| Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy
|
|
Mr. Rooker: No, I have not. I want to confirm what my noble Friend Lord Donoughue would have said in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The situation is under review. That is not to say that it is on the back burner and that we are not looking at it. We have made it clear that we are prepared to take extra evidence from the industry on the effects of what it is experiencing. We are prepared to consider any alternative to existing programmes that stays within the ceiling--for example, as I hinted in Question Time last week, whether we could shift money from one sector to another. Not many alternatives have been proposed. We have until January--I am not sure of the exact date--to make a request to Brussels which will imply the use of British taxpayers' money. We have made it abundantly clear that for every £100, £71 will be taxpayers' money. The door is not closed. The matter is under review. I am not, however, able to announce the results of the review this morning. Mr. Dobbin: I received a letter at the weekend from a constituent who is a farmer and who clearly blames the previous Administration for the condition of the farming community. The hon. Member for South Dorset asked about damage done to farming incomes, but it is quite clear where the blame lies. Does the Minister agree that the previous Government's negative attitude to the European Community and their lack of interest in reforming the CAP gave rise to the problems farmers face now? Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. Member for Fylde has just said that my hon. Friend was on another planet; as a former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Gentleman should know about being on other planets. On 2 May we did not exactly find the coffers filled with proposals to support the agricultural industry, beef farmers and renderers. Mr. Jack: Read the Red Book. Mr. Rooker: We do not need to read the Red Book. We looked in the cupboard and found that the previous Government, knowing that they would lose the election, had not taken decisions. Mr. Jack: This is pathetic stuff. Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman does not like it, but the farming industry's condition was wholly caused by the financial regime of the Conservative Government. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to deny that for every £100 we request from Brussels, £71 would come from the British Exchequer. He never admits that fact, so I invite him to do so today. Mr. Greenway: I refer the Minister to the green pages of the document before us. Point 2.10 on page xiv states that it is
Does the Minister accept that farmers across the country--in the whole livestock sector, not just the beef sector--are concerned about this matter? A mechanism exists to compensate our farmers for the strength of sterling, which has increased since 1 May because of Government policies. What confidence in the future can farmers and livestock producers have--particularly if the CAP is reformed--if existing mechanisms for fairness throughout the European livestock sector are not used by the UK Government? Will the Minister bear that in mind in deciding whether the Government will provide much needed support before January? Mr. Rooker: That perfectly legitimate question has been asked before in the House. The answer is yes, we will bear that in mind. We have not said that we will not make a claim under the existing mechanism. We are reviewing the situation. The Opposition may dismiss that, but the industry is in genuine difficulty and no one denies that a mechanism exists. However, before the election we accepted public spending limits set by the previous Government. Accessing the payments would breach those limits becaose £71 of every £100 would be paid by the British taxpayer. That is not to say that we will not make the claim before January, but we are not able to announce a decision today. The hon. Gentleman raised a fair point in the first part of his question concerning the primary purpose of the common agricultural policy. We could have a long discourse on the matter but that would not be appropriate, Mr. O'Hara. Is the primary purpose to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community or, as article 39 of the accession treaty states:
that is, intensify everything, wreck the countryside and produce unhealthy food. The paradox must be considered when reforming the CAP. What is the CAP for? At the moment there is no answer that is satisfactory to agricultural producers and taxpayers. We shall endeavour to find an answer during the reform negotiations. The Chairman: Mr. John Gray. Mr. Gray: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I am Mr. James Gray, but I am happy to be recognised. The Minister said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde that there is a long-term structural decline in the beef industry because of a decline in consumption. Is he aware that total beef production in this country satisfies only approximately 70 per cent. of domestic demand and that the catastrophic circumstances of CAP the beef industry are connected not with the decline in the consumption of beef but with cheap imports from abroad? When visiting the 2nd battalion of the Parachute Regiment at Aldershot yesterday I was told that the British Army consumes nothing but Uruguayan beef and has done so for many years. Is he not ashamed of that? Is he not confused because he does not know the world price of beef? Will he explain why the British Government buy beef for the British Army from Uruguay, and have done so for many years? Mr. Rooker: It is interesting that the long-term contract entered into by the Ministry of Defence and the British Army clearly predates 1 May. That issue arose before 1 May, when the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House. Our beef price at the moment is around 50 per cent. above world levels, depending on quality. The hon. Gentleman is correct that we import cheap beef, but we are not able to impose an import ban. However, from 1 January no beef will come into this country unless it has received exactly the same checks and gone through exactly the same processes that British beef is required to go through. Some countries are specified free of BSE--I do not carry their names in my head--but no beef will be allowed to be sold in this country unless it fulfils our requirements for removal of risk material, being no older than 30 months and, following last week's announcement and subject to this week's consultation, that will not be sold on the bone. That will apply to imported beef as well as to home-produced beef. We cannot impose an import ban because we are a world player-- Mr. Gray: We could. Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman thinks that we could, but legally we cannot impose a beef import ban. Mr. Gray: Other countries have banned ours, so why cannot we ban theirs? Mr. Rooker: They have a justifiable reason for banning ours, as the inadequacey of the previous Government proved. Mr. Swinney: The Minister knows that I represent a large rural Scottish constituency, but he may not know that it was once the safest Conservative seat in Scotland and was wrestled from them at the election, which reveals the hypocrisy of Conservative Members--[Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. I am having difficulty hearing the question and I am sure that others are also having difficulty. Mr. Swinney: The Minister's line on compensation to farmers for the appreciation of sterling seems to be markedly more considered and softer than for some time. I hope that that is an indication of the Government's willingness to engage the farming industry in a discussion about how compensation can be made for the strength of sterling. There is enormous anger in my constituency over cuts in payments under the over-thirty-months scheme and the problem of hill livestock compensation. Will the Minister say what approach the Government intend to take in negotiations with the European Union on agenda 2000? One of my fears is that no systematic transitional approach will be taken in the discussions. The awful spectre of a big bang appears in relation to a change in the regime. Finally, in relation to reform of the CAP, will the Minister tell us how the negotiating stance of this Government differs from that of the previous Government? Mr. Rooker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not consider the hon. Gentleman a member of the Tory party just because he is sitting on the other side of the Committee. I am trying to be as open and reasonable as possible, but I am not in a position to make any announcements this morning. However, I can confirm what we have already said; that we are not closing off all the options. We genuinely want to be of help to the sectors that need it most and we shall announce the results of the review as quickly as possible. Mr. Gray: When? Mr. Rooker: As quickly as possible. Mr. Gray: By Christmas? Mr. Rooker: Shortly. Superficially at least, the currency issue looks easy to solve--just pick up the phone and get the money from Brussels. But the money is not in Brussels, it is here in Britain. The hon. Gentleman is right; with agenda 2000, we need the flesh on the bone. Much more needs to come out of Brussels before we can adopt a positive negotiating stance. We do not know whether timetables will be introduced in relation to certain aspects of reform of the CAP. There may not be a big bang. I understand that we shall have further detailed proposals for reform by the end of February or the beginning of March. The hon. Gentleman asked what the difference was between our stance and that of the previous Government. Ministers in the previous Government often spoke about the need to reform the CAP but then did nothing about it. Because of agenda 2000, we have an opportunity to do something. It is not perfect and does not go as far as we would wish, but it is all we have. Some countries in Europe do not want reform. Others will be our partners in seeking to bring about reform but we must achieve it by consent. We will not achieve it by staying away and leaving an empty chair, or by being at war with our partners. We shall achieve reform not by being subservient, but by being reasonable and showing that, unlike the previous Government, we want to be part of the European Union. In the first six months of next year, we shall have an opportunity to ensure that discussions of reform take place in such a way that our successors must take it forward. It is crucial that discussions do not come to an end after the six months of UK presidency. If we have not locked in the future progress of reform by then, we shall have failed. Reform is not going to take place in six months--
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1997 | Prepared 10 December 1997 |
