| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have a question, please.
Mr. Dickens : Oh yes, it is just coming--I have waited so long, Mr. Speaker.
I do not take umbrage at the fact that there are two thirds of Scottish Conservative Members in the House, as opposed to a smaller percentage of Opposition Members. What is all the nonsense about wanting to break up the union, when the resources of United Kingdom taxpayers are being poured into Scotland? Why on earth do the Scottish people want to break away from us when they are doing so jolly well?
Mr. Lang : My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point that the people of Scotland should address. It is undoubtedly true that, when 22 per cent. more of public expenditure is spent per head in Scotland than in England, the Scottish people should reflect on whether it is sensible to run the risk of upsetting that unfavourable financial arrangement. I have no doubt that, if they addressed that issue and realised the massive rise in income tax that they would have to pay to a Scottish Parliament or Scottish Assembly, they would decide that the present United Kingdom arrangements were more favourable to them.
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) : When, during the last year, the Secretary of State announced special measures for Lanarkshire and Dunoon and for employment action, it was said that it was extra money, extra funding for the Scottish economy because of need. When one takes out the money for Lanarkshire, Dunoon and employment action, one sees that there has
Column 274
been a cut in real terms in the Highlands and Islands and Scottish Enterprise budget of 1.5 per cent. How can the Secretary of State justify that cut in his industry budget at a time when the needs of the Scottish economy are becoming even more grave?The Secretary of State said that he intended to increase the amount for capital building on schools. If my calculations are correct, it means that, next year, £80 million or thereabouts will be spent on Scotland's schools. At 1992-93 prices, in 1979 we spent £134 million on Scotland's schools. That is a cut of 40 per cent. over 12 years. How can the Secretary of State justify such a cut in school building?
Mr. Lang : The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that there has been a substantial reduction in school rolls. If he compared like with like, he would find that spending per pupil has increased over that period. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Scottish Enterprise. Of course, if part of its budget is taken out and the reduced level compared with something else, a different result is obtained. Scottish Enterprise's budget will be up by £37 million compared with the planned figure a year ago, an increase of 8.8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lanarkshire. Taking into account trunk roads, local roads and local authority factory building provision, the figure for next year is £29 million, including the Scottish Enterprise figure of up to £25 million for Lanarkshire. The following year, that would increase to £44.4 million, and in the year after that it would increase to £58.9 million. On top of that, there is provision for more expenditure by local authorities, local enterprise companies and other Scottish Office budgets in the Lanarkshire area. Therefore, it can look forward to a continuing commitment of Government funds as we tackle the problems in that area.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : No, I shall take first the application under Standing Order No. 20.
Following is the table :
Column 273
£ million
1991-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95
Estimated Planned Planned Planned Planned
Outturn Provision Provision Provision Provision
|gross |net |gross |net |gross |net |gross |net |gross |net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central government's own expenditure
(including public corporations other than
nationalised industries) and local authority
capital expenditure
Agriculture, fisheries and food |258 |250 |255 |250 |307 |300 |310 |300 |310 |300
Industry, energy, trade and employment |629 |553 |612 |527 |616 |537 |620 |530 |620 |580
Tourism |14 |14 |14 |14 |14 |14 |10 |10 |220 |20
Roads and transport |383 |379 |384 |381 |423 |419 |440 |440 |460 |450
Housing |1,246 |719 |1,162 |719 |1,029 |654 |1,050 |690 |1,110 |760
Other environmental services |425 |333 |415 |318 |475 |375 |500 |390 |500 |400
Law, order and protective services |347 |331 |348 |312 |406 |386 |410 |380 |420 |400
Education |545 |545 |545 |545 |627 |627 |670 |670 |710 |710
Arts and libraries |41 |41 |41 |41 |49 |49 |60 |60 |60 |60
Health |3,422 |3,321 |3,383 |3,282 |3,725 |3,615 |3,900 |3,780 |4,030 |3,910
Social Work services |51 |51 |51 |51 |61 |61 |60 |60 |70 |70
Other public services |198 |158 |196 |159 |206 |164 |230 |180 |230 |190
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------
Total central government and local authority
capital |7,557 |6,695 |7,407 |6,598 |7,937 |7,203 |8,250 |7,510 |8,540 |7,830
Central government support to local
authorities' current expenditure |4,892 |4,396 |5,203 |5,480 |5,700
Nationalised industries financing limits |49 |48 |32 |-10 |-20
|------- |------- |------- |------- |-------
Total expenditure within the Secretary of States
responsibility |11,635 |11,042 |12,437 |12,980 |13,510
Forestry Commission |83 |83 |99 |90 |90
|------- |------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |11,718 |11,125 |12,536 |13,070 |13,610
Notes:
1. 1991-92 and 1992-93 rounded to nearest £1 million. 1993-94 and 1994-95
rounded to nearest £10 million.
2. Figures may not add due to rounding.
3. Central government support to local authorities comprises revenue support
grant, grants to local authorities for specific purposes, and income from non
domestic rates.
4. Housing figures for 1991-92 include repayments to the National Loans Fund
of £170 million (gross) and £38 million (net). These are technical adjustments
and the amounts were not available for spending on programmes. The
comparable figure for the other years is £4 million (gross).
Column 277
Mirror Group Newspapers (Pension Fund)4.17 pm
Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the safeguarding of contributors to the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund in view of a statement made by representatives of Mirror Group Newspapers last night that unauthorised loans had been made from the fund to private companies controlled by the late Mr. Robert Maxwell."
This is a specific matter, in that it relates specifically to people who have contributed to the pension fund and who woke up this morning to read reports that £300 million had been spirited out of their fund. In particular, members of the former Thomson group pension fund, many of them based in Manchester at Withy Grove, the former Fleet street of the north, were urged to enter the fund by the late Mr. Robert Maxwell, who suggested that they could see no increases in their pensions unless they transferred from the former fund into this fund. It is an important matter that many of the contributors are now retired. They are elderly people who are completely bewildered by what they read and are very concerned about what will happen to them from now on.
Above all, the matter is urgent. I was pleased to see that today, since I gave notice of the application, the Serious Fraud Office has been called in. It has been said that the Department of Social Security will introduce new rules. It is also urgent, because foreign banks are already circling over what is left of the Maxwell empire, and the funds must be traced before they leave the country. It is urgent that every Department looks to see whether it has powers to freeze the Maxwell assets before they leave the country, because if they are not frozen it may be too late.
Column 278
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely : "the safeguarding of the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund." I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said about the matter. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application falls within the Standing Order, and whether I should give it precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that, in this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirement of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. Nevertheless, I am sure that Ministers will have heard and will take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been given the expenditure figures that the Secretary of State placed in the Vote Office. They show that spending on tourism has been frozen at £14 million, and will drop by 40 per cent. to £10 million.
Mr. Speaker : That may be so, but what is the point of order for me?
Mr. Griffiths : Will you, Mr. Speaker, give the Secretary of State the opportunity to come back and tell the truth to the House?
Mr. Speaker : I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that phrase.
Mr. Griffiths : I certainly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Will you give the Secretary of State the chance to come back and correct the misinformation that was given?
Mr. Speaker : I am not aware of any misinformation. We must get on.
Column 279
BILLS PRESENTED
National Lottery
Mr. Ivan Lawrence, supported by Sir Richard Luce, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Ms. Kate Hoey and Sir Cyril Smith, presented a Bill to establish a national lottery for the benefit of the arts, sport and heritage ; to make provision for its regulation, licensing and conduct ; to provide for the allocation by trustees of the proceeds of the lottery, save for a proportion to be paid into the Consolidated Fund ; to provide that any residue shall be applied to such charitable purposes as those trustees may determine ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
Traffic Calming
Mr. Keith Mans, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Bowis, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. John Lee, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. David Alton and Mr. Tony Banks, presented a Bill to make provision about the carrying out on highways of works affecting the movement of vehicular and other traffic for the purposes of promoting safety and of preserving or improving the environment ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
Medicinal Products : Prescription by Nurses etc.
Mr. Roger Sims, supported by Mr. Sam Galbraith, Sir David Price, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. John Butterfill, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Jack Ashley and Miss Emma Nicholson, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to medicinal products prescribed or otherwise ordered by registered nurses, midwives and health visitors : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
Timeshare
Mr. Andrew Hunter, supported by Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Michael Lord, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Ian Taylor and Mr. John Watts, presented a Bill to provide for rights to cancel certain agreements about timeshare accommodation : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
Wild Mammals (Protection)
Mr. Ron Davies, on behalf of Mr. Kevin McNamara, supported by Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Ms. Marjorie Mowlem, Mr. Simon Hughes, Sir Teddy Taylor, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Tony Banks, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from cruelty ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February 1992 and to be printed [Bill 20.]
Column 280
Referendum
Mr. Richard Shepherd, presented a Bill to require a national referendum as a precondition of the ratification of certain treaties : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
Freedom of Information
Mr. Menzies Campbell, on behalf of Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. James Wallace, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to establish a general right of access to official records for members of the public subject to certain exemptions ; to provide for the correction of inaccurate records ; to require the publication of certain information ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
Home Rule (Scotland)
Mr. Menzies Campbell, supported by Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Sir Russell Johnston, Sir David Steel, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Nichol Stephen, Mr. Richard Livsey and Mr. Archy Kirkwood, presented a Bill to establish and entrench a Scottish Parliament elected by a system of proportional representation, with revenue-raising powers, to assume legislative authority on all matters of public policy relating to Scotland, under reservation of matters relating to defence, international and macro-economic affairs which shall remain the preserve of the United Kingdom Parliament ; to provide for changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)
Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Richard Body, Sir David Steel, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. John Hannam, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Robert N. Wareing, presented a Bill to prohibit discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
Stillbirth (Definition)
Mrs. Rosie Barnes, supported by Dr. David Owen, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Sir David Price, Mr. Roger Sims, Ms. Kate Hoey and Mr. Peter Thurnham presented a Bill to amend the law in respect of the definition of stillbirth ; to make certain consequential amendments of the law ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
Column 281
Timeshare Contracts (Time for Reconsideration) (Scotland)
Mr. Alex Eadie, on behalf of Mr. Harry Ewing, supported by Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, presented a Bill to provide for a period during which the parties in a timeshare purchase may withdraw ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
Corporate Safety and Environmental Information
Mr. Jeff Rooker, supported by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Sir Richard Body, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Nigel Foreman, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Ms. Jo Richardson, Miss Emma Nicholson and Mrs. Sylvia Heal, presented a Bill to amend the Companies Act 1985 with respect to the disclosure of information in the directors' report ; to permit regulations to be made requiring the publication of certain information by public authorities and nationalised industries ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales)
Mr. Keith Raffan, supported by Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Ian Grist, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones presented a Bill to enable the Wales Tourist Board to carry on abroad activities to promote tourism to and within Wales : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
National Health Service(Supply of Medical Equipment) Mr. Rhodri Morgan, supported by Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Allen MacKay, Mr. Alan W. Williams and Mr. Dennis Turner, presented a Bill to clarify the law relating to the supply of medical equipment to national health service patients : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
Sexual Offences (Amendment)
Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo, supported by Mr. Andy Stewart, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. David Bellotti, Mr. Jim Lester, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Michael Knowles, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Jacques Arnold, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to anonymity in connection with allegations of, and criminal proceedings relating to, certain sexual offences : and the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
Column 282
Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment)
Mr. Merlyn Rees, supported by Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. John Battle, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Jim Marshall and Mr. Alun Michael, presented a Bill to amend the Housing Act 1985 so as to add the criteria of internal arrangement and thermal efficiency to the fitness standard ; to provide for the enforcement of the fitness standard where only part of a unit of accommodation fails this standard ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
Firearms (Amendment)
Mr. Michael Lord, supported by Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir Trevor Skeet, Mr. Humfrey Mallins, Sir Michael Marshall, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Sir Hal Miller, Mr. Richard Page and Mr. Ian Taylor, presented a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to extend the period for which firearm and shot gun certificates are granted or renewed : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
Impact of disasters
Mr. Keith Vaz presented a Bill to provide that persons involved with and in a disaster receive psychological assessment and, as required, psychological treatment : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation)
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, supported by Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Elliott Morley, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Robert B. Jones, presented a Bill to require appropriate Ministers and relevant bodies to have regard to the conservation of flora and fauna in the discharge of their functions under the Sea Fisheries Acts : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
Education (School Premises)
Mrs. Edwina Currie, supported by Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Roger King, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Denis Howell, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Kevin Barron and Mr. Menzies Campbell, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the agreements which may be entered into by the governors of a voluntary school, or the governing body of a county or maintained special school, concerning the use of school premises outside school hour : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the Matter of the Urban and Rural Regeneration of Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Column 283
Common Agricultural Policy
Mr. Speaker : I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
4.24 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer) : I beg to move
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8356/90, relating to agricultural production methods, 7570/91, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 13th November 1991, relating to the development and future of the Common Agricultural Policy, and 8886/91 COR 1, 8950/91 and 9136/91, relating to amendments to the legal framework of the Common Agricultural Policy ; and supports the Government's intention to seek reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which will make Community agriculture more market-orientated and efficient, will put more emphasis on environmental care, will reduce the cost of that Policy and will apply fairly throughout the Community.
The Agriculture Council is now considering the proposals that we shall discuss today. It held its first discussion on arable crops, sheep and tobacco in November. Next week the Council will focus on beef, milk and the accompanying measures.
The Government have had considerable support from hon. Members of all parties in their attempts to achieve reform of the common agricultural policy. That is no new-found demand, but one that the United Kingdom has clearly made for many years. We have to start, therefore, by recognising that the Commission's acceptance that major reform is needed is itself a good thing. Unfortunately, its proposals would not, in our view, lead to the kind of reform that we seek and would not benefit the Community as a whole, as we want it to benefit.
In the short term, the Commission's proposals would address some of our current problems. There is no doubt that compulsory set-aside would cut production of cereals. Lower cereal prices would lessen the cost of exporting the remaining surplus and would reduce the tension between the Community and other cereal exporters.
In the longer term, the Commission's proposals would repeat the mistakes of the past. They are designed to keep as many farmers as possible on the land and especially to protect small farmers, as defined on the continent and not as defined in the United Kingdom, from change.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : Did my right hon. Friend see the article in The Sunday Times about set-aside? If so, will he tell us whether set-aside has a part to play in the proposals? I understand that the reforms are such that, even though the Isle of Wight is the smallest county in Britain, almost none of our farmers would benefit from the proposals in the MacSharry reforms.
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable importance. There is no doubt that set-aside plays a part in the Commission's proposals and it is one of the issues that we shall have to discuss. I read with some concern the article in The Sunday Times. I am sad to say that The Sunday Times carried a wholly erroneous report. The House should know about that, or it cannot consider the motion with the necessary clarity because set-aside is so central to what happened.
Dr. N. Rufford, who claimed to be engaged in agriculture and to be the owner of 1.2 hectares of
Column 284
agricultural land, applied for and was allocated an agricultural holding number. He was not the owner of the land and he gave a fictitious name for the alleged previous owner. An agricultural holding number does not confer any rights, but merely refers to a particular piece of land.On 6 September, signed registration and application forms for the five-year set-aside scheme were received from Dr. Rufford, who turns out to be a journalist on the staff of The Sunday Times. The application form had to be returned to him twice because he had not filled it in properly and he would not answer the question confirming that he had been farming the greater part of the holding since 1 October 1990. That is a direct question which has to be answered directly. The documents and associated map included what are clearly fictitious details of previous and current cropping. Dr. Rufford signed declarations that he had given correct answers. They were false.
Contrary to the allegations in the newspaper, officials did not accept Dr. Rufford's application. They were suspicious and decided that a physical inspection should be undertaken to verify the details. Of course, The Sunday Times said that no such inspection was needed. Dr. Rufford said that it was essential for him to accompany the inspector, but he could not find a convenient time. He appeared to find a convenient time to be photographed on the site by a Sunday Times photographer. Of course, he was trespassing on the site because it was owned by someone other than himself.
That was the position last Sunday when The Sunday Times article was published ; Dr. Rufford had not received an acceptance. He telephoned the Ministry's office in Ipswich on Wednesday 27 November, claiming to be trying to arrange a date for the field inspection. He asked to be sent a copy of the approval document. He was told that an approval document had not been issued as his application had not been approved. Later that afternoon, at a time when he had been told that the officer dealing with his case would not be available, he telephoned again. He claimed to have mislaid his acceptance letter although he knew that no such letter had been issued. So that he could reconstruct his correspondence, he asked a clerk to fax him a copy. An updated, unsigned draft letter, on plain paper, was faxed to him.
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate that such an obvious plant should take place in the middle of an agricultural debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : What the Minister has said seems to be relevant to the debate.
Mr. Barry Field : Mr. Deputy Speaker, I resent being accused of being a plant. May I point out that I am a Field, not a plant. I very much resent the allegation that I am a plant.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Chair has no knowledge about plants.
Mr. Gummer : The matter is serious and the point that I have to make is clear. Because Dr. Rufford asked for the approval to be sent to him on the basis that he had already had it, an undated, unsigned draft letter on plain paper was faxed to him. It was the standard letter which would be sent out if the application was accepted. The application had not been accepted and would not be until the inspection took place.
Column 285
This is a serious matter. That letter was reproduced in The Sunday Times report under a faked Ministry letterhead. The Sunday Times story was therefore fabricated. The application had not been approved. The inspection of the land would have revealed that the application was fraudulent. Dr. Rufford gave false information on the ownership and cropping of the land. He obtained a draft letter by deceiving a junior officer. The Sunday Times then published that letter with a faked letterhead.I have dealt with the matter in depth after the question was asked of me because it is very important, if we are to have a set-aside system, that it is properly carried out. I am determined that it shall be properly carried out. I deeply deprecate the activities of newspapers aimed not at the Minister, the Ministry or anybody in the House but at junior staff who try to carry out properly their job. In this case two members of staff carried out their job absolutely properly. I have asked that that be made clear to them because they have been extremely upset by the action taken by the newspaper.
Dr. David Clark (South Shields) : I thank the Minister for illuminating the matter so clearly. If, as he says, a letter was forged by the use of the letterhead of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he take the necessary steps to prosecute the individual? If he does so, he will have the full support of the Opposition.
Mr. Gummer : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. It was clear to me that the editor of The Sunday Times would have been unlikely to have known the basis upon which the report was published. [Interruption.] I am sure that he would not have known and I have written to him in those terms. I shall be answering a written question and I shall ask him to quote the whole of that answer in the newspaper so that the readers of The Sunday Times may understand what happened and he can retract something of which I am sure he was not aware.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : If the editor of The Sunday Times who, as he says, is an honourable man, refuses to publish such a statement, will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will make an official complaint to the Press Council?
Mr. Gummer : If one asks an honourable man to do something, it must be without a threat. I shall not make any threats. I shall ask him to do what I have just outlined and I am sure that he will agree.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : The headed notepaper might be appropriate to what the Minister is saying, but it is hardly important to the CAP negotiations and certainly is not crucial to the agriculture industry faced with the CAP proposals and GATT and worried about eastern European imports. Will the Minister now guarantee to spend as much time quantifying the effects of the CAP proposals on agriculture? What figures does he have to show the quantitative effects of the MacSharry proposals on the industry? Will he spend as much time telling the industry about that as he has done dealing with the headed notepaper?
Mr. Gummer : I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only shall I now spend more time on that than on anything
Column 286
else, but I have been doing so week in week out, month in month out. Nobody in the agriculture industry or outside does not now realise from what I have said how damaging Mr. MacSharry's proposals would be to British agriculture and particularly to Scotland. They are special attacks on the real problems of the most distant parts of the United Kingdom, whether they be in Scotland or in Wales. No one can deny that I have made that case over and over again because I believe it so strongly.I answered the question in detail, quoting from my reply today to the written question, because set-aside is necessary if we are to get to grips with the overproduction of cereals in an immediate and direct way. I am afraid that that is true. I wish that there were a better and quicker way, but there is not. Therefore, we must ensure that set-aside is properly run. I want it to be clear that I have no intention of allowing Britain to be party to a system which is not properly organised and dealt with.
I assure everyone that, although it is usual to inspect set-aside land when it has been set aside, because to look at it before it has been set aside tells us much less, when we believe there to have been a fraudulent application we seek to do so in advance. That is what we have sought to do and I do not want anyone to be unaware of that.
Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : Will my right hon. Friend also encourage the newspaper to print facts which it did not print explaining that set-aside can be environmentally friendly and it can be hugely profitable for the taxpayer to pay farmers to indulge in set-aside rather than have to deal with surplus food which nobody wants and which has to be stored for many years and then disposed of, often in a parlous condition, at the end of that time?
Mr. Gummer : My right hon. Friend who was, in a sense, the inventor of set-aside, who did so much to campaign for reform of the CAP and who began that reform in a most remarkable manner, will know better than anyone that it is much more sensible to pay people to look after the land--I emphasise that--than to produce an unwanted crop which then has to be stored and subsidised in order to export it to other countries whose agriculture system is then undermined. As long as set-aside is environmentally friendly--as long as I am Minister it will be--with people being paid to look after the land, that is the right and immediate but not the long-term mechanism for dealing with the problem.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Will my right hon. Friend give way ?
Mr. Gummer : No. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to give way to her later.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I wanted to refer to set-aside.
Mr. Gummer : I may return later to set-aside.
The proposals are unacceptable because they do not take into account the need to ensure that agriculture is efficient. They are designed to take European agriculture back to the past rather than forward to the future. Although the methods of support would change with the introduction of direct payments, the underlying objective--to insulate producers from market realities--would not change. The cost of the common agricultural policy would therefore remain very high.
Column 287
I hope that all hon. Members recognise that the Commission's suggestions relating to costs are far from realistic. If a new group of people--pensioners--is created, one must expect them to demand pension increases year after year. That is the nature of a permanent pension. If, therefore, figures for future years are produced on which the assumption is made that the cost will magically fall, one ends up with unrealistic figures. If support is given to the proposed system, budgetary costs will increase year in, year out. Furthermore, farmers on very small plots who would have retired and amalgamated their plots with those of their neighbours will not do so. They will sit there and take the pension. The position is then fixed as it is now and the natural change which would have happened, and which is necessary if countries have badly structured agriculture, will not take place. That is what is necessary if those farmers are not to be disadvantaged.That is one reason why I feel so strongly about the issue. It is not just that the Commission is discriminating against the United Kingdom, although that would be bad enough, but that it is saying to those parts of the Community that have not benefited from the structural changes that have taken place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that for ever their circumstances will not be viable and that they will become merely the pensioners of the European Community. That is not a fit choice to offer the people of Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy or Ireland. That is not the way to protect farmers' futures. That is not proper for them, any more than it is proper for the efficient farmers of the northern European countries and Britain in particular.
Discrimination against larger commercial farms forms a key part of the Commission's plan to protect small farms from the effects of change. We are wholly opposed to that and we are supported by a number of our Community partners. Such farmers are the key to the retention of a viable and sustainable agricultural industry in the future, one that can compete in world markets. It would make no sense to penalise them for the progress that they have made by suddenly setting a premium on inefficiency. The effect would be to make Community farmers less able to compete in the liberalised world market in agricultural trade which we are trying to create in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations. No wonder that the only Agricultural Minister who wholeheartedly supports Mr. MacSharry's ideas is Ed Madigan, the United States Secretary for Agriculture. He knows that if we were to carry out Mr. MacSharry's proposals we should be unable to compete with the United States in world markets and that that would do them good. I did not support Britain's entry into the European Community and I am not a great enthusiast for Europe in order to be second rate. I am an enthusiast for Europe because I want Europe to be first rate and Britain to be first rate with it. This is the way to make European agriculture second rate.
The Commission's aim is to fossilise existing farm structures in their present form and to halt the development of more viable farming sectors in the Community. That is unwelcome to those member states with a developed farming structure and it is also unwelcome to those with less advanced farm structures. The Commission's approach also ignores differences in farming conditions and structures in the Community. One cannot have a single model for European farming. Due to the nature of their climate, the Spaniards have to feed their beef animals from feed lots. To penalise them because they
Column 288
do not feed their cattle in the same way as cattle are fed in County Kerry is unfair to the European Community system.Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : There is little dispute about the discrimination that is inherent in the MacSharry proposals, but the Minister has rightly been criticised in previous debates for not making his own positive proposals to counter the MacSharry proposals. The Minister has published "Our Farming Future" in the last few weeks. If the proposals contained in that document were implemented, what would be the impact on net farm incomes in Scotland on the one hand and in England and Wales on the other?
Mr. Gummer : It is difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he clearly does not understand what negotiation is about. If I were to say to the House, "My bottom line consists of the following detailed matters and it will have the following result", does the hon. Gentleman think that one could negotiate a proper outcome? Has he never negotiated in his life? He is supposed to be the leader of a party. He should be ashamed of himself. Has the hon. Gentleman heard about the French, the Dutch, the German, the Luxembourg or the Greek proposals? Of course he has not. No sane Government would produce detailed proposals ; they want to safeguard their negotiating position. That is why I made it clear in that document, if he read it, that these are not proposals but the general principles upon which I shall be negotiating.
The hon. Gentleman is joining the official Opposition in undermining the British Government's position in these negotiations. I am the only Minister who is negotiating on the basis that the Opposition are demanding constantly that I do something different. In this, like Maastricht, we find that the Opposition are not prepared to support the Government in their European Community negotiations. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to grin. Just because this question was asked by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does not mean that the canker has not reached that part of the Labour party which pretends to understand agriculture. In a recently published document the hon. Gentleman said :
"In essence the MacSharry proposals will be accepted by the Council of Ministers."
They will not be accepted by the Council of Ministers. There is not a Minister who accepts them--except, possibly, the Greek Minister. If the hon. Gentleman says that, what is he doing? He is supporting the Commission's line. He is supporting Mr. MacSharry, who is going round saying that that is what is going to happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Shields says, from a seated position, that that is what is going to happen. Week after week, month after month, we shall come back and tell him how wrong he was. If that were to happen, British agriculture would be undermined. This Government and this Minister will not allow that to happen, although on this occasion the hon. Member for South Shields will do what his leader would do at Maastricht--lie down and be tickled.
I understand that the chairman of the European Commission did not find time to see the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly Mr. Delors does not need to see the Leader of the Opposition ; he knows perfectly well that the Leader of the Opposition will support whatever he says.
Column 289
What goes for the hon. Gentleman's leader goes for agriculture, too. The hon. Gentleman would accept anything that the Commission put forward, for that is now official Labour party policy.Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Will the Minister give way?
| Next Section
| Home Page |