| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Jun 2009 : Column 257WH—continued
We must also be clear, however, about the messages that we and others in the international community send when Syria continues to support the leadership of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad or when it continues to facilitate the supply of weapons to Hezbollah. Those actions are inconsistent with the openness of Syria to talk to Israel, and these issues will have to be addressed if there is to be peace between the two. We cannot have countries sitting around the negotiating table on the
one hand and supporting, fostering and encouraging terrorist activities on the other. The UK cannot support such an approach.
One issue on which Syria has an opportunity to work productively with the international community is co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. More recently, the IAEA has raised concern over uranium particles found in Syria, and we strongly urge Syria to co-operate with the investigation and to provide, without further delay, the access that the IAEA seeks. It is unacceptable for Syria to continue to refuse access. The US has provided compelling evidence to suggest that Syria was developing a nuclear reactor, and we strongly support the mandate of the IAEA to investigate those claims.
Another important part of Syria’s role in the region relates to Iraq. It is important to acknowledge the number of positive measures that the Syrian Government have taken to improve relations with the Iraqi Government—a number of high-level visits between the two and the establishment of a joint working group to help secure the Syria-Iraq border. We should welcome those very positive steps. However, it is vital, for Syria’s own security and as part of building its relations with the west, that it continues on the path of taking concerted action to tackle al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I welcome Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem’s statement that tackling al-Qaeda and other groups that use Syria as a transit route for attacks in Iraq is a high priority. The UK Government have made it clear to the Syrian Government that we are prepared to support and encourage their work in that respect.
We cannot, however, tackle extremism or find a resolution to the middle east conflict without regard to the human angle. We need to give people the confidence that their state will protect them and secure their rights. Syria’s record on human rights is poor. There can be no excuse for, or dismissal of, that point when discussing our relationship. The Prime Minister has argued, and I agree, that ours is a global society in which universal rights and values still leave room for extraordinarily rich and different ways of living. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk pointed out, Syrian society is rich and diverse, with a tolerance for different faiths. There is much to welcome and applaud.
As the hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned, however, over the past year, there has been a worrying deterioration in the human rights situation in Syria. Critics of the Government—those who call for peaceful democratic reform and those who post dissenting comments on internet blogs have been imprisoned—and as much as we might be tempted to go down that path, in this country, I can assure hon. Members that it will never happen. Sadly, however, disappearances, travel bans and arbitrary detention are increasingly common. There are reports of torture during interrogation and deaths in police custody. We continue, however, to call on Syria to implement internationally agreed minimum standards on the prevention of torture.
The Syrian authorities continue to crack down on peaceful forms of expression. In the biggest collective prosecution of Syrian dissidents in the past seven years, the 12 intellectuals and activists forming the Damascus declaration group appeared for sentencing at the criminal court on 29 October 2008. All defendants received two and a half years’ imprisonment for the crimes of damaging
the dignity of the state and distributing false news—another interesting crime that we could think about putting on the statute book in this country. The defendants pleaded not guilty and have done nothing except peacefully exercise their fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Syrian constitution and international law.
In recent months, there has also been a significant increase in arrests and harassment of Kurds. Hon. Members would like to make it clear that that is not acceptable. Kurdish rights are still not legitimised within the Syrian constitution. Three Syrian Kurds were killed after security forces opened fire on a demonstration marking Kurdish new year in March 2008. Such behaviour does not serve Syria well; nor does it help to bring peace to a region of extraordinary history and complexity.
I do not want to rehearse the history of Syria’s relationship with Lebanon, because it is more useful to focus on the future. We welcome the decision by Syria and Lebanon to establish diplomatic relations and the arrival of respective ambassadors. We also welcome the peaceful conduct of elections in Lebanon and the acceptance by all parties of the outcome. These are important steps forward. However, Syria can do more. It is bound, by UN Security Council resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701, not to interfere in Lebanese internal affairs, including through material support for Hezbollah. Instead, Syria should continue its regional role in promoting stability and political progress in Lebanon, including through its relations with Saudi Arabia. Demarcation of the Syria-Lebanon border and a resolution of the issue of those missing from both sides are urgent next steps. For too long, Lebanon has suffered from external interference of one kind or another, and Syria has a role to play in ensuring that Lebanon does not again fall victim to that.
Our dialogue with Syria concerns a number of serious issues, and some might argue that we should therefore not talk at all, but, like hon. Members, I disagree. Isolation is not the answer. We should be realistic, but we shall not ignore Syria or its important role. At this time of great importance in the region, the UK will, through high-ranking Ministers and senior officials, continue to make all efforts to address all the issues between the UK and Syria. This is a timely debate. None of us needs reminding of the importance of President Obama’s speech in Cairo. He acknowledged the tensions, fears and mistrust that can exist between different peoples, but he also spoke of a new beginning based on trust and respect.
“Leadership can be thought of as a capacity to define oneself to others in a way that clarifies and expands a vision of the future.”
That is the challenge that Syria now faces. I am an optimist. I believe in democracy, and I urge the Syrian Government to seize the opportunity to provide the bold and far-sighted leadership that they are in a position to show. Syria can be a major part of the solution in the middle east. Integral to that will be a two-state solution based on an Israel free of terror and violence and on a viable Palestinian state.
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
11 am
Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of nitrate vulnerable zones. I should like to thank the National Farmers Union for its expert knowledge, and the Environment Agency for its briefing. I secured this debate because the matter of nitrate vulnerable zones is of great concern to farmers in my constituency.
I should like to put it on record that I own farmland, but it is not in my constituency and it does not lie within a nitrate vulnerable zone. The sole purpose of this debate is to stand up for the interests of my constituents in Norfolk. Farmers there have had a tough time recently due to increased bureaucracy, extreme weather conditions and animal disease. The farming community makes an extremely important contribution to Britain’s economy. Does the Minister not agree that that means that it is even more vital to ensure that farmers feel supported by the Government?
Although agriculture has been in general decline over the last century, it remains hugely important for rural employment and the rural economy as a whole. In South-West Norfolk, agriculture plays a large role in maintaining our local communities, which is why I have raised the issue of nitrate vulnerable zones on more than one occasion in Parliament.
All hon. Members with big farming communities in their constituencies have received a lot of correspondence from farmers who are worried about the new rules. Farmers have raised their concerns about closed periods for the spreading of manure, compulsory cover crops, slurry storage regulations, the lack of scientific evidence to justify changes and the increase in regulations and red tape.
Farmers have always accepted the fact that the environmental impact of farming practices must be addressed. However, more than anything they are dismayed by the associated costs of the regulations that have now come into force. The NFU estimates the average cost of extending slurry storage alone to be somewhere in the region of £50,000 per farm. Does the Minister accept that that is a huge additional cost, particularly in light of the fact that farmers are already struggling?
Moreover, there are a number of concerns surrounding the implementation of the nitrate vulnerable zone regulations, on which I shall concentrate. At this point, I should like to say that this is a timely debate. The Government have succeeded in securing a derogation from the livestock manure nitrogen limit in designated NVZs, which I welcome. It will allow farms up to 80 kg more nitrogen per hectare than the EU standard of 170 kg. At least 80 per cent. of the farmland is grassland, so such a measure will particularly benefit dairy farmers. It is likely that a statutory instrument relating to the derogation will be scheduled for the autumn. That will be a window of opportunity for the Government to consider and address other critical issues of concern.
Part 7 of the new regulations introduces a number of rules relating to slurry storage. By January 2012, farmers must provide at least six months’ storage capacity for poultry manures and pig slurry, and at least five months’ capacity for other types of livestock manure. Farmers must follow a defined process when calculating how
much storage they need. They must ensure that storage facilities meet legal standards of construction as well as keeping annual records regarding all of the above. Until the next review in 2012, farmers will be subjected to a rigorous action programme to ensure that they meet the new guidelines.
It has now emerged that the Environment Agency believes that 6 per cent. of all farmland has been wrongly designated. That may sound insignificant, but we are talking about some 6,000 farms.
Mr. Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some reason to be very concerned about the methodology that is being used to designate nitrate vulnerable zones? In my own constituency near Holsworthy, we have under appeal a nitrate vulnerable zone, in which the nitrate levels are attributable not to slurry or to farm run-off, but to a series of other factors that have nothing to do with farming.
Christopher Fraser: At the end of the day, there is a lot of confusion about nitrate vulnerable zones and the criteria under which farms have to operate. My hon. and learned Friend articulates very well the concerns of farmers in both his constituency and mine, which must be addressed by the Government today.
When I say 6,000 farms, I am including areas that were designated NVZs in 2002 but which did not technically meet the necessary criteria in 2006 under the new methodology that was used, yet the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took a policy decision to retain the farmland as NVZs on the ground that nitrate levels in those areas might increase again. Its justification for that decision can be found in step 6 of the surface and ground water methodology. Farmers in such zones will be expected to invest tens of thousands of pounds in additional slurry storage that may prove to be unnecessary. What is the Minister’s response to the Environment Agency’s assessment and does he recognise that there is an argument for amending the nitrate pollution prevention regulations so that they do not apply to those areas designated as NVZs under step 6 of the surface and ground water methodology?
DEFRA has said that the methodology used in 2006
“has been peer reviewed and accepted by reviewers so as to ensure it is fit for purpose and robust.”
Step 6 was not part of the original peer-reviewed methodology. Does the Minister still believe that DEFRA’s decision was robust, and does he recognise that farmers see it as yet another example of the Government’s policy of unnecessary gold-plating? All areas including those not designated as NVZs were subject to a further four years of monitoring that came to an end in 2008. The date may or may not confirm that some farmland does not now require designation. When does the Minister expect the Environment Agency to complete its assessment of the new data? Moreover, can he prioritise the issue and ask the Environment Agency to analyse the information as speedily as possible?
That request is most urgent because the issue of slurry storage is a matter of capital investment for farmers across the country. Farmers will incur significant and possibly avoidable costs to meet the NVZ action
programme requirements. If the Minister is not willing to commit to prioritising analysis of the new data, what consideration will he give to compensation for those farmers who, through no fault of their own, might lose out financially as a result of their land being wrongly designated?
Unlike in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, English farmers receive no grants for building extra slurry storage. That requirement has been imposed on farmers and it has, unsurprisingly, come as a huge financial blow to them. Does the Minister not agree that the lack of grants for our farmers in England is discriminatory?
Having talked about the rules over slurry storage, I should like to touch briefly on closed periods for the spreading of manure and fertiliser. The new regulations mean that most farmers are prevented from spreading between September and February. That aspect of the regulations worried farmers before they came into force for a number of persuasive reasons. A farmer from my constituency said:
“Closed periods for spreading of manures does not really have any effect on diffuse pollution - muck is still to be spread on the land. Our weather is so unpredictable we could be spreading during a month of heavy rainfall, damaging soil structure or the next crop.”
The NFU concurs with such arguments.
The closed period means that farmers will be spreading their manure when land is more likely to be waterlogged. With heavy vehicles going over the land, soil damage is inevitable. There is also a greater risk of run-off if the land is frozen solid. Before the regulations came into force, farmers had the freedom to spread manure at their discretion. Many, including most dairy farmers, would spread little and often to manage their lagoons, but closed periods mean that they are unable to do so. Why are the Government so reluctant to trust farmers to make informed decisions on when it is best to spread manure? Does the Minister accept that the closed period regulations are simply a barrier to farmers following good agricultural practice derived from their professional judgment and endless experience?
The Government are forcing farmers to operate under a prescriptive system that fails to take their experience into account. Does the Minister agree that it would be better to trust farmers to follow responsible farming practices? He could ensure, through regular inspections, that those who do not do so face the consequences.
One solution for farmers who will struggle to spread their manure during the very short available time frame is new technology. One company I know of has just developed an energy-efficient pulse jet irrigator that allows farmers to spread their manure quickly and effectively with a reduced risk of run-off. However, the technology is prohibited solely because its trajectory exceeds by a small margin the 4 m limit. That is another example of the regulations making it harder for farmers to operate efficiently and cost-effectively.
I do not want to endorse one particular company, but will the Minister assure me that DEFRA is taking into account the development of new technologies that could help farmers to cope with the new rules? Does he believe that in some cases, there might be an argument for amending the regulations, particularly if that would benefit farmers?
The methodology for designation for the next review in 2012 is not yet fixed, but it needs to be improved. The Environment Agency developed the current designation method under considerable time pressures, and I believe that it contains weaknesses. If an area has a lot of sewage points, it will be designated as nitrate vulnerable. However, that may not reflect agriculture in the area. As a result, farmers have to bear high costs through no fault of their own. That is unfair and it must be addressed as a matter of great urgency. Will the Minister confirm that DEFRA is looking at amending the methodology as a matter of priority in time for the next NVZ review? I am aware that the network of monitoring points was reviewed in 2007, but given that NVZs are based on historical data, it could be several years before data from the old network are removed from the system.
Mr. Cox: The Minister might be able to help us on one matter. There is a huge number of outstanding appeals in connection with current designations. Will he give us some sort of timetable for the disposal of those appeals? Many farmers are living in suspense and are unable to make business decisions.
Christopher Fraser: My hon. and learned Friend makes a first-class point. Appeal processes cause enormous disruption to farms and the processes within farms. I know the Minister to be a decent and genuine man, and I am sure that he will give fair consideration to that point.
The financial burdens are inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly in a period of flux concerning appeals and processes, and they create a major problem for rural businesses that are already suffering. Does the Minister recognise the frustration that farmers feel when their land has been designated as a result of sewage discharge, particularly given that nitrate from sewage works is dealt with by the urban waste water treatment directive, which is an entirely different directive? Moreover, although all farms must take action when nitrate levels are considered a problem, only certain sewage works are required to do the same. Does he accept the need to reduce emissions of nitrate from sewage works that drain to waters that are nitrate polluted? What is he going to do to ensure that that happens?
The new regulations that apply to NVZs have huge financial implications for farmers—I cannot over-emphasise that point. I believe it to be incumbent on the Government to implement the rules fairly and accurately across the board. So far, they have fallen short on that duty, and farmers have been left in the lurch. I look forward to the Minister addressing the various points that I have made, so that we can return to our constituencies and assure our farmers of a brighter future.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) on making a good speech on behalf of his constituents and the agricultural industry, and on securing this debate. He spoke very well indeed.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |