Slurry

The total capacity is 10,200 kg per hectare, which is why we are left with the excess total of 2,240 kg. I do not want to over-state those particular figures, but they do illustrate the problem. What options are open to Mr. Griffin if he is to comply with the regulations? He could reduce the size of his herd by about 25 cows, but that is an unappetising prospect for any dairy farmer, given the lost milk revenue, which he estimates at £55,000; he could buy more land, but again that would be expensive and possibly impractical, or he could export his manure to another farm, although I cannot imagine that neighbouring farms will be desperate for excess manure given the overall situation. If the proposals are passed, they will pose a real conundrum on the running costs of such businesses. I would accept quite a lot of control if I felt that it was having a lasting and beneficial effect on the environment. However, it is extremely difficult to believe that the proposals will result in benefits in any way commensurate with the cost to the industry, and some would argue that they will result in little benefit at all. I have always felt that, in years gone by, the principal cause of nitrate leachate in our watercourses was the overuse of commercial nitrate fertiliser. However, it is no longer overused, and, arguably, as a consequence, levels of nitrate in our watercourses have reduced markedly in some areas of the country. I realise that those figures are disputed, and I do not have access to all those available, but certainly in some parts of the country it is clear that there is either stasis or a reduction in nitrate levels. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that this very expensive and overburdensome regulation will have a desirable effect in anyway commensurate with the cost. It could be argued that the practical consequences of what farmers will be required to do in order to meet the regulations will have a detrimental effect on the environment. Slurry is a natural product that provides the nutrients that the soil needs for growth. If it is not available, substitutes, such as artificial fertiliser, will be used, which I believe to be of more concern for the environment than the spreading of slurry. I find it difficult to understand the justification for the regulations. Will the Minister expand on that? Furthermore, why is it not possible to undesignate nitrate-vulnerable zones? That is completely illogical. If the risk has passed, owing to action taken, and there is no longer a problem, processes should be in place for undesignating particular areas. The closed periods for spreading will present practical difficulties for many working farmers. What determines when it is appropriate to spread slurry? Rainfall is a major factor: one does not want to go out and spread slurry when it is pouring down with rain, as it is in Somerset at the moment—we are under monsoon conditions. Let that be an illustration, because when would have been the best time to spread slurry in the fields in Somerset? Back in November and December it was unseasonably dry and we had a real opportunity then, but under the proposals it would have been the closed season. The open season for spreading would have started in mid-January. Ever since the date from which spreading would have been allowed, it has been teeming down with rain. Any farmer that spreads under those conditions would be doing no good to their land, it would all run off into the rivers—exactly where we do not want it—and it would be rank bad husbandry. Any farmer left with a need to spread slurry on land would not be able to do so, sensibly and reasonably, during the current spreading season. The difficulty is that if there is a long period of wet weather, which there tends to be nowadays at certain times of the year—not the same times as we used to have them, presumably because of climate change—as soon as there is a dry day, every farmer in the area will need to spread the maximum amount of slurry to meet requirements, without having any choice in the matter. Again, that will be bad farming practice, probably over-dressing the fields in that brief period, and there will be a synchronicity that has not been properly assessed in its environmental effects. Every farmer will be spreading slurry on the same day, and apart from creating the most awful smell across Somerset and a large part of the western counties of Britain, which will not do a great deal for our tourist industry, it will presumably have a cumulative effect of run-off into watercourses. Again, there will be an unlooked-for anti-environmental disbenefit rather than a benefit. Another weather problem is temperature. The proposals make no reference to it, but farmers take note of it in deciding when to spread nitrate—slurry or artificial fertiliser. A difference in temperature results in a difference in take-up by the growing crop or grass. Unnecessarily reducing the days available for spreading to days when the temperature is not optimum will again produce an agronomical and environmental disbenefit. That cannot be the purpose of the proposals. Mrs. Caroline Gent of Brottens Lodge in Doulting wrote to me about the matter. I do not think that she farms, but she is concerned about the matter. She raised the issue of organics. The proposals show no understanding of organic farming and the particular constraints of organic farmers, yet the Government say that they want to promote that sector. The proposals will have a hugely detrimental effect on it. Tenant farmers must be considered. Where will the capital come from for slurry storage for tenant farmers, who do not own their farms? Why should their landlords put in the necessary capital investment for something that will be of no benefit whatever to them? If tenant farmers cannot get that capital investment, how will they survive? I was not going to mention cover crops, as they were dealt with in the debate the other day. They are not a particularly strong problem in my area, but, as the Minister knows, they are elsewhere. There certainly seems to be an inconsistent approach, which brings us back to ground cover and the environmental benefits that we want. We know that Ireland, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands have sought derogations. I am not clear about the Government's position on that; perhaps the Minister can explain it. Capital grants will not be available for investment in slurry stores, yet they will require huge capital investment. It is paradoxical and unhelpful that that coincides with the abolition of the agricultural buildings allowance. Many farmers in my part of the world look across the Bristol channel and say, ““Why is it different in Wales? Why is it different in Scotland? Why do they have different regimes, which will give farmers in those areas a competitive advantage over English farmers in Somerset?”” I noticed that in the debate the other day, there was a reference in Hansard to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) talking about ““deferential rates””. I think that it was intended to be ““differential rates””, but I like the idea that we are deferring to the Welsh and Scots in the provision of grants. There is the general matter of red tape. The compliance regulations pile yet more bureaucracy on farmers who could do without it. I had a real cri de coeur from my constituent Mr. Walford, of Upton Bridge farm in Long Sutton. I shall send his letter on, as it refers mainly to a different matter—it appears that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is telling him that he cannot shoot pigeons, contrary to any law that I am aware of. He started his letter:"““I can no longer put up with the continuous flow of paperwork from DEFRA without protesting in the most vigorous manner””," which he then does in the course of the letter. He is right to do so. I wish to give the Minister ample time to respond. I examined carefully his response to the debate two weeks ago, and it seemed that he was not entirely closing the door to further discussion and progress on some matters. He indicated that he was not entirely committed to the date of 6 April, for instance, which we had assumed was the date intended for implementation. There are so many question marks about the proposals, and so many implications for working farmers in the cost of slurry storage and the changes to working practices, that we need at least a postponement for further consideration and for the Minister to take account of the representations that he will have received from not only the industry but colleagues in the House, who have raised the matter with him many times. I hope that that will give him the opportunity to make changes. My preference would be to take away the proposal and accept that it is not necessary for achieving the Government's objectives, but if he does think that it is necessary, he can improve the design of the regulations and make them much more friendly to our farmers. They have had a difficult few years—he knows that, and I know that. I do not want to make it even worse and lose yet more of our dairy farmers in Somerset.