HC Deb 22 April 1999 vol 329 cc1035-7
7. Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby)

What steps his Department has taken to assist farmers to diversify their businesses. [80348]

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

Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated under the English objective 5b structural fund programmes. The Ministry has also produced a series of advisory booklets on diversification.

Mr. Quinn

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The work done under objective 5b is very welcome, especially in my area. However, changes in structural funding are on the way. I urge my hon. Friend to do everything in his power, when he talks to colleagues in both Whitehall and Europe, to make sure that the rural communities that rely so much on that help to diversify their business continue to get the assistance in the future. When objective 2 and the rural strand are under consideration, will he ensure that agricultural communities get their fair share of the money that is available?

Mr. Morley

I agree with my hon. Friend. Objective 5b has been a great success in supporting the rural economy, and in fostering partnership between the public and the private sector and between various rural organisations. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the need to take account of the needs of rural areas in the forthcoming changes to objective 2 funding.

In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained a very good settlement in relation to the Rome agreement. It included objective 1 status for parts of this country, and safety nets for areas which, because of the changes, may lose their assisted area status. Regardless of the type of structural fund regime that is introduced, we want to ensure that it benefits as wide a rural area as possible.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

Many sheep farmers in this country have diversified by developing their own export business. Last night, the Parliamentary Secretary repeated his view that live exports do not help sheep prices, yet in an answer on 5 March, the Minister of State said that

"it is likely that market prices would have been further depressed in the absence of competition from the live export trade."—[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326,c.947.]

Who is right?

Mr. Morley

When my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met the directors of Farmers Ferry, they accepted that live exports, by themselves, had not increased the price of lamb. That is a fact of life. Their argument was that such exports put a floor to the price of lamb, and that that had stopped the price falling further. That is somewhat different.

The Government would prefer meat exports to be exports of meat rather than of live animals. We want value to be added in this country. The export of live animals means that jobs in our meat industry are exported too. That does not benefit the rural economy. We want there to be a strong export trade, because we have a good product to export. However, we want the benefits to go back to the rural economy through added value. That is good for welfare and for rural jobs.

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)

At a consultation meeting that I held recently in my constituency on the forthcoming rural White Paper, the overwhelming consensus was that more employment must be created in rural areas and that an important and desirable way to achieve that was to enable farmers to diversify into other businesses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that would bring about a far more prosperous and sustainable countryside than the policies of the Conservative party, which are seemingly designed to freeze it in time?

Mr. Morley

I agree. There has been much diversification in rural areas, and it is the Government's policy to encourage and support it.