| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 566
of the final agrement. It was as a result of our pressure that the Council agreed a statement in the final compromise recognising that environmental protection requirements must be pursued as an integral part of the CAP and calling on the Commission to make early proposals to that end. The Commission has agreed to do that. Moreover, we have already made a start, as I said earlier, in prescribing the new arrangments for set-aside and the beef premium. But it is only a start. We must now ensure that the initiative is carried forward and we have made our own commitment clear in a United Kingdom declaration, recorded in the Council minutes, which emphasises the importance of applying environmental conditions to the various direct payments to farmers.The agri-environment action plan--an ugly name for a helpful and useful scheme--which forms an important part of the final package will also be of great benefit to the environment ; it will require all member states to operate programmes for environmentally sensitive farming. It will build on the success of our own environmentally sensitive area schemes and provide scope for further schemes, such as a scheme to encourage extensive livestock farming where it will be environmentally beneficial.
During the negotiations, we secured a number of important changes in the Commission's original proposals--the addition of provisions to encourage organic farming, to encourage farmers to manage their land for public access and to help to protect water quality. We also secured the removal of proposals that would have dislocated the ESA scheme. Member states now have a year in which to draw up plans to implement the new programme, and we shall consult widely in doing so.
I am sorry that I am taking so long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but last time we debated the CAP, it was suggested that these important and detailed proposals should be explained as clearly as possible. At the Council meeting, agreement was also reached on support prices for the 1992-93 marketing years. The Commission proposed--under Britain's guidance, because we pressed the matter in the first place--that prices generally remained unchanged pending decisions on CAP reform, although, for cereals, prices will be cut by 3 per cent. under the stabiliser mechanism agreed in 1988. For cereal farmers, the effect will be offset by the Council's decision to terminate the cereals co-responsibility levy, currently set at 5 per cent. of the intervention price, from the start of the 1992 marketing year. Both the United Kingdom farming industry and the Government have long opposed the continuation of the levy : it is inequitable, discriminatory and unsatisfactory, increasing costs to farmers without decreasing prices paid by consumers. I am sure that the industry and the nation will welcome its disappearance. That is another example of the CAP's being made to conform with the model that Britain thinks right, in which the consumer is the driving force.
The agreement will not only affect the Community. The fact that it makes a settlement in GATT more attainable means that its effects are likely to be felt worldwide. I am therefore extremely disappointed that the United States has decided on action which, if taken, will be illegal under the GATT procedures.
The European Community changed its policies on oilseeds and produced an alternative that we thought would meet the GATT panel's requirement. The panel decided that it was not satisfactory, and the next stage
Column 567
should be negotiation. It is wholly unacceptable that the United States should move not to negotiation but to retaliation, and I hope that the United States Government will think better of a move which I fear has more to do with internal policies than with external concerns.The agreement is remarkable--a reform that has fundamentally changed the nature of farm support. It met all our major objectives ; it met the major concerns of farmers and their representatives ; it benefited the consumer ; it confounded our critics who said that this could not be done ; it safeguarded the future of farming in the United Kingdom and in Europe as a whole.
At root, all this was made possible by the fact that, at the general election two months ago, the country elected to government a party which understands the countryside, knows how the countryside works, believes in and supports agriculture and recognises that it is the key to the future of the countryside and is prepared to fight for the interests of the United Kingdom.
It would have been a different story had the hon. Member for South Shields had the opportunity to apply his skimpy knowledge of the industry to the negotiations, which came to a head so soon after the election. We know why the negotiations were concluded within weeks of the election. It is not, of course, a party political matter--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh no."]--but I was interested to note that Farming News let the cat out of the bag. It said of the result of the reform : "The Commission gambled on a change of Government in Britain to secure a deal closer to its original proposals."
The Commission thought that it would be dealing with the hon. Member for South Shields and it knew what that would mean : the hon. Gentleman would have let Mr. MacSharry have his way. Of course he would. Mr. MacSharry said that he was going to have his way, that there was no point in arguing it and that it would go through. The Labour party spokesman sold out in advance. He knows little about agriculture and cares less. He would have sold out the United Kingdom's interest.
I do not want to leave out the Liberal party. It would have supported Mr. MacSharry, as it always does. The Liberal spokesman at the time--I personally am sad that he is no longer with us, for he is a man with a real concern for agriculture--told us that all that was necessary was a bit of nuancing. I shall listen to what the Liberal spokesman says today about nuancing. In my view, it is a foreign word and a foreign concept, but it comes well from a federalist party. I am not 100 per cent. sure what nuancing means, although it has a rolling feeling about it that worked extremely well at meetings throughout the country when we were preparing for the defeat of Liberal candidates from constituency to constituency. I have a very good idea, though, what it means. I am sure that, if we had it, we should not like it and that we should now be regretting it. So goodbye to nuancing. We shall look forward to another new Liberal party policy on agriculture. It is at least an annual event ; it may now become a six- monthly event. We shall watch, for we have one or two seats to win back and one or two seats to win. I am looking at the hon. Member for Berwick-upon- Tweed, because he is top of my list.
This is a solid agreement, won by hard negotiation in the Community, in which the voice of the United Kingdom
Column 568
is increasingly heard and respected. It is an agreement which shows that the European Community, with its disparate systems of agriculture, different sizes of farms and contrasting rural histories, works. It shows that a solid agreement can be brought about for the benefit of the United Kingdom with a majority voting system. Together we have reformed Europe's common agricultural policy, to the benefit of the people of Europe--farmers, consumers and taxpayers. It is an agreement for Europe, in Europe and by Europe. It is an agreement which I wholeheartedly commend to the House.10.32 am
Dr. David Clark (South Shields) : I am tempted to say that it is the way the Minister tells 'em, but perhaps I should not. I begin by protesting about the fact that we are having this debate on a Friday. [Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] Hon. Members may say, "Oh," but the Opposition happen to think that agriculture is very important. There are those who believe that arguably this is the most important agriculture debate since 1947. The Minister knows that we are right. Important Government debates are never held on a Friday, except in an emergency. The fact that the Government are holding this debate today shows that they have little interest in the consumer. Now that the votes have been gathered in after the election, they have little interest in the farmer, either.
Mr. Gummer : Can the hon. Gentleman explain his interest in the consumer when there are only seven Members of his party on the Opposition Benches, whereas large numbers of my hon. Friends care enough about the consumer to have come here for this debate? Just because Labour Members have been too lazy to turn up seems to me a curious reason for attacking us.
Dr. Clark : Hon. Members in all parts of the House have made it known to me that they would have liked to take part in the debate, but many of them have constituency engagements that they have been unable to cancel. It was underhand of the Minister to make that point. Usually there are more Labour Members than Conservative Members present for debates on agriculture.
Another reason why we should not be holding the debate today is that the information that is needed by the farming community and by all hon. Members is not available. All that we have had from the Minister is the headline stuff. Even the National Farmers Union, not exactly a friend or supporter of the Labour party, shares our view. It says :
"Key details within the agreement's framework have yet to be decided."
We simply do not have the information. Even the Ministry's memorandum says that the debate must take place against a background that is based
"on our latest understanding of what was agreed."
The Minister does not know what was agreed.
Dr. Clark : The Minister says "Oh!" I refer him to his own document which he laid before the House. It says that it is based
"on our latest understanding of what was agreed."
Column 569
Does the Minister not know what has been agreed? If he does, why did he not tell the House? Is he trying to keep information from the House? I suspect that he is, a point to which I shall return in a moment.The farming community, Members of Parliament, journalists and the Minister do not know what the right hon. Gentleman has agreed. Therefore, we can legitimately ask, why the haste for this debate? The answer is that the Minister realises that, far from this agreement being the triumph that he tried to portray in the House on 22 May, it is a rather unpalatable dish. It will introduce a farming regime that will be unpopular and, more importantly, will not work. The regime will provide little benefit for the consumer but will cost the poor old British taxpayer even more than the extortionate amount that he already pays to support an inefficient agriculture regime. Any independent observer will realise that we are holding this debate on a Friday because the Government have entered into a damage-limitation exercise. They are trying to sneak this agreement through at a time when there will be no publicity about it and the full horrors of it will not be realised. Perhaps the Minister was hoping that the European Community's Court of Auditors' opinion on CAP reform would not be widely available, but when we look at it we realise that the Court of Auditors is sceptical about the effect of CAP reform. It says :
"There is an urgent need to review the cost effectiveness" of the scheme. It talks about the weaknesses of financial management being
"apparent at all stages of the evolution of measures, from initial conception to implementation."
The Court of Auditors then says :
"It is not surprising that the economic cost of measures in relation to their stated objectives in some cases borders on the absurd."
Mr. Mark Robinson : If these proposals are as disastrous as the hon. Gentleman tells us they are, why have the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association produced two of the most supportive briefs for them that I have ever seen, either when I was last a Member of Parliament or now?
Dr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. [Laughter.] Yes, absolutely. The interesting point is that the hon. Gentleman is talking about headlines, not about the detail. The CLA's press release says :
"One and a half cheers for the agreement."
That is not exactly fulsome praise for the agreement. I have the press release here. Perhaps I can read out a little more of it to the hon. Gentleman, as it just makes the point.
It says :
"One and half cheers for the CAP reform agreement."
It congratulates the Government not on the agreement but on removing some of its discriminatory effects. It is almost as if they had lost a football match six-nil and had said, "It could have been 12-nil."
Mr. Robinson rose--
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) rose
Dr. Clark : Perhaps I should give way again to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson).
Mr. Robinson : The document says :
"The CLA congratulates the Government and Mr. Gummer in particular for removing these discriminatory proposals."
Column 570
Dr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman should listen : that is exactly what I said. I give way now to the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).Mr. Quentin Davies : I intended to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the same point. The first page of the CLA's comments on the reforms
"congratulates the Government and Mr. Gummer in particular." What could be clearer than that?
Dr. Clark : It congratulates the Government on removing the discriminatory effects. That is the point that I have been making. It is headline stuff, but the details do not bear out the allegations of Conservative Members.
Labour believes that the Government are obsessed by secrecy on this issue, just as they were about BSE, Chernobyl and every other issue with which they have dealt. The Minister seems to run the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food like a secret society that would make the freemasons seem open. In every case, the Government try to hide information from the public, as they have done on this occasion. Labour has argued that the CAP is nonsense. It accounts for almost 60 per cent. of the EC's budget, which means that the poor old taxpayer pays money to support farmers, which in turn results in his paying more for food than if he had not paid the subsidy in the first place. It is a ridiculous system. Nothing in the reform, or so-called reform, proposals goes to the heart of the matter.
The Government blithely urge the House to support the reform package, which will increase taxes and keep food prices high. The Minister did not mention that when he talked about the reform plans. The reform was not voluntary but was forced on the EC. It came about because of two pressures--one internal and one external. The internal pressure was simply that the cost of the CAP was unsustainable. Since 1975, it has risen in real terms by 250 per cent. Since the Minister has presided over agriculture and food issues, it has increased by more than 55 per cent. Ironically, farmers claim that their incomes have not increased. There is something rather strange here. Nothing in the agreement will alter that balance. Farmers have a genuine case ; their incomes genuinely appear to be falling. They are becoming increasingly dependent on state handouts.
Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire, West) : Rubbish.
Dr. Clark : Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that 49 per cent. of the income of European farmers comes from subsidies. The amounts are very high indeed. Even poorer farmers who have hard lives in upland areas often receive vast subsidies. I was looking at the accounts of an upland sheep farmer in Scotland who received £43,000 in subsidies in 1990-91. Large amounts of money are going from the public purse to support farmers.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the new proposals for set-aside? Previously money would have gone into over -production, which would have to be stored, rather than directly to farmers. Under the new set-aside proposals, the money will go to farmers and, we hope, in an environmentally sensitive way.
Dr. Clark : I shall try to encompass the hon. Gentleman's important and valid point, which is the key to the reform package, when I deal with set-aside.
Column 571
Mr. Gummer : If farmers' incomes are low, they can be increased only by the housewife paying more for her food or by the Government paying them more directly from the taxpayer. As the hon. Gentleman says that taxes should not increase, does he think that food prices should increase? If he does not want food prices to increase, should we take more from the taxpayer? He must tell farmers what he believes. He is trying to promise lower prices and lower taxes to get the votes of the housewives and farmers.Dr. Clark : We have made it plain where we stand. We believe that proper environmental management agreements should be made with farmers, which obviously will be funded by taxes, but no extra money will be spent on agriculture because, under the present ludicrous system, for every £3 that is spent on agricultural support only £1 goes to the farmer. The Minister agreed with that earlier today. [Interruption.] If I may continue, I shall show that the Government have not corrected that in this package.
The cost of the CAP is incredible. The Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, the independent international expert, estimates that the average household of four in the United Kingdom pays £18.80p a week towards the cost of agricultural support, which is indefensible. Under the new agreement--the new deal that the Minister so heralds--the cost to the taxpayer will increase by roughly £1 a week. That, again, is quite indefensible. We want a better mechanism for supporting agriculture instead of trying to patch up and play around with the present regime under which the CAP operates. That is our main grumble about the Minister's claims for the reform. The Minister's second point was the pressure to change from GATT. We believe that GATT is vital because most European countries depend very heavily on world trade. In industrial matters, Europe could not withstand a world trade war. Germany exports roughly 31 per cent. of its GNP. The figure for Britain is 24 per cent. and for France 23 per cent. If we consider our main competitors, Japan exports only 11 per cent. of its GNP and the United States a mere 9 per cent. Those countries could withstand a world trade war ; we could not. That is why we must have liberalisation of world trade. I hope that the changes that have been made will at least satisfy the GATT negotiators and that we will reach a settlement. That is quite important.
I understand Conservative Members being euphoric about the agreement, because they have seen what appeared in the papers and the headlines. They saw the Prime Minister's endorsement of it as a personal triumph for the Minister, but the details do not bear that out. They saw the response of bodies which should have known better, such as the National Consumer Council, which at one time spoke independently for the consumer but now seems to be dependent on MAFF press handouts. They have not been able to read much of the detail because, as the Minister conceded, it is not available. At the time, I did not share their euphoria. I acknowledged that an improvement had been made to the CAP, but nothing which merited such blazing headlines. Labour is justified by history for being cautious in our welcome. We have been through all this before.
In 1984, the Conservative Minister at the time announced the introduction of milk quotas. We were told that that was the way forward and the ultimate solution.
Column 572
Of course, it was nothing of the sort. Instead of solving the problems of overproduction, they continued with intervention stores bulging with dairy produce--more than 300,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder and 200,000 of butter rotting. Quotas did not work, although Conservative Ministers assured us that they would.In retrospect, it is clear what a daft deal it was for Britain because it discriminated directly against Britain. What Minister in his right mind would negotiate the right for the country in Europe which is among the most suited for dairy production to be limited to a little over 80 per cent. self-sufficiency? What Minister would agree that a country such as Britain which can produce all its own dairy produce--we concede that we cannot produce citrus fruits--must import almost 20 per cent. of its dairy requirements? Quotas did not work.
The Minister referred to the Italians, against whom there is rightful anger. It is all very well for the Minister to huff and puff at the Dispatch Box, but what is he going to do? It is disgraceful that the Italians have not introduced milk quotas and outrageous that they are asking for even more. I understand that they are to ask for still more. British farmers have the right to ask the Minister when he will fight for them. Why should British dairy farmers be penalised for playing by the rules if others do not even try to adopt them? I agree that the Italians do not play the game, but why does the Minister not do something about it?
Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford) : During his remarks about the level of dairy production, the hon. Gentleman railed against the inability of our dairy producers to produce up to national sufficiency--or at least that was the implication. We are net sheepmeat exporters, so is he prepared to set aside the surplus sheepmeat production to rectify the balance or is he prepared to argue for a continuation of our ability to export sheepmeat?
Dr. Clark : We have long argued that it is in the long-term interests of farmers in Britain, who we believe are among the most efficient in Europe, for them to get much more--indeed, eventually almost all their income--from the market and that there should be no restriction of quotas. That is the way forward. The way to support the needy farmers in difficult parts of the country is through management agreements based on environmental controls. That strikes us as the best way to avoid the difficulties and it will end up with countries such as Britain, which are well equipped for dairying and some sheep farming, being able to concentrate on the activities that they do best.
Mr. Gummer : Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? In advocating self-sufficiency in dairy products, is he supporting the French farmers who say that they should not have to import British lamb? Self- sufficiency in those terms is not a sensible concept in a Community with a single market. It cannot be so, and his party specifically says that it is not.
Dr. Clark : The Minister misunderstands the question. We are talking not about self-sufficiency but about the fact that if one can effectively and efficiently produce the goods that the consumer wants, one should win the markets. If one cannot, one has no right to those markets. It is not a question of self-sufficiency within individual nations--we are talking about freer trade. We happen to believe that
Column 573
British farmers would do very well because they are able to compete in free trade. The fact that the Minister keeps rigging the market against them makes it very difficult for them to do so. However, I must move on.In 1988, we had the next episode. I well remember the Prime Minister returning from Brussels, saying that we had solved the CAP problem. We were told that we had stabilisers and set-aside, that cereals were to be the targeted regime, and that the problems would go away. That was against a background of cereal interventions of 6.7 million tonnes. We were told that that problem was to be solved, but it has been made worse. There is now not6 million tonnes but 20 million tonnes in intervention and, as the Minister acknowledged, there will be 30 million tonnes by the end of this harvest. Conservative Ministers twice said that they had the answers, but they were wrong. We told them so at the time and we have been proved right, so we can stand by the old maxim, "Twice bitten, twice shy." That is not a bad line to take.
I concede that there have been changes. I accept that there will be a 29 per cent. reduction in cereal prices, which will have some effect, and the 15 per cent. reduction in beef prices should be beneficial, but is the new initiative a true reform? We have our doubts. We doubt that it will stand the test of time. We regard it purely as a short-term, transitional measure, and we still await a proper reform of the CAP. If the initiative could be seen as only the first step in such a reform, it would be welcome. However, to judge from the manner in which it has been presented today by the Minister and in which it has been hyped, it seems that it is regarded as the end of the reform process, not the beginning.
Mr. Barnes : Is not it strange that, although British politics is being dominated by consideration of the Maastricht agreement and its consequences and that there will be huge alterations to the treaty of Rome because of Maastricht, not one word of the section on agriculture is to be altered? Does not that show that the changes we are now discussing are very marginal?
Dr. Clark : My hon. Friend makes a valid point which endorses the theme that I am trying to develop.
Let me take it a stage further. The Minister has not spelt out to the taxpayer how much the deal will cost. My charge is that it will not stand the test of time. In spite of what the Minister says, it is basically the MacSharry blueprint. It is open-ended to get more compensation for British farmers, which means that the cost of the scheme will go up even more. However, MacSharry said that the cost of the CAP will continue to increase for about five to eight years. Initially, the cost appears to be about £3 billion extra a year, which means an extra £1 a week in taxes for the average household of four. MacSharry and the Commission justify the increase by saying that it is for a short time only and that it should then decline. Our concern is that what goes up very rarely comes down. We do not believe that the reforms will last five years, so it will be money down the drain. What confirms us in our view of ever-escalating support prices is that the compensation payments are open-ended. The amount we pay for the set-aside is on-going. Therefore, the poor consumer and taxpayer will continue to foot the bill.
The Minister made great play of benefits to the consumer, but when we asked in parliamentary questions whether there would be reductions in prices, the Minister
Column 574
was rightly and openly coy. Ministers are hedging their bets because they know that, although in theory there should be reductions in prices, there will not be and, indeed, under these proposals the cost of food to the consumer is likely to rise.The proposals are a bureaucratic nightmare. They will increase the cost of the CAP bureaucracy, of monitoring by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the bureaucratic cost for the producer. There will be many more forms to fill in, with the result that the cost will have to be passed on to the consumer. The end result is that the ordinary man and woman in this country will receive no benefit from the deal. There will be increased taxes and increased food prices. The Minister should have no pride in his renegotiations.
I promised that I would return to the issue of set-aside because it is the key to the whole so-called reform package. We have consistently opposed the concept of set-aside for many reasons. The British scheme has failed to make any significant dent in cereal production. The Minister's document shows that since 1985, although the area devoted to set-aside in the United Kingdom has declined by 385,000 hectares, cereal production has increased by 1.7 million tonnes. Set-aside simply has not worked in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Nigel Evans : In "Rural Socialism", which is not a magazine that I normally read, you are quoted as saying--[ Hon. Members :-- "No--the hon. Gentleman."]--Dr. Clark says
"the present system of set-aside is difficult to oppose because it is actually cost-effective"
That is what you said in the December--January edition
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hesitate to intervene as the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but the word "you" refers to the Chair. He must refer to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Evans : I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman stated in 1989-90 that he believed that the set-aside scheme then in operation was cost effective. Are we witnessing another famous U-turn from the hon. Gentleman?
Dr. Clark : I am surprised to hear that quote, and I am sure that hon. Members will be surprised to hear it, because I never said it.
Dr. Clark : Yes, but quotes are not always correct. Hon. Members know that I have consistently opposed the scheme.
Set-aside has two difficulties : first, it does not work and, secondly, it is open to abuse. In this country we have a good monitoring system and good agricultural administration, but there have been abuses here and we managed to catch some of the abusers. The Minister has had to recover set-aside payments worth £0.25 million in recent years. If there is abuse in this country, we suggest that abuses will be even greater in countries which do not have such an efficient agricultural administrative structure. The main charge against set-aside is that it will not work. The Minister has conceded that farmers set aside marginal, less accessible land if there is no rotation set-aside scheme. As a result, they increase their income and increase production on the rest of their land. He has tried a hybrid system--partly the old scheme topped up
Column 575
with a rotational system, and partly a straightforward rotational system. The weakness of both systems is that they offer no environmental benefits. In this country farmers receive set- aside payments for building golf courses and riding stables, so the scheme has not helped the environment.Our main charge is that rotational set-aside will result in increased cereal production. Increased productivity will ensure that. The decision to allow set-aside land to be rotational will ensure that that happens because the 85 per cent. of land not set aside will become more productive--that is long-established good husbandry. Experience in the United States supports that theory. As farmers concentrate management and physical resources on a smaller area, productivity increases. In addition, predicted increases in productivity of 4 per cent. a year for wheat would eliminate the theoretical 15 per cent. reduction in production through set-aside in three years.
Mr. Quentin Davies : Does the hon. Gentleman concede that logically, if agricultural productivity increases by 4 per cent., it will do so anyway, irrespective of whether there is an element of compulsory set- aside? It therefore follows that we are reducing production which would otherwise have increased by a greater amount. We are still reducing potential production by enforcing a 15 per cent. set-aside.
Dr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman's logic is impeccable, but we argue that that is not the way to tackle surplus cereal production and that it should be more dependent on the market. Perhaps I can spell out my argument more graphically by quoting an honest straightforward arable farmer, Oliver Walston-- [Hon. Members :-- "Oh no!"] Hon. Members may not like it because he is a successful farmer. Writing in Farmers Weekly on 5 April, he explained the strategy that he will adopt on his Cambridgeshire farm. He was honest enough to put his intentions on paper, and other farmers will do the same. He said :
"this autumn I shall obey the letter of the law and do what Brussels wants. I shall leave 120 ha untouched. That means I shall plant 120 ha less than I had planned of peas and spring rape, but my wheat acreage will remain just the same as usual. For the 1994 harvest, however, my wheat will have the benefit of this fallow land and I expect the yields to rise accordingly ... My output of peas and rapeseed will certainly fall. But my output of wheat will remain static next year and will actually increase in 1994."
He graphically illustrates the point that the Labour party is arguing and makes it understandable. I do not need to say any more. The key pillar of the Minister's strategy to reduce cereal production by set-aside will not work. Farmers will be able to participate in the new scheme without taking wheat or barley out of production.
I have not had time to deal with the details of the package, but they are as flawed as its strategic aspects. A highly complex set of bureaucratic controls will result and will make life difficult for hard-pressed sheep and beef farmers. There will be more forms to fill in, more paperwork and less farming. I am worried about the notion of quotas for hill sheep farms. We wait to find out what the Minister regards as sensitive areas. From now on it will be even more difficult for young people to enter farming because they will have to buy quotas as well as having to buy land. Young people have been able to buy
Column 576
hill farms because the land is cheaper and they have not had to buy as much expensive capital equipment. The scheme will make life more difficult for upland farmers.The scheme will not help the environment, but will lead to increased production. The Minister and his colleagues have ducked the fundamental issues. Why did he not take on the European Community in its own jargon? Why did he not argue the position of subsidiarity? Even the Foreign Secretary said earlier this week
"that Britain wanted a Europe wider in membership and more decentralising in operation than at the moment."--[ Official Report, 8 June 1992 ; Vol. 209, c. 34.]
Is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food immune from such an approach?
More decisions on agriculture should be taken at national and regional level. Countries should be freer to decide how best to use their resources, especially natural resources, such as agriculture, which are dependent on climate and topography. We concede that agriculture should operate within a European framework, but on a looser basis of goods freely traded within the Community. That would make more sense to the consumer, to the taxpayer and to the future of Europe, if the Community is to be made up of a wider Europe, including Scandinavian and eastern European countries. The deal goes against that trend. Reform of the CAP will lead to a more interventionist, bureaucratic and complicated system of agricultural support.
It is, therefore, hard to see the agreement as a significant step towards the reform of the CAP. I can do no better than to conclude my case by quoting the Country Landowners Association, which has been held up as the epitome of what is correct. At the end of its press release, the association says :
"All in all there is little in this so called reform package' that can truly be called reform in any rational sense. Quotas and other market management measures are a step backwards towards an artificially rigged market. And the cost of compensation seems unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term."
That case is, in essence, Labour's case.
11.9 am
| Next Section
| Home Page |