HL Deb 31 January 2002 vol 631 cc436-41

9.1 p.m.

Lord Whitty rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th January [15th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order will tie up the legislative loose ends that exist, now that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken over the responsibilities of the ministry. The order will have three main effects: it will dissolve the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: it will transfer all the property rights and liabilities of MAFF to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and it will bring DEFRA in line with other departments by transferring all the statutory powers and duties of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, acting alone or with others, to the generic title of Secretary of State. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th January [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whiny.)

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the draft Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002. It signals the death of MAFF and, like Phoenix the calf, rising from the carnage, the new department. the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will be established. I appreciate that the order is to tidy up the legislative loose ends, but the order in fact transfers all the property rights and liabilities and transfers all the powers and duties of the old MAFF. In other words, it winds up the department.

Over the past three years, I have covered what is now the DEFRA brief. The Conservative Party early recognised the important link between food production, the environment, leisure and the wider rural economy and has sought to raise matters that overlap and have a consequential effect on the wider community. Those years have seen the collapse of farm incomes to an average below the national minimum wage and the loss of 60,000 jobs. The BSE outbreak caused anguish and anxiety for producers and consumers and was followed by the heartbreak of swine fever and then foot and mouth disease. To round things off, heavy rain caused extensive flooding that affected crop production. In the midst of that, MAFF appeared inadequate, out of control and led by events. On more than one occasion, the Minister acknowledged that mistakes were made and that MAFF was unable to cope with difficult circumstances.

It is not my wish tonight to repeat the many exchanges that we have had—the Minister will be pleased to hear—particularly during the past year. Having clearly stated that all was far from well, I should like to record that, within the department, many employees worked extremely hard, none more so than the vets involved in the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Seeing their life's work destroyed was, for many farmers, too much to bear, but a vet's prime role is to save life, not kill en masse. They too were put in a difficult position that some felt went against their calling. To those who worked so hard, I wish to record our grateful thanks.

I still believe that the Government were unwise not to have held a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth disease outbreak. When the order was debated in another place, the Minister, Alun Michael, said: Like the results of the others, the findings of the Devon inquiry will be fed into national inquiries". We mentioned that earlier this afternoon, so I will not go through the exercise again. The Minister then said: It is appropriate that the Government respond to the results of those inquiries".—[Official Report, Fifth Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 22/1/02; col.16.] Before I move away from foot and mouth disease, I must ask whether the Minister can tell us how many animals have been slaughtered since the last case was officially notified at the end of September.

From the death of MAFF, I turn to the birth of DEFRA. The new department has a huge brief, and I know that it has already had its teething problems. On the appointment side, can the Minister tell us more about the responsibilities of the new director general of operations in service delivery and of the new scientific adviser? For example, should foot and mouth disease or another disease break out, what would be the position of Dr King or Mr Scudamore? Would their 2001 roles be altered? In other words, who is in charge? To whom will the State Veterinary Service report?

When the order went through in the other place, Alun Michael said that DEFRA led government policy on sustainable development, while putting; the principles into practice in its own aims, objectives and work, something that was made easier by its size and punching weight. "Bravo", I say to that. I hope that the European Union, the representatives to the WTO talks and, most of all, the Treasury take note.

It is not just those people who have expressed concerns to me. In the edition that has been published today of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report on departmental responsibilities for sustainable development, disquiet was also expressed on items 3, 5 and 15 of their recommendations. Item 3 was concerned that certain circumstances are not covered by DEFR A, including transport, industry planning and urban regeneration. I can understand those concerns. Under item 5, looking at risks, it was felt that other government departments would not, as a matter of course, consult DEFRA. Under item 15, it was felt that the progress to date on the implementation of a thorough programme of environmental appraisal of policy had been disappointingly slow.

It is commonly known that a new department experiences teething problems. We understand that drawing employees from different departments requires special management skills. I think the Minister will agree that some old habits die hard. But one basic problem that should surely have been sorted out quickly was the differentials in pay between the civil servants. I understand that the new department has 8,157 members of staff, plus a further 5,952 in its agencies. I ask the Minister: is all well and have those matters been solved?

Today, 31st January, is the last day for sending out IACS payments. Have they all gone? If not, how many are outstanding and when does the Minister expect them to be cleared? While I am on late payments, have all payments been made to those who had animals confiscated and slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak? If not, is there anyone who has so far received nothing and how many still have something due to them?

Correspondence was another teething problem. I was not surprised that DEFRA was overwhelmed with letters during the foot and mouth outbreak. I also understand that due to IT faults many of those letters were not even logged, so the size of the problem was not appreciated at the time. Again I ask the Minister whether that backlog has been cleared. If not, what are the targets for dealing with it?

Imported foods, both legal and illegal, have been the subject of numerous Questions and debates in this House. The Minister acknowledged that there should be a cross-departmental push to increase inspection. Has he anything further to add to his general comment earlier this week?

The hour is late and we will surely have the opportunity to question and debate DEFRA in the months ahead. A pro-active and sustainable policy on food production is but one aspect for which the noble Lord is responsible. But for many of us it is the linchpin on which our future lies. We cannot have a green and pleasant land if there is no profit to be made by farmers. We will have fewer visitors to our countryside should the land be left to its own devices. We will not have meaningful rural communities if village shops, especially post offices, continue to close at the alarming rate of the past two years. We will not be in a position to make work available for our younger generation in country areas should farming and rural business fail.

This Government have sought to consult—some, as the noble Lord knows, say too much. It is time for action. It is a time to stand up for UK people and a time to have the courage to tackle head on some of the difficult choices which Sir Don Curry's commission so clearly delineated.

We wish the Minister and his new department every success in what will no doubt prove to be a very busy year.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, from these Benches I shall not rehearse all of the points made by the Conservative Benches. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the hour is late. I shall simply address my comments to the handing over of MAFF to DEFRA.

DEFRA has been a very welcome concept for us and we have long called for a department that encompassed farming and rural issues. It was unfortunate for the Government that the hand-over came at a time of numerous crises, but that did not excuse all the difficulties. The civil servants need to look at how that hand-over was done. Indeed, the Minister of State, Margaret Beckett, was asked why letters were taking so long. She gave an explanation in her letter of 14th November. She said: I hope this explains the situation. It does not excuse it". I hope that lessons have been learnt from that.

I understand further that some 16,201 working hours have been lost due to strikes since the establishment of the department. When I last looked at the website to see the number of vacancies, in the London office alone there were some 200. Perhaps when the Minister replies he could say how many vacancies still exist and what is being done as a matter of urgency to fill those posts even on a temporary basis, so that day-to-day matters such as correspondence can be dealt with.

Perhaps for the future we will want to keep our eye most critically on the issues raised by the Environmental Audit Committee in its first report of this Session. It makes a number of points in relation to sustainable development and how an eye will be kept on that area of work. It expressed severe misgivings. In a year when we are looking at a world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in September, that is an extremely pressing issue. Of the department's press releases in January, naturally a large number concerned farming. There were a few on public access and one or two on quangos. The environment as a whole scored very low.

The good news is exemplified by the website, which is coming on apace. It still has some gaps. Some pages have links to public bodies, some do not. The interactive horizon scanning, with its section on the deer population, is a good example of encouraging the academic world and the public to contribute and is much to be commended.

Can the Minister confirm that he intends to publish every year on the website whether or not the Department's aims and objectives are being met? Could those and other targets be gathered in one place, so that it is easy to see how DEFRA is fulfilling its aims and objectives?

9.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for registering their support for the overall rationale behind the creation of DEFRA and thereby for the dissolution of MAFF that is enacted in the order.

There have been a number of teething problems but also some major achievements—not least bringing more people into a constructive relationship. The website, with its horizon scanning feature, is but one example. We have a better and more constructive relationship with our stakeholders than MAFF. Bringing countryside, farming issues and rural affairs together and giving them a higher profile is more holistic than before.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the number of animals that have been killed since 30th September. I cannot give her an exact figure but a few hundred animals have been killed as a result of an initial positive test among various sheep flocks. I will give the noble Baroness the figures later.

The noble Baroness also asked about changes in structure. It will be better if I send her a diagram of the department. There have been marginal, but not radical, changes in the lines of responsibility of the State Veterinary Service. If a further disease were to break out before we have received the full reports of the various commissions of inquiry and we have taken a view on their recommendations, we would be dealing with the State Veterinary Service and, broadly speaking, with the structure as it is. I suspect, however, that some of the lessons that we could put into effect immediately would mean operating in somewhat different ways. Contingency planning is under way on that basis.

Both noble Baronesses referred to the Select Committee in the other place, which attached a number of important qualifications to its support for the creation of DEFRA. There are always problems of jurisdiction around the Whitehall boundaries. For some matters, the synergy was closer before than now but, as countryside, farming and rural affairs account for 80 per cent of the land, the synergy provided by the creation of the new department is enormous. We have new protocols with the DTLR, other Departments and the devolved administrations.

Reference was made also to the problem of differential pay. That was a salutary lesson on the consequences of decentralised pay. When one alters the boundaries, one has to take account of such matters. Perhaps it would have been better if I could have reported this earlier, but it looks as though the dispute is about to be resolved. The unions and management are now working in partnership to develop a new pay structure. The industrial action was suspended as from l1th January and I believe that we are near the end of that dispute.

Among the consequences of industrial action was the late payment of various subsidies through the RPA but the figures look more promising now. As of today, 93 per cent of all payments have been made and it looks as though we will get close to 100 per cent by close of play on some of the others. Nevertheless, there is a problem with a few outstanding payments. A number of compensation issues are also still outstanding, in almost all cases as the result of a dispute, with the exception of the overhang slaughtering arrangements. There are some problems on this front as well. I am afraid that the foot and mouth outbreak has left a messy aftermath, but we are rapidly clearing it up.

A further casualty of the enormous concentration on foot and mouth disease, and the creation of a new department, was correspondence. I can only repeat what was said by the Secretary of State. It is understandable that we fell behind on correspondence, but it is not excusable. While we have cleared most of the backlog, it is a fact that it is not yet cleared completely. Occasionally I still sign letters to noble Lords which are dated well hack into last year, for which I apologise. However, we are making progress and we intend to clear current correspondence in a much more effective way. However, I regret that there is still a backlog.

Turning to the broader responsibilities of the department, in particular the central theme of sustainable development, while I note the comments of the Select Committee of another place, I think that we have made great progress. In particular I refer to the international front and the leading role played by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett in both the Bonn and Marrakesh agreements and now in the lead up to the Johannesburg summit. There are very important issues of environment, Kyoto and sustainable development on the world stage in which my department will play a very positive role, one which frankly could not have been played by either of the previous departments to quite the same effect. I think that that bodes well for the department as we move away from what, undoubtedly, has been a tragedy for agriculture, for the countryside and, indeed, a tragedy for many of the staff and management in what was MAFF.

Finally, I record my deepest appreciation for what the noble Baroness said about MAFF staff. They have been through an absolutely appalling time. It was as traumatic for them as it was for many in the farming community. Her words will be much appreciated.

On Question, Motion agreed to.