| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Curry : We have raised the incident of the blockade of a fish lorry with the French authorities. It is just as serious as the interruption of meat exports.
Mr. Foulkes : Was the Minister able to get down to room W6 this morning, as I did, and buy the excellent fish provided by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which was being sold in aid of Children in Need? If he did, he would be fortified to say to his French counterpart--as I hope he will--that British
Column 408
fishermen are subject to exactly the same European Community rules as French fishermen. Therefore, were there to be another blockade such as that which stopped fish lorries from Ayrshire and Aberdeen without the French force of law and order being mobilised, it would be wholly unacceptable to the United Kingdom Government.Mr. Curry : The answer to the first question is yes. I bought one monkfish and four kippers, to be precise. I am willing to exchange monkfish recipes, but most of mine are French.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about blockades, whether of fish or meat. French farmers are trying to take away the livelihoods of British farmers and fishermen, instead of getting together to try to sort out the problems that afflict us all. When I next meet him I shall put that point forcefully to the French Minister, as I have in the past.
Mr. Dickens : Will my hon. Friend make it crystal clear to his counterpart in France that if the French people continue to block our goods, the British people might fight fire with fire by blockading frogs, snails, wine and cheese?
Mr. Curry : A few months ago, I opened a British snail exhibition and I have introduced the English quality wine scheme. It seems that the British people can buy all the products that they want without recourse to French goods.
Fishing Industry
6. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss matters relating to the future of the fishing industry.
Mr. Curry : I have regular meetings with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, at which we discuss a wide range of subjects.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave guarantees on the dolphins population on 3 June this year. Can the Minister tell us how many dolphins have been killed as a result of drift-netting since 3 June?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman did not specify which boats, which drift nets or which ocean, which is why I could not give him a reply. Five were caught through drift-netting by British boats. The hon. Gentleman will know that as a result of the agreement that I reached in the Fisheries Council last month, drift-net fishery will, in practice, cease.
Sir Michael Shaw : Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the salmon net fisheries report, administrative convenience is by no means an adequate reason for phasing out the north-east drift-net fishermen, whose trade has been pursued for many generations on that part of the coast?
Mr. Curry : My hon. Friend will know that we published a report on the north-east coast drift-net fishery, which is a different matter from that raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We
Column 409
decided on a long-term phase-out because of the difficulty of management of stocks when it is a multi-species catch by drift net. Although it is a long-standing fishery, the introduction of monofilament net has meant a quantum leap in the technology applied to it. There is no threat to the stocks and that is why we decided on a long-term phase-out and said that fishermen would be allowed to finish their current licences. The National Rivers Authority has been invited to submit proposals, including one for a possible increase in fishing attached to the shore.Mrs. Margaret Ewing : On another aspect of the fishing industry and in particular conservation, can the Minister say, following Monday's meeting, what aspect of the eight-day tie-up he is prepared to be flexible about, given the serious threat, financial hardship and dangers that that tie-up is causing to the fishing industry? In advance of the meeting of the Council of Ministers, will he ensure that a constructive debate on the matter takes place with representatives of the fishing industry and that there will be no more childish outbursts from the Minister such as was witnessed recently in Fife?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Lady knows that my door has always been open to the fishing organisations. That will continue to be the case. At the moment we do not have the proposals from Brussels which will go forward to the Fisheries Council in December. There are two important matters. First, we shall clearly need some continuation of effort controls, because conservation is paramount. Secondly, we shall seek significantly more flexibility in the way in which those controls are applied in the event of future controls as a result of the negotiations. By telling people the simple truth--that conservation matters must be taken seriously--my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is merely doing his job effectively.
Mr. Michael Brown : The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I were delighted to see my hon. Friend purchasing kippers and monkfish. As he eats the monkfish over the weekend and perhaps has the kippers tomorrow morning, will he ruminate on the call by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations for a decommissioning scheme? He has written to me and to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about the case, but the organisation feels that there is a need for such a scheme to bring fishing into balance with the number of vessels.
Mr. Curry : I trust that my wife will cook my monkfish in a way that avoids rumination on the subject--[ Hon. Members :-- "French wife."] Yes, I have a French wife. We have made it clear to the fisheries' organisations that decommissioning could form part of a package, provided that it included long-term effective effort control measures. We have invited them to put such a package to us so that we can discuss it with them. I have already started the conversations and a constructive dialogue is under way. However, I insist that a package must contain effective long- term effort controls that go beyond mesh sizes and the sort of measures agreed recently by the Technical Conservation Council.
Mr. Speaker : I am ruminating on whether fish should be sold in the House of Commons.
Dr. David Clark : Does the Minister recall that, on 3 June, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food lost
Column 410
his temper with me when I suggested that dolphins could be caught in a long drift net, and denied that that was so? Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell- Savours), will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister was wrong? Will he further confirm that, since the Fisheries Council meeting, European fishermen will still be allowed to use long drift nets for another two and a quarter years?Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman knows that when I went to the Fisheries Council the objective was to get the French on board. We had to get a deal that would bring all drift netting under control in the Community. Only five British but 60 French boats were involved. Therefore, if we had merely controlled the British fishermen, the majority of damage would have continued to be inflicted by other people. Therefore, we had to bring everyone under the same regulations. We achieved that only, after intervention by the French Prime Minister, by granting a limited extension to boats with a two-year track record in the fisheries. We had to pay the price, but it was a price worth paying because the alternative would have been no control at all, which would have been bad news for conservation, starting with the dolphins.
Beef Industry
7. Sir John Farr : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new plans he has to improve returns in the beef industry.
Mr. Curry : Returns in the beef sector can be improved only if a better balance between supply and demand is brought about on the market, and producers take positive action to supply what the consumer wants.
Sir John Farr : I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware of the tremendous concern over the Irishification of British agriculture, and in particular of the despondence over the fact that the most efficient producers have their production capped, which only succeeds in putting up prices to the British housewife? When he next goes to Brussels to see Mr. MacSharry, will my hon. Friend make it clear that his proposals are unacceptable, and will he give real consideration to the possibility of Britain withdrawing altogether from the operation and manipulations of the CAP?
Mr. Curry : On the last point, the United Kingdom is an integral part of the Community, and unilateral withdrawal from one part of it is not a practical policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have said, since the introduction of Mr. MacSharry's proposals, that the idea of introducing capping and limits on what was eligible for repayment was fundamentally hostile to British agriculture. We have made that view apparent from the start, and will continue to do so as forcefully as we conceivably can.
Mr. Corbett : I urge the Minister to take cooking lessons so that he can more properly take a share of household duties. Will he confirm that the best way to improve returns for beef producers is for the Government to give a lead in helping to move this trade from one that is on the hoof to one that is on the hook, so that beef producers can get full value for what they produce?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a significant British export trade. We have recently got
Column 411
British beef back into CAP reform for the first time for a number of years, which is a significant improvement to the situation. If meat is sold on the hook, like sheepmeat, the added value comes to the United Kingdom, but if people wish to buy British beef or British lamb on the hoof, the treaty of Rome does not permit us to prevent that sale. Furthermore, if that is what people want, we can make sure that when it is transported in good condition, it arrives in good condition, healthy and good both for the consumer and the animals concerned.Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : How many more years will it take my hon. Friend to discover the obvious truth--that the only way in agricultural produce to relate supply and demand is by a quota system, such as that which exists for milk products?
Mr. Curry : I remember the introduction of milk quotas and I recall the number of times that we have been obliged to cut the quotas because of the continued failure to match output with demand. We are faced with yet a new demand for a cut in milk quotas and it is precisely for that reason that it will take a long time to convince me that quotas are the answer.
Dr. David Clark : Can the Minister explain why major British steak restaurants do not use a single ounce of European beef and say that this is because it lacks quality, when we have almost 1 million tonnes in intervention?
Mr. Curry : Since I do not run any steak restaurants the answer to that is no. But I can tell them where they will get extremely good quality English beef, starting in my constituency. As I was buying fish early this morning, I shall undertake to bring the hon. Gentleman a sample of beef from my constituency where I live.
Mr. Jopling : Is my hon. Friend aware that beef producers in the Lake district who, together with sheep producers, are having a difficult time, are rejoicing today following yesterday's announcement of the extension of the environmentally sensitive area scheme to the Lake district? The promise of many millions of pounds coming to their assistance demonstrates clearly that the Government are well aware of their problems and the need to preserve those beautiful areas.
Mr. Curry : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I recall that the first ESAs were designated when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so he is very much the author of the scheme. It is true that the scheme brings benefits to farmers, the landscape and all who live in and visit the countryside. It is rare to have a scheme that makes everyone happy, but this appears to be one of the few instances where that is so. I hope that we can discover more.
Organic Farming
8. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support is being given to increase the number of farmers using organic methods.
Mr. Curry : In addition to that aid which is available to all farmers, we are financing research and development on organic farming systems and are grant aiding the United Kingdom register of organic food standards.
Column 412
Ms. Hoey : Research is important, but about two years ago the hon. Gentleman's Department announced the launch of a conversion scheme for organic farmers in Britain. More than 70 per cent. of organic produce in Britain is imported and support for German organic farmers is greater. Should not the Government be taking a lead in giving those British farmers who want to convert the same opportunities as continental farmers?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Lady will know that we sought to introduce an organic conversion scheme, but at the time the Community regulations did not permit it. Similarly, we wanted a young entrants scheme for milk which was not possible. That has now been overtaken by the MacSharry proposals. We are aiming to introduce an organic conversion scheme in the course of the MacSharry reform because we believe that farmers should have that opportunity. Whether consumers want to buy and eat organic produce is a matter for them.
Sir Richard Body : Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that most of us who are organic farmers are receiving a premium of 25 per cent. above the market price, so we are not in need of the production subsidy to which he alluded? On the other hand, we welcome wholeheartedly the proposals for organic research in "Our Farming Future".
Mr. Curry : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important that in all these matters the market should decide whether it wants a product or not. Our job is to ensure that what purports to be an organic product is organic and not a false product, and that is what we have done. It is interesting to note that the previous Labour Government showed not the slightest interest in organic production.
Mr. William Ross : What research has there been into the cost of producing food by organic means compared with the more usual methods? What sort of profits can farmers expect if they move completely to organic methods?
Mr. Curry : I do not think that anyone is suggesting that there should be universal production of organic foods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, organic foods command a premium and a significant proportion of such food is imported, so there is certainly scope to increase output in the United Kingdom. But the market must decide whether it wants such food and, if so, what sort of premium to pay for it. I do not think that we shall see universal organic production.
Consultative Document
9. Mr. Robert Hicks : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to publish his consultative document about the future of United Kingdom agriculture ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Gummer : The Government's statement on agriculture, "Our Farming Future", was published on 15 November.
Mr. Hicks : I am sure that all concerned with agriculture and the future of the countryside will welcome that review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that farmers make a major contribution to the rural economy and that if that function is to continue, it is essential that, in the context of the CAP reforms, there should be no discrimination
Column 413
against United Kingdom producers on the basis of farm size, and that payment for alternative forms of land use must be meaningful?Mr. Gummer : I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I agree : payments must indeed be meaningful, and farmers must be paid for doing the job. We do not want to pay them for doing nothing ; we want to pay them to look after the land properly. That is why we want environmental payments to be at the centre of agricultural reform, rather than being an extra.
Mr. Hardy : Will the Minister give urgent consideration to a serious danger that is likely to develop as a result of the ban on stubble burning? There will almost certainly be a considerable increase in the use of pesticides and other farm poisons.
Mr. Gummer : I would not designate pesticides "farm poisons". I think that, although we should use them to the minimum extent that is required, we should be grateful for the existence of pesticides, for without them we should not be able to feed our people so generously and valuably. I am well aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I nevertheless feel that the Government were right to ban stubble burning, which I consider an unacceptable practice.
Mr. Marland : I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his document "Our Farming Future". Does he believe that the day will ever dawn when we can begin to undo the harm done by the market-distorting subsidies that are given not only across the whole of agriculture, but across the European Community? The common agricultural policy has never cost so much money, yet the money never seems to be enough.
Mr. Gummer : I agree. Paradoxically, at a time when the CAP is more expensive than ever before, farmers rightly complain that their incomes have diminished significantly. We need a reformed CAP that will do its job properly, and to do that we must be full, active and central members of the Community. I reject the remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who said from a sedentary position, "We have had 20 minutes slagging off the common market", and then added--turning to his hon. Friends--"and now you are going to vote for it." That shows the extent of Labour's unity on the Common Market.
Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
10. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to introduce a decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels.
Mr. Curry : The Government are ready to consider a package of industry proposals which could include decommissioning, but only if it forms part of a wider conservation package aimed at reducing fishing effort.
Mr. Campbell : I welcome the Minister's lukewarm conversion to the idea of a decommissioning scheme, but will he explain why it has taken so long? Fishing interests have long urged a change of attitude on the Government. Has it not been clear for some time that sensible conservation measures can be achieved only if the fishing fleet is restructured in a sensible way?
Column 414
Mr. Curry : I do not agree. It is important to distinguish between decommissioning as the sole instrument of conservation, and the other conservation measures that are necessary. It is simply not true to say that decommissioning by itself does anything for conservation ; technical conservation and effort control must also be part of the process. As I have said, however, we are prepared to consider the possibility of a decommissioning scheme, provided that it is part of an overall conservation package. Conservation is, of course, important and I stress that fishing organisations must include it in their proposals if they wish to be taken seriously.
Mr. Harris : I appreciate the difficulties that surround a decommissioning scheme and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not a panacea. Does he agree, however, that the pressure for such a scheme to be introduced is likely to increase in view of the Commission's latest proposals--not yet made public--for some pretty hefty cuts in quota, not least for the south-west of England? Will he agree to receive an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament to discuss the details of a scheme?
Mr. Curry : I have already said that I will accept a delegation of hon. Members to discuss the possibility of decommissioning ; in fact, I believe that a date has been agreed. Let me make it clear, however, that in accepting the delegation I am not accepting the principle of decommissioning. Conservation must be seen as a package. Effort control is part of that package ; decommissioning could be part of it. I am having an extremely constructive dialogue with the fishing organisations and I hope that it will continue. The fact that that dialogue is beginning is due to the fishing industry's recent recognition that effort control matters.
Milk Marketing Board
11. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the board's future role.
16. Mr. Knox : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the dairy sector.
Mr. Gummer : I last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 6 November.
Mr. Martlew : Is the Minister aware that the Milk Marketing Board has served the country well since 1933, especially in my area of Cumbria ? Will the Minister acknowledge that there are major concerns and worries among dairy farmers in this country ? Will he tell the dairy farmers and the House that he will support the MMB as it stands now, despite all the attacks from the EEC?
Mr. Gummer : Anybody who said, "This company has remained the same for 60 years, so please invest in it" would receive a dusty answer from anybody who was sensibly involved. The world has changed over the past 60 years and that is why the Milk Marketing Board has said that it has to change. The Labour party has a policy of telling the MMB that it does not know its own business and that it should not change but go on as it has for the past 60 years. Once again, the Labour party shows that it
Column 415
knows nothing about farming, cares even less, and hopes to win a vote or two for the most reactionary policy known in Britain.Mr. Knox : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the apprehensions felt by dairy farmers in my constituency about the future level of their incomes ? Does he propose to take any action to reassure them ?
Mr. Gummer : I am very much aware of that and that is why, as my hon. Friend knows, the Milk Marketing Board has been concerned to change its structure in order to defend the income of his constituents and others. In general, over the past 10 years, the receipts of dairy farmers in Britain have been lower than most in the rest of Europe, but consumers have paid more for liquid milk than in the rest of Europe. Therefore, the Milk Marketing Board is right to seek changes and the Labour party is wrong to try to stop it.
PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Pawsey : Does my right hon. Friend believe that there should be a referendum on the Maastricht summit? What is my right hon. Friend's opinion about a referendum to be held sometime in the future on the single currency?
The Prime Minister : The answer to my hon. Friend's question in both cases is no. The Government do not intend to hold a referendum on the outcome of the Maastricht negotiations. There is no case for one and the Government will not offer one. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, that issue would, self-evidently, be a matter for a future Parliament, but my view remains that we are a parliamentary democracy and I see no need for a referendum.
Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer. Will he, therefore, confirm that for as long as he is leader of the Conservative party it will never accept referendums on European Community matters?
The Prime Minister : I have just made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. On this issue I do not see the need for a referendum.
Q2. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hannam : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to read the speech of Mr. Jacques Delors in which he said that no single group of nations had survived purely on the basis of intergovernmental relationships? Will my right hon. Friend remind Mr. Delors of the existence of
Column 416
NATO, where intergovernmental agreement has succeeded, and contrast it with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, where excessive central control has undoubtedly failed?The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a very telling point. The Community including the Commission, must adapt to the changes in Europe. There is a case for flexible arrangements and I set that out yesterday, but they are for Governments to determine. They are expressly not policy matters for the Commission to determine.
Mr. Ashdown : Having yesterday heard the views of his predecessor with regard to Europe, surely the Prime Minister must now realise that he has to make a choice. He can either have Finchley or Maastricht, but he cannot have both. Will he now choose Europe or her? Or will he stay lamely stuck on the fence?
The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman was here yesterday when I set out quite clearly and in some detail the Government's position on the negotiations at Maastricht. As I recall, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) began her speech by giving me her full support-- [Interruption.]
Q3. Mr. Batiste : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Batiste : Since our success in exploiting the opportunities of the European Community must depend considerably on getting the maximum benefit from our education system, is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that mixed ability teaching in secondary schools is causing widespread under-achievement by pupils at both ends of the ability spectrum? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the comment yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that streaming is the only effective way of getting the best from all our children?
The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and with the remarks by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Over the past few months he has shown clearly that he will make one of the great Secretaries of State for Education and Science.
Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Jones : Following his reply last Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Prime Minister now promise to restore the unemployment benefit rights which so benefited him when he was a young man in the 1960s and which he abolished in the 1980s? Is not the Prime Minister guilty of kicking away the ladder now that he has got to the top?
The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the social security system any more than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If he did, he would be aware that since the early 1960s all sorts of care
Column 417
allowances have been introduced such as invalid care allowance and the hon. Gentleman clearly did not know about that.Q5. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Dunn : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware that we have more inward investment than any other European Commission country, partly as a result of our lower taxation policies on income, profits and employers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are likely to lose our advantage in attracting inward investment if we sign up to a policy of binding minimum rates of taxation in Europe, a policy which is already supported and endorsed by the Labour party and was yesterday by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?
The Prime Minister : Higher corporate taxes are bound to mean lower inward investment from abroad, particularly in many of the regions of this country. It would be particularly damaging for Scotland, and that is also why a Scottish assembly with tax-raising powers would be very bad news indeed for Scotland. We will leave it to the Opposition to advocate higher taxes on companies and individuals. That is not our policy. We will advocate lower taxes and in so doing will encourage more inward investment.
Q6. Mr. Callaghan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Callaghan : In view of the terrible brain damage suffered by two boxers in recent bouts, will the Prime Minister give the House his views on boxing? Does he agree with the British Medical Association that boxing should be banned in this country?
The Prime Minister : No. I do not agree with banning boxing in this country. It is important that there is proper medical attention and that the referee has full discretion to stop the bout whenever he wishes. Boxing should not be banned in this country, and any move to do so would not have my support.
| Next Section
| Home Page |