§ Mrs. Ann WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of reduced Countryside Stewardship scheme payment levels on the take-up of the scheme by farmers and landowners; and(a) how many participants there are and (b) what are the payments made by her Department in each of the years in which the Countryside Stewardship Scheme has been in operation. [29083]
§ Mr. MorleyChanges to Countryside Stewardship scheme payment rates were last implemented in 2001. Following a payment review, only five payments were reduced while the remaining 134 were either maintained or slightly increased. Overall, the net effect was estimated to be an increase of about 2 per cent, in total payments.
The continuing demand for the scheme, with nearly 3,000 applications last year, indicates that the current level of payment is generally acceptable.
By the end of the 2001–02 scheme year, there will be around 14,000 Stewardship agreement holders and we are looking for a further 3,000 applications for the 2002–03 scheme year.
The total payments made to farmers in each of years since 1991, when the scheme was introduced by the then Countryside Commission, are as follows:
934W
£ million Annual expenditure 1992–93 5.3 1993–94 8.5 1994–95 10.5 1995–96 11.6 1996–97 10.9
£ million Annual expenditure 1997–98 15.7 1998–99 19.9 1999–2000 23.4 2000–01 28.9 2001–02 47.3 Total expenditure 1992–2002 182.0
§ Mrs. Ann WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the operation of the Countryside Stewardship scheme; and whether it is her Department's policy to reduce Countryside Stewardship scheme payment levels directly in line with declining farm incomes. [29082]
§ Mr. MorleyCountryside Stewardship payment rates are reviewed regularly. In line with EU rules, the rates take account of any income lost in undertaking Stewardship options, together with any additional costs incurred, such as specialised management or extra capital works and, where necessary, a small incentive element of up to 20 percent.
When we carried out our latest review of payment rates we found that, because of the severe decline in farm incomes since the previous review, a few of the current rates exceeded the actual loss of income involved in participating in the scheme. Although a small number of rates were adjusted downwards to reflect this, the great majority of payment rates were either maintained or increased and overall the net effect was estimated to be an increase of about 2 per cent, in total payments. This shows the efforts that we have made to protect payment rates from external economic circumstances.