| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, while welcoming his positive reply as far as it goes, does the Minister agree that the Curry commission also recommended that, in the brave new world without subsidies,
- "the Government should be prepared to support the development of basic safety net aids at EU level"?
If the Minister is to perform on the high wire, will he remember the importance of a safety net for British agriculture?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the only place where I perform on the high wire is in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, other forms of acrobatics have to take place in negotiations on the common agricultural policy. One dimension of the CAP is the form of support provided in adjusting the present financial regime and in the longer-term development of that regime, and that may well include safety net support. The medium-term review has to face up to a huge number of issues. The Commission intends to present its review proposals in June, and the negotiations should be extremely interesting thereafter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I declare my direct interest as an organic farmer. Will the Government's strategy give full weight to the benefits of organic farming, particularly sustainability, being friendly to the environment and to animals, and replacing imports?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, sustainability in organic farming and improved sustainability in conventional farming is a key theme of the Curry commission report
and the Government's response. There is a specific commitment to an action plan to support organic farming, the full details of which are due to be completed by July.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in answering a previous question, the Minister seemed to say that the Government will not reply to the Curry report until the autumn. The Comprehensive Spending Review, however, will be in July. Does that mean that no money will be allocated until after the autumn? If so, a dreadful message will be sent to those in the countryside who are looking forward to rebuilding confidence and re-establishing their businesses. What is the position if that process cannot begin until July 2003?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is unduly confusing herself about the time scale. The 2002 spending review should be completed at about the end of July, although the details may not be finalised until September. We shall draw up the spending dimension of the overall strategy in the light of those final details. Besides the spending dimension, the strategy will also have significant aspects for my department, other departments and the industry itself. We shall bring all those aspects together in a strategy that we shall issue in the autumn.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in his first reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the Minister mentioned sustainable agriculture. Does he agree that animal health is a very important part of sustainable agriculture? Can he please explain why there has been such a severe cut in staff at the Worcester office that they cannot cope with the TB paperwork, so that TB tests are being delayed in an area where TB is now rife?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the two aspects of the question are not really connected. The change in the Worcester staffing levels, on both the veterinary and administrative sides, reflects a rationalisation of the former MAFF regions to create the new structure. The TB situation is concerning, and there has inevitably been a backlog in dealing with TB during the foot and mouth outbreak. Resources are now being deployed and prioritised to address the issue.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in welcoming many aspects of the Curry report, we have to accept the fact that, by transferring money that would go to supporting agriculture from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2, farmers generally will be deprived within rural communities, and only those fortunate enough to subscribe to the various agri-environmental schemes will benefit? I hope he will agree that the real way forward is to green Pillar 1 and make it common across Europe so that the whole of agriculture can genuinely benefit.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, this is a complicated issue. It may well be that some of the CAP negotiations will involve some flexibility in greening Pillar 1 as well as a transfer from Pillar 1 to
Pillar 2. However, the transfer from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 does not of itself disadvantage farmers as the noble Earl suggests. First, if the current rules on Pillar 2 remain, they will require matched funding, entailing a larger sum for rural and environmental development. Secondly, as it concerns land management, farmers and other landowners will be the principal beneficiaries of the environmental dimension of Pillar 2. Thirdly, if we can get the broad and shallow scheme envisioned by Curry agreed as an appropriate Pillar 2 mechanism within Europe, it will reward farmers who already meet good environmental practice rather than those who enhance their practice as required by the current agri-environment schemes.Mental Incapacity Law Reform
3.18 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why the proposals by the Lord Chancellor's Department on mental incapacity law reform have not been followed by legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government remain committed to reforming this important area of law. When parliamentary time allows, we will legislate to improve and clarify the decision-making process for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves or who cannot communicate their decisions. In advance of securing parliamentary time, the Government are taking forward a number of initiatives which will benefit people today and pave the way for the introduction of more radical changes in the future.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is she aware that I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself did not reply to this Question? He has made some important statements about the law relating to these exceptionally vulnerable people. He has said, for example, that the law as it stands is "confusing and fragmented". He has also said that the law "fails to offer adequate protection". Those are very strong words, especially from a Lord Chancellor. He made those statements in 1997. Since then, he has failed to bring forward legislation to protect the very people who require more protection than anyone.
Is my noble friend aware that this is by no means a simple issue? However, it is simply unacceptable for the Government to fob off these very vulnerable people with White Papers, Green Papers, a few pamphlets and vague assurances about future legislation at some unspecified date. What they need is comprehensive legislative protection, and they need it now.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straight away that I am disappointed at my noble friend's disappointment. But notwithstanding the fact
that I cannot in any way stand in the shoes of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I shall attempt to give my noble friend satisfaction. I reassure him that the Lord Chancellor's determination in this regard has in no way waned. He continues to have a strong interest in bringing forward legislation. However, my noble friend will know that, as with every government, there is always competition in terms of legislative time. I am sure that the strong words urged by my noble friend will greatly assist the Lord Chancellor when he sallies forth in that battle.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Lord Chancellor's Department's paper, Making Decisions, and in particular its leaflet No. 5, produced in the absence of legislation, do not appear to make any provision for people with a mental handicap or people with the more severe learning disabilities? When the Government come to legislate, will they undertake to give priority to the views of the families of these unfortunate people, who know them best, and not to less competent social workers, independent advocates and so on, as envisaged in those documents in so far as they cover people with learning difficulties?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course those issues are of great importance. However, improvements have been made by means of all those who care for the vulnerable working in unison. That involves taking fully into account the views of the families concerned but also those of advocates, lawyers, social workers or others who assist in the process. We shall get the right solutions only if we find a way forward that is based on all those who are involved in the process working in unison.
Lord Rix: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that a working party is to be set up to make proposals for legislation and is to include such parties as Mencap and Age Concern? Will the Minister ensure that when the working party finally meets it always considers the difference between mental illness and learning disability and also the difference between those who have a temporary inability to make decisions and those who have probably a lifelong inability to make decisions?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page