HC Deb 16 July 2003 vol 409 cc384-6W
Mr. Dodds

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact on Northern Ireland's agricultural industry of the outcome of the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [125845]

Mr. Pearson

I believe the agreement that has been reached is a good deal for Northern Ireland farmers. It creates a long term stable policy environment and will introduce a new era for the farming industry, with a much greater emphasis on production in response to the market. The option to fully decouple subsidies will free producers from farming for subsidies and provide a much more market-orientated approach. The days when farmers had to maintain, sometimes at a loss, a certain number of cattle or sheep to qualify for subsidies will shortly be at an end.

Most importantly, the provision for regional discretion gives Northern Ireland sufficient flexibility in the implementation of the new arrangements to ensure outcomes which reflect fully the needs of its agricultural industry.

On modulation, the UK will receive back at least 80 per cent. of the modulation monies raised, compared with 66 per cent. in the original Commission proposal.

In the dairy sector, the agreement is closer to what the industry wanted. Quotas will be retained until 2014–15, the quota increases originally suggested for 2007 and 2008 havebeen suspended pending an outlook report to be conducted after the reforms are implemented, and the support price cuts, although starting a year earlier, are not as large as originally proposed, while compensation for the price cuts has been increased from 50 per cent. to over 80 per cent.

The proposal for cereal price cuts reform was rejected and the only change is that monthly increments are halved. This will have minimal impact in Northern Ireland.

It is not possible at this stage to accurately assess the impact of the deal on the industry. Many technical details remain to be finalised and there is uncertainty

£
Financial year Programme 1Greater Belfast area Northern Ireland
1997–98 Northern Ireland Drugs Campaign—Classroom resources/inservice training; 5,000 25,000
2 European Social Fund (ESF) assistance (through the Department for Employment and Learning) for nine Projects, which include drug education. 69,940 —
1998–99 2 ESF assistance 196,647 160,475
1999–2000 2 ESF assistance 466,876 177,785
2000–01 2 ESF assistance; Northern Ireland Drugs Strategy, including; 312,644 —
Education and Library Board Drug Education Projects—employment of field officers to develop resources and provide training; 70,000 408,000
Public information campaigns; — 3 81,000
Other (non DE) projects and programmes with an educational focus; 3 287,500
2001–02 2 ESF assistance NI Drug Strategy (as above: 250,008 —
Education and Library Board Drug Education Projects; 63,000 374,000
Public Information Campaigns; — 184,500
Other (non DE) programmes and projects — 3 600,778
2002–03 2 ESF assistance; 171,004 73,468
Public Information Campaigns — 3 437,955
DE—Continuation funding for Inter Board Project; 42,000 235,000
Other (non DE) projects and programmes 2,4 264,252 3 993,888
2003–04 2 ESF assistance; 110,515 215,391
DE funding for ELB Projects (Not yet allocated) 76,000 425,000
2002–04 Northern Ireland Drug and Alcohol Strategy—activities agreed by the Education and Prevention Working Group 5— 6 350,000
7 325,000
8 35,000
1 It is not possible to identify separately the North Belfast component of expenditure.
2 It is not possible to identify separately funding for the Drug Education component of expenditure.
3 (DHSSPS)
4 (DEL)
5 Cannot be separately identified.
6 Public Information Campaigns.
7 Training for Educators.
8 Revision of 'Misuse of Drugs' pack.

over the extent to which other countries will decouple. One of the expected benefits from a decoupled system is that, while production will fall, prices will rise. We will need to undertake substantialeconomic analysis and modelling before we agree final decisions with the industry.