir Michael Pitt to discuss our response to his report in November. I and DEFRA officials will continue to consult him on progress in implementing his recommendations. The Government will report further every six months, beginning in June this year.
Alistair Burt: When they next meet, will the Secretary of State discuss with Sir Michael the concern, raised repeatedly at public consultations on the Pitt recommendations—particularly by drainage boards such as that in my constituency, which represents the Great Ouse and River Ivel valley areas—that the Environment Agency’s policy of minimal dredging as part of its maintenance is continually increasing the risk of flooding, particularly in low-lying, slow-moving watercourses? When is this policy going to be changed?
Hilary Benn: I will gladly raise the issue that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to my attention, of which I am very aware. The Environment Agency spends about £34 million a year on dredging, clearance of debris, polling trees and removal of weeds. The issue is that in some cases, it makes sense to do that to enable the water to pass more quickly to reduce the impact of flooding; but in others, dredging, by the act of speeding up the movement of water, merely makes it arrive faster somewhere else and adds to the problem of flooding. The decision therefore needs to rest on local knowledge about the watercourses and what the consequence of action in one place will be for another place. The Environment Agency takes that responsibility very seriously. The issue is the subject of continuing debate and I have raised it with the agency previously.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): DEFRA has a great little scheme that funds some pilots through which farmers and land managers manage their land in ways that hold back flood waters. I have been to see a scheme at Seighford, near Stafford, with Matt Jones from Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, who is the project manager. Some really low-tech solutions are successfully keeping back flood waters at times of pressure. Will my right hon. Friend be talking to Sir Michael about the assessment of those pilots, with a view to seeing whether they could be rolled out more widely? If he does, can he report back to MPs who have pilots in their area?
Hilary Benn: I would be very happy to take up the last of my hon. Friend’s suggestions. He makes a very good point, which shows why we are doing the pilots—in order to see what contribution proper management of the flow of water can make to reducing the impact of flooding. As the whole House recognises and as we discussed a moment ago, we need all these means to try to deal with the problem. As I have told the House previously, I am up for considering everything that will be effective in trying to minimise the impact of flooding on communities and people’s lives.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): Sir Michael Pitt has warned that local authorities need legislation to give his recommendations the priority that they deserve. It will soon be a year since the Prime Minister announced a draft floods Bill. As we head towards the second anniversary of the 2007 floods, with more than 1,000 families still in temporary accommodation, why have we not seen even a draft of this Bill? Is it not true that there is now no possibility of this legislation being on the statute book before the election, and that, yet again, DEFRA is living up to its reputation as the Department of delays?
Hilary Benn: I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench position. I know that he has a very strong personal commitment to the issues that he will now be dealing with as the Opposition spokesperson. I wish him a long and very successful career as the shadow Secretary of State.
We will be producing the draft floods and water Bill for scrutiny in the not-too-distant future—in the spring. Clearly, it takes time to work out what changes in legislation are required. I reject the hon. Gentleman’s accusation that DEFRA is a Department responsible for delay. The figure I gave earlier of the number of flood defence schemes that we have got on with and implemented in the year and a half since the great floods of 2007 shows that this is not a Department that is delaying things, but one that is committed to getting on with things and providing greater protection to people.
Secondly, it is not as though we have waited for legislation. Although in some respects there is a lack of legal powers to make things happen, we have already indicated to local authorities that the upper tiers will have responsibility for dealing with surface water flooding. We have also got on with funding and, as I announced to the House in December, the first group will start preparing the plans. We are not waiting for the Bill to get on with the work, but if we do need powers to ensure that we can protect people as fully as possible from flooding, that is what the Bill will achieve.
Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware that Sir Michael Pitt’s report mentioned the importance of co-ordination between different organisations in terms of flood defence and flood relief. However, although the Environment Agency is looking at new river catchment flood defence plans, I still speak to local authorities, internal drainage boards, landowners and the National Farmers Union who all think that they are not being involved enough in the formulation of those plans. Where several catchment area plans meet, such as in areas of Goole, Snaith and the Isle of Axeholme, not enough thought has been given to the combined effect of the plans. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the agency to ensure more joined-up thinking in that regard?
Hilary Benn:
Not only will I do that, but I have already done so. My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Environment Agency has responsibility for drawing up the plans, but this is everybody’s problem—including local councillors, MPs, the agency and others. I know that Chris Smith, the chair of the Environment Agency, is seized of the need to improve co-ordination. It works well in some areas, but has some progress to make in others. For communities affected by these
problems and given the increased funding, we really want the chance to say, “This is the range of options to deal with the problem.” Local communities have to play a part in deciding the priorities, because the choices they make will have consequences. I am determined that we should try to improve co-ordination, but it does mean that everybody must take responsibility for dealing with a problem that faces all of us.
Topical Questions
T1. [258795] Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): DEFRA’s responsibility is to enable us all to live within our environmental means. At its meeting last week, the United Nations Environment Programme governing council agreed to negotiate new international controls on the use of mercury. That will be an important step forward in protecting human and environmental health and has been widely welcomed by Governments and NGOs. This agreement clearly demonstrates the value of the United Nations.
Tony Lloyd: May I bring Ministers back to matters more domestic, and to the surface water drainage scheme, which is causing enormous consternation not only to church groups, but to flat dwellers who feel that they have been very unfairly treated as their bills have shot up—especially in comparison with commercial properties? Will the Government look at this again and see whether Ofwat has allowed the profiteering water companies to get away with something that they should not have been allowed to get away with?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I thank my hon. Friend for raising what is a very important issue that has been addressed in the House before. He will be aware that the focus has been on the charges imposed by one individual water company, United Utilities. There is a strong regulatory regime, and back in 2003 the Secretary of State made clear his guidance on the need to be proportionate and fair in the introduction of those charges. We have worked with the regulator and the utilities company, and we are pleased to say that some progress has been made—not least United Utilities’ commitment to roll back its charges to the 2007-08 regime, which is in effect the pre-surface water drainage charges, and to take the next 12 months to work with the regulator to ensure that the charges next year will be fair and proportionate, as well as recognise the impact on churches, scout groups, sports clubs and others.
Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Recreational sea anglers have virtually no impact on the marine environment. In fact, they can be a great help in terms of our knowledge of fish stocks. Some 1.1 million sea anglers will welcome the EU Commissioner’s row-back on plans to include the recreational catch in national quotas. Does the Minister accept that this issue will not go away until the Commissioner defines “recreational sea angler”, and will he tell us what efforts he is making to bring closure on this ludicrous proposal?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and, although we have met on other occasions in Committee, I welcome him to his first DEFRA questions as an Opposition spokesman. He is right to say that this is an important issue. The angling fraternity in the UK is huge: it has an important function socially as well as economically, and its members are known for their environmental concerns. We share the concern about the need for an adequate definition of “recreational angling”, as the definition applied in other EU member nations is not the same as the one that affects us here. We are actively engaged in work on this with the Commission, and I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the comments by Commissioner Jo Borg. We shall continue our work, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support in highlighting those concerns.
T4. [258798] Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Recycled cooking oil is used increasingly commonly in the production of biodiesel, but it can also be used for power generation. Last year, the Court of Appeal made an important ruling about the use of recycled lubricating oil that should set a precedent for the use of cooking oil in the generation of electricity, but the Environment Agency has not yet made its ruling on that. Will the Minister talk to the agency to seek an early ruling about the use of recycled cooking oil?
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we are on topical questions? We need short, sharp questions and short, sharp answers.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I will take your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The Environment Agency has been in touch with the company Living Fuels about the use of cooking oil as a fuel. The process has been thorough and has taken some time, but I am pleased to say that the agency’s chief executive has written to the firm’s managing director to accept the offer of a meeting to discuss the matter further and take it forward.
T2. [258796] Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): Is the Minister aware that proper flood warnings are a vital part of flood protection? In Norfolk, we have a highly effective battery of flood sirens along the coast and the lower reaches of the Ouse. This tried and tested system has worked very well for generations, and does he agree that it would be most short-sighted to replace it with a new system of text messages and radio announcements?
Hilary Benn: I am aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The information that I have is that the sirens are owned by Norfolk county council rather than the Environment Agency, although some people have been under the misapprehension that they were owned by the agency. Their future use and refurbishment are therefore matters for Norfolk county council, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman is raising those matters with that council. However, I am also advised that the police have stated publicly that, in their view, the sirens are no longer required because there are other systems for making sure that people are warned. I think that the hon. Gentleman reinforces once again the need for people who are not already on the Environment Agency’s flood warning system to get themselves on it because, frankly, the more ways that people can be advised of a problem, the better.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |