HL Deb 16 April 1996 vol 571 cc613-8

6.27 p.m.

Lord Lucas rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 25th March be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Nitrate Directive requires us to identify those areas where agriculture has produced a nitrate problem and to introduce controls on practices undertaken by farmers within them. In this country, unlike some of our European neighbours, we have taken a targeted approach in identifying such areas. The resulting nitrate vulnerable zones occupy only about 5 per cent. of the land in England and Wales.

Manures which are applied in excessive quantities, or at certain times of the year, will contribute to the pollution of our water resources. That, in a nutshell, is why the Nitrate Directive requires the introduction of controls on the spreading of organic manures within nitrate vulnerable zones.

These controls will restrict the amount of manure which farmers may apply to land within the nitrate vulnerable zones and in some cases will set closed periods during which some manures may not be spread at all. In order to comply with these restrictions, livestock farmers, particularly those with slurry-based systems, will normally have to store their farm waste and those with insufficient land of their own may have to find additional land on which to spread their waste. But it is important to keep the scale of the effect in perspective. Of the 8,000 or so farmers in the nitrate vulnerable zones, about a quarter have livestock; and, of those, I estimate that fewer than 700 will be faced with additional storage-related costs of one sort or another. But the actual impact will vary considerably depending upon the nature and circumstances of each business. For example, some farmers may have to expand their existing storage facilities, while others, such as those with slurry-based dairy or pig units on light soils with little or no storage capacity, will have to instal new facilities. On the other hand, a farmer with a beef herd relying on grass silage or hay for feed, and having to spread farmyard manure from its winter housing, is unlikely to be faced with any additional costs as a result of these measures.

Some livestock farmers in the nitrate vulnerable zones will be faced with the need to make capital investments in order to meet their obligations under the Nitrate Directive. In recognition of that need, the scheme will focus assistance on a range of storage facilities for slurry and other manures. Fixed handling and disposal facilities, which form an essential part of farm waste systems, are also to be eligible for grant.

Under previous grant schemes, facilities which separate clean and dirty water, or, in other words, rainwater from fouled water, have not been eligible for grant. However, by diverting rainwater and preventing it mixing with the farmyard effluent, items such as guttering and drainage systems can be highly effective in reducing the amount of storage that would otherwise be needed; and if the amount of slurry stored is reduced, so too is the amount of slurry that subsequently needs to be spread on the land. I am therefore pleased to be able to tell you that those items will now be eligible for grant aid.

Those noble Lords who have had the pleasure of falling into a slurry lagoon will be familiar with its potency. We will of course provide grant aid for ancillary safety features such as fencing around slurry lagoons. However, farmers themselves will be responsible for ensuring that their investments abide by the control of pollution regulations and have the prior consent of the Environment Agency in addition to meeting the necessary health and safety legislation. I can assure the House that investments which do not meet those standards will not be eligible for grant.

In respect of the main features of the scheme, our aim has been to ensure that it is as simple as possible to administer for both farmers and the Government and that grants are available to all who need them. For that reason the scheme is similar in many ways to its predecessor, the farm and conservation grant scheme, notably in the rate of grant which remains at 25 per cent. and the expenditure limit of £85,000 per business. While many will no doubt complain that that is not enough, it is the most that can be afforded given the current constraints on public expenditure and will be welcome help to those who need it. I would add that smaller farmers will benefit from the expenditure ceiling, as there will no longer be a separate, lower expenditure limit determined by the amount of labour on the farm.

The scheme will be open to all farmers with at least some agricultural land in a zone providing the investment is necessary to help them comply with the directive's measures. As with the previous grant scheme, there will be no need for farmers to obtain prior approval from the Ministry or from the Welsh Office. In order to help farmers decide what is most appropriate for their circumstances we are also making available free ADAS technical advice on the implications of the proposed measures and on the waste facilities needed to comply with them. I hope that farmers will wish to take advantage of that advice, and of the assistance offered by this scheme, and plan their investments well in advance of the introduction of the measures.

I hope that this House will agree that the scheme represents real assistance to farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones and that it demonstrates the Government's commitment to balancing the needs of an efficient agricultural industry with the need to protect water resources. I beg to move.

Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 25th March be approved.—(Lord Lucas.)

6.30 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the scheme. I must say that with the fisheries, BSE, and now this scheme, we cannot complain about a lack of variety in the agricultural brief. The scheme relates to nitrate vulnerable zones. If the Minister has fallen into a slurry lagoon, he is lucky to be here at all. I understand that it is almost universally fatal to do so.

Clearly, any grant aid in this area is welcome. But the Minister will be aware that, for example, the NFU is not impressed by either the percentage of aid-25 per cent.—or the maximum expenditure limit of £85,000. I had intended to ask the Minister to indicate the rationale behind the 25 per cent. and £85,000. I am sure that it was carefully worked out. However, he gave the answer when he said that it is all that can be afforded within the constraints on public expenditure. It would be helpful to know whether there are any other reasons for the figures other than pressure from the Treasury.

Perhaps the Minister can say also why the grant aid does not extend to farm vehicles which are needed for transport of the slurry. The Minister mentioned that but, as I understand it, grant aid does not apply to farm vehicles.

If I understand correctly, the annual budget of £800,000 for the scheme implies gross expenditure by farmers of £3.2 million at a 25 per cent. grant rate. I believe the Minister said that the department estimates that 700 farmers are likely to benefit. If that is correct, it would seem a substantial expenditure. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position and what the average amount of grant is likely to be. It looks as though it will be in the order of £10,000 per farm, if my mental arithmetic is correct.

We should not forget that the Government removed grants for improving or installing farm-waste facilities from the farm and conservation grant scheme. Obviously the scheme before us today only restores grant aid to the 7,500 farmers in the nitrate vulnerable zones, of whom the Minister says only around 700 are likely to benefit. How many farmers therefore are outside the scope of the scheme? In other words, what is the potential pollution problem that the scheme does not address outside the nitrate vulnerable zones?

On the question of free ADAS advice, I should declare an interest as president of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants. There have been long discussions with the department over the business of free ADAS advice and certainly individual consultants who are able to provide the advice feel unfairly treated when ADAS is offering it free. They feel it is unfair competition. I thought the Minister would like to know that.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, the necessity for the scheme is completely and utterly unscientifically based. The reason for it is because the EC decided that a 50 mg. limit of methaeglobinaemia—shortened to MGA—if it is not established, will produce stomach cancer in humans and the possibility of blue babies. There has been one instance of blue babies in this country since 1972 and it is extremely easy to cure with one injection. Research at Aberdeen University completely and utterly exploded the connection between nitrates and stomach cancer.

The European Community therefore, in its wisdom, introduced a directive for which there is absolutely no scientific reasoning. I showed the Minister the article in the chartered surveyors' magazine and also the article by Christopher Booker in the Daily Mail. I felt it only fair to give him some warning of what I intended to say.

Of course, we cannot ask that the scheme be stopped. But it is extraordinary that we are putting into legislation something which will cost the farming industry and the taxpayer a lot of money for no conceivable health benefit whatever. One farmer, Mr. Horvath, has to change his whole farming process because of the possible danger of nitrate run-off from his farm into the local river. Upstream of him the local sewage works is putting into the river far higher levels of nitrates and yet is not affected at all.

Will the Government please, please, occasionally get a grip on some of the directives which come out of Brussels for which there is no conceivable scientific or logical basis? I am laying aside for the moment, only temporarily, anything to do with BSE which has also shown that to be the case.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I shall not hold up the proceedings for long. It is a little illogical that 1.5 million acres have been designated as NVZs, large parts of which have no nitrate problem at all. For some extraordinary reason—to suit the water companies or some other government creations—they are being designated as nitrate vulnerable zones. That is entirely wrong.

Considering that one may be forced to alter one's farming system and pay out up to £85,000, the grant is not very generous, particularly if one is in an area of low nitrates. I cannot believe that this is a logical scheme. It certainly does not appear logical to those farmers with low nitrate exposure who are being put to such expense with what is a lower rate of subsidy.

Lord Stewartby

My Lords, unfortunately I did not arrive in time to hear the beginning of my noble friend's remarks and he may already have answered this question. Can he say whether all other member states are as far ahead in implementing the directive as we are?

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I am not certain of the answer to the last question. My understanding is that some are well ahead of us. Indeed, some other countries decided to designate their entire land surface as nitrate vulnerable zones whereas we have taken the attitude, which I hope will please my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, of being as selective as possible.

In some areas the nitrate problem was patchy—one borehole would have it and the next would not. Rather than designate an area like a patchwork quilt, with a few hectares at a time, some in a zone and some not, we took the decision to designate the entire geological structure. That will include some individual boreholes and areas where there is no nitrate problem inside the nitrate vulnerable zone. But that was done for reasons of convenience and operability of the scheme and has nothing whatever to do with the effects on any water companies. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, of that.

With regard to the other comments made by my noble friend Lord Onslow, I discussed these before when we addressed the question of the directive. The limit of 50 milligrammes per litre has been set by the World Health Organisation and is widely regarded by it and by the European Community as the right level. I do not think it is the level we would necessarily choose for ourselves—we might well go for a higher level—but it is a level which has become established and for which there is reasonable evidence. Nitrate is a pollutant. It is not a good idea to let it go on rising to high levels in water supplies. If it rose beyond 50 milligrammes per litre we would expect to see an increase in blue baby syndrome. We do not have it at the moment because there is little water with dangerous levels of nitrate. Having a lot of nitrate going into the river system affects the ecology of the rivers and the estuaries. That is something on which we wish to keep a reasonable control, so to an extent we are addressing the problem before it has occurred as a preventive measure rather than waiting for the problem to occur and then having to pick up some environmental or human health catastrophe. Given the previous business today, that is something the House should welcome, even if it requires some small costs for a small number of farmers at present.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right to say that the levels of grant have been determined by the amount of money available. However, I am sure he recognises that both his party and mine accept the polluter pays principle. I am sure he would recognise that in most industries the Government make no contribution whatever to the amount of money needed to introduce pollution control measures. I am sure he would recognise that a shed full of pigs producing large quantities of slurry on an intensive system is a polluter and that it should not be regarded as being in quite the same category as an extensive farming enterprise, which we are confident will not be affected at all by the restraints in this measure. If you are keeping a totally extensive farming system with livestock, you will not be exceeding the limits set down under the directive.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, is a herd of 100 dairy cows an intensive farming system?

Lord Lucas

My Lords, the problem with dairy cows comes because the farmer will tend to keep them inside during the winter and the system will be intensive for that period. If you are running a farmyard manure-based system, you will probably be totally unaffected by the directive. If you are running a slurry-based system and are in the habit of spreading the slurry on the land every other week during the course of the winter, you will be affected by it. Farmyard manure does not leach over the winter; slurry does. So it is a question of controlling the amount of pollution you are producing. You do not necessarily have to look at building a slurry lagoon if you can transfer to a manure-based system.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why the scheme does not apply to vehicles. In any livestock system vehicles will be required and will be in existence anyway for spreading. To the extent that they are not specialist spreading vehicles, they will be vehicles with many other purposes. We are looking at focusing the grants on the particular requirements of putting in manure and slurry storage facilities.

The noble Lord calculated the grant at £10,000 per farmer on average. If the scheme lasts for its full term, that might be about the right figure. We shall see what level of demand there is and we shall see how long it lasts. But we certainly envisage seeing it through until the end of the century.

The noble Lord bewailed the fact that those who know that where there is muck there is brass had been deprived of their additional income. I take note of that fact. I shall talk to my colleagues and hope that we will not repeat that mistake in the future.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like him to clarify what the World Health Organisation said. I have information before me saying that the World Health Organisation published a book which dealt with the 50 milligramme per litre limit on nitrates in drinking water and said that the cancer risk of higher levels of nitrate is not scientifically proven. The sole reason for the 50 milligrammes per litre limit was the extraordinarily long word which I cannot even attempt to pronounce the second time around. This again is the blue baby syndrome. My noble friend has not answered my central point. Why are we accepting directives from the European Community for which there is absolutely no scientific need? He has not answered that point and it is a very important one.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, it is not a case of there being no scientific need. It is clear that there is a disease called blue baby syndrome or methaeglobinaemia. That is an awful compound word which is extremely difficult to get out even if one can spell it, which I am not sure I can. There is such a disease. It occurs in babies where there are high nitrate levels in water. There are no other known dangers of nitrate to human consumption. It is clearly something which is not part of the natural human diet and we should try to avoid stuffing large quantities of it into human drinking water and then find out in 20 years' time that there is a nasty consequence of having lots of it around. It is reasonable to take precautions against polluting when we do not know what the consequences will be. The costs of it to us, applying, as we are, the directive in the most careful possible way, are extremely small.

On Question, Motion agreed to.