---

Agriculture (Northern Ireland)

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) on securing the debate. The subject is of even greater importance to the economy and people of Northern Ireland than it is to the rest of the United Kingdom. I appreciated the wide-ranging nature of his speech. It certainly alerted the House to the complexity of the issues that we are debating and the way Government policies and European legislation impact on many different types of farm and food businesses in the Province. There is no doubt that farming, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in this country, is going through a period of rapid and sometimes traumatic change. There is the major reform of the common agricultural policy—a reform that is largely a response to the development of not just a European, but increasingly, a global marketplace for food and food products, with the additional competitive pressures that that brings to bear on our producers. We have, both from the public and the Government, pressure for stricter environmental controls and higher standards of animal welfare. However, at the same time as imposing those higher standards, we as politicians are asking our farmers to compete with producers in parts of the world where such standards of environmental protection and animal welfare do not apply. That is often the case not simply in countries that we might label as developing economies, but in some quite advanced agricultural competitor countries. It is therefore important for the Government—whoever it is that is in office—to approach regulation in the right way. I recall that about four years ago one of the Select Committees of the House of Lords produced a valuable report on the regulation of agriculture. It suggested a number of ways to change the culture of regulation which would not compromise the need for high standards and the need to root out the rogue elements that exist in farming, as in any industry. At the same time it recognised that, at the end of the day, farmers have to run profitable businesses and we would not get the attractive countryside that we all appreciate—whether we live in villages or cities—were it not for the existence of a thriving agricultural sector. It is important for us all to appreciate that, even in an increasingly urban and suburban society, we do not want our countryside to become simply a museum or an illustration on a chocolate box. We want it to be a vibrant part of the economy and a place where people can make a home and earn a living, as well as an attractive place for city dwellers to visit. The House of Lords Select Committee concluded that, among other things, there needed to be much earlier consultation with the agricultural sector about regulation, and in particular European regulation, that affected it. In the report, the Committee drew attention to how a number of key European directives—for example, those on the disposal of waste—had got to quite an advanced stage before anyone in Whitehall woke up to the realisation that farmers, as well as more traditional industries, were going to be affected, in some cases quite severely, by that new legislation. Consultation should happen earlier and the Government should firmly resist the gold-plating of European legislation; I agree with everything said by other Members on that subject. However, we also have to recognise and be prepared to say to the electorate that if we are going to rule out gold-plating, that will sometimes mean also saying no to pressures for even higher environmental welfare standards than those provided for in the relevant European legislation. Sometimes, although the gold-plating may be well intended, we in the United Kingdom end up imposing stricter rules on our own businesses than apply elsewhere in the European Union. My third conclusion from the House of Lords Select Committee report is that a change in the culture of inspection and enforcement in this country is needed. We certainly need fewer different inspectors and inspections, and fewer forms, which too often appear to seek exactly the same information as has been provided on a previous set of forms. We need fewer people coming up the farm track and knocking on the door. We also need something less tangible, but none the less important. I have lost track of the number of occasions on which farmers—whether in Northern Ireland, my constituency or elsewhere in the country—have contrasted the attitude of inspectors in the United Kingdom with that of inspectors and enforcement officers elsewhere in Europe. The farming organisations' view is that on the continent there tends to be a realisation by those charged with enforcing new rules that they have a duty not only to enforce the law, but to discuss with the operator of the relevant farm business how that can be done so as not to compromise the profitability and sustainability of that enterprise. However, the farming industry here certainly feels that too often the inspector comes in, bangs a wodge of papers on the farmer's desk and says, in effect, ““It is up to you to read those and comply with them. If you step out of line, I'll come down on you like a ton of bricks.”” We need to think our way into some form of co-operation between inspectors and those who are trying to run businesses and serve their customers. That comes through when we consider specific directives. I shall not repeat everything said by the hon. Member for South Antrim about the nitrates directive; his detailed points about time scales and the 10 m rule on the spreading of manure were valid and well made. I hope that the Minister will say a word about the water framework directive, which will clearly have a massive impact on agriculture throughout Northern Ireland. The fact that in future river quality is to be measured in biological rather than chemical terms marks a very significant change. It seemed to me from the Select Committee report and other material on that directive that we are still very much in the dark about exactly what standards are to be applied. Yet, from memory, the directive—at least, its initial stages—is supposed to be implemented by 2010. The changes required to apply the directive will probably mean considerable planning to ensure that businesses can make the adjustments in time. I hope that we will get greater clarity from the Government on that point. I should also like to express my concern about two aspects of the reform of the CAP. First, I am concerned about the delay in the introduction of the entry-level scheme for Northern Ireland. I had always understood, when the CAP was being negotiated, that the Government regarded the introduction of the entry-level schemes throughout the United Kingdom as integral to their vision of the future of agriculture, and that it was a way to turn farm support payments away from subsidising production and towards providing support for the environmental stewardship carried out by farmers and land managers. Yet I am told by the Ulster Farmers Union that the introduction of the entry-level scheme in the Province is to be delayed for several years. I should like to know why. Is that due to budgetary constraints, or are the Government considering a pilot scheme that might operate with farms in some parts of the Province? Secondly, I am concerned about cross-compliance, which was touched on in earlier contributions. The industry fears that minor, probably unintentional, lapses could lead to a disproportionate cut in farm payments in a particular year, yet I can recall the repeated assurances from Ministers, while the CAP reforms were being negotiated, that cross-compliance would only amount to what good, well-run farms in the United Kingdom were doing already in terms of environmental standards. I hope that we are not seeing what might be described as agricultural mission creep, where environmental standards that one might have expected to fall within the ambit of an entry-level scheme will instead be imposed through the use of cross-compliance. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point. I should like to make two points that particularly affect the cattle industry. First, on the beef export ban and the over-30-months scheme, will the Minister say where we are now on the Commission's expected proposal to lift the export ban on cattle born on or after 1 August 1996? We have been waiting a long time for that. Farmers in Northern Ireland feel especially aggrieved by the delay, because they have not had the curse of BSE that we have had on the mainland of Great Britain and they have seen producers in the Republic of Ireland being able to continue to export their beef and beef products while Northern Ireland's farmers have been constrained. It is well over a year since the Commission's food and veterinary office published a satisfactory report on the United Kingdom's BSE controls. I should like to know why we are still waiting. Is the delay with the Commission, or is there foot-dragging on the part of other beef producers in the EU? If that is so, will the Minister name and shame those countries? Secondly, there is a consultation going on about how the new rules on specified material might operate following the hoped-for permission being given for exports. I read with concern in DARD's impact assessment about the possible impact on small rural producers in Northern Ireland and on small abattoirs if the Government did not make use of the derogation to allow the spinal column to be removed at butcher's shops, but instead ruled that it could take place only at certain licensed cutting plants. I very much hope that the Government will listen carefully to the views of the industry—retailers as well as farmers—and of customers who like to eat a piece of mature, grass-reared, well-hung beef, and are willing to pay a premium for it in the shops. Finally, can I press the Minister to say something about bovine tuberculosis? I am sure that, like me, the Minister tuned into ““Farming Today”” this morning and heard that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), is due to make a major announcement on the Government's bovine TB policy tomorrow. I know that the number of reactors in Northern Ireland fell a bit last year compared with the previous year, but I return time and again to the fact that the evidence from the Irish Republic is overwhelming: although the culling of wildlife, and in particular of badgers, is not a panacea, it is effective as part of an overall TB eradication strategy. Northern Ireland's cattle farmers face a crisis. This is a drain year after year on revenues that the Government could well spend on other priorities, and I hope that the Minister will give us some news on that, too.