| Previous Section | Home Page |
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : I begin by declaring an interest : I am a farmer.
I read the Liberal motion with some astonishment. Of all the parties in this House, the Liberals are the most fanatically pro-Europe. They know perfectly well that agriculture is a European policy, and that 80 per cent. of agricultural expenditure is authorised by the EC, yet their motion ignores that fact. They dismiss it in precisely eight words, in an extremely lengthy motion. The Liberals know, too, that, ever since the Conservatives took office in 1979, our Ministers have been trying ceaselessly, in season and out of season, to change the CAP. For years they came up against a brick wall. They were the only Ministers trying to change the policy ; all the others were in favour of it. But now even the most bigoted can see that the CAP is leading to disaster, and our Ministers are at least getting some support from the others--and not before time.
No one now pretends that the situation is other than serious. The future is uncertain, but it is at just such a time that we need a tough Minister who will fight hard for us. We certainly have just such a friend in the present Minister. He is a jolly good chap to have in our corner, but he has certainly got a fight on his hands. The greatest problem is the wholly biased and unrealistic attitude of the European Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry. It is incredible that someone who has such a romantic, nursery-rhyme concept of agriculture should have been appointed Agriculture Commissioner in the first place. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. He equates small with good, and his proposals weight the scales against efficient farmers, in favour of small farmers--just because they are small, not because they are good. His idea of a family farm is a tiny, heavily subsidised smallholding--possibly somewhere in
Column 1044
Eire or in Germany--where the husband works in a car factory during the day, works on the farm part-time and lives off subsidies. This is certainly not in the interests of consumers, who want to see food produced as efficiently, not as romantically, as possible, at prices they can afford.The words "family farms" in the Liberal motion send shivers up my spine. The Liberals use that term at their peril, because their idea of a family farm and the continentals' idea of a family farm are poles apart. It would be crazy so to arrange farm prices that only farmers with fewer than 40 cows could make a living ; 60 per cent. of British milk producers would suffer savage cuts, compared with only 1 per cent. in Greece, Spain and Portugal.
The farmers in my constituency will have noted with interest the Minister's observation that in north-west Lancashire and the Dales, out of 7,937 active milk producers, 58 per cent. would suffer a 10 per cent. quota cut if the MacSharry proposals were to be implemented. His proposals will cut cereal support prices by 40 per cent., but farmers with under 30 hectares would be fully compensated, and twice as many continental farmers as British farmers would be compensated. Under the proposals, 20 per cent. of United Kingdom cereal areas would have to be taken out of production but only half that amount in the EC. He also wants to reduce the headage rates for sheep, which would affect us more than any other country. This would be utterly disastrous for farmers in my part of the world. The proposals are absolutely idiotic because, by encouraging the least efficient farmers--Mr. MacSharry always refers to them not as inefficient farmers but as family farmers--Mr. MacSharry would leave the world markets wide open for the United States, Australia and New Zealand exporters. The United Kingdom would be driven from the world markets. If farming is to survive as an economic activity in this country, the proposals must be defeated. The Minister devotes much energy to ensuring that they are defeated and to building up coalitions in the European Community. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will know that, in the European Community, we have to build up coalitions in order to achieve anything. However, we need to replace those proposals with ones that will be less costly to the taxpayer and will go directly to the farmer, while improving and maintaining the environment.
If support prices are to be reduced, they must be reduced fairly throughout the EC and in the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seems to be more interested in the incomes of those in the developing world than the incomes of our farmers. I am very interested in the developing world and have served on committees and delegations that have been there.
Mr. Morley : Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I shall give way in a moment. Farmers in the developing world can grow a great many crops that we cannot grow and they should concentrate on them. If we must take cuts in support for our products, we must insist that support prices for wine, olive oil, tobacco and cotton are also reduced. It must not pay southern European farmers to produce for intervention, as they
Column 1045
were doing until quite recently. They must also be obliged to obtain an increasing share of their income from the market. Set-aside may reduce surpluses in the arable sector, but the countryside must not be left looking ugly. It must be environmentally cared for and financed. We must be certain that, if we set land aside, other EC countries do not increase their production to fill the gap. For centuries, the British have taken it for granted that farmers do not merely produce food, but care for the appearance of the countryside. After all, they had the biggest interest in doing so, as their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would inherit that countryside. That was easier to achieve when labour was cheap and plentiful, but it takes much training, skill and time to maintain the dry stone walls and lay hedges, which are so beautifully maintained in my part of the country, and which townspeople will drive many miles to see.If urban dwellers want farmers to care for the countryside, farmers should be paid a fee--not a subsidy--for maintaining our hedges and walls in the traditional way. There is much more mileage in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which benefits farmer and visitor alike. The cost of caring for the countryside should be an integral part of the common agricultural policy and should be paid for, not just tacked on at the end.
Farmers are fiercely individual, and the huge, and economically powerful food processors and chain stores take advantage of that fact to cut prices to farmers. Ten years ago, milling wheat cost £105 a tonne and the housewife's loaf cost 34p, of which the farmer received 8.5p. Now, milling wheat costs about £110, and a loaf costs 50p, of which the farmer receives 9p--just p more in 10 years. The remainder is gobbled up by the processors and retailers. There should be a fair balance between what the farmer receives and what the consumer pays, and the middleman should not skim off all the cream.
A substantial fall in interest rates would help farmers most. Yesterday's 0.5 per cent. fall is welcome, but a further 0.5 per cent. cut in the near future could make the difference between survival and failure for many farmers. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the 14 per cent. increase in the hill cow subsidy and higher-rate ewes announced on Monday, and his efforts to have payments made more rapidly, to which my farmers attach much importance.
I shall close as I began. When things are tough, one must know who one's friends are ; I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is a friend of agriculture and will fight hard in Europe for British farmers and housewives.
6.25 pm
Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire) : Opposition Members have often criticised the Government's economic policy, highlighting its disastrous impact on industry, commerce and families. Among the many groups who have been adversely affected are the farming community. They do not always have a good public image. Perhaps in the past they have cried wolf too often, but this year there seems to be a great deal of substance to their claims that they are facing difficulties. Farming income is at its lowest for 40 years and, according to the National Farmers Union, farmers' bank debts have soared to £7.3 million. That combination spells disaster and hardship, for behind every stastistic there is an
Column 1046
everyday story of country folk who face difficulties. High interest rates have been one of the major factors, and the 0.5 per cent. drop announced yesterday, although welcome, is by no means enough to solve the problems. The farmer who owns his own farm, has no overdraft and no hired labour may be able to weather the storm if he draws in his belt, but far more typical is the tenant farmer who has an overdraft and employs farm workers. He faces several problems. He also faces the justifiable demands of the farm workers, who are seeking to earn a reasonable living wage as they too try to cope with additional financial pressures.Farmers whom I have met in my constituency are aware of the need to meet those demands, but they regard them as yet another pressure on them. For that group of farmers, there can be no light at the end of the tunnel. The National Farmers Union says that farmers' debts for 1990 were five times as great as their income, which dropped by 15 per cent. that year. I have spoken to farmers whose income is unsufficient to service their overdrafts. One Mid-Staffordshire farmer has shown me his bank statements over a 10- year period. His overdraft has increased by 800 per cent., his standard of living has declined considerably, yet he is working as hard in 1991 as he was in the 1980s--if not harder.
Some farmers have solved that problem by selling parts of their farms-- providing that they can find buyers. In addition to high interest rates, farmers are struggling with falling crop and livestock prices. Many farmers in Mid-Staffordshire rely on members of their families to provide the extra labour required to manage the farm. That extra pair of hands is often provided by their wives, who not only help on the farm but may even run bed and breakfast to help supplement the family income. Farmers with children express concern and disappointment that their children no longer work the family farm, not necessarily because they do not want to, but because they are offered much better-paid jobs elsewhere, perhaps with perks and conditions with which the farmers cannot compete. The income from farming cannot support the family unit.
Farmers are worried not only about the loss of a pair of hands, but about the future of farming and rural communities. The nature of the industry is such that when farmers are planting crops or breeding and buying livestock they need stability to help long-term planning--and that has been missing. Farmers also need a Government who will respond quickly to their need for advice or compensation when faced with crises such as salmonella or BSE. They want reforms in the CAP, so that most of the budget does not go on disposing of surpluses which are both inefficient and morally wrong.
Perhaps British farmers have been the victims of their own success at improving efficiency and productivity. The subsidy must help both the supplier and the consumer. If reforms do not take place, we are likely to be left with some large ranch-type farms at one end and small part-time farms, like many in Europe, at the other. In the past we have relied on the farmers to manage the countryside so that we can all enjoy the benefits of their good husbandry. The farmers, however, will not be able to continue to be the caretakers of the countryside if they are short of money. That is why a policy like that of the Labour party, which offers green premiums to help farmers to protect the countryside and grow food using fewer chemicals, is attractive to them.
Column 1047
Tomorrow morning, more than 52 million people will require breakfast, and most of the ingredients of their breakfasts will be supplied by the British farmer. Will that still happen in 10 years' time, or will we rely even more on imports from the rest of the world?As a Member representing a farming constituency, and as a consumer who wants the security of knowing that we have a stable home agriculture, I declare an interest in the future of farming. This debate has been about the crisis in farming, and, to judge from what I hear from farmers in my constituency, they believe that the Government cannot solve their problems in that crisis.
6.32 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Northern Ireland has a unique place in agriculture in the United Kingdom because agriculture is its main industry. More than a third of its exports come from the agriculture sector, which provides more employment in its ancillary industries than any other source of employment. Therefore, Northern Ireland is interested in and shocked by what is happening in agriculture today.
I believe that it would be in the best interests of farmers if the common agricultural policy were scrapped and we returned to national Governments looking after their own farmers. I heard the Minister saying that he hates the MacSharry proposals and that he was going to fight them and defeat them ; but I want to ask how he proposes to do that. Under the new voting arrangements in the Council of Ministers, opposition from the United Kingdom, even in concert with one or two other states, would not be enough to block any package supported by the other member states. What is happening in agriculture, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, is politics. It has nothing to do with good farming or good production. That is why Portugal, Italy and Ireland--and Mr. MacSharry--are involved. The sooner the House faces up to that, the better for everyone concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been in Europe and he knows what is happening there. He has been a Member of the European Parliament. I asked in a parliamentary question recently what consultations the Commission has had with Her Majesty's Government about the proposals for the compensation of the small family farmers of Northern Ireland. I was not referring to farmers with two or three acres ; I was talking about farmers with an average 50 acres. That is the size of the average small family farm in Northern Ireland. In any event, I was told in a written answer that there had so far been no specific consultations on this question between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Commission. How do farmers feel about that? I am sure that the House would like to know what substitute or alternative proposals there are--what strategy the Minister intends to pursue. Farming is in crisis, and more so in Northern Ireland because of our special position. People in Britain buying cereals do not have to pay extra transport costs for them as we do. Every farmer in Northern Ireland is at a disadvantage from the start. Now they will be at an even greater disadvantage ; they will be pushed off the land altogether.
The Minister would help us all by telling us tonight what his alternative strategy is and how he intends to call
Column 1048
on the EEC to reject the MacSharry proposals and replace them with proposals that will help throughout the Community. Does he have alternatives ; can he sell them and find the necessary support to defeat the proposals? There is a political coalition in the EEC which is not interested in farming. It is interested in the EEC purse and in how deeply it can put its hand into that purse.These are the facts as I see them, as a Member of the European Parliament.
6.36 pm
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : This has been a debate about a serious issue. Agriculture unquestionably faces its worst crisis since the war. I welcome the Minister's presence throughout the debate, but I regret the absence of the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the absence of any Scottish Minister.
After the war, we first had a long period of relative stability, ushered in by Tom Williams. It is right to pay tribute to him for what he did. Then we joined the European Community and had a relatively short but enormously successful period of expansion and increased production and productivity, during which, through the common agricultural policy, we achieved a 75 per cent.
self-sufficiency rate.
Many Members have rightly said that the CAP is in desperate need of reform- -but we must remember two things : first, that it produced self-sufficiency where before there was shortage ; and secondly, that when there began to be over-production, the European Commission, which is often vilified, repeatedly brought the problem to the attention of the Council of Ministers, with proposals for rectifying it. It was the political failure of the Council of Ministers to tackle these matters which lies at the root of our present problems. I notice the Minister nodding happily, and that is all very well ; but, for example, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, went down to the west country weeks before milk quotas were introduced urging farmers in the west country to adopt the solution of producing more and more. So we share our part of the blame for that.
There is uncertainty, and lack of confidence and of a sense of a clear way ahead--and we tax the Government with all those things. The Minister provided us with a sort of low-grade entertainment show-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett- Bowman) was perhaps a little better. I want to quote a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Mary MacKenzie of Newtonmore, written on 12 January :
"We all know that the British Government are able to increase HLCA payments, but not only will they not announce an increase, they have not even sent out the application forms yet."
The letter was written in response to a letter that I had sent to the Minister of State in the House of Lords with responsibility for Scottish agriculture. It continued :
"In any other year our completed form would be being processed by now and we would be awaiting the cheque a good proportion of which (£2,900-- last year) would be used to pay the farmer who winters our hogs and gimmers. He says"--
that is, the Minister in the Lords--
the French farmers have been especially hard hit'. When I first wrote to you we were very despondent, having just sold our calves with much reduced income, but worse was to come
Column 1049
when we sold the sheep and lambs. In 1989 our income from the autumn sales of sheep, cast ewes, claves and cast cows was £25,784 and 1990 that income was £19,032.10."That is a very large drop. I accept that the HLCA has now been paid, but neither the Minister's speech nor his record impresses people who are struggling with debt.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who led for the Opposition, delivered a sensible and constructive speech and was right to attack the Minister's obsession with size. The hon. Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Marland) helped us with a useful critique of the figures proposed by MacSharry. He was quite right, of course, but if the figures are changed, matters could also greatly change.
For example, the NFU calculation on milk shows that, if 200,000 litres is used as a definition of a small milk producer, cuts in Germany will be 3 per cent., in France 5 per cent., in Denmark 17 per cent., in the Netherlands 30 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 50.4 per cent. Plainly, that is totally unacceptable. What difference would it make if the base were 300,000 or 350,000 litres? We must discuss this, not just in terms of the proposed figures, but in terms of what we are trying to do. I shall return to that. Existing milk quotas in European Community countries, except for the United Kingdom, are too high and are resulting in overproduction of approximately 14 per cent.
Mr. McKelvey : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Russell Johnston : I am pushed for time, but I shall give way and hope that the hon. Gentleman is brief.
Mr. McKelvey : As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, when those figures are adjusted for Scotland, they will mean a 75 per cent. cut for Scottish farmers.
Sir Russell Johnston : That is a good point, and I accept it. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) drew attention not only to the livestock crisis in the hills, but to the difficulties faced by soft fruit growers. If the amendment that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) tabled had been selected, we would have supported it. He was right about the absence of forward thinking.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) spoke about indebtedness and the consequent impact of interest rates, as did the hon. Member for Mid- Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), who was also properly concerned with farm wages. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) spoke knowledgeably about the erosion of the rural environment in Wales. The hon. Member for Lancaster felt that food should be produced economically and not romantically, but she favoured well-maintained dry stone dykes. Perhaps we are closer than the furious torrent of her words suggested.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South--
Rev. Ian Paisley : Antrim, North.
Sir Russell Johnston : I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am sure that he is always north of most of us. He rolled out in his thunderous way and rightly asked the Minster what on earth he proposes for the future. That is the key to the whole debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) was polite and over-fair to the Minister. Sadly, the Minister was himself--smooth tongued and glib and, as always, eager to make party
Column 1050
politics and to obscure the principal issues in a plethora of words. He was much more anxious to spend time trying to make political capital than to address issues. The Minister cannot tell me or any of my hon. Friends that we have an easy time in politics or that we play at pretend politics and do not care for our constituents. I am a tolerant man and I am prepared to listen to his arguments, but I am not getting the chance to hear them. He should do me and my hon. Friends the decency of listening to us.There is a considerable surplus in butter and beef. I am told that about 45 per cent. of the beef surplus is directly attributable to the customer response to BSE, mad cow disease.
Mr. Gummer indicated dissent .
Sir Russell Johnston : It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head, but that is what the NFU tells me, and that is the only criterion that I can use. The Minister did not mention mad cow disease, but if it is responsible for about 45 per cent. of the beef surplus in the Community, it is a substantial matter. What is being done about it, how much more is being spent on research and are we making any progress? That is an important and grave matter. We have to contain production, reduce surpluses and, naturally, we have to contain public expenditure. We must enable rural economies to survive, and that will mean redirecting income, which is what MacSharry talks about. We must find a way through the GATT negotiations. As the hon. Member for Taunton perceptively observed, those things have to be done at a time when agriculture is less politically popular than it used to be. It is more under assault than it used to be and finds it more difficult to get a resonance from the public.
We do not pretend that the problems are easy to solve ; nor do we say different things in different places. I should like to think that we are reasonable politicians and, as such, we should like to see a sensible, staged policy for the future. I accept that the MacSharry proposals are unacceptable, not just in the north of Ireland but in that other place which the hon. Member for Antrim, North would not normally mention.
The problem that MacSharry addresses will not go away. Extensification, set -aside and rural management schemes will all help, but there must be some transfer of income from the big to the small to maintain rural life while retaining the market spur. MacSharry has the right idea but the wrong figures. The Minister said about the MacSharry proposals :
"We hate them. We condemn them".
Those are not the words of a rational negotiator.
This has been a good debate and hon. Members have shown a deep concern for agriculture. The Government have not given agriculture sufficient priority in their thinking ; nor have they been sufficiently clear about where they are going, and that is what farmers want to know.
6.47 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : Almost all hon. Members agreethat many farmers face difficult times. We know that that is true and that there is no point in pretending otherwise. Few people have given the reasons for that. A biblical plague of locusts has not descended from the sky. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has said, the basic structural problem of over-production still exists
Column 1051
in the Community. In many respects, there is over-production also in the world market. Until we tackle that, we will not put farm incomes right, because we cannot maintain everybody on the land producing food that people do not wish to eat. Until supply and demand can be brought closer together, it will be impossible to maintain incomes from the marketplace. If that cannot be done, little can be done to maintain incomes other than by aid and subsidy. It is not the policy of this Government or any hypothetical Government to allow farmers to become the recipients of perennial social security payments merely because they are farmers. That would be wrong for this or any other Government. I have mentioned over-production, but we also know that there have been fundamental changes in patterns of consumption. BSE has been a problem in this country, but throughout the Community there is a decline in beef consumption. It may be a sociological trend, but it exists, and it started well before the BSE problem started in the United Kingdom. There have been specific problems such as BSE, the drought, and early marketing of lambs because of the mild winters that we enjoyed until recently. There were problems also in the French and Irish markets, and because of the Gulf war, with the closing of middle east markets. In addition, output has been increasing, and this time there is not the blessed drought in the United States that helped us so much for a couple of years. World prices are declining, and the catastrophic fall in the value of the dollar has had an impact on the Community budget.Neither farmers nor Governments can do much about those factors. Instead, we can only try to cope with them in the context of the Community. Where we can help, we do. That is why we increased the HLCA, and why it was so well received. We targeted it specifically at the most difficult sector--the uplands and the hardy breeds, which also received an increase last year. The forms were delayed because we were compelled to adopt a new scheme, which we opposed but which was forced upon us by the Community. Until we did that, we could not proceed to issue forms--but they are now all on their way. We will do the maximum we can to get payments to farmers as quickly as possible, because we know the urgency of the cash flow problems they face. I freely give that undertaking.
We also increased the suckler cow premium to the maximum, and developed a whole series of schemes to assist farms where possible. However, we must still apply a test of value for money. I repeat that we are not, and cannot be, in the business of turning the farmer into a recipient of social security purely because he is a farmer. That is at the heart of our objections to the MacSharry proposals--for it would have that effect on a whole category of farmers.
I admire the struggle of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in trying to decide what parts of the MacSharry proposals he liked or disliked. But he said that he was trying, and we all like triers. We are all reasonable people on these Benches, and we have never abused Mr. MacSharry. [ Hon. Members :-- "What?"] We may have said one or two marginally critical things about his proposals, but there is a distinction to be drawn between Mr. MacSharry--the personality with whom we
Column 1052
have to deal, day in, day out, and with whom our relations are impeccable--and his proposals, which we think are pretty bad for the United Kingdom.My right hon. and hon. Friends and others reiterated their objections, and it helps us to know that the House is united in its opposition to the proposals. We need that influence and certainty in Brussels in arguing why we think that MacSharry's proposals are unfriendly to the United Kingdom. One reason is that they are fundamentally anti-commercial and anti- economic. One cannot engineer a flight from the marketplace. The quotas and controls implicit in the MacSharry proposals move away from the marketplace, and that does not make sense for farmers. Agricultural needs are best met by a policy that is organised around commercial operations that can survive in a market place. The proposals would also be expensive to implement. Curbing excessive expenditure by a large-scale programme of adding to the budget seems to us somewhat perverse.
The proposals also discriminate against the United Kingdom because of the price-tagging restraint that would have to be observed by United Kingdom farmers, and because they are selective in the product range that they cover, whereas the products of others that are seriously in surplus in the Community are not even touched by the MacSharry proposals.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned small farms. We should not romanticise about them. Many people are getting out of farming on the continent, where there is a problem of diversification. We do not have that problem in the United Kingdom, as I know from my own constituency. I will take lessons from no one on the problems of small farmers and farming. The problem in my Pennine constituency is not farmers trying to get out, but people trying to get planning permission to convert the barn and to live in it.
We object also to the attempt to keep pocket farms in existence beyond any reasonable test of viability. We are not opposed to the small farm. When we had 1 per cent. of milk quota to distribute, my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself decided to give a little over the odds to the smaller farmer to help him to survive. We sought also to introduce a new entrants scheme to help people who wanted to move into the industry. We have introduced our proposals on tenancies to help the smaller or younger farmer to get into the industry. We will not take it from anybody that we have an ideological hostility to the small farm. Instead, we believe that the small British farm should not pay for the pocket farm elsewhere. That is not only wrong, but a futile policy. A farm of 40 cows, which will produce roughly 200,000 litres, is a fairly small one for the United Kingdom and for other parts of the Community. Even some people in the Republic of Ireland would regard it as a small-scale farm. The small or family farm would undoubtedly be hit by the MacSharry proposals, and there would be precious few beneficiaries in the United Kingdom from the pocket farm approach that appears to be at the heart of them.
It is true that we must work to find allies in the Council, and that we must respond to its proposals. The Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation, and we realised from the start that coalition building is the name of the game. We have been very successful in that. We were at the heart of the rational opposition to the MacSharry proposals because we managed to persuade others to come to our side.
Column 1053
Despite much of the rhetoric surrounding small farmers, when they were faced with the choice of opting for the commercial farm capable of delivering to the market place or for the nostalgic concept of peasantry, they decided that their national interests were best served by the commercial farm concept. That was the day when the bluff was called.My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) made an important speech. He will excuse me if I refer to the intervention made in his speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who I think was disappointed not to be called. He referred to the cereal acreage increase and to set-aside. British cereal acreage fell by 173,000 hectares in one year, and by 30,000 hectares the previous year. Since we introduced set-aside in Britain, there has been a decline in the cereal acreage. That philosophy has not been applied with anything like equal vigour on the continent.
The set-aside may turn out to be one of the pivotal ideas in the reformed MacSharry proposals. One of our pivotal ideas is to ensure that, whatever new law the Community makes, it becomes the law for everyone. Laws should apply equally across the Community, and burdens should be fairly shared.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : The Minister has explained why he does not like the MacSharry proposals, and the right hon. Gentleman said why he does not like our proposals. Nor does the Minister like the NFU's proposals on production control. In what direction do the Government want to go?
Mr. Curry : If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, and if I have time, I will give him that explanation. The Government have set out their ideas on changing the CAP. They embrace a wide concept, but the essence is that there must be a move closer to the marketplace.
Mr. Morley : The hon. Gentleman does not say how.
Mr. Curry : The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) spoke of slavish adherence to the free market. Anyone who has to run a part of the CAP will find it slightly curious to be accused of that. We would like to see a little more slavery from the rest when it comes to a free market. The hon. Gentleman said also that there should also be direct income aid. That is a horrendous proposition, if one multiplies it across the Community. There followed a series of happy little phrases, one of which was sensitive management. That was not very specific in helping farmers to comprehend the prospects of a Labour Government.
We think it important to operate closer to the market place. We see a role for specific aid for farmers--well tested and well costed--when there is a countryside function for them to preform. We see a role for certain restraints on output, which we may well find ourselves obliged to observe under the GATT. That is an important element for our farmers as well as all the others ; the alternative is an horrendous trade war.
Those are coherent and long-standing policies, which remain valid and which we will defend. The Liberal motion is woolly, wordy and worthy, and is not worth a row of beans. I am disappointed to learn that the great party of Gladstone has surrendered to dirigisme and bureaucracy. I regret it, and the party will regret it, and I ask the House to reject the motion.
Column 1054
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question :--The House divided : Ayes 46, Noes 141.
Division No. 66] [7 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Beggs, Roy
Beith, A. J.
Bellotti, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Cox, Tom
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Hardy, Peter
Haynes, Frank
Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Howells, Geraint
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kennedy, Charles
Livsey, Richard
McKelvey, William
Maclennan, Robert
Madden, Max
Marek, Dr John
Michael, Alun
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Morley, Elliot
O'Hara, Edward
Paisley, Rev Ian
Salmond, Alex
Skinner, Dennis
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Wallace, James
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Wigley, Dafydd
Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Mr. Ronnie Fearn.
NOES
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Amess, David
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas
Ashby, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Body, Sir Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Buck, Sir Antony
Butler, Chris
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cran, James
Curry, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dunn, Bob
Dykes, Hugh
Emery, Sir Peter
Evennett, David
Favell, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Fox, Sir Marcus
Freeman, Roger
Gale, Roger
Gill, Christopher
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Goodlad, Alastair
Gregory, Conal
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Grist, Ian
Ground, Patrick
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hague, William
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Harris, David
Haselhurst, Alan
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Hind, Kenneth
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Jack, Michael
Janman, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Kilfedder, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Knowles, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Lord, Michael
McCrindle, Sir Robert
Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Maclean, David
Mans, Keith
Marland, Paul
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Miller, Sir Hal
Mitchell, Sir David
Monro, Sir Hector
Morrison, Sir Charles
Moynihan, Hon Colin
| Next Section
| Home Page |