HC Deb 28 January 1993 vol 217 cc1142-3
8. Mr. Denham

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of agricultural land in Hampshire is currently subject to set-aside under the common agricultural policy; and what is the annual cost.

Mr. Curry

Some 2,750 hectares of land are currently set aside under the existing five-year scheme at an annual cost of around £500,000. Information on the land set aside under the new arable area payments scheme will not be available until growers have to declare the area later this year.

Mr. Denham

Are the people of Hampshire getting value for money for that enormous expenditure? Is not set-aside an inefficient and expensive means of reducing agricultural production and an ineffective way of protecting the environment? Would it not be better to use that money, for example, to remove the threat to the Thames Valley environmentally sensitive area and to extend it and, more widely, to reward farmers for farming in a less intensive and more environmentally sensitive manner throughout the county of Hampshire?

Mr. Curry

The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that cereal production was too high and had to be brought down quickly. The introduction of quotas and set-aside does that. We have never concealed the fact that we would have preferred to do it by price. The advantage of set-aside is that, first, it acts quickly and, secondly, one can build in environmental advantages. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement about the environmentally sensitive areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but at a time when people are crying out for environmentally sensitive areas it must be sheer common sense to make sure that people take advantage of those areas and we get the best value for money. My right hon. Friend has that very much in mind.

Mr. Hague

Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers in Hampshire and elsewhere will much more readily accept the idea of set-aside if they can be confident that it will be implemented properly throughout the European Community? Will he do his utmost to ensure that other national Governments implement their regulations with a zeal equal to that always shown by his Department?

Mr. Curry

I admire my hon. Friend's dexterity in moving from Hampshire to North Yorkshire so rapidly. That does wonders for the road network. Of course we shall pay particular attention to the problems that he highlights. I am just as concerned as he is, as my constituency is next to his.

Dr. Strang

Does the Minister acknowledge that the more land that is set aside, the more jobs will be lost? Is it not a matter of concern that the level of set-aside in Britain is above the EC average because of our better farming structure? Is it not a disgrace that under the current set-aside scheme, farmers are compensated for not producing, but the farm workers who lose their jobs in Hampshire and elsewhere as a consequence of the scheme do not receive a penny?

Mr. Curry

It is a matter of record that the United Kingdom has larger average farm sizes, so that the de minimis rule applies relatively less to the United Kingdom than elsewhere. But other countries are setting aside a far greater amount of land. The problem we faced was simple. There was over-production, people were paying too much for a product that was in surplus and the market was not allowed to operate. By introducing set-aside and compensatory payments, we have brought down the price of cereals, which is a major step in the reform of the CAP.

Forward to