HC Deb 05 February 1992 vol 203 cc185-8W
Miss Emma Nicholson

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries in the EC have milk marketing schemes.

Mr. Maclean

Under Community law member states may be authorised to grant organisations representing at least 80 per cent. of the number and 50 per cent. of the production of milk producers in their area exclusive rights to buy from them milk which they produce and market without processing. This is subject to the fulfilment of conditions relating to consumption and compliance with rules designed to prevent abuse of a dominant market position. The United Kingdom is the only member state authorised in this way.

Miss Emma Nicholson

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which measures he is considering to help the milk marketing board produce a more competitive and successful United Kingdom dairy industry;

(2) if he will make a statement on the results of his discussions with the dairy trade, the milk marketing board and the European Commission regarding the future of the milk marketing arrangements have had so far;

(3) if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of the milk marketing scheme;

(4) if the Government will support the milk marketing board's proposals for the transition to new arrangements for the milk marketing scheme.

Mr. Maclean

The United Kingdom's statutory milk marketing arrangements, which have served producers well, cannot be sustained in the face of growing commercial and legal pressures. Nor are they sufficiently flexible to enable the United Kingdom industry to compete efficiently in an increasingly diverse market place. The Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales began considering the options open to it to meet these challenges in 1989 and the Government's approach has been to encourage the industry to come forward with its own proposals for change.

Rapid, but orderly, change to new non-statutory arrangements is essential. The Government are therefore looking to all five United Kingdom milk marketing boards to put forward detailed proposals for their replacement by Easter. The recent announcement by the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales outlining the successor voluntary arrangements which it would like to see introduced follows discussion with Government, the EC Commission and the dairy trade and is a welcome step in this process. Both the Government and the EC Commission will wish to examine carefully the boards' detailed proposals when they are presented.

Mr. Jopling

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to set a final date for the notification of milk quota transfers in England and Wales in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry

Following consultations with the industry and in exercise of powers provided by the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations I have decided that transfers of unused milk quota notified after 24 April will have no effect on the calculation of supplementary levy liability for 1991–92, even if they are notified as having occurred during that year.

Similar deadlines have operated for the past three years. These have encouraged producers to notify quota transfers in good time and have thus assisted in the smooth running of the quota system.

Dr. David Clark

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the figures on a county basis in England for each year since 1988 of (a) the number of serious irregularities of the set-aside scheme, (b) the number of minor breaches of the scheme and (c) the number of cases where payments were witheld in full or in part; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer

[holding answer 12 December 1991]: This information is set out in the table, which includes updated figures of payments recovered in full or in part. Payments have not been recovered or withheld where detection of the infringement led to the participant leaving the scheme or

1988–89 1989–90 1990–91
County Serious irregularity Other infringement Payments recovered/withheld in full or part Serious irregularity Other infringements Payments recovered/withheld in full or part Serious irregularity Other infringements Payments recovered/withheld in full or part
Avon
Bedfordshire 2 2 2 2 4 2
Berkshire 3 3 8 8 7 3
Buckinghamshire 1 1 2 1 10 10 17 13
Cambridgeshire 3 3 3 3 6 5
Cheshire
Cleveland 2 1
Cornwall 2 1 3 3
Cumbria
Derbyshire 1 1
Devonshire 3 3 4 1 1
Dorset
Durham 1 1
Essex 1 3 1 3 2
Gloucestershire 1 1
Greater London
Greater Manchester
Hampshire
Hereford and Worcester
Hertfordshire 2 1
Humberside 2 1
Isle of Wight
Kent 1 1 1
Lancashire
Leicestershire 2 2
Lincolnshire 1 1 3 3 1 1
Merseyside 1
West Midlands
Norfolk 5 9 5 2 2
Northamptonshire 9 9
Northumberland 1 1 1 1
Nottinghamshire 1 1 5 5
Oxfordshire 3 2 1 10 10 1 14 10
Shropshire
Somerset
Staffordshire 2 2
Suffolk 1 1 2 1
Surrey 1 1 1 1
East Sussex 2 2
West Sussex
Tyne and Wear
Warwickshire 5 4 2 2
Wiltshire
North Yorkshire 1
South Yorkshire 1 1 1 4 1
West Yorkshire 1 1 1
TOTAL 12 23 24 8 59 51 15 86 68

taking corrective action before claiming any grant or where a warning was considered to be the most appropriate action.

In my answer on 18 November 1991, Official Report, columns 1-2, I indicated that inspections during the 1990–91 set-aside year had identified 18 serious irregularities. Following further, detailed investigation, three of those irregularities have proved to be less serious than they initially appeared and are now listed as "other infringements". The number of recoveries is also higher than reported in November following completion of the necessary action in certain cases which were previously outstanding.