HC Deb 18 October 2001 vol 372 cc1301-6
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Lord Haskins will make his report on rural recovery in Cumbria; and if she will make a statement. [9471]

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)

First, let me apologise. I hope not to take up too much of the House's time, but, in view of the many strictures about announcements being made outside the House rather than inside, I thought it right to try to make it known to the House that the Government welcome the report by Lord Haskins that was published this morning. We are grateful to Lord Haskins for his work in consulting stakeholders in Cumbria and other areas affected by the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and for producing a lucid and thoughtful report. We shall respond to all his recommendations shortly.

As the House may know, Lord Haskins' main recommendation stated that affected small businesses needed help to see them through the winter. I am pleased to be able to announce an extension of the business recovery fund in the worst-affected regions. Some £14 million of central Government funding has been made available, plus £10 million from reprioritisation within the regional development agencies' budgets. That will provide an extra £24 million for rural recovery through grants to individual businesses and other measures such as tourism promotion. We shall consider later in the year whether it is possible to provide more.

I apologise to the Opposition for not having been able to give them more notice of this announcement; but, as I have said, I thought it right to share the information with the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Martlew

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for taking the question. I also thank the Secretary of State for requesting it.

I am impressed by the report, which reaches conclusions that I consider essential in relation to Cumbria. We have had a major problem; the county's economy has gone into recession, although it will recover well. Lord Haskins makes 12 recommendations for the short term. The fifth is that £40 million should be made available for business recovery in the areas concerned, so I am rather disappointed that my right hon. Friend has announced only £24 million. Will she discuss with the Treasury whether the extra money is available? Without extra money, and extra money soon, good businesses in Cumbria and throughout the country that have been affected by foot and mouth will go bankrupt.

Margaret Beckett

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the problems experienced in Cumbria, which he and many other Members representing the county have frequently drawn to the House's attention. I also accept that he is a little disappointed that I cannot provide at once the full sum identified by Lord Haskins—although I think that he will find that Lord Haskins, along with others, will feel that this is very much a step in the right direction.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey)

This is a confused and innovative way of making an announcement to the House. I understand that no copies of the Haskins report are available in the Vote Office, although copies were made available to the media before DEFRA questions. I have managed to obtain a copy by dint of ingenuity, but it is not possible to ask questions and read at the same time. This is not an easy situation for any Member. If the Haskins report is as important as the Government have made out, surely it merited a full and proper statement to the House rather than the strange procedure that is taking place. We will, of curse, study the report with great care.

Can the right hon. Lady say how much of the new money that she has announced is, in fact, new money? Does she accept that the Cumbria foot and mouth taskforce estimated that at least £150 million of help was needed in the county? Lord Haskins recommends considerably less, and I understand that she wants to cut the amount further. Will she comment on that?

Will the right hon. Lady act on the recommendation that an extra £40 million should be put into the business recovery fund, half of which is due to Cumbria? Can that amount be provided swiftly? Many businesses in Cumbria simply will not survive the winter without the extra help that is needed so urgently. When will she further discuss the matter and the recommendations with her right hon. Friends in the Treasury, and when will she report? I note that she says that she will report shortly, but rural Britain and Cumbria in particular would like a clear date.

Farmers in Cumbria and elsewhere depend on livestock markets. Will the right hon. Lady reaffirm her support for livestock markets, despite the report's recommendation that they need to be better regulated? Are not the main opponents of livestock markets the big food processing companies such as Northern Foods, which is, of course, run by Lord Haskins?

Margaret Beckett

I welcome all members of the Opposition Front-Bench team to their new responsibilities, which I should have done previously. I apologise to them.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that this procedure is innovative—it has been adopted before. I also say to him and the House that, had there been a question on the Order Paper to which I could have attached the announcement, I would certainly have done so. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House groans, but if he reads the Order Paper he will find that even his ingenuity would have been taxed by working the announcement into any of the questions that were before us.

I simply say to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that this is not a Government report; it is Lord Haskins' report to the Government. It is available in the Library, and if it is not yet available in the Vote Office I regret that.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. It is of course true that other taskforces and bodies have made a range of recommendations, all of which run to hundreds of millions of pounds. My understanding is that one of Lord Haskins' observations is that those making such recommendations should be more realistic.

When I say shortly, I mean shortly. I shall pursue a discussion on all the various recommendations that are made. The recommendation on livestock markets is one that we shall examine when we consider the report. Of course I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman as he seeks to assimilate what he has been asked o comment on while devising his questions: Labour Members had years of practice at that.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I verb much welcome the report, which has come not a moment too soon. I am aware that it concentrates on Cumbria, but many other parts of the— [Interruption.]

>Mr. Speaker

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his question.

Mr. Drew

The report relates to other parts of the country, even though Cumbria was apparently the worst affected. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that some dates by which businesses must appeal for help can be extended, given that certain ones have passed? Will she also consider ways in which her ministerial team can go out and talk to farmers about how to move towards a more sustainable food policy?

Margaret Beckett

On my hon. Friend's last point, not only my team but the policy commission are engaged in that debate. I understand his points about businesses. One aspect that has led us to respond so speedily to the publication of the report is an understanding of the number of businesses that are in the queue, so to speak, and that have been affected by the existing position.

I did not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for East Surrey about whether the money is new. It is all money that will be newly available to people in such circumstances. I find the pretence that money that is available for the purposes for which it is to be used is somehow not available to be artificial and ridiculous.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Cumbria has been through a horrendous nine months and I am afraid that the Government's reaction today is yet another example of too little, too late. May I press the Secretary of State specifically on Lord Haskins' recommendation that the extension of the amnesty for business rate and VAT payments should run to April next year? Will she have urgent discussions with the Treasury on that recommendation? If those bills are presented in the next few months, a large number of businesses will go bankrupt.

Will the right hon. Lady comment on the extraordinary statement in Lord Haskins' report that Government support should be provided only to those businesses that deserve to survive? Will she clarify exactly which businesses, in the Government's view, deserve to survive? I can tell her that in my constituency and throughout the county of Cumbria a large number of businesses that deserved to survive are already bust.

Margaret Beckett

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct and, naturally, I accept that the situation in Cumbria has been terrible. Members throughout the House recognise that. I take on board his further points about the extension of the amnesty. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and I have been discussing and will continue to discuss these issues. I take this opportunity to tell the House that the rural taskforce report, on which my right hon. Friend has been engaged, will also be published later this afternoon and made available in the House.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central)

We have just heard that the total contribution of agriculture to our GDP is worth £5 billion. Is the Secretary of State aware that The Economist calculates that cannabis dealing in the United Kingdom is worth more than £1 billion? Has Lord Haskins considered the enormous contribution that could be made by legalising cannabis and producing the crop in the United Kingdom, which would be perfectly possible—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is far too wide of the question.

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

I welcome any circumstance that requires Ministers to make a statement about publications that have been issued outside. It is unfortunate, however, that it was not possible to have a full statement.

What does Lord Haskins' report, as it applies to Cumbria, imply for the rest of England and Wales in terms of compensation requirements, and what recommendations will flow from that? Given that the rural taskforce has also reported today to the Prime Minister—I understand that the report has just been published—can the Secretary of State say anything about that report, which I understand calls for more extensive support for businesses across the rural community? May we have a debate in the House about both reports, rather than a hurried statement tacked on to the end of Question Time?

Margaret Beckett

With respect, the Government have tried, without unduly disrupting business, to ensure that the announcement of our reaction to the report has been made in the House. The breakdown and the justification for it are issues that we can consider at greater length. As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the matter, it has been heard by the Leader of the House. Indeed, the rural taskforce report looks more widely and more at the medium and longer term. Nothing that I have said today precludes consideration of what might be the right steps to take in the medium and longer term. The House and the Government will return to those issues over time.

Tony Cunningham (Workington)

I welcome the report and the money that is being provided. Will the Secretary of State ensure that local people are brought into discussions on the implementation of the report? We want to make sure that the new money is spent as efficiently as possible because the people of Cumbria have truly suffered over the past nine months.

Margaret Beckett

I entirely take my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs advises me that one of the key recommendations in the rural taskforce report as he sees it concerns teamwork, and clearly that involves local people. It is right to give careful consideration to the best, most effective use of the money. It is not for me to define Lord Haskins' terms for him, but I suspect that is what he meant when he talked about businesses that deserve money.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Does the right hon. Lady accept that Lord Haskins is not the most popular man with farmers? He is not a particularly successful farmer and his company certainly is not friendly to the farming industry. Does it come well from a man such as Lord Haskins to hector livestock farmers who work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months a year? Does she further accept that the subsidies mentioned by Members during Question Time today go to the consumer, not the farmer? Unless farmers are there, the great land that we represent and which people take for granted will not be maintained. Farmers must produce from their land to maintain it for the benefit of the country.

Margaret Beckett

The hon. Gentleman will have been in the Chamber and heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) indicating that we all recognise not only the direct contribution that agriculture and farming make to the economy, but their contribution to the rural landscape, which is a key issue for tourism.

As for the hon. Gentleman's contention that Lord Haskins is not popular in the countryside, I think that a succession of Agriculture Ministers would like to know how that is to be achieved.

Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

The present animal markets are wasteful, inefficient, cruel to animals and accelerate the spread of animal diseases. During this crisis some farmers have sold their animals via video links, and Lord Haskins rightly says that the best way of conducting such sales is via the internet, which not only avoids suffering for animals, as they do not have to travel so far, but is far cheaper. Most of all, however, such a system would avoid the spread of disease, as animals do not come into contact with each other. Is not that recommendation, like the rest of the report, far-sighted? Lord Haskins rightly says that aquaculture, bio-farming and fuel farming are more prosperous and employ more people than traditional agriculture. They could also create an industry that has a far better future, without subsidies.

Margaret Beckett

People may or may not like what Lord Haskins has to say, but it is generally recognised that he is always a thoughtful and stimulating contributor to debate. My hon. Friend has drawn on some of the ideas that are in the public domain and being discussed. They are also very much ideas that we hope that the policy commission will consider and take into account when it makes its own recommendations.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

I recognise the very special impact that foot and mouth had on Cumbria, but other parts of the country suffered as well. People in those areas will look carefully at the conclusions of Lord Haskins' report and note the additional resources going to Cumbria. Does the right hon. Lady have any plans to apply those lessons, and further resources, to other parts of the country?

Margaret Beckett

I should make it plain that it is not the intention that all that money will go to Cumbria. Clearly, however, the flavour of what Lord Haskins says is that many of the problems have been more severe there. Of course the Government recognise that the problems are more widespread.

Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby)

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, with 134 cases in North Yorkshire, many of which have been in its two national parks, the impact or our sub-regional rural economy—particularly in my constituency in the Esk valley—was much the same as the impact in Cumbria. Will she confirm that North Yorkshire will share in substantial support to deal with that impact? Will the national park authorities, with their expertise, be used to tackle the problems of overstocking, especially in the sheep sector, that face many of my constituents?

Margaret Beckett

We are listening to the views and input of the various authorities on the future direction of policy. We shall also examine the distribution of the money. I am sure that not everyone will be satisfied, and that everyone will think that there should be more for their area, but I hope that people will recognise that it is a contribution.

I should also like to share with the House a piece of information of which I have just been reminded. Lord Haskins was in fact recommended as the person to conduct the study by the National Farmers Union in Cumbria.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Those of us who have not had access to the papers rather assumed that the £24 million that the right hon. Lady has announced was specifically targeted on Cumbria. If that is not so, will she make it clear? At the beginning of this debate, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly raised the essential issue of the quantum of compensation. Have we heard her last word on that subject? Can we tempt her to keep open the possibility of increasing the sum it demands increase in other parts of the United Kingdom" Specifically, what new money will be made available in south-east and south-west Scotland as a result of her announcement today?

Margaret Beckett

I accept that it is not easy for hon. Members to follow the precise nuances of announcements. As I said, however, the money is indeed for Cumbria and for other areas; the hon. Gentleman is right about that. Nevertheless, I anticipate that the lion's share of the money will go to Cumbria, for all the reasons that hon. Members understand and have identified. I also accept that there will be continuing concerns in other areas, and that tip, Government will come under continuing pressure to see whether it is possible, in our difficult circumstances, to do more.