HL Deb 04 April 2003 vol 646 cc1607-10

12.51 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 10th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the extension of the Farm Waste Grant Scheme (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England) Regulations 2003. Noble Lords will be aware of the Government's longstanding and ongoing commitment to farmers demonstrated in their Strategy for Agriculture: Action Plan for Farming in March 2000, which included the commitment that the Government would do, everything it can, consistent with its legal responsibilities, to minimise the extra burdens of new Nitrate Vulnerable Zone designations on farmers".

Extending the Farm Waste Grant Scheme beyond April 2003 is entirely consistent with this commitment. Under the EC Nitrates Directive, farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones are restricted in the type, amount and frequency at which manures and slurries can be applied to the land. This can cause difficulties for farmers who have little or no storage capacity for manures.

Extension of nitrate vulnerable zones following implementation of the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Additional Designations) (England) Regulations 2002 to approximately 55 per cent of the land area in England will require many farmers to upgrade their existing manure storage facilities or install new ones. In recognition of this mandatory capital investment, the scheme focuses assistance on a range of storage and fixed handling facilities.

Since its introduction in 1996, uptake under the scheme has been relatively low. There were only 58 claims between 1996 and 2002. This has been due to a number of factors, including low farm incomes, the swine vesicular disease and foot and mouth outbreaks and the ability to "export" manure to farms outside of the NVZs. The extension of NVZs in England will make it more difficult for farmers to continue to export manure as the number of farmers subjected to the restrictions increases.

It is proposed that the Farm Waste Grant Scheme, which provides a grant of 40 per cent on eligible projects, should be extended in England until October 2005. As this is a demand-led grant scheme, it is not possible to forecast accurately the total number of annual claims. A sum of £3.8 million has been profiled for each of the next three years, commencing on 17th April 2003. Based on previous claims, it has been calculated that this will be sufficient to cover the newly designated NVZs and new claims from farms in the original zones that are no longer able to "export" their manures. However, the regulation contains a provision to close the scheme in the event of funds being exhausted before the closing date.

The scheme restricts grants to, fixed disposal facilities for slurry and silage effluent". It has been suggested that the Government should extend the scheme to support the adoption of specialised application machinery—for example, band spreaders and shallow injectors. Storage is a specific action programme measure which stems directly from the directive. Improved application equipment would not provide a direct solution to the restrictions in the action programme.

Spreading is frequently undertaken by contractors rather than individual farmers. The Farm Practice Survey 2001 indicated that 38 per cent of farmers that had manure or slurry on their farms, including arable farms that had imported manures, used contractors. The need for more specialised machinery could increase this trend which suggests that extending the FWGS to cover individual purchasing of machinery by farmers is unnecessary. While there are environmental benefits, such equipment is more expensive than conventional tackle and cannot be accommodated within the budget.

This scheme represents real assistance to farmers in NVZs and demonstrates the Government's commitment to balancing the needs of an efficient agricultural industry with the need to protect water sources from pollution. I commend it to the House.

Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 10th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this order today. Obviously, in principle, we support this scheme. As the Minister rightly explained, the scheme will be available to more farmers than so far—until last year, there was an uptake of only 58. Certainly the problem of slurry storage is becoming acute with the new regulations coming in.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that grants will be available—up to a total of £3 million. On reading yesterday's debate in another place, understand that the average likely grant would be about £7,000. That is what was anticipated. The issue has also been raised as to whether any additional funds would be made available in case more people applied than money available. Again, I understand that yesterday the clarity was that that would not be the case.

The Minister referred to the question of the new machinery available. Obviously, she and many Members here today have been dealing with the Water Bill this week. So, in fact, it is very dear to our hearts. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the development of new technology which it is to be hoped will reduce the risk of pollution into our rivers. But perhaps I may return that.

I understand from the order that the proposals are first come, first served. Presumably those who have already got their applications in will continue to be dealt with. New ones will be on a first-come first-served basis.

The Minister explained that 40 per cent of eligible costs will be permitted. Obviously, that means that the industry must find 60 per cent. Therefore, she will not be too surprised that I caution that for some farmers, who have been going through a very difficult time, even 60 per cent of these costs is quite an additional burden for them to carry. Farm incomes have been dire. The fact that the Government are willing to give 40 per cent towards the cost is helpful, but that still leaves 60 per cent outstanding.

The Minister referred to the use of contractors. Indeed, more contractors are being used. When she said that, I was reflecting on my days at agricultural college when so many farms were mixed farms— everything happened on one farm. Obviously, that is not so today. But we shall need to ensure that there are enough available contractors to do the work at the time that it needs to be done. It may be that certain farmers decide to invest in machinery of their own.

I hope that the Government will look to the new technology known as "trailing hose", "trailing shoe" and "shallow injection" as being of greater environmental benefit than the collection of slurry in slurry pits, and its spreading. That could be reduced if some of the new technology were used.

I welcome the order and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. I wish that we could be more successful in persuading the Government of the advantages as regards the eligible costs, the trailing shoe and shallow injection issues. Perhaps more farmers need to take up the grants—500 to 600 of them may do so. I think that the Minister will be thankful that the debate on this order has been shorter than that on the previous order.

1 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, we welcome the order. It is no surprise that there has been such a low take-up; farmers' lack of income has meant that they cannot afford to invest. Therefore, I accept that the level the Government have set is probably adequate.

I want to question two issues. First, the grant is available for facilities, other than roofing, for the separation of clean or dirty water. I wonder why that is. On any farm where slurry is being stored, the effect of heavy rain falling on it will produce a great deal more dirty water. As was said during debates on the Water Bill, that rain, if caught on a roof, can be recycled and used elsewhere on the farm. Therefore, the exclusion of roofing seems to be curious.

Secondly, machinery cannot be funded by the scheme. I can understand why the provisions of machinery to individual farmers may not be funded—perhaps that would take up too much of the scheme's money—but the Curry commission, whose findings are now being implemented, suggested that farmers would increase co-operation and establish machinery rings. I would have thought that in nitrate vulnerable zones, where this is an issue, machinery shared on a cooperative basis would be suitable for funding from the scheme. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses. In case I was not clear about the matter, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that the sum is £3.8 million for three years.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, raised issues relating to grant availability for machinery. It simply cannot be accommodated within the budget. The prime aim of the scheme is to assist farmers wishing to upgrade manure storage facilities in order to cope with restrictions on manure applications. Improved application equipment, while capable of providing environmental benefits, does not provide a solution to the restrictions in the action programme.

I note the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We grant-aid new farmstead draining to separate clean roof water from dirty water. Roofing over yard areas is excluded. She may want to come back to me on that, but I am afraid that I cannot offer more information at present. It would be wise if I were to write to her with the details on that issue, because no doubt farming friends will ask her exactly what is available. At the same time, I could deal with the question of whether co-operative rings were available. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.