HC Deb 21 February 1991 vol 186 cc420-1
3. Mr. Ian Taylor

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of new applicants for the set-aside scheme have applied for the non-agricultural use and woodland options.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry)

About 27 per cent. of third-year set-aside applicants in England applied for the non-agricultural use option and about 5 per cent. applied for the woodland option.

Mr. Taylor

My hon. Friend gives rather disappointing figures. Will he try to galvanise the famers of Esher—[Laughter.] I should have thought that that would be taken seriously. Will my hon. Friend try to galvanise the many farmers of Esher into adopting the woodland option so that we can add woodlands to the green belt and have all the attractions of woodlands, with their waving trees, dells, glades and cover for pheasants?

Mr Curry

I accept that the woodland option under set-aside has not proved as popular as we had hoped. That is why we are examining the relationship between the farm woodlands scheme and all the other woodland schemes to determine whether we can put together a better package. We intend to draw up a consultation paper and I shall take particular care to forward it to the farmers of Esher. If we wish to carry out experimental work, no doubt they will volunteer for it

Mr. Morley

Perhaps one reason why farmers have not been keen on set-aside is that it appears that farmers are being paid for doing nothing. But it is an opportunity to use public money in a desirable way, because it encourages the creation of woodland. If land is to be set aside, it should be used in ways that encourage wildlife and promote conservation. I know that there are Premium payments for doing that.

Will the Minister give an assurance that farmers will be encouraged to participate in the woodland schemes, particularly for urban and community forestry? The schemes enable farmers to take their land out of production and put it into forestry for the benefit of themselves and the community in general.

Mr. Curry

In the early stages of the set-aside scheme, when whole farms could be taken out of production, people may have been able to level the accusation that it was payment for doing nothing. In fact, that was not the case, because farmers had to maintain their land in trim. But that accusation was precisely the reason why we reduced the incentives for whole-farm set-aside. We have steadily increased the environmental element of set-aside, because that is the best justification for the scheme. We intend to take the Countryside Commission's East Anglia premium scheme nationwide and we are looking hard at its environmental benefits. If set-aside becomes one of the centrepieces of the eventual Community reform programme, we shall wish to ensure that it is closely associated with environmental objectives.

Mr. Marland

When studying the woodland options, will my hon. Friend remember that we need to find ways of improving the environment and habitat of wildlife and of putting more money into the farmer's pocket, rather than that of the store owner? Will he consider the possibility of encouraging farmers to care for existing woodland, a great deal of which, up and down the country, is being seriously neglected?

Mr. Curry

I thought that my hon. Friend was on the point of painting some especially enchanting woodland options, but I shall certainly bear in mind the points that he made when we examine the scheme.