§ Mr. FavellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost of the implementation of European Community draft directive document No. 5491/91 on the milk levy to(a) the Exchequer (i) directly and (ii) channelled via the European institutions, (b) industry and (c) the British consumer.
§ Mr. CurryDraft document 5491/91 is the proposal on which Council regulation (EEC) 1639/91 of 13 June is based. This provides for the allocation of additional milk quota to producers who received a limited allocation in 1989 having previously taken part in the non-marketing of milk or dairy herd conversion schemes (so-called SLOM producers), and for further former producers to receive new quota allocations on a similar basis. The proposal was that no new quota should be created for this purpose and that member states should be required to meet claims from within their existing quota resources.
As part of the price-fixing agreement, however, the Council agreed that member states should share the balance of the quota held in the Community reserve for SLOM producers in proportion to the amounts already allocated to them under the previous SLOM distribution and that quota which would otherwise have been returned to the Community reserve, for example because of 691W non-uptake, should be retained in national reserves. The result of these decisions is that almost 98,000 tonnes of quota has been issued for the first time, of which the United Kingdom has received 31,000 tonnes. The amounts retained in national reserves by other member states are not known; the United Kingdom figure is about 28,000 tonnes.
The cost of the disposal of the 59,000 tonnes of additional milk, if it were sold into intervention as butter and skimmed milk powder, would be about £12.5 million in 1992–93. This expenditure would be funded by the EC, and there would, therefore, be an impact on the net contribution to the Community budget. The Exchequer contribution to the EC budget is towards the budget as a whole and not towards any particular element. Neither industry nor consumers will bear additional costs as a result of the measures but United Kingdom producers will have the benefit of an additional 59,000 tonnes of quota with consequent benefit to processors.
§ Mr. FavellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost of the implementation of European Community draft directive document No. 5518/91 on veterinary checks to(a) the Exchequer (i) directly and (ii) channelled via the European institutions, (b) industry and (c) the British consumer.
§ Mr. MacleanA directive concerning veterinary checks on animals entering the European Community from third countries (originally proposed in Commission document 5518/91) was adopted at the July Agriculture Council with an implementation date of 1 July 1992.
Implementation is not expected to involve direct cost to the Exchequer; the directive requires that the costs of the necessary veterinary checks be borne by importers or their agents.
As far as indirect cost to the Exchequer is concerned, the directive enables member states to seek Community funding if, for example, they experience difficulties in providing the necessary inspection facilities. At this stage, in the absence of any indication from member states of the extent to which Community funding might be requested, it is not possible to make any assessment of what the eventual indirect cost might be.
We await proposals from the Commission on the level of the "health tax" to be applied to imports in order to cover the costs of the veterinary checks to be carried out. It is not therefore possible to quantify the likely impact on either industry or the consumer.
§ Mr. FavellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost of the implementation of European Community draft directive document No. 7214/90 on protection of animals during transport to(a) the Exchequer (i) directly and (ii) channelled via the European institutions, (b) industry and (c) the British consumer.
§ Mr. MacleanThese proposals are still under negotiation therefore it is not possible to provide an estimate of their cost.
§ Mr. FavellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost of the implementation of European Community draft directive document No. 8745/90 on sweeteners in food to692W (a) the Exchequer (i) directly and (ii) channelled via the European institutions, (b) industry and (c) the British consumer.
§ Mr. MacleanIt is now clear that the draft directive on sweeteners in food will not be implemented on the basis of the proposals in document 8745/90 but on a series of revised proposals on which discussions are continuing. We have therefore made no estimate of what would have been the cost of implementing the proposals in document 8745/90.
§ Mr. FavellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost of the implementation of European Community draft directive document No. 10541/90 on the common fisheries policy to(a) the Exchequer (i) directly and (ii) channelled via the European institutions, (b) industry and (c) the British consumer.
§ Mr. CurryDocument No. 10541/90 is a communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament drawn up to stimulate debate before the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy to help the Commission in framing the report it is required to produce by the end of 1991. The communication highlights a number of areas for consideration but contains no specific proposals that can be costed.
§ Mr. FavellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost of the implementation of European Community draft directive document No. 7057/90 on the research programme in agriculture to(a) the Exchequer (i) directly and (ii) channelled via the European institutions and (b) industry.
§ Mr. CurryWhen the EC's decision on the agricultural and agro-industrial research programme is implemented later this year it will offer grants of up to 50 per cent. of the cost of a wide range of precompetitive research. Implementing the decision will impose no costs on industry or directly on the Exchequer, although the Department will incur some costs in making the programme known to United Kingdom researchers and in participating in the selection of proposals for grant aid. The Exchequer contribution to the EC budget is towards the budget as a whole and not towards any particular element.
§ Mr. FavellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the cost of the implementation of European Community draft directive document Nos. 10749/90 and 10837/90 on origin of foods to(a) the Exchequer (i) directly and (ii) channelled via the European institutions, (b) industry and (c) the British consumer.
§ Mr. CurryWe oppose the adoption of these proposals in their present form, and are supported in this by a number of other member states. Negotiations are continuing in Brussels, and I am not in a position at this stage to estimate the costs of implementation. The Government's general view is that the costs of such designation schemes should be borne by those producers or manufacturers who benefit from them.