HC Deb 09 February 1987 vol 110 cc70-80

7 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, and following the exchanges which took place in your presence in the House earlier this afternoon, I am happy to make a statement.

The Government have been considering very carefully the consequences for agriculture and for the rural economy of changes in the common agricultural policy. We have concluded that, given the scale of agricultural surpluses now facing us, a new balance of policies is needed. This will entail less support for expanding production, more attention to the demands of the market, more encouragement for alternative uses of land, more response to the claims of the environment, and more diversity on farms and in the rural economy. To assist the process of change, I am announcing a number of new policy initiatives. Details are set out in a written answer today, but I shall briefly describe what is planned.

First, a new scheme will be introduced to encourage the development of farm woodlands which will take some land out of agricultural production. The detailed arrangements will be the subject of consultation with interested parties prior to the introduction of appropriate legislation, but the scheme will incorporate provisions for the protection and enhancement of the environment.

Secondly, the Government propose an expansion of the forestry programme, with particular emphasis on the private sector and with due regard to environmental considerations. The planting of a higher proportion of trees on low ground of better quality will also be encouraged.

Thirdly, the Government will be designating further environmentally sensitive areas under section 18 of the Agriculture Act 1986. We have already designated nine areas and our intention is to extend the coverage of this scheme and to double the funding from early in 1988.

Fourthly, diversification of enterprise on farms will be encouraged by the introduction of a scheme under section 22 of the Agriculture Act 1986, providing for the grant-aiding of ancillary businesses on or adjacent to farms. There will also be extra help for marketing of the products of diversified businesses.

Fifthly, within my budget for research, development and advice I shall be placing more emphasis on the possibilities for novel crops and livestock and on the socioeconomic and environmental implications of the changing farming scene.

Sixthly, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have today put out for consultation a draft circular containing guidance on the future planning regime for agricultural land. It will include more encouragement to local authorities to take a positive attitude to diversification and to the conversion of redundant farm buildings.

In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and I plan to publish next month a document describing how the Government's policies towards farming are being adjusted to reflect the changing scene and potential in the rural economy as a whole. I shall of course make this available to the House. It will make clear that the Government's overall objective is to facilitate the conditions which encourage a healthy rural economy based on enterprise, adaptability and fair competition.

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)

If nothing concentrates the mind so wonderfully as being hanged in the morning I must conclude that, for the Government, the same is true of votes of censure at the National Farmers Union annual meeting. How else is one to explain this proposal, belated and inadequate as it is, to try to address the ever-mounting surpluses in European Economic Community regimes? We can all agree that the statement goes nowhere towards meeting that problem, and we get here no clear idea of what the Government think the country should grow, how much it should grow or what quality it should be.

Is this really the Government's great set-aside scheme, which has been trailed for so many months? I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman by how much he thinks what he has proposed will reduce our surpluses, what crops will be reduced and when will the reductions start. To many people this appears not to be a serious attempt to solve the problem.

I received the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), so I am rather better informed than the House was by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Even if all the land that is proposed in the forestry scheme is taken out of production—15,000 hectares a year for the next three years—it is less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of all agricultural land in the country.

The statement does not go any way to meet the size of the problem. Rather, it is a series of governmental lollipops or pilot schemes. It will cost £25 million a year, which is less than the cost of running the intervention board and much less than the £650 million that it costs taxpayers to subsidise the sale of EEC butter stocks to Russia.

What is the status of this paper? We heard from the Minister of State earlier this year of the structures programme which it was proposed would be agreed on an EEC basis. This is clearly a national programme, involving national money. Does that mean that the EEC programme has still to be agreed, or has it been abandoned?

We read in the press colourful items about golf courses and houses, but they were not mentioned in the statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, by saying that the draft circular will go out for consultation, he means that he intends to build more homes and golf courses on agricultural land? If so, does that apply to Scotland? How will it solve the problems of remote hill farming areas? Will it not merely add to pressure for housing where it is already great?

Perhaps I might press the right hon. Gentleman on the time scale. Normally, there is consultation before proposals are made. Here we have a proposal to consult afterwards. How long will consultations take? Are the proposals open to change? When will legislation be introduced? Debate about these matters has raged for some time. The Government have been absent from that debate, which is perhaps why the statement is so short. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse.

Mr. Jopling

The hon. Gentleman has asked a great many questions and I detect a good deal of sour grapes in his comments. He just wishes that his party could have come out with such an imaginative scheme.

The hon. Gentleman said that the statement goes nowhere towards saying what should be grown on farms. That is not its purpose. It tries to suggest schemes for alternative arrangements on farms to deal with the difficulties which all farmers will face as a result of bringing agricultural production back closer to the level of consumption.

The hon. Gentleman said that 15,000 hectares of extra forestry is not enough. I have heard that some environmentalists are saying that it is too much. If he is saying one thing and others are saying another, I think that we have probably got it just about right.

When the scheme starts to operate properly it will cost £25 million in a full year. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it is assistance to farmers who want to set up alternative enterprises and is in the form of pump priming to allow them to find new, alternative enterprises which they have not previously undertaken.

The hon. Gentleman asked where the role of set-aside was in all this and he will have studied the proposals that I made last summer on diverting land from cereals production. Forestry within these proposals is entirely separate. Our proposals on growing trees are not likely to appeal to people who are growing grain. That is another scheme altogether. The growing of trees under these proposals will be much more attractive to people in the marginal areas who are producing beef and sheepmeat.

The hon. Gentleman said that he envisaged these proposals as a national programme—that is right—and asked what was happening to the Community's socio-structural package and whether it had gone out of the window. Of course, it has not. It is being debated in Brussels today and tomorrow and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is involved in those discussions. I hope that the Council of Ministers will come to a conclusion on it during this meeting. We tried to reach an agreement on it in December, and I hope that we shall soon get that scheme.

That scheme brings within the Community schemes such as our national scheme for environmentally sensitive areas, which the hon. Gentleman has applauded and welcomed in the past. While at present we are doubling the size of those schemes, the Community is hoping for the first time to make financial assistance available to environmentally sensitive areas. That means that it is following us in the initiatives that we have taken.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme applies to Scotland. We shall be consulting on certain parts of the scheme, particularly on farm forestry, and we shall discuss that with regard to payments, the size of plantations and the length of time for which these income supports will be available. That consultation will start soon.

Sir Peter Mills (Torridge and Devon, West)

I welcome and congratulate my right hon. Friend on this initiative. Obviously, this is the start and we must build on it, as a tremendous amount must be done in rural areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who live in rural areas must help and encourage rural industries to flourish? Does he further agree that it is important to remember that we cannot live on fresh air and a view? Indeed, in this area he needs to give strong guidance to planning and assistance, otherwise there could be genuine difficulties.

Mr. Jopling

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I agree that it is extremely important for people living in rural areas to encourage the expansion of the rural economy. I remind him of the encouragement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has given to planning authorities to support proposals to put old farm buildings to new uses. I hope that in future planners in rural areas will pay more attention to the need to expand the rural economy, whether on-farm or off-farm.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

Does the Minister realise that this statement will be bitterly disappointing to farmers, whose incomes have suffered a real decline since the Government came to office and which will be unchecked by anything that he has said today? Does he recognise that all those who are anxious to see the diversification of the rural economy will be equally disappointed that he has found not a single additional pound of public expenditure to achieve this? Does he recognise that the modest £25 million of redistributed public funds set beside the cut in institutional prices of £571 million this year, the cut of £47 million in the Government's structural spending and the cut of £3 million on research and advice will seem more like an insult than assistance?

How can the Minister believe that anyone will be induced to plant under the woodland scheme, which he has announced in advance the Government will review in three years' time, no doubt with further cuts in public spending on it and the forestry project? Does he not realise that in 1980 the Government announced a proposed planting programme of 30,000 hectares a year and that they have failed to achieve that by 7,000 hectares a year? Why should we believe that there is anything more in this than an attempt to stave off justified criticisms from farmers at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union tomorrow?

Mr. Jopling

The hon. Gentleman is suffering from the same overdose of sour grapes as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). It seems that the only way he can criticise the package is to say that he would have liked it better if it had been bigger. That is not constructive. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was disappointed, but I do not believe that farmers will be disappointed with the scheme. If any of them should be mildly disappointed, they will not be half as disappointed as they all were at the disastrous speech that the Leader of the SDP made in Cirencester recently, which would have sold British agriculture all the way down the river.

With regard to the financing of the scheme, we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. These are firm decisions which stand by themselves. We are moving towards a lower level of CAP support, which will mean substantive savings in public expenditure.

The hon. Gentleman asked a constructive question at the end about how it might be possible to increase the level of traditional forestry. That will happen because we intend to make available more land further down the hill, which does not offend environmentalists so much as does traditional planting on hillsides, where traditional forestry is more productive and profitable, and trees grow better.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the House that the statement was not wholly expected. I ask for brief questions, as we have other important business before us this evening.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Will my right hon. Friend accept the welcome and thanks of Conservative Members for the statement? Will he confirm that this is a serious attempt to sustain the income of those who live in rural areas, including farmers and other persons? Furthermore, will he confirm that but for the appalling White Papers produced by the Labour Government in 1979 and 1975 we would by now have a policy which was relevant to the requirements of the rural economy? Will he confirm that the rating proposals of both the Labour and alliance parties will inevitably lead to a serious reduction in the opportunities for farmers to sustain their incomes?

Mr. Jopling

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the policies which are trickling out from the various Opposition parties, whether on land nationalisation, rating, or the utterly catastrophic proposals of the leader of the SDP for a two-tier price system.

Miss Joan Maynard (Sheffield, Brightside)

Will not taking controls off all agricultural land except grade 1 mean more intensive farming of the land that is still left in agriculture, and more damage to the environment? What proposals does the Minister have to deal with such problems as the pollution of our water by nitrates? Should he not be encouraging less intensive chemical farming and more low input, environmentally sound and labour-intensive farming, instead of introducing these disgraceful proposals?

Mr. Jopling

With respect, the hon. Lady would have been better occupied if she had carefully read what we have announced. There is no question of removing planning proposals on all land except grade 1, as she suggested. That is a million miles from the truth. What is proposed is that, because since the war we have had a system within our planning arrangements for agricultural considerations which were given birth to in the period of food shortages and are still applied at a time when we have serious food surpluses it makes no sense to apply agricultural reservations on less good land which is being proposed for development. When planning committees, which will continue to operate in exactly the same way as before, are considering any proposals for the less good land, it must be sensible, in this day of food surpluses, for them no longer to have to go through the rigmarole of asking about the agricultural implications of developing such land.

The hon. Lady went on to talk about the need for lower input farming. I draw her attention to the proposals for doubling the spending on environmentally sensitive areas, which is doing what she is asking us to do.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I welcome this important extension of the rural economy, which must be complementary to profitable agriculture. Will my right hon. Friend accept that those interested in conservation of the scenic beauty of the heritage will warmly welcome his constructive proposals, particularly those for environmentally sensitive areas? Will the Government bring home to planning authorities that they must be more flexible about building in areas of less significance if we are to make any progress?

Mr. Jopling

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and, particularly because of his experience as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, for his welcome to our proposals on increasing the environmentally sensitive areas. I am glad that he drew our attention to the necessity to tell planners of the need to be flexible, to bear in mind the requirements of the rural economy and to encourage that activity. I am sure that he will be aware of the recent circular from the Department of the Environment, to which I referred earlier, which gives encouragement to planning committees to do their utmost to support and grant permission to applications to make use of redundant farm buildings.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Is it not the case that the increase in surpluses and the ever-growing cost of the CAP have been accompanied by a disastrous collapse in employment in rural areas? Therefore, will the Minister accept that all those who are concerned with the stability of the rural economy will welcome the forward-looking proposals produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and his colleagues? Anybody who compares that with these proposals will come to the conclusion that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman has botched and bungled it.

Mr. Jopling

It seems that the hon. Gentleman has eaten a bigger dose of sour grapes than has the hon. Member for Pontypridd. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the proposals he will see that there are a number of points that will be helpful for rural employment, such as the assistance that we are proposing with diversification of farm businesses. If we are to have the threat before us of land no longer being used for food production, it is surely good for employment and the rural economy that we should be encouraging more trees to be grown on such land. Here again, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the employment opportunities that there could be in that.

Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his intention to bring forward a document early next month will be welcome in the industry, which has been waiting for a long time for just such guidance from him? Does he also agree that his action in respect of section 22 of the Agriculture Act will be welcome and should lead to a greatly enhanced set of employment opportunities in the countryside? However, will he maintain flexibility under his budget headings so that if one aspect of his plan achieves better success than another, it is not inhibited by lack of funds in that direction when there are funds lying available in another sector?

Mr. Jopling

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome to the proposals. The policy document that we intend to produce in March will deal with a number of other wider agricultural issues. This proposal is more limited in providing new opportunities. I am also grateful for his endorsement of the point that I made a moment ago with regard to the proposals for the diversification of farm businesses, following section 22 of the 1986 Act. This will undoubtedly provide opportunities for farmers to use their facilities and their food products to get some added value and at the same time create more investment in rural areas, and therefore more jobs.

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)

Why has the Minister deliberately withheld from the House the full details of his proposals to release agricultural land for housing development?

Mr. Jopling

I have not made any proposals. What I said, if he hon. Gentleman was here— I do not remember—was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be issuing today a draft consultative document to discuss these changes. I have kept nothing from the House.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

What temporary income arrangements may be available where land is set aside for farmed woodlands? Does diversification include the breeding of ponies and horses?

Mr. Jopling

We shall be consulting on the amount available for farmed woodlands, but our annual figures will vary. Because the amount of income lost by farmers will vary from the less good land to the rather better land, in the better land, where the loss of income will be greatest, we shall be thinking in terms of £125 per hectare, and we shall be discussing this with the industry. We shall be anxious to support diversification into projects such as pony trekking, but we shall have to look carefully at horse breeding.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

Will the Minister accept that, as the food surpluses are not produced in marginal land, his policy may prove worthless in affecting the common agricultural policy? To show that it is worthless, does he not perceive the real danger of the threat to the green belt that is implicit in his statement, which may provide Britain with a glimpse of a future countryside under the Conservatives as one for the conifer and concrete? Many people engaged and interested in conservation will find his statement deplorable.

Mr. Jopling

It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should see fit to repeat what I regard as irresponsible reports which have appeared recently in the press with regard to the green belt. There is nothing at all in the Government's proposals which reduces the protection given to the green belt. The same goes for the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other environmentally important areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some pleasure from that and will not go on repeating the foolish reports that we have read.

As for surpluses not being created on marginal land, a good deal of marginal land is producing milk and beef, both of which are in surplus. Those who are farming on land that is not so good are the ones who are most concerned and anxious at this time. Those farmers will feel that they have not been forgotten and that we have made specific plans to help them to develop alternative enterprises.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. As the whole House knows, there is heavy pressure on time this evening. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes, and then we must move on. That will mean that Back Benchers will have had a full half hour.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), I believe that building on this land is the one solution that is unacceptable to this side of the House? Will he accept our congratulations that the otherwise accurate report in The Observer is hotly denied on this point by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Jopling

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. I agree with him that building per se is not unacceptable. The key point is that it should be controlled under our planning system, and the best land will continue to be controlled in exactly the same way. All that we are suggesting is that the agricultural considerations should be diminished on the less good land, but the planners will continue to apply all the other yardsticks which they have hitherto applied.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Is the Minister aware that in rural Cheshire the suggestion that to build houses will somehow deal with persistent rural unemployment will be met with absolute astonishment? Farmers need clear financial targets and, above all, a complete renegotiation of the milk quotas and of the absolutely unacceptable scheme which the Minister has taken on board from Brussels.

Mr. Jopling

The hon. Lady has not been listening. Either she has not heard or she has not read what has been said about this proposal. Nobody has remotely suggested that there is to be an open door to the building of houses on agricultural land. That is in nobody's minds. It is only in the minds of those who, like the hon. Lady, ask questions like that purely for the purpose of making trouble.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)

Will my right hon. Friend seek to direct the compensation and planning benefits of his proposals, which are very much welcomed, to the needs of the existing agricultural community? In the document that is to appear in March, will he try to announce, as a continuing policy, that the anomaly of the green pound should be avoided wherever possible? Will he confirm that these proposals are not part of any encouragement to over-develop in the south of England, which would benefit neither the agriculture industry nor those who live in rural areas?

Mr. Jopling

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the planning proposals. The green pound is not referred to in my statement. However, the Government are conscious of the developments regarding the green pound.

My hon. Friend also asked for an assurance that this is not just a recipe for over-development in the south of England. Of course it is not. It merely relieves planning authorities from the need to have to consider outdated considerations based on food shortages rather than on food surpluses.

Mr. D. E. Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the Minister say whether his statement represents Government policy, as there is no Welsh Office Minister in the Chamber? Will he also explain what is new about this policy, as he is now only implementing what he told us he could not do under the Agriculture Act 1986 regarding the number of environmentally sensitive areas? Will he also tell the House why he thinks that agricultural support and rural development are two different aspects and that people can be switched from one to the other? Diversification has been art ongoing problem for many years for most of the marginal farmers in the rural area that I represent. Will the Minister explain how these policies are in any sense new? In particular, how will the support for forestry provide new jobs, when forestry jobs have been collapsing in the countryside for the last 30 years?

Mr. Jopling

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a jaundiced view of all this. He asked what is new about the proposals. When we first introduced the concept of environmentally sensitive areas we received such a warm reception from virtually every hon. Member that we felt that we had to take it step by step. We allotted a certain amount of money last year to the scheme, and we have already designated nine environmentally sensitive areas in the United Kingdom. We have now decided to devote more money to the scheme. That is what is new.

The hon. Gentleman also asked what is new about diversification. My answer is very simple. The hon. Gentleman said that this had been an ongoing problem in his constituency for many years, but it has been an ongoing problem in many constituencies for many years. What is new is that we are announcing a scheme whereby, once it is working fully, £5 million a year will be allotted to diversification on farms. That is new, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to welcome it.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the draft circular that is being published today will in no way open up the countryside to uncontrolled development? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a taxation problem for those farmers who are switching their activities? Will he examine the possibility of some reduction of taxation and capital gains when farmers switch over, as the Government want them to do?

Mr. Jopling

I can give an assurance straight away that in no conceivable way is this a recipe for uncontrolled development. Nothing could be further from the truth. On taxation, my hon. Friend will know that my stock reply is that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it should be made clear that the majority of those whom we expect will be interested in the farm woodland proposals will not be the kind of people whose personal taxation means that their approach to the growing of trees can be compared with the approach of those who grow trees on a very much larger scale.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the broad thrust of his statement, but is he aware that there are now disturbing signs that some farmers are declaring buildings redundant in order to get round planning application permission and selling them off as second homes? Will he assure the House that in no way will any of the encouragement to which he referred lead to planning authorities having to abandon their normal planning systems?

Finally, does my right hon. Friend's statement include any help for those who live by commoning? I know that recntly he visited the New Forest and therefore he will know that many of those who live by depasturing their animals are having a difficult time. Is there anything in this scheme for them?

Mr. Jopling

As to the disturbing signs of buildings being declared redundant so that they may qualify for further development at a later stage, that is not a matter for me. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning is sitting on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will write to him about that. As for help for the commoners, I know that my right hon. Friend is thinking of the New Forest. Again that is not part of this specific scheme, but we have this important area of great environmental beauty very much in mind.

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)

As most of the EC food surpluses are created by our European partners, can the Minister tell us whether they are adopting measures similar to those that he has announced to take agricultural land out of production?

Mr. Jopling

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not exactly correct when he says that our European partners produce the surpluses. I invite him to go to the Library and look up the surpluses that have been created in Britain. If he does that he will see that we are building up many of the surpluses.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)

Will my right hon. Friend categorically deny the report in The Observer yesterday that the presumption against house building on agricultural land is to be abandoned and that housing estates, each of up to 100 acres, will be allowed in future? Does he agree that if such a thing were to happen nothing could be less appropriate than to surround an environmentally sensitive area such as the South Downs with a concrete jungle on the Weald of Sussex?

Mr. Jopling

I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of that article was a very long way from the truth. The suggestion that it made of opening up land for the building of houses on the scale that he mentions is utterly untrue. I repeat again that the principal change is that it is no longer appropriate to say that on less good land there should not be development because it may be needed for food production. There may well be other reasons which could cause the planners to refuse permission for building on that land, but it is nonsense nowadays to say that permission should be refused because the land might be needed for food production.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

The Minister alluded to the good work of the Development Commission in the countryside. How much will its budget be increased as a result of his proposals? Will the Minister confirm that the report in The Observer was basically true, and that the presumption against house building on agricultural grade 3 land downwards will be lifted, thus meaning that if a democratically elected local authority refuses planning permission, on appeal the Secretary of State would have to reverse that decision? In view of the full attendance in the House, does the Minister accept how badly he misjudged the feeling of the country in trying to sneak through this announcement?

Mr. Jopling

There is no question of trying to sneak it through. That is a ridiculous idea. The hon. Gentleman was in the House and knows that I came straight to the Dispatch Box and said that if the House wanted a statement I would be more than delighted to provide one.

I know that the hon. Gentleman pays great attention to these matters, but, with respect, he has made it clear that he has not fully understood the proposals about planning matters. I hope that he will write or put questions to my hon. Friend from the Department of the Environment. We can supply him with a copy of the draft consultative paper, and from that he will discover that the point he made in his question is a long way from the truth. Before he asks any more questions he should make himself more familiar with that paper.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I assure those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call in the last 45 minutes that I shall bear them in mind when we return to this subject, as undoubtedly we will.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the time that you have given the House on this important matter. You will have heard the last exchange. Many hon. Members are far from clear about the impact on planning and about matters relating to the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Could you or anyone else in the House tell us whether we may expect a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State or from one of his Ministers on the precise implications for planning in the rural areas?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for me. However, the hon. Gentleman has made the point and no doubt those on the Front Bench will have heard what was said.

Mr. Ron Davies

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have had a long run and I have called the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davies

May I draw your attention to the wording of the reply from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Speaker

No. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that now. That would be a clear continuation of questions on the statement and would be unfair to those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call. I think that all hon. Members would agree with that. I also called the hon. Gentleman during Welsh questions. He raised the matter then and has had ample time on it.