• Accessibility
• Email alerts
• RSS feeds
• Contact us

5.40 pm

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out from '(HC 719);' to end and add:

'albeit against the background of the Government's failed stewardship of British agriculture which has seen farm incomes plummet by 45 per cent, a rise in rural job losses, and a failure to utilise fully all the resources available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the benefit of farmers; urges the Government to negotiate an outcome that works to the advantage of Britain's efficient farming industry as well as to the interests of United Kingdom producers, consumers and taxpayers, and of developing countries and to press for a reformed Common Agricultural Policy with substantially reduced overall costs, which does not act against farms larger than the European average, which is more economically rational, which reduces the bureaucratic burden on farmers, which provides a better framework for targeted environmental and rural development support, which contains fair and common rules to ensure that the United Kingdom's farm and food industries can exploit their competitive advantage in European and world markets, which facilitates the accession of associated countries and which offers the medium term prospect of benefits to developing countries; but regrets the fact that, so far in the discussions on Agenda 2000, the United Kingdom Government has not advanced proposals designed to allow Britain's farming industry to realize its full potential under the revised arrangements.'.

21 May 1998 : Column 1142

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: No, not at this stage. I must make progress, because, unlike the Minister, I do not want to speak for 40 or 50 minutes.

The Minister's careful and measured tones throughout the majority of his speech could not hide the real crisis in British farming. We have seen a textbook exhibition of complacency on the part of the Minister in responding to the real concerns of farmers and growers in this country. I am delighted that the Minister has found time to come to the House after a year in office at least to discuss agriculture. It is a pity that some of his Ministers cannot find time to join me when I meet real farmers at the Devon county show tomorrow. Lord Donoughue is in Devon, but he refuses to meet farmers. We shall hear the true and authentic voice of British farming when we are out and about at the agricultural shows.

This debate will enable us to see in stark terms how hard the shoe is pinching in rural Britain as a result of the way in which the Government have conducted their stewardship of their farming responsibilities. The rural economy in this country is really suffering. For some who are listening to the debate, Agenda 2000 will seem a distant prospect because farmers and agribusinesses are going to the wall now. We shall say more about that later in the debate.

The debate will also give the House an opportunity to assess whether the Agenda 2000 proposals will allow Britain's efficient farmers to prosper in an ever more competitive world or merely do the minimum required to get the World Trade Organisation off our backs. As I said a moment ago, the harsh reality of farming today in this country--which the Minister did not want to talk about--is illustrated by the Ministry's own figures. Farm incomes fell last year by 45 per cent. and the value of farming output fell by £1.9 billion. The value of subsidies was down by £322 million, including the hill livestock compensatory allowances which are so vital to the Minister's farming constituents, and which were cut by £35 million. Farmers also know that price fixing for next year--consideration of which is part of the debate--offers them little prospect of additional help or relief.

Mrs. Campbell: Is it not true that current farm incomes are at about the same level as they were more than a decade ago in 1985-86? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm those figures?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady should try convincing real farmers that that kind of retrospective analysis has any

21 May 1998 : Column 1143

As if that is not enough, farmers have had to face the endless uncertainty surrounding the lifting of the beef ban. The Minister has today removed a little of that uncertainty, but we clearly do not know what other member states will say. I have received letters from the Danish and German Ministers asking questions about the procedures that we have in place. I hope that they were convinced by the Minister's display. If it was as good as he says, let us hope that they will stop prevaricating, agree that we have met the Florence agreement terms and lift the beef ban once and for all.

Farmers have also faced the beef-on-the-bone ban this year. Perhaps the Minister should spend a little time reading Farmers Weekly. If he did, he would read how Rev. Ian Hall, the vicar of Eskdale in the Minister's constituency, describes that policy as a "pig's ear" and as "draconian". The Minister is condemned out of the mouths of his own constituents. What was his response?

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West) rose--

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) rose--

Mr. Jack: I will not give way at the moment. The Minister's response to the problems of agriculture was to spend the equivalent of half the annual income of a Cumbrian hill farmer on an antique reproduction desk for his office. It is little wonder that another of the Minister's constituents, Joss Naylor of Bowderdale, told Farmers Weekly that the Minister

"has gone very wrong, like a lot of people when they get into a job like that . . . his heart is set on doing away with the little farms that have made the Lake District what it is today."

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to refer to the ban on beef on the bone. He will remember that when we debated that issue in the House, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats voted together. I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the initial outcome of the decision at Selkirk sheriff's court in the Scottish borders, which went against the case advanced by the Government--although the matter is still before the Court of Session in Edinburgh. If he does welcome that result, what is his view about the Scottish Tory party's claim that that case should not have gone to court in the first place?

Mr. Jack: The case did go to court, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks have shown clearly that the Minister is incapable even of doing the wrong thing correctly.

We have heard much about Labour's views on reform of the common agricultural policy. In its publication, "The CAP--Time for a Change", Labour said:

"the family farm structure of much of the industry and the role of farming in the rural areas . . . these factors together make farming deserving of special attention".

Part of the crisis in British farming is a result--

Mr. Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should be patient; he is irritated because I am getting under his skin. He always interrupts me when we get to the truth of the matter.

Part of the problem is that the Government subcontracted the setting of interest rates to the Bank of England. The pound soared because rates were too high. There have been three green pound revaluations. That has cost farming £522 million, according to the NFU, and has encouraged a flood of imports that has kicked the floor out from under agricultural prices. That is what has caused the crisis in farming. What did we get from the Minister when farmers appealed for help? We got the usual mantra that no money was available because of the self-imposed public spending position and that agrimonetary compensation arrangements were not available to farmers.

Even on the last point, we found the Minister wanting. We analysed the MAFF annual report and, as verified by the Library of the House of Commons, clearly showed that he had underspent his budget last year by £139 million, and that he planned to underspend by £46 million this year. Before he gets to his feet, I should say that I accept the line of argument in his rebuttal that his Ministry is not sitting on a pile of money. In strict public expenditure terms, however, if he had had the real interests of farming at heart, in these exceptional times he would have used that as a bargaining chip in asking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about using that money. Instead, British farmers' own money has gone back into the Treasury. The Minister does not have the courage to ask for it from the Treasury; if he had done so, he could have levered in £200 million of agrimonetary help to farmers, or provided special help schemes to see them through these difficult times.

• A-Z index
• Glossary
• Contact us
• Freedom of Information
• Jobs
• Using this website
• Copyright