Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 24 January.
The presidency presented its work programme highlighting its priorities as CAP reform, the dairy file, the quality package, and reaching agreement on the 1,100 pages of Lisbon alignment legislation. It intended to complete the evaluation of the EU animal welfare policy, and make progress on cloning. It would also make efforts to reach a binding agreement on forests at the Oslo Ministerial at the back end of its presidency. The debate on CFP reform would be a further central feature.
The Commission presented its communication on the health of honey bees outlining the key issues and the main actions that the Commission intended to take to address them. Member states supported the communication and called for further evidence on the possible causes of the increased bee mortalities. The UK welcomed the work, and drew attention to the action being taken in the UK to address bee health problems, and drew attention to recent evidence on possible involvement of neonicotinoid insecticides.
The debate on CAP reform was prepared on the basis of a presidency questionnaire exploring links to the delivery of environmental public goods, green growth and innovation, and agriculture’s contribution to addressing climate security concerns. All member states agreed with the Commission that that the objective was sound but most delegations wished to examine the relative contribution of the two CAP pillars to the Commission’s objective. A number suggested that pursuing green outcomes through pillar 1, either in the form of a top-up payments for areas with natural handicaps or by greening, was inadvisable and would result in administrative burdens. The UK called for additional resources for pillar 2, which could be better targeted at environmental objectives than pillar 1. Others, such as France, were more open to the proposal of a green pillar 1, provided it was mandatory and simple. A large number of member states insisted that the Commission ensure that its proposals delivered on the CAP simplification agenda.
The Commission stressed that the three objectives it had identified in its communication—food security, sustainable management of resources and territorial balance—were interlinked and that a green pillar 1 was necessary in order to achieve EU-wide environmental outcomes from agriculture. The Commission also responded to widespread concerns about CAP simplification, noting that an ad hoc expert group had been established, and would act as a filter for CAP reform proposals. CAP debate would continue at the February Council with a discussion of the Commission’s third objective for CAP reform, territorial balance.
The first item under any other business was the UK presentation of the foresight report, published by the chef scientific adviser, on the future of food and farming. The UK stressed that the report was an important lens through which to study the Commission’s CAP reform proposals. The UK also noted that an event would be organised in Brussels to disseminate and discuss the report’s findings.
Belgium, with the support of Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Austria, Slovenia, Portugal, Finland, Romania, Cyprus, Spain, Malta and Hungary, rehearsed its concerns about a crisis in the pigmeat sector, calling once more for the introduction of private storage aid (PSA), and the creation of a high-level group. Taking a more accommodating line than previously, the Commission agreed to open PSA but remained reluctant to raise expectations in the sector by establishing a high-level group. It would continue with plans for discussion in the enlarged advisory group, urging the presidency to discuss the group’s findings at SCA in April, with a view to recommending an appropriate policy response to the Commission in advance of its adopting CAP reform proposals.
The Commission gave a brief tour of the situation on international markets. It noted on the DDA negotiations that there was a positive mood in WTO circles for attempting once more to conclude the round. The Commission also put forward a number of suggestions for addressing price volatility in the context of the French presidency of the G20. Instruments were needed to address price volatility, as experienced showed that prices remained volatile even where there was no shortage of physical stocks. The Commission wanted more transparency in terms of market data, improved quality of data, and a forum for discussion. It wanted to have more reliability about the availability of emergency stocks, and wanted to press for improved international governance of crises and increased investment in agricultural research. A communication on commodities, dealing with some of the issues, would be adopted by the Commission in the coming days.
France noted that a number of the issues would be picked up at the G20 Agriculture Ministers meeting 22-23 June, which would lead to the adoption of an action plan at the Cannes Ministerial at the end of the French presidency.
Germany provided an update on the dioxin situation. It estimated that 2,256 tonnes of feed fat had been contaminated, and said that 589 holdings were currently under restriction. Germany also presented its 10-point action plan to improve consumer protection in the animal feed chain, and called for certain actions to be considered at EU level.
The Commission clarified that the current system had worked and that any further measures should remain proportionate. The measures under consideration were the compulsory approval of establishments manufacturing, treating and marketing fats, the strict separation of production streams, reinforced dioxin monitoring, and the extension of reporting obligations to private laboratories. The Commission rejected the positive list and the mandatory liability insurance actions proposed by Germany. Member states felt that there were lessons to be learnt from the incident and supported the Commission’s proposed approach.
Latvia requested EU co-financing to support the cleansing and disinfection of livestock vehicles returning from the Russian Federation, to prevent the introduction of African swine fever. Most member states supported the request made. The Commission would consider different options to provide support and these would be discussed further at expert level.
Oral Answers to Questions
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
7. What plans she has to ensure that access to forests is maintained or improved.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The public forest estate consultation explores a range of models for the ownership and management of the estate and how important public benefits such as access can be maintained. An example would be how lease conditions could be used to ensure that access and other public benefits are protected.
Dr Huppert
In addition to established legal rights of way and Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 access rights, will the Secretary of State ensure that there are robust additional protections for access rights that are currently permitted access only, and will she safeguard existing access for bikes and horses?
Mrs Spelman
We had a lengthy debate last night in which I made it clear, at length, that permissive access rights are very limited in number and are on land that the public forest estate does not own.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House the projected figures for the next 10 years for the revenue that will come from the public forest estate? Will that revenue be offset by the benefit to the Exchequer from the sale of such land?
Mrs Spelman
Different types of forest are subject to different proposals in our consultation document, which is a genuine consultation. The planned sales—a continuation of the previous Government’s programme—are expected to raise £100 million over the spending review period. That will be part of DEFRA’s overall provision within that period.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s genuine consultation over the next 11 weeks—12 weeks in all. When will she make a statement to the House after the consultation has finished?
Mrs Spelman
First, we need to make it absolutely clear that this is a genuine consultation, unlike a lot of the consultations that I experienced under the previous Government. We want as many people to take part as possible. There is a statutory three-month period; Ministers will reflect on relevant considerations and bring to the House our considered view in a timely fashion.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Public access is absolutely vital to local communities. The Secretary of State talks about her consultation period, but before that period is over, the Government will start selling off 10,000 hectares of public forest land. That is more than was sold in Labour’s entire period in office. I should like to know what right communities will have to bid for that land. How long will they have to raise the money? Will it be sold as leasehold, and is it correct that the selection for this year deliberately avoids woodlands that give public benefits because the Government want to maximise the capital raised from assets?
Mrs Spelman
The criteria for the planned sales are set out in the public domain on the Forestry Commission website. They are a continuation of a programme of sales that have taken place over the past three decades. As the hon. Lady knows, her party’s Government sold off 25,000 acres—[Interruption]—without the protection that this Government will provide.
Mary Creagh
Hon. Members cry “Shame,” but we sold that off to reinvest the money in the forest; this money is to be reinvested in flood defence schemes. The land will be sold with no higher rights of public access. Government Members should think very carefully about what is happening. Is it not the case that, on the public forest, the Secretary of State does not know what she is doing, does not know why she is doing it, and nobody wants her to do it? Is it not time to stop and think again?
Mrs Spelman
I think the hon. Lady was not listening clearly last night. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances in this House that access and other public benefits will be protected. However, many of the pieces of land that fit the criteria the Forestry Commission has set out do not have access attached to them at present. She should reflect carefully on our public consultation document and gain a better understanding of what happened when Rigg wood was sold off under the conditions set by her party’s Government in their contract: without protection, access is now denied.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
8. What steps she is taking to reduce the volume of international trade in ivory.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
9. What steps she is taking towards reform of the common agricultural policy.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Government have recently responded to the European Commission’s communication, “The CAP towards 2020”. Our response calls for ambitious reform of the CAP that will enable farmers to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future.
Annette Brooke
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. The second pillar of the CAP provides essential support to farmers to deliver environmental public goods. Which of the European Commission’s proposed options for reform does she think best balances the need to maintain landscape and diversity with food production and the protection of consumers and taxpayers?
Mrs Spelman
The whole of the Commission’s proposed reform of the CAP should address the twin challenges that the hon. Lady describes. Obviously, it is the combination of direct payments and the payments under pillar two—in particular, in this country, the way we use agri-environment stewardship schemes—that balances best the environmental benefits with food production. That is why the coalition Government are committed to increasing by 80% higher level stewardship.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the unease among farmers in Wales and the Welsh Government about the UK Government’s current position on CAP reform. Will she inform the House what progress she is making in developing a joint negotiating position?
Mrs Spelman
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I took the opportunity to invite the Welsh Minister for Agriculture to meet the Commissioner with us as early as June last year. We have had successive meetings with all the devolved Administrations and will continue to do so, as the reform process is likely to take a great deal of time. I find that we have much in common with the Welsh Assembly’s position and believe that there is much that we can do as we negotiate the reform to ensure that we get a good deal for farmers in Wales.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I ought to declare an interest as one of the few practising farmers in this country. [Interruption.] In this Parliament.
Will the Secretary of State, when considering the reform of the CAP, consider that Europe will have an important place in enabling agriculture to feed the world? Will she move away from the CAP’s structural faults, such as the growing of tobacco that is of such poor quality that no one wants to use it, and ensure that those practices are stopped?
Mrs Spelman
It is of the utmost importance that farmers in Europe are encouraged to produce more food and to do so sustainably. When we look at the threat to our society globally in relation to food security, it is clear that the nations that have the capacity to increase production sustainably are the ones that we should be fully behind.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I mean the Secretary of State no harm, but as the second closet European in the Cabinet, does she agree that if we are to reform the CAP it is no use agreeing only across this Chamber? We have to convince our Irish, Spanish, French and Italian friends. The isolation of her party from the main centre-right conservative parties in Europe does not help.
Mrs Spelman
I have some good news for the right hon. Gentleman: the coalition agreement states clearly that we desire to be a “positive participant” in Europe. My colleagues and I have set about building alliances in order to secure the reforms that will benefit taxpayers, farmers, consumers and the environment. I am pleased to report that he will find that the position of our traditional friends—the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands—and that of the German, English and Welsh farming unions is very close. That is the kind of alliance that brings about changes.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
12. What recent representations she has received on the sale of land managed by the Forestry Commission in England.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Since the beginning of October, we have received 4,200 representations on the sale of the public forest estate, but most of those were in response to press coverage, not to the real consultation document, which was published on 27 January.
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman was perhaps not in the House last night, so allow me just to remind him that, in the last few months before the general election, the party of which he is a member published when in government an operational efficiency programme setting out the case for long-term leases of the public forest estate and for getting
“greater commercial benefit from the public forest estate”.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I have had more representations on this issue than on any other since I was elected—probably about 500 so far. If I send them on to the consultation with a covering letter, can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that they will all be counted as individual submissions?
Mrs Spelman
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All hon. Members should actively encourage their constituents to read the genuine consultation document. There has been an awful lot of mythology in the press, and we would welcome responses to the genuine consultation.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Given that 60% of private English forests outside the public forest estate are under-managed, and that only 16% of them meet Forestry Stewardship Council standards, compared with 100% of Forestry Commission woodland, are not the public absolutely right to oppose this sell-off, which puts high levels of access and biodiversity at risk?
Mrs Spelman
I do not accept that it puts biodiversity at risk. That is something that I am particularly committed to enhancing and improving, as is set out in the proposals. The hon. Lady’s point will remind everybody that the public forest estate covers only 18% of woodland. Under the reforms that we propose, the Forestry Commission would continue in a regulatory role, and I would expect it to help us to achieve even higher standards of maintenance in both the public and the private forest.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Bearing in mind the Secretary of State’s concerns about public perception of the consultation proposals, does she agree that now may be the time to provide greater clarity about the conditions governing how the 40,000 hectares announced in the comprehensive spending review will be disposed of?
Mrs Spelman
I am happy to provide clarity. The criteria for the continuing sales of land as part of the CSR planned release are published and in the public domain on the Forestry Commission website. They look principally for sites that are less accessible and have a large requirement for expenditure. The criteria are set out in the public domain, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can help to point people to the right place.
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)
I have read the consultation paper. I have also read the impact assessment, which shows that the selling of our forests and dismantling of the Forestry Commission has nothing to do with the costs or the benefits. We know that the Government are not listening to the big society or the community, because community groups are desperately worried about having to take on responsibility for their woods and forests. I note that today, as yesterday, the Secretary of State has not even mentioned her phoney argument about regulation, because it is so weak. At the heart of this, one question remains: just why is the Secretary of State determined to sell off our precious woods and forests?
Mrs Spelman
That was part of last night’s debate. It is clear that the Opposition do not want community groups and charities to be able to take ownership and management. That is clearly a divide between our parties. This is not primarily about cost and benefit. The point about regulation still stands. The Forestry Commission is both the regulator and the largest seller of timber in the market that it regulates. In this day and age, that kind of conflict of interest cannot continue.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
13. What progress has been made in resolving the single payment scheme difficulties experienced by Mr Peter Philpot.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In that context, I am sure that Members of all parties will join me in welcoming the publication of Foresight’s latest report, “Global Food and Farming Futures”. That excellent body of work, co-funded by my Department, is a searching and rigorous assessment of the global food challenges between now and 2050, and I urge all Members to read it.
Mr Chope
Why can my right hon. Friend not give an unequivocal guarantee that in any sale of Forestry Commission land, existing public rights of access will be maintained exactly as they are at the moment, whether on or foot, by bicycle or on horseback? The failure of her colleague in the other place to give an unequivocal answer to that question yesterday has increased, not allayed, public suspicion on that subject.
Mrs Spelman
The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), gave precisely that undertaking in the debate last night, and I believe that he has reiterated it today.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Campaign for Better Transport today launched a “Save Our Buses” campaign. Its research shows that Cambridgeshire county council is proposing to phase out all council bus services, and that Northamptonshire county council plans to cancel all existing rural services. Can the Minister tell the House what advice he has given the Department for Transport, or what advice has been sought, about the impact of those bus cuts on rural communities and economies?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
T2. Does the Secretary of State agree that the new National forest, which covers much of my constituency, is a model of what can be achieved by the private sector and the third sector in delivering excellent access to, and enjoyment of, the amenities of our woodlands?
Mrs Spelman
I certainly do. I met representatives of the National Forest Company this week. It is a wonderful model of what can be achieved. It involves schools and volunteers and has achieved a lot of regeneration on former industrial sites.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
T3. Does the Minister agree with the Country Landowners Association that pillar one of the common agricultural policy should increasingly deliver public and environmental goods, or does he agree with the National Farmers Union, which thinks that that would increase costs for farmers, and therefore opposes the idea?
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T4. My constituency is extremely fortunate to have Delamere forest, the largest woodland in Cheshire. Can the Secretary of State assure me, and my constituents, that this Government will always protect public access rights to Delamere forest?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I would be very disappointed, and so would my constituents, if the forests and woodland question was diverted into a question of access. It is a question not of access, but of ownership. Deep in the DNA of English people is that for years and years they have been fed up because they have been told, “You can come, by our grace and favour, and walk on our land, but you can’t own it.”
Mrs Spelman
It is a question of both ownership and access. As I explained to the House yesterday, when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, it also looked at both ownership and access.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
We hear today that farmers and many others are not able to get hold of grants from the banks to further their causes. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State tell the banks that under no circumstances will they be able to buy forests?
Mrs Spelman
We have made it perfectly clear that the Forestry Commission has a duty and a responsibility, with any of the planned sales of the public forest estate, to satisfy itself that those who wish to buy are qualified to do so and have the necessary expertise to safeguard the high standards of protection of the environment and its biodiversity, public access and other public benefits.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
T7. In my constituency we are delighted that our work against dangerous dogs and their owners has been recognised by DEFRA, and that the borough of Ealing has been selected to pilot the dog ASBOs—or “dogbos”. Can the Minister give us further details on how those are intended to work?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State earlier used warm tones in promising future positive engagement with the devolved Administrations on the future of the CAP. Will that engagement be on the basis of DEFRA continuing to ignore the deeply held views of the devolved Administrations on the future of pillar one?
Mrs Spelman
We have been proactive in our engagement with all the devolved Administrations, and recognise the importance of direct payments to farmers. It is that assurance that the devolved Administrations are seeking, and I confirm that Ministers understand the challenges of farming in less favoured areas and will defend those interests.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
T8. Can the Minister offer any help and support to the monks of Caldey island off the south Pembrokeshire coast in their attempts to introduce the red squirrel to their island?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Kielder forest, which will provide the bulk of the income under the Government’s plans to sell off our national heritage, is home to 31 sites of special scientific interest, as well as red squirrels and ospreys, yet the Government consultation classifies it simply as “commercial”. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give us that the public interest and conservation interests will be met in perpetuity, given that the forest is classified as commercial?
Mrs Spelman
We need to be perfectly clear that Kielder forest is predominantly commercial, but that it retains within it sites of special scientific interest and other recreational amenities that will be protected by the conditions set in the leases—in addition to the legislation that protects such things—if that is the outcome that arises from the proposals under consultation.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Following the very important recommendations laid out in last week’s Foresight report on the role of agricultural research in tackling climate change and promoting food security, what representations can the Secretary of State make to our European colleagues to ensure that we have a regime in Europe that encourages agricultural innovation?
Mrs Spelman
We regularly raise these issues with a number of European Commissioners, not just with the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. I have often commended the work of the report to European Agricultural Commissioners for the warning that it gives to the food, farming and research community of the twin challenges of environmental change and food security that mean that we have to use all our endeavours to build the capacity in European agriculture to produce more food sustainably for a hungry world.
Public Forest Estate (England)
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“deplores the actions of the previous administration in selling off 25,000 acres of public forestry estate with wholly inadequate protections; notes that the previous administration sought to go even further in finding ways to exploit the forestry estate for commercial gain as recently as 2009; welcomes the consultation proposals to guarantee the future protection of heritage forests by offering them charitable trust status; supports the consultation proposals for robust access and public benefit conditions that will be put in place through lease conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders; believes the leasehold conditions regarding biodiversity and wildlife conservation will safeguard significant important environmental benefits; sees these proposals as important in resolving the conflict of interest whereby the Forestry Commission is the regulator of the timber sector whilst being the largest operator in the England timber market; considers that debate on the future of the forest estate ought to be conducted on the basis of the facts of the Government’s proposals; and believes that under these proposals people will continue to enjoy the access and benefits they currently have from the woodlands of England.”
Clearly, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has not read our consultation document. For example, sites of special scientific interest are included, and there were many other inaccuracies in her speech. At least we now have an opportunity to nail some of myths that have been peddled on this issue. Of course it is an important function of Her Majesty’s Opposition to hold the Government to account, but they should do so on the basis of facts, not fiction. Let us start, then, with some plain facts about our proposals.
First, we are consulting on proposals to create a new heritage forest status, whereby our most precious national assets are given over to charitable trusts, giving them far greater protection and financial security than they have ever had. Secondly, we propose to uprate massively protections for public access and other public benefits by replacing the freehold sales that took place under the last Government and moving instead to leaseholds that provide better protection for access and other public benefits.
Mrs Spelman
I will give way, but I have listened to a lot of myths, so let me set the record straight first.
Thirdly, we propose to give community groups and civic organisations the opportunity to own or manage their local forests if they wish—and why should they not have this opportunity? Fourthly, we are opening up the commercial functions of the Forestry Commission to other operators on a leasehold basis so that their commercial potential is realised alongside the need to protect public benefits.
Mrs Spelman
I will give way in a minute.
Fifthly, we are refocusing the work of the Forestry Commission so that rather than devoting expertise and resources to commercial activities that should not be performed by Government, it can focus on conducting research on combating the challenges of new tree diseases, maintaining and enforcing access rights, providing expert advice, giving grants, and discharging its duty as a regulator.
Angela Smith
Will the right hon. Lady add to that list of facts an agreement on the part of the Government to guarantee the current permissive access provisions granted by the Forestry Commission on its lands?
Mrs Spelman
Permissive rights apply to 2,000 hectares of the public forest estate, which itself accounts for 18% of the woodland cover of the country.
Hugh Bayley
Talking of facts, I have here a parliamentary answer given to me by a former forests Minister in 1996. It records that under the previous Conservative Government 209,956 hectares of Forestry Commission land were sold. What proportion of that retained public access, what proportion went to community trusts, and what proportion of the new sales will go to such trusts?
Mrs Spelman
In 1996 I was not a Member of Parliament. I am dealing with a new policy, and that, it seems, is what Opposition Members are opposing.
What is most saddening about the debate is that rather than setting out her reasons for opposing our measures, the hon. Member for Wakefield insisted on sowing further misinformation and fear about what we are consulting on.
Mrs Spelman
I will give way in a minute.
The hon. Lady claimed that we were planning to sell the forests for short-term gain. In fact, we are proposing to end the last Government’s policy of selling land and replace it with a leasing policy, specifically to secure access to rights for all—including horse riders, cyclists and other recreational users. The hon. Lady claimed that that was environmental vandalism. In fact, we are introducing more environmental safeguards than existed before. We are providing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to accelerate the recovery of plantations on ancient woodland sites, and enforcing replanting in other woodlands.
Mrs Spelman
In a minute.
The Forestry Commission was previously commended for the restoration of ancient woodland sites. It pledged to restore 20,000 hectares of plantations on such sites; it has managed to restore just 2,000 hectares. I have a greater ambition in regard to the restoration and enhancement of biodiversity than the last Government ever entertained.
Mr Sheerman
The right hon. Lady produced some very well-crafted words in an earlier paragraph. She referred to an “opportunity” to acquire land. If there is a competition between a private buyer and a community interest, will preference be given to the community buyer, or will it all be decided on the basis of price?
Mrs Spelman
Oh, dear: yet another Opposition Member has not actually read the consultation document, which states explicitly that the community will be given preference. Of course people must be given preference when it comes to the woodlands near which they live.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Is it not clear from the demeanour of Opposition Members that this is an Opposition knockabout day? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a three-month consultation period? May we hope that during those three months Ministers will be prepared to listen to serious representations from people who have read the consultation paper and will respond on the basis of facts rather than Opposition knockabout myths?
Mrs Spelman
As always, my hon. Friend makes a sensible intervention, pointing out that we are still in the first week of a 12-week consultation. To be kind to Labour Members, a lot of their questions arise from reading media reports, and they would do well to read the consultation document.
The hon. Member for Wakefield claims that people are going to turn up at their local woods only to find them locked up and gated off. The case to which her party leader has consistently referred—that of Rigg wood—has also been mentioned in this debate, but in fact that wood was put up for sale by her Government in April 2010. So perhaps she would like to go to Grizedale to explain to the people of Rigg wood what happened as a result of what her Government did. We, on the other hand, will be guaranteeing access and public benefit rights through the terms of the leases.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I believe that many people have read the consultation document and have understood the Government’s proposal. Taking the Government at face value on this consultation, if a vast majority of people oppose this proposal, will the Government accede to their wishes?
Mrs Spelman
I have made it very clear that this is a genuine consultation. It is written in an open manner and does not contain leading questions. It invites the hon. Gentleman’s community—his local groups and community groups—to have, for the first time, an opportunity to be involved in the ownership of the woodlands. I suggest that he talks to them about that.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee this afternoon that any sale or lease will have cast-iron legal safeguards for all existing rights of way? Will she go further than that by publishing what those rights of way are before a lease or sale takes place, so that local groups will know for evermore what rights they have over their forests?
Mrs Spelman
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, because we live in an age of transparency and that is what community groups have every right to expect.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Further to the point about a consultation, would my right hon. Friend care to reassure the House that the Public Bodies Bill seeks to establish enabling powers, rather than duties, and that that will fundamentally enshrine the opportunities proposed in the consultation, not force things through?
Mrs Spelman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is important to note that when we published the consultation document on 27 January it was accompanied by a written ministerial statement. If Members would like to read it in conjunction with the consultation document, they will find an assurance on this point. We will introduce a general duty for Ministers
“to have regard to the maintenance of public benefits when exercising”
the forestry-related powers and the powers in the Public Bodies Bill. [Interruption.] I am sure that Labour Members would be interested to know what those additional powers of protection are, as they have been making a lot of noise about this.
Secondly, the statement mentions
“exempting the most iconic heritage forests from the full range of options so that”
they
“could only be transferred to a charitable organisation or remain in public ownership”. —[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 17WS.]
That is far more protection than currently exists. If the Labour party would stop holding up the business in the other place, we might get those amendments on the statute book.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I read a document—“Operational Efficiency Programme: Asset Portfolio”, which was published by the previous Government just months before the election—and discovered, on page 54, an explicit reference to the case for the “long-term lease” of the public forestry estate. What about this document—the “Operational Efficiency Programme: final report”? It states clearly that “greater commercial benefit” could be obtained from the public forest estate. And what about this document—“A Strategy for England’s Trees, Woods and Forests”—published by none other than the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) when he was the Environment Secretary? It makes the case for local communities actively participating in the ownership and management of the public forest estate. Does that not lay completely bare the hypocrisy of the position now being taken by the Opposition? Their synthetic outrage cannot disguise the fact that they already had the public forest estate well and truly in their sights, so let us have no more of this self-righteous indignation.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that those options were ruled out of consideration and dismissed? They were dismissed for two very good reasons—first, because they did not add up economically or against cost-benefit analysis, and secondly, because they would not have been accepted by the great British public.
Mrs Spelman
And the hon. Gentleman’s party was not accepted by the great British public as being fit to govern this country for the time being.
Tim Farron
Taking my right hon. Friend back to Rigg wood and giving reassurance to local populations, our experience with the sale of Rigg wood makes us extremely nervous about the lack of clarity about whether forests within national parks such as the Lake District count as heritage woodland. Will she agree that national park woodlands should all be considered as heritage, and should not be leased or sold?
Mrs Spelman
The consultation document sets out different categories of forest and woodland, because the public forest estate is very diverse. The Forestry Commission has published a set of criteria in relation to sales. There is a consultation and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should make representations as part of that consultation about the category he wants included under the definition of heritage.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
As the right hon. Lady will know, I have been very disappointed that some 100,000 acres is not covered by the consultation that started last Thursday. Will she guarantee for my constituents that the land for sale or lease in that 100,000 acres will be subject to absolute guarantees on protecting and enhancing biodiversity, on maintaining, protecting and improving public access for recreation and leisure, on ensuring the continued and increasing role of woodlands in climate change mitigation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Goodness me. I would like Members to make their interventions brief, and not take the opportunity of an intervention to make their speech. I call the Secretary of State.
Mrs Spelman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can assure the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) that there are statutory requirements for biodiversity. Planned sales under the spending review—plans that are published—will have greater protection than was afforded under the previous Government. Our objective in the amendment to the Public Bodies Bill is to make sure that we increase protection for access and other public benefits.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a similar approach to hers on commercial forests has been extremely successful in New Zealand? The huge Kaingaroa forest—717,000 acres—is now out of Government hands, the land belongs to the Maoris and commercial organisations are doing the trees, with enhanced biodiversity.
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend’s helpful intervention gives me the opportunity to advise Labour Members that, while the hon. Member for Wakefield made selective choices of countries that have explored other models of ownership and management that involve their local communities, the largest worked examples in the consultation document pertain to Queensland and to New Zealand.
Mrs Spelman
I would like to make progress.
Now we have some of the facts on the record, perhaps we can have a rather more honest debate about the consultation. Let us recall why the Forestry Commission came about. It was established after the first world war to reduce our reliance on imported timber. Timber was vital—for example, as pit props—at a time when state ownership was the orthodoxy. It was felt that state supply of timber was essential. At the time, timber covered just 5% of the land under the public forest estate, and even over the long period in which the Forestry Commission has been in operation, that has increased to only 8%.
Ninety years later, things have changed. The Forestry Commission still has a role of supplying timber to industry, but the reality is that it accounts for less than 5% of the timber used in England. To be clear, the state is running timber supplies, yet 95% of the timber used is from outside England. That cannot be sustainable.
On top of that, the public forest estate in England operated at a net loss of £16 million last year. If we are to carry on maintaining our forests as we currently do—and in fact improve them, which is what we want to do, so that they have greater biodiversity and environmental value—we need to think about better ways of doing this and invite other organisations to come in and look at how we can put it on a better footing. That, frankly, is no bad thing, not least because the lease terms will secure access and benefits. Does it really have to be the state’s role to sell Christmas trees? I know that the Opposition have taken a lurch to the left, but are they really suggesting that supplying Christmas trees, hosting music concerts and running log cabins should be national industries?
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Public consultations under the Labour Government used to be a complete and utter sham. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that, if the majority of respondents to the consultation express concerns about the policy, she will listen?
Mrs Spelman
Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I was very frustrated during 13 years of opposition by the sham nature of Government consultations. Let us not forget that we are talking about less than 18% of England’s woodland cover. Members will know that the vast majority of our woodlands are not in state ownership, but are still offering outstanding recreational and environmental value. Some are community woodlands. Some are held by organisations such as the National Trust. Some are held by charities. [Interruption.] And yes, many are held by individuals, from farmers to philanthropists. In my view, Opposition scaremongering has been such that they owe a great many of those people an apology for characterising them as being so disinterested in the public benefit. I can only say that I am glad that I am not so cynical about society; it must be a very miserable approach to life.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the concern in all parts of the House and in all parts of the country is real? Will she acknowledge that it is genuine concern? Will she agree to meet with me and other Liberal Democrat Members to talk about those concerns?
Mrs Spelman
The concern has in large part been whipped up on the back of ludicrous speculation in the media. I am confident that, when our constituents have the opportunity to read the consultation document, we will have a much more meaningful discussion about the best way to protect our heritage, woodlands and forest, but of course I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Some of the woodlands that we are discussing will be viable and some will not, but I can give the House this assurance: there will be no change in the status of woodland sites unless we are convinced that the access right and public benefits have been protected, and that those wanting to own or manage have the ability to do so. We will not accept second best on that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that there would be no transfer of woodland unless the protections that she has just mentioned can be put in place. Is she aware that not an hour ago, in Committee Room 18, Simon Hodgson, chief executive of the Forestry Commission, advised the all-party parliamentary conservation and wildlife group that it would not be possible to insist that the same management regime conducted by the Forestry Commission to protect biodiversity would be passed on to any new owner?
Mrs Spelman
Simon Hodgson is not the chief executive of the Forestry Commission, he is wrong and his fears are misplaced.
The difference in expressions of interest is perfectly logical because of the diversity in our woodland. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. We will look at what works best for each individual site. Our mixed model approach considers what works best for the different woodlands and how we can apply it in a way that gives greater public benefit.
Our proposals will mean that the nationally important heritage forests will continue to be managed for the benefit of the nation. By pursuing charitable ownership for our most valued heritage sites—for example, the New Forest and the Forest of Dean—the Government are making it clear that they are not for sale. They are secure for future generations to enjoy, and we will give that force of law with amendments to the Public Bodies Bill.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I was interested to hear that my right hon. Friend said that no organisation would be allowed to take over one of those forests unless it was capable of running it. She has heard already the figure of £2.9 million, which is the deficit cost to the Forestry Commission from running the New Forest. What sort of charity would be able to shoulder that deficit?
Mrs Spelman
I can give my hon. Friend the same assurance as I have given the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and any new trust that would like to manage our heritage forests for us: we do not expect them to do it for nothing. Let us look at the model of British Waterways. Our canal network is to be moved into the hands of a mutual trust. Obviously, the Government will continue providing running costs to that trust because we understand that it cannot manage the network for nothing.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The public care about one thing. As a result of these plans, will public access be increased or reduced?
Mrs Spelman
I think I have said this, but for the avoidance of doubt, public access and other public benefits will be improved and enhanced as a result of the proposals that we set out in our consultation document.
Having exposed the fact that the previous Government indeed looked at disposal of the public forest estate, I would like the Opposition to hear—[Interruption.] I would like them all to listen. That would be a start. I would like them to hear clearly why it is important to give the opportunity for the heritage forests to pass into the hands of charitable trusts. What we have seen from the evidence of documents from the previous Government is that the forests run the risk of successive Governments continually coming back to the question of how they should be owned and managed. Putting them safely in the hands of charitable trusts, as we propose to do, will mean that they will continue to be managed for the benefit of the nation. Their enhanced status in the hands of charitable trusts will put them beyond the reach of Whitehall politics once and for all.
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)
In practice, would not trusts and charitable organisations be absolutely crazy to take on the burden of the New forest, for example? How could they possibly expect to have the fundraising capacity to meet the ongoing costs of managing it appropriately, particularly given the Government’s expectation, clearly stated in their consultation paper, that such gifts to those organisations should move towards self-reliance? They would be crazy to take that on in such circumstances.
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We have made it clear that we would not expect charitable trusts to take these on without the running costs, so the hon. Gentleman’s fear is unfounded. Some smaller, local areas of woodland might fall into heritage status, but for those that do not, we are consulting on whether to offer them to local community groups or charities to take over first and foremost. If no local groups or charities want to take on the leasehold and no suitable buyer with a credible access and environmental protection plan comes forward, the woodland will simply remain in public ownership.
As I have said, for sites that are predominantly commercial in nature, we propose offering long leases with conditions attached. To be clear, there will be no one-size-fits-all approach, no land grabs and no fire sale. Instead, there will be a thoughtful, detailed, long-term programme of reviewing the estate, potentially over 10 years. There will be no rush; it is more important to get this right. We will look at how to improve the rate of recovery of plantations on ancient woodland sites, thereby enhancing biodiversity.
We will look at how the Forestry Commission can work with communities to help them to bid for local woodlands and at how we can actively improve access rights. I am thinking in particular of how we can access resource improvements for people with disabilities. We will look at how we can enable groups who run woodlands to draw down environmental grants in a way that the Forestry Commission currently cannot.
Those are all things that the Forestry Commission, with its expertise and dedication, is perfectly well placed to do. It is where it will really add value. If Members were to ask someone from the Forestry Commission whether they would rather be working with communities to help in the recovery of ancient woodland sites, or shrink-wrapping Christmas trees, what do they think they would say?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Even if community groups could afford to purchase woodland, why should they if it is already in public ownership? It is rather like a thief stealing a car and then offering to sell it back.
Mrs Spelman
As I have tried to point out, and as evidenced in the documents prepared by the previous Government, the fact of the matter is that as long as there are no opportunities for communities in respect of the public forest estate, there is a risk in Whitehall politics. The point about giving the community that lives nearest the forest that opportunity is that they are the most likely to protect it in perpetuity.
This is a really exciting opportunity for our woodlands. We share completely the desire of those who love to walk, cycle, ride, kayak or go ape in our woodlands. I have children and know what a lifeline woodlands are in the long summer holidays. I am certainly not going to deny others the respite that those woodlands gave me, not now and not for future generations. I want to see whether we can improve on the status quo. I want many people to be engaged in the consultation, and I mean genuinely engaged by the facts, not the fiction. This is an opportunity to do things better. If access rights, public benefits and environmental protections are not the same or better, we will not make any changes. I believe that they can be better, that they should be better and that the consultation points the way to making them better.
Public Forest Estate
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I have today published a public consultation on the future of the public forest estate in England. A copy of the consultation document is available through the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/index.htm) and the Forestry Commission website (www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfe-consultation) and I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
The public forest estate in England is around 258,000 hectares of Government-owned land managed by the Forestry Commission. It represents less than one fifth of the woodlands of England, with the majority of the remainder in private and voluntary sector ownership. The estate was started at a time of national crisis after the first world war, with severe shortages of timber and a woodland resource depleted to less than 5% of the land area in Great Britain.
In line with the Government’s broad policy to effect a shift from big Government to big society, the consultation sets out the rationale for reducing state ownership and management of forest resources. The status quo is not an option. There is a fundamental conflict of interest in the Forestry Commission’s role. It is the largest player in the commercial forestry sector, a sector it also regulates.
The Government’s approach to looking at new models of ownership and management of the public forest estate in England will be underpinned by a set of key principles that are designed to protect public access and other public benefits that so many enjoy. The Government’s proposals, on which the consultation seeks views, are for a mixed approach which includes:
recognising that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the different types of woodland and forestry;
inviting new or existing charitable organisations to take on ownership or management of the heritage forests in order to secure their public benefits future generations to enjoy;
creating opportunities for community and civil society groups to buy or lease forests that they wish to own or manage; and
issuing long-term leases on the large-scale commercially valuable forests. By leasing rather than selling, it will be possible to ensure that the public can continue to enjoy their benefits.
The Government are committed to the ongoing provision and protection of the public benefits provided by the public forest estate. The policy we are consulting on shows how we intend to achieve this. We will ensure that the powers in the Public Bodies Bill reflect our policy objectives, so that the powers and duties within it are strengthened to safeguard the natural and social capital our forests provide now and for future generations. This would apply to the powers of sale, lease and management of the public forest estate. The consultation proposes that conditions will be attached to leases so that access and other public benefits are protected. We will consider:
introducing a general duty on the Government to have regard to the maintenance of public benefits when exercising the powers under the Bill;
exempting the most iconic heritage forests from the full range of options so that for example, the Forest of Dean or the New Forest could only be transferred to a charitable organisation or remain in public ownership, in line with the policy as set out in the consultation.
The Forestry Commission will play an important role in supporting the wider forestry sector—through its regulatory, grant-giving, research and expert advisory roles—to provide a wide range of public benefits.
The consultation relates to 85% of the public forest estate. The remaining 15% is covered by the spending review settlement, announced in October 2010.
I am today publishing tightened criteria for those sales under the Forestry Commission’s programme to deliver £100 million in gross receipts during 2011-15. During 2010, the Forestry Commission’s asset disposal programme continued under criteria established by the previous Administration. At the end of 2010, pending review of the sales criteria, Ministers withdrew some sites from sale. The new criteria have been amended to strengthen the protection of public benefits through the withdrawal from sale of woodlands with significant areas of unrestored plantations on ancient woodland sites.
Independent Review of the Science Advisory Council to DEFRA
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I wish to update the House on developments related to the Science Advisory Council (SAC) to DEFRA.
I am pleased to announce a new model for the SAC following the outcome of the review of all arm’s length bodies, and a separate and independent review of the SAC.
The ALB review sought to ensure better co-ordination between science advisory bodies in DEFRA. As part of this, the Department reviewed the role and functions of its 18 scientific and technical advisory bodies. On 14 October 2010 it was announced that the majority of the advisory bodies will become expert committees. They will continue to provide independent advice, but the change will allow for greater co-ordination as the scientific expert committees will work more closely with the Science Advisory Council and DEFRA’S chief scientific adviser.
DEFRA’S Science Advisory Council is to be retained as an NDPB, and will support the CSA in oversight of all relevant DEFRA scientific committees. It will continue to provide independent advice and challenge to the chief scientific adviser and Ministers on the science underpinning a range of DEFRA policies
The independent review of the SAC, led by Professor Charles Godfray and commissioned by DEFRA’S chief scientist, Professor Bob Watson, contained 12 major recommendations. Professor Watson and I are content to accept these recommendations which include:
that the SAC be reconstituted as a leaner body of around six people plus an external chair;
the need to articulate more clearly the role of the SAC and how it adds value to the Department’s use of science and evidence;
the need to provide challenge and scrutiny to other bodies providing science advice to DEFRA.
A new model for the Science Advisory Council will be established in line with the independent review’s recommendations. With these recommendations in mind, new terms of reference and a revised code of practice for members will be raised. The recruitment of new members will commence in February 2011, with the first SAC meeting scheduled for September 2011.
The SAC will support the CSA by independently assuring and challenging the evidence underpinning DEFRA policies and ensuring that the evidence programme meets DEFRA’S needs.
The DEFRA CSA will have oversight of, and offer support to, all DEFRA scientific expert committees, and the new SAC will support the CSA in this role. This approach will ensure that the Department achieves a greater and more co-ordinated level of evidence assurance.
Separately, DEFRA are taking forward plans to replace many of its advisory NDPBs with expert committees. Further announcements will be made in due course.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for agriculture and food represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 24 January.
There were three items on the agenda relating to agriculture. Discussion took take place on the following:
Presidency work programme: a routine presentation from the new (Hungarian) presidency of its plans and objectives.
A presentation by the Commission of its analysis of the state of honey bee health and what can be done to improve it. This is an important issue for the UK and we are already undertaking our own programme.
CAP reform: this debate will focus on the issues around natural resource protection and climate change.
There were five items under any other business:
Cross-border infectious animal diseases—a paper from Latvia flagging its action to prevent cross-border transmission of African swine fever from Russia and calling for EU support.
Current dioxin situation in Germany—a report from Germany on their current problems with dioxins in feed and the actions taken. The UK was one of the few member states directly affected (receiving some contaminated eggs).
Situation on the pig meat market—Belgium asking for Commission action to help farmers in the current difficult situation in the pig meat market and the setting up of a pig high-level group.
Foresight project on the future of food and farming—a UK item.
International agricultural markets—an update from the Commission on the current state of global food commodity markets.
December Environment Council
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Deputy Permanent Representative, Andy Lebrecht, represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 20 December in Brussels. I was unable to attend due to severe weather disrupting travel between the United Kingdom and Belgium.
The Council reached political agreement on the regulation concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products. The UK welcomed the political agreement as a risk-based compromise which strikes the right balance between protecting health and environment from the biocides themselves but also from the harmful organisms that biocides are used to control.
The Belgian presidency presented the outcome of the third trilogue with the European Parliament on the regulation setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles, as part of the EU’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles. During the exchange of views that followed Environment Ministers indicated their support for the compromise that had been reached, including the long-term target of average CO2 emissions of 147 grams per kilometre in 2020. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the proposal at its February plenary session.
The Council also adopted conclusions that welcomed the outcome of the Nagoya meeting of the convention on biodiversity in October, and committed the EU to implementation of the decisions taken.
Further conclusions were adopted on improving environmental policy instruments. Several member states expressed the importance they attach to having a seventh environment action programme to succeed the current one which covers the period up to 2012. The UK stressed the need for the new framework to be based on an assessment of the current sixth environment action programme, and highlighted the move to an environmentally sustainable, low-carbon, resource-efficient economy as a key challenge to be addressed. This could be achieved through focus on: integration of sustainability objectives in other policy areas; better implementation of existing legislation rather than new initiatives; and more involvement of society, incentivising and motivating behaviour change.
The Council also adopted a third set of conclusions, on sustainable materials management and sustainable production and consumption.
The Council took note of the presidency’s progress reports on the recast directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and on the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory. The discussion on GMOs followed similar lines to the earlier discussion at Environment Council in October 2010, with many member states raising concerns about the proposal. The UK has yet to finalise its position on this dossier, but emphasised the need to find a way through the current impasse and to achieve legal clarity on the consistency of the proposal with WTO rules and the single market. Several member states focused on the need to consider clear criteria upon which national decisions on cultivation could be taken and welcomed the Commission’s proposal to discuss this further.
Ministers also exchanged views on the outcome of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN convention on climate change at Cancun. They agreed that the outcome was positive and forward-looking, laying the foundation for further work and confirming the strength of a multilateral process. The UK supported Germany in their call for a new strategy building on Cancun, part of which had to be a move beyond the EU’s 20% target.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council (13-14 December)
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 13 and 14 December. Richard Lochhead and Michelle Gildernew attended for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.
There were two substantive agenda items on fisheries; the setting of fishing opportunities for EU vessels in the Atlantic, and in the Black Sea respectively. There were four items on agriculture (the three dairy items being taken together) and one agriculture AOB.
On fishing opportunities for 2011, the Council and Commission reached unanimous agreement on a package of measures which set quotas for the main commercial fish stocks in the Atlantic, including for cod, haddock, plaice and sole. Over two days of intensive negotiations, the UK battled hard to reach an agreement that ensures the long term sustainability of fish stocks, while providing short term catching opportunities for our fishing industry. The package my hon. Friend secured, helps all sectors of the industry, large and small, and delivers benefits for all parts of the UK—north, south, east and west. It also means the UK can drive forward with its innovative approach to fisheries management—catch quotas—which enable fishermen to land more while catching less, thereby helping to tackle the scourge of discards. The final agreement included a number of notable gains for the UK, including on Irish Sea Nephrops, Western Channel sole. West of Scotland megrim and monkfish in the West of Scotland and the Celtic Sea.
The UK team also fought off effort restrictions for fisheries in the Celtic Sea, with a commitment to consider a more sensible management regime to apply from 2012. Moreover, they won a firm commitment from the Commission to a comprehensive review of the EU’s cod recovery plan next year. The UK also resisted a revision to the management arrangements for plaice in the English Channel, that would have meant UK fishermen losing out badly.
Separately, the Council and Commission also agreed quota levels for sprat and turbot in the Black Sea.
The discussion on CAP reform concentrated on the achievement of food security. While all believed competitiveness to be significant, only Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK supported a greater focus on training, innovation, sustainability and improved business practices as a means of boosting competiveness. The majority of member states cited price volatility as a justification for the continuation of direct payments and wanted to retain a less favoured area scheme in the second pillar of the CAP. Proposals would issue in the next few months.
The Commission presented the dairy proposal and the quarterly market and quota phase-out reports. Both reports showed a positive market situation for the dairy sector. Most member states were on track for the expiry of the quota regime in 2015. The majority of member states welcomed new proposals to increase the power of producers in the food chain. The incoming Hungarian presidency hopes to reach political agreement on the dairy proposal by June.
The Commission presented its legislative proposals on Agricultural Quality Policy plus guidelines: on the use of private quality assurance schemes and on the use of GIs in processed products.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council (29-30 November)
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 29 and 30 November. Elin Jones and Michelle Gildernew also attended for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
There were two agenda items on fisheries plus a working lunch on the reform of the common fisheries policy. There were four agenda items on agriculture with seven, mostly agriculture, AOB items.
On deep sea fishing opportunities in 2011-12, the Council and Commission reached agreement on fishing limits, notably deep water sharks, the black scabbardfish, roundnose grenadier, Alfonsinos and forkbeards. Given that these are vulnerable long-life cycle species, of which little is known, the UK and Sweden led calls for a precautionary approach that differentiated these from other fisheries. Some other member states (MSs) pressed for and gained significant concessions. The final agreement included declarations on defining a differentiated category for deep sea species to identify specific treatment in the Commission’s policy framework.
On the first round of discussions with Norway on the shared fishing opportunities for 2011 the UK underlined the importance of moving towards a catch quota management system which would reduce discards and incentivise responsible fishing and emphasised the importance of maximising arctic cod opportunities. Some MSs warned against using their stocks to pay for this. The UK noted the withdrawal of Iceland from talks on managing mackerel stocks which impacted on the EU-Norway talks; this attitude was unhelpful and the Commission should be firm.
On the Agriculture items: the Commission will act to ban 1, 3—dichloropropene as there was no qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Commission’s recent report on the potential for the European Food Safety Authority to charge fees was discussed very briefly, with some MSs supporting its conclusion that a full impact assessment is required to inform any subsequent proposals. The Commission presented its paper on the Farm Advisory Service (FAS), highlighting a need to improve the targeting of advice, especially in reaching small and medium-sized farms. The subjects covered by FAS needed to go beyond cross compliance to cover competitiveness and innovation. Recommendations would be taken forward in due course.
The first discussion on the Commission Communication on CAP restricted Ministers’ interventions to three minutes each. Most MSs broadly welcomed the communication as a useful starting point. There was general endorsement for the continuation of the current two pillar structure of the CAP. A number of important themes emerged during the debate, which focused largely on what the communication was missing:
There was support for continuing direct payments (DPs) to farmers, with new MSs calling for their equalisation. Some MSs rejected a transitional period at the beginning of the next financial perspective (FP). The abolition of historical references periods was welcomed. France, Germany and Greece, however, cautioned that new objective criteria should not result in a flat rate payment; DPs needed to be allocated fairly, taking account of regional costs and farm structures. A few MSs resisted the intention to cap payments to large farms. The UK called for substantial cuts to the EU budget, which should include material cuts to the CAP budget and with progress on reducing reliance on direct subsidies leading eventually to their abolition. Others, however, called for a strong or adequate CAP budget commensurate with its challenging policy objectives.
All MSs called for a significant effort to simplify CAP rules. The UK noted that some of the Commission’s ideas looked too complex. The Commission will establish an expert group to work alongside those drafting legislation to ensure that new measures did not increase administrative burdens for farmers or national authorities.
Many MSs were sceptical of the Commission’s proposal to green pillar 1, as this could work counter to the simplification objective. However, a number welcomed the principle of securing better environmental benefits. The Commission insisted that new measures on environmental compliance would not increase burdens and would generally take the form of guidance on the application of cross compliance provisions.
MSs queried the confused treatment of less favoured areas (LFAs) in the Communication. Some wanted LFA payments to remain in the second pillar, whereas others favoured an additional LFA uplift in pillar one. Some MSs supported the Commission’s intentions to provide a small farmer payment and to restrict payments to active farmers, although clarity was sought on definitions of “small” and “active”.
MSs welcomed the retention of a specific pillar devoted to rural development. The UK called for a greater share of a reduced CAP budget to go to this. Some new MSs called for pillar two resources to be concentrated on MSs with the greatest modernisation needs. MSs were broadly supportive of the continued focus on competiveness and agri-environment. Territorial cohesion was frequently stressed.
The presidency said that the issue would be discussed on 13 December. The incoming Hungarian presidency stated that it intended to seek a conclusion at the March Council.
Under Any Other Business:
There was a short Commission paper on the current inter-institutional blockage on long-term fisheries management plans. In its view a large majority of MSs (not the UK) were not being realistic; the European Parliament had a legitimate interest in setting these under the Lisbon treaty and the Council could not cling to this power. It wanted to begin a dialogue to resolve the matter quickly.
The presidency presented its information notes on the review of the European plant health regime and the international conference on animal welfare education.
On the 2011 Budget the Commission took the opportunity to sensitise MSs to difficulties with the reimbursement of DPs, if the new draft budget was not adopted. National budgets would take the strain of some 75% of direct payments being made by national authorities in the first few months of 2011, while operating under a system of twelfths. However, problems were unlikely to arise for market management or rural development expenditure, which had flatter spending profiles. There was no discussion.
The Netherlands presented its note on the conference on agriculture, food security and climate change.
France presented its note on the aims of the French presidency of the G20 in the field of agriculture highlighting four themes: increasing transparency about global stock reserves, enhancing the moral behaviour of market operators, co-ordinating international crisis management and addressing price volatility.
Finally, the Italian Minister tabled a point related to the food labelling proposal due to be discussed at the EPSCO Council formation on 7 December. The Italians want to see the manufacturer of products identified on the label. The UK responded that this would not be acceptable given that this information is not meaningful to consumers, adds burdens to businesses and has the potential for negative impact on competition.
Environment Council
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 20 December.
At this Council, the Belgian presidency will seek political agreement on the regulation concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products. The presidency will also present a progress report on the recast of the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment and a progress report on the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.
The presidency will further seek the adoption of Council conclusions on sustainable materials management and sustainable production and consumption, improving environmental policy instruments and the outcome of and follow-up to the 10th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the convention on biological diversity in Nagoya.
There will also be an exchange of views on the outcome of and follow-up to the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN convention on climate change and the 6th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto protocol.
There may be an agenda item on the regulation setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles, as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles.
The following topics will be covered under “any other business”:
Information from the Commission on the Commission communications on practical implementation of the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme and counting rules for biofuels, and on voluntary schemes and default values in the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme;
Information from the presidency on the main environmental events organised by the Belgian presidency;
Information from the Lithuanian delegation on nuclear installations planned in the EU neighbourhood (Kaliningrad region and Belarus);
Information from the Belgian delegation on the implementation of directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe with particular regard to PM 10 particles;
Information from the Greek delegation on the outcome of the Mediterranean climate change initiative;
Information from the Portuguese delegation on directive 2008/98/EC on waste, including climate aspects in the application of the energy efficiency formula to waste energy plants and to plants in the EU outermost regions, and the strategic importance of end-of-waste status for high-quality refuse-derived fuel in the near future;
Information from the Romanian delegation on the 2nd Meeting of the Parties to the protocol on water and health to the convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes (Bucharest, 23-25 November 2010); and
Information from the Hungarian delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency.