Charitable Events on Set-aside Land (Hansard, 17 July 1996)

Lord Lucas
My Lords, Commission Regulation 762/94, as amended, lays down detailed rules for set-aside under the Arable Area Payments Scheme. Article 3(2) states that set-aside land may not be, put to any lucrative use incompatible with the growing of an arable crop". In a written communication to Her Majesty's Government the European Commission has stated that that means that local, social and charitable activities that are both fund-raising and incompatible with the growing of an arable crop may not take place on set-aside land.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. Has the Commission given any indication that, if there were acceptable proof that only the charity gained from the event, it might accept the use of set-aside land for charitable purposes?

Lord Lucas
My Lords, in what it has said to us to date, it is clear that the Commission has set its face against that. We are continuing to argue with the Commission. In our latest letter to Mr. Fischler's chef de cabinet we have argued just what the noble Baroness has suggested to us.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the Minister aware that these provisions of the CAP whereby people are paid for not producing crops are one of the most obscene features of all Community legislation? Can we rely upon the common sense, if not the morality, of the Government to seek at the IGC to have the whole of this wretched apparatus destroyed?

Lord Lucas
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord knows that we agree with him in many respects. I would not necessarily use the same superlatives as he did. But there must be better ways of doing things than the way they are done at present.

§ Lord Clark of Kempston
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is sheer economic madness that there is set-aside land which may be used for a charity but which cannot be used? My local country church uses set-aside land belonging to a neighbouring farmer for a car park for the annual fête. Is it not ludicrous for that farmer to be deprived of set-aside money when he is not being paid? Surely that could be fixed if whichever charity is benefiting were to give to the farmer whose set-aside land it is a certificate saying that no payment had been made to the farmer. That should satisfy the European Union.

Lord Lucas
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the situation is ludicrous, but unfortunately that is the way it is at present. The farmer would not just lose his payment for set-aside land; he would lose all the payments on land of which the set-aside was set aside. It would he extremely financially difficult for a farmer who was caught allowing the church fête to use the set-aside land as a car park. That is why as far as we know all farmers are not now doing that. That is not a situation we find tolerable.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, when this legislation was going through the European Parliament did our representatives fight for charities or did they just let it slip through?

Lord Lucas
My Lords, it has been our understanding since the legislation was passed and until the latest Commission ruling that we could allow charities to make reasonable use of set-aside land. So I do not suppose that it came to the attention of our MEPs at the time. But it is interesting to note that in a recent edition of Country Life David Thomas, the Norfolk Labour MEP, is quoted as saying that this is all due to MAFF and that the European Union is in the right. I hope that the Labour Party will teach its MEPs to understand what is going on in this country and to look after this country's interests rather than Europe's.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is it not true that Regulations are issued by the unelected Commission under delegated authority from the Council? Is it not true that Regulations are not even debated in national parliaments, although they become automatically legally binding in all the member states?
833 Is that not just one more example of a gross abuse of our democracy made inevitable by our adherence to the Treaty of Rome?

Lord Lucas
My Lords, my noble friend is going just a little far.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, will the Minister explain his first Answer when he talked about the use being incompatible with the growing of an arable crop? Does that mean that if one had a use which was compatible with the growing of an arable crop—of course, the land is to be set aside for the whole season anyway—it would be possible to use it for charitable purposes?

Lord Lucas
My Lords, yes, if the use were compatible with the growing of an arable crop. If one can imagine the use being compatible with the growing of a crop in the field—let us say wheat—at the same time, then one could use it. For instance, shooting—

Noble Lords
Ah!

Lord Lucas
My Lords, an ordinary shooting engagement would be allowed. Unfortunately, there are not many such charitable events. There are some, but not many.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, what steps do the Government propose to take about this manifest nonsense?

Lord Lucas
My Lords, as I have said, in the short term we are writing to Mr. Fischler's chef de cabinet. We shall continue to take this matter up with him at every opportunity.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, bearing in mind that these charitable events are an essential feature of rural life in this country, could it not be argued that those events are compatible with the raising of agricultural crops, because if the rural economy is to succeed it is essential to do that? Could I suggest also—

Noble Lords
No!

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, could I ask the Minister whether he has thought of advising the inspectors who might be checking on those charitable events to adopt a Nelsonian eye?

Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord encouragement on either matter. Even the most charitable farmer would, in the eyes of the European Union, and indeed in my eyes, be going a bit far if he allowed the village fete car park to use a field that was growing a crop of wheat. One would not expect that. It would not be regarded as sensible. If our inspectors were to be seen to be turning a blind eye to such events, the EU would merely disallow some of the money coming to us, and we would find ourselves paying for it that way.