HL Deb 19 June 1989 vol 509 cc81-6

7.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

A year ago the Government announced proposals for implementation of the set-aside scheme in the UK. This scheme was adopted by the Community in February 1988 in the context of agreement on agricultural stabilisers and forms an important element of the measures we are taking in the Community to bring over-production under control. The primary instrument of reform must remain price policy. But set-aside plays an important complementary role as an alternative for those farmers finding it harder to operate under a more rigorous price policy. It is also a direct incentive, together with other initiatives such as the farm diversification grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme, for farmers to give up surplus production in favour of other uses for their land.

The need to meet our Community obligations gave the Government very little time to implement the scheme last year. In fact the UK was the first member state to have a scheme in force, although the scheme is now up and running in all member states except two—Denmark, which hopes to implement shortly, and Portugal, which is not required to do so until 1995. In the UK around 1,800 farmers took up the scheme in the first year, setting aside about 150,000 acres of land. A further 24,000 took the opportunity to register their land, which will make it simpler for them to apply at a later stage if they wish to do so because base year information will have been registered with us. Considering the short time farmers had to make their decisions, this was a very encouraging initial response.

The draft instrument before the House tonight does not make any fundamental changes to the operation of the set-aside scheme. In particular the Government do not intend to make any changes to the rate of aid which last year's response has shown can be attractive to some arable farmers throughout the UK, including those in the main cereal production areas. We have never claimed that set-aside would or should be attractive to all farmers; but there are clearly circumstances where farmers find it a better deal than continued production of surpluses.

In the light of the first year's experience of the scheme and of further discussions with the EC Commission, it has been necessary to make some small changes to the original set-aside regulations, and this is what these amending regulations do.

Perhaps the most significant of these changes is Regulation 8 which extends the list of crops eligible for set-aside payments to include crops grown for stock feed and certified herbage seed. This has been required by the EC Commission to tie our rules in more closely with the EC legislation and means that, if a farmer grew these crops in the base year 1987–88, the area used for them is included in the set-aside calculation. This change will affect only new entrants to the scheme. Those already participating will not have to make any adjustments to their set-aside area, although they may, if they wish, apply to increase it.

Regulation 3 provides some minor points of clarification on the interpretation of the definition of arable land and a definition of "grazing land" to place beyond doubt the position on grazing by horses which counts, and has always counted, as a non-agricultural use under the scheme.

Regulation 4 makes a small change to ensure that arable land can be set aside even though it may have been rotated into use as temporary grassland at the time of application for set-aside. This change is necessary to ensure that farmers who may, for example, have registered for the scheme and subsequently used part of their arable land for temporary grass as part of an arable rotation will not be limited in their choice of land to set-aside when they come to join the scheme.

Regulation 4 also includes a technical clarification to make it clearer that the set-aside area cannot exceed the area used for relevant arable crops in the base year.

Other changes are generally consequential upon these, except for one further amendment, to which I should draw particular attention. Following representations from environmental and farming organisations, we have agreed that there could be both environmental and agronomic benefits from encouraging the use of set-aside land as sacrificial feeding areas for over-wintering geese such as Brent geese. However, in many cases the use of fertilisers is necessary to create a suitably lush grass sward to attract the geese away from growing crops. Regulation 9 therefore provides that special authorisation may be given to apply inorganic fertilisers to set-aside land in certain areas where the land is to be managed as a feeding ground for migratory geese. This special provision will be available only in those limited areas which are known to suffer from damage from goose grazing and the general prohibition on the use of fertilisers on set-aside land remains unchanged.

Finally, for completeness, I should perhaps remind noble Lords of a further addition to the set-aside scheme arrangements which is not in these regulations. As was announced recently by the Government, the Countryside Commission is developing a scheme of additional incentives to farmers who undertake to manage set-aside land in ways which benefit the environment or improve provisions for quiet recreation in the countryside. The scheme is called the conservation premium scheme for set-aside land (colloquially known as environmental top-up). It is to be administered by the Countryside Commission in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy Council. Details of the scheme were announced by the chairman of the Countryside Commission earlier today. Initially the scheme will apply in the eastern counties of England, where the initial uptake of set-aside has been good and there are plenty of opportunities for environmental impovement. Farmers in that area will be able to select from a range of management prescriptions of benefit to landscape, wildlife or informal recreation activities, for which they will be eligible for payments of between £45 and £120 per hectare. This is an important new initiative and I hope that those farmers who are eligible for the scheme will think carefully about applying for conservation premium payments.

The set-aside scheme is still at an early stage of its life. It has made a promising start and a number of farmers have already made the scheme work for them in a variety of ways. However, we need more experience before reaching conclusions on the scheme, and the coming year will be a particularly important one in assessing its worth. The scheme is now open for applications for 1989–90 and the closing date for this year is 31st July, giving farmers plenty of time to work out their plans before the new crop year. The amendments in these regulations, though small, will help us to offer a greater degree of flexibility to participants and to manage the scheme effectively in accordance with our Community obligations. I commend these regulations to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining as clearly as she has the implication behind the statutory instrument we are asked to approve this evening. It follows very much the assessment which I made of the document myself based on an expert view of the subject. I am glad to have had her official confirmation of that view.

We take the view on this side that by and large, although the noble Baroness has tended to suggest that the changes are not in total tremendously significant, nevertheless they represented easements which will be attractive to people who are interested in set-aside, and in particular to the 24,000 farmers to whom she referred who registered their 1987–88 cropping patterns with agricultural departments to make it simpler for them to apply for the scheme, either this year or in future years. Has the department any assessment, even a rough one, of the likely response by those 24,000 farmers and of the implications of that for the basic objective of the set-aside scheme? That is, of course, to reinforce the other measures taken by the agricultural Ministers to avoid over production and to avoid the triggering of penalties under maximum guaranteed quantities for cereals. Is it likely, for example, that we shall see from among these 24,000 registrations a considerable increase over the 1,800 farmers who at present are benefiting from the set-aside scheme?

We were particularly interested also in the additional information about the countryside premium for set-aside which, as she said, has been announced today by the chairman of the Countryside Commission. We were interested to note from a Written Answer in another place on 15th June at col. 500 that the agricultural department spokesman there in referring to the top-up scheme said that it is to be administered by the Countryside Commission with advice and assistance from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Department of the Environment and his department. He also confirmed what the noble Baroness has told us that the scheme is to apply in the main to the eastern counties of England and payments of £45 to £120 per hectare are offered under the top-up scheme.

What is puzzling us about the scheme is not the principle underlying it, which is clear enough, but the large number of bodies involved in administering it. Normally the Countryside Commission is the administrative body, but the two departments of state and the Nature Conservancy Council are also involved. Is there any particular reason why the Countryside Commission has been chosen as, in effect, the lead administrative body in this important area? Does the fact that the chairman of that body announced the scheme today (as forecast in the parliamentary Answer to which I referred) mean that the jurisdiction of Parliament is in any way diminished because of the inaccessibility of the chairman of the Countryside Commission to parliamentary question and answer? If that were to happen, then even at this early stage in the history of set-aside we should regard it as a retrograde step, much as we admire the work of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. Is there any particular reason for this, and, if so, what is that reason?

I was reassured by what the Minister said about the part of the order which is to apply to organic farming by way of providing a carpet for Brent geese to graze upon. One has the feeling that if there is anything in the theory of reincarnation, those of us who have a choice in the matter ought in our reincarnated state perhaps opt to be mallard ducks because the life of that bird seems to be a great deal more pleasant both potentially and immediately than that of a Member of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, we approve of what is in train and I hope that the conservationists, particularly those who concern themselves in this the centenary year of the RSPB, will have taken note of this important effort in the set-aside scheme to make a point which I am sure is near and dear to their hearts. We are in general support of the order and as I have said we thank the Minister for the manner in which she introduced it.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House, but I have just a couple of questions to the Minister which I hope she will be able to help us with. In relation to the environmental top-up scheme, do we yet know the Government's proposals for the extensification scheme which has to be introduced by 1990 under the European directive? Is the top-up scheme part of this, or are we to hear about the wider scheme in the near future?

I understand that various activities are allowed on set-aside land which are subject to planning permission: such things as caravans, restaurants, or leisure facilities. Does the Minister yet have any idea how many planning applications have been submitted for development of set-aside land? If the Minister does not have the answer perhaps she will be kind enough to write to me.

I am pleased about the geese. But there is a farming problem here. Let us suppose that a farmer applies the fertiliser, gets his lush grass and the geese do not arrive. What is he supposed to do with that grass?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, perhaps I may answer the last question first. According to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, he should pray for mallard.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher, and Lord Carter, for their welcome. The noble Lords asked various questions. On the countryside premium scheme I have been asked why the Countryside Commission was chosen. It was chosen because it is the best body to take responsibility for the running of the scheme assisted by the NCC. It reflects the agency's responsibility for and expertise in matters related to wildlife conservation, landscape and recreation in the countryside. In relation to the parliamentary aspect, the Department of the Environment Ministers answer to Parliament on behalf of the Countryside Commission. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.

It is too early to say for this year what the assessment of response will be, but we expect another good response. There may be an increase, but we shall have to wait to see. Each hectare taken out of production makes a contribution to reducing surpluses.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about extensification. We have issued today a consultation document on extensification and there is a copy in the Library. I do not rule out changes in the scheme, if they seem to be necessary in the future and if they are consistent with Community rules. However, for the moment, the Government's approach is to let the scheme run and to avoid moving the goalposts before the players have learnt the rules of the game. I commend these rules to your Lordships' House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 to 8.30 p.m.]