House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Jan 1993

Column 67

create one of the world's largest publishing and information groups, with a combined market capitalisation of about £5.2 billion. The combined Anglo-Dutch group will employ over 25,000 people--11,000 in the United Kindom, 4,500 in the Netherlands and 7,500 in North America. Reed is an international publishing and information group, covering professional publishing, business-to-business publishing, travel information, exhibitions and consumer publishing.

In the document that was issued to Reed International shareholders, there was a direct reference to the fact that, in the case of Elsevier, the merger was dependent on consultations and discussions with the relevant Dutch trade unions and the works council before the two parties entered into a formal agreement. That was in stark contrast to the British experience. The British work force of Reed International found out about the merger from radio and newspapers. On 29 September, Tony Dubbins, the general secretary of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union--the printing union of which I am a member--wrote to Mr. Peter Davis, the chairman and chief executive of Reed International, seeking an early meeting at which there would be open-ended discussions on the implications that the merger would have for GPMU members in Reed International's employment.

Mr. Davis replied on 5 October to the effect that Reed International did not centralise its industrial relations, that any discussions would have to take place with the individual managements of each of its subsidiary companies in the United Kingdom, and that he had no idea what the reaction of individual managing directors would be to the GPMU's request. That statement must be viewed against the aggressive anti-trade union stance of Reed International over the past 18 months in its regional newspapers in particular and in its subsidiary, IPC magazines, where it has terminated recognition of the GPMU and withdrawn negotiating rights in respect of the terms and conditions of employment of the union's members.

On 22 October, Tony Dubbins and Chris Harding, the GPMU national officer, met senior works council representatives from Elsevier and Rene Van Tilborg, the general secretary of Druk En Papier, the Dutch Graphical Union in Amsterdam. It transpired that the works council representatives there had had a number of meetings with Pierre Vinken, who will be chairman of Reed/Elsevier until his retirement in 1995, and Peter Davis, chief executive and deputy chairman, who will become chairman upon Pierre Vinken's retirement.

At those meetings, Mr. Davis, in particular, stressed that there was no intention to change the current arrangements in Elsevier in Holland, but confirmed that Reed International would be loth to introduce those arrangements into the United Kingdom. Nor is the company prepared to recognise and deal with trade unions in the United Kingdom in any manner other than that which it currently adopts. Therefore, it is clear that unions will not be recognised. The point that I wish to make to the Minister is that it appears that the proposed merger is well within the criteria for reference to the competitions

Column 68

directorate. How will the Commission deal with that and similar cases? What criteria will the directorate use? What rights will the work force in that company have?

6.30 pm

On 18 November, Reed International gave formal notification within its publishing sites that it was withdrawing recognition from both the GPMU and the NUJ. That announcement was made within 48 hours of the Reed International shareholders meeting that endorsed the merger with Elsevier. That means that some 762 GPMU members and 584 NUJ members currently employed in Reed International companies will have their individual right as employees to be represented by the union of their choice arbitrarily withdrawn by Reed International. That merger is one of the first to take place under the single market, but the employees in this country will be worse off and their conditions will deteriorate. I hope that we will be told this afternoon what protection and what rights employees will have in the inevitable mergers that will occur. I should like to be told what the social dimension will do for them. We have heard about the economic dimension--it was to be accompanied by the social dimension. What rights will that give to employees, or will its effect be nugatory? Is the Reed International-Elsevier merger and the way that it has been done to be the pattern for the future? Do the Government approve of what has happened? Are they willing to take any action? My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who made an excellent speech, said that there were four aims of economic policy. That is absolutely right, but unfortunately only one--low inflation--is included in the treaty and within the objectives of the bank. Therefore, what my hon. Friend and the Labour party have always wanted is not there. My hon. Friend also gave us the good news that our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has denounced the convergence criteria, or at least that aspect under which Government borrowing must be limited to 3 per cent. in any one year. He said that applying that criterion in a recession would push countries even further into recession and create further unemployment.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central can give me an explanation, but I assume that, as three of the four aims of economic policy are not there, and as our right hon. and learned Friend has denounced the 3 per cent. limit in the treaty, that means that we shall vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mrs. Currie : I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on article 130 on industry and on article 130f on research and development. The articles offer us some very fine words. That has been forgotten in much of the waffle that we have heard so far in the debate. It is honourable and remarkable that we should be in a position to put into United Kingdom law the statement--and I shall quote fairly selectively :

"The Community and the Member States shall ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the Community's industry exist."

Among the elements that are regarded as important, actions should be aimed at

"speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes ; encouraging an environment favourable to initiative ... fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innocation, research and technological development."

Column 69

To me, that statement is wonderful, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to put it into our law. Some of my hon. Friends should also take that view and not try to get it removed from the Bill. I had one of the best experiences of my life this morning when I visited the new Toyota factory that has just opened in my constituency. It is a truly amazing place, and it is extraordinary that that factory is already up and running. The company has a work force of some 1,200 in the United Kingdom, and by Easter that will rise to more than 1,500. By the mid -1990s, it will have 3,000 employees in my constituency and in Shotton in north Wales. The vast majority of the 20,000 people who have applied to work for the company live within a 15-mile radius of the factory. The implication for employment in the area is immediately obvious. I am sure that the factory is already having an impact. At the end of the year, the unemployment rate in my constituency was 6.7 per cent.--one of the lowest in the country--having fallen during the autumn. We hope that that trend will continue.

The company is also having an impact on other businesses throughout Europe. From the beginning, it said that it hoped to purchase 60 per cent. of the input for the cars, by value, from European companies. It tells me that it has already managed to achieve that. It intends that, within a couple of years, the figure should rise to 80 per cent. Half its component suppliers are from the United Kingdom--for example, GKN and Triplex--or companies that are based in the United Kingdom, such as Pirelli. The other half comes from companies mainly in the European Community, especially in Germany and Belgium. Only a small number of the businesses from which it buys components are Japanese, and several of those are already planning to move to the United Kingdom.

If we consider the components, the services and the consumables, it is clear that the factory is already having a huge impact on the midlands and the north-west. I believe that, before the year is out, direct and indirect employment in the United Kingdom associated with Toyota will reach 10,000 jobs.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : I fail to understand my hon. Friend's argument that she would not have that Japanese company in her constituency were it not for political union under Maastricht. Everybody accepts that there should be free and closer trade in Europe, and surely it is that which the Japanese companies are interested in. I presume that they are not very interested in the enormous new social and industrial costs that will occur under the treaty of union signed in Maastricht--surely that is the one thing that will deter those companies. Therefore, although I well understand why those companies have come to this country in the past, the question is whether they will still come or will expand under the Maastricht treaty.

Mrs. Currie : My hon. Friend is well ahead of me : I had only just finished describing what I saw in the factory this morning. I have not yet begun to deal with the question of why Toyota is in this country. If my hon. Friend will bear with me a little longer, I shall come to that matter and also to what will happen if this country is hesitant about its membership of the European Community, as I know my hon. Friend wants.

Column 70

Most of the production of the Toyota factory is for export. Indeed, its output will help to turn around the British balance of payments and move us from deficit to surplus on cars, if not on manufactures in general. On those grounds alone, if for no other, Toyota's arrival is most welcome and timely. I want to put on record my tribute to everyone associated with Toyota, in particular its directors, managing director and chairman for the skill and professionalism with which they have built the plant and brought that remarkable project to fruition. Most of all, I thank them for the tact, courtesy and consideration that they have shown to my constituents, especially their immediate neighbours in Burnaston, which include myself and my family.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) : I note that the hon. Lady has expressed many thanks to various people. One person whom she did not thank was the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, who was instrumental in bringing that factory to the hon. Lady's constituency because of its marginal nature.

Mrs. Currie : I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that it is of a "marginal nature". The factory is very far from marginal in our part of the world. It owns more than 600 acres and currently employs 1,200. It is likely to employ far more in future. That is hardly marginal. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to make a speech of thanks to everyone, I shall do so--but I have a feeling that you, Mr. Lofthouse, would shake your head and rule me out of order. I want to make a number of points about how today's debate might affect Toyota and its view of some of the matters that we are debating. Toyota is in this country partly because the European Community is one of the largest and most important industrial markets in the world. With 340 million people, it is already much bigger than the United States of America and Japan put together. With the level of growth seen during the period of increasing co-operation between those economies, that is likely to be even more so. Europe's economy has grown because of the development of the single market. Toyota is also here because of fears of exclusion from the European Community. In my constituency today, I saw cars being made by British people from scratch, to be sold all over the world--but aimed particularly at the European market. Those cars are not transplants or implants but British cars. They are as British as the Peugeot cars made in Coventry, the Honda cars made in Swindon, and the Ford cars made in Halewood or anywhere else--when hon. Members back and support those companies in their constituencies.

Mr. Cash : Does my hon. Friend have a new Toyota?

Mrs. Currie : I have an old one, and I am awaiting the delivery of a new one. I have been told that they are only available in three colours at the moment--

Mr. Cash : Now I realise why my hon. Friend had lunch there.

Mrs. Currie : I did not have lunch there. I was on the train to London. The three colours are red, white and blue. I have chosen a blue one.

I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that the day may come when they will have to defend businesses such as Toyota, Honda

Column 71

and Nissan. If we mean what we say about the European Community being an open and free market, we may find ourselves having to challenge other countries and Governments through the European Court of Justice and whatever other systems are available--insisting that the cars that I saw being made today are British cars and are not to be excluded or treated differently from the cars of any other British manufacturer.

I saw the sheet steel from British Steel being delivered, the equipment that is used to stamp out the bodies, and new engines arriving from north Wales. It is noticeable that, while everyone is aware that the main Toyota plant is in my constituency, hardly any right hon. or hon. Members has the foggiest idea in whose constituency is Toyota's engine plant. That is because it is in the north Wales constituency of a Labour Member, who would much rather no one knew about the success story on his patch.

Mrs. Dunwoody : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not customary to give notice to an hon. Member if one intends to make a personal attack on them? I hope that you will bring that convention to the attention of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).

The First Deputy Chairman : I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is aware of that convention.

Mrs. Currie : If the hon. Gentleman were present, I would not have to give him notice--he would be on his feet backing and supporting the Toyota company in his constituency. Nevertheless, I note your point, Mr. Lofthouse.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : Did the hon. Lady give him notice?

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. It would be helpful if the Committee could make progress.

Mrs. Currie : I mentioned that Toyota is in Britain because Europe is one of the most important markets in the world, and because of its fear of being excluded from other European markets--an aspect that the Government may have to take on board at some future point. Toyota is also here because our country offers natural economic advantages. Its work force is largely strike-free. In south Derbyshire it is almost entirely strike- free. On a ballot, it decided not to strike in the miners' dispute nine years ago. The United Kingdom also has low manufacturing costs--and we want to keep them that way. That is why our version of the treaty is not the same as that which other countries have. That is why we have no involvement in the social chapter. I believe that is right, and should continue to be the case. I am not hostile per se to legislation that affects the work force. In fact, I believe that Toyota's working practices are better than many for which one could legislate. My opposition to the social charter is that, if we restrict employment, that will be inimical to jobs.

Toyota is here because Britain has a Conservative Government who are favourable to business--a point made for me by Opposition Members. In 1989, 28 sites were proposed for the Toyota plant. One of the stranger questions put to me by Toyota's advisers was how come

Column 72

that of all those sites only one was in a constituency served by a Conservative Member for Parliament. My answer was that my constituents have their heads screwed on.

Toyota is here because we have a competitive exchange rate, and I hope that our competitive actions will keep it that way.

6.45 pm

Mr. Gill (Ludlow) : Is my hon. Friend saying that she would resist Britain re-entering the exchange rate mechanism?

Mrs. Currie : No, but competitive exchange rates only work if one country is competitively changing its rates. If everyone starts messing around with their exchange rates, they will get into a total mess. I would much rather my constituents, and those employed in my constituency by the many international businesses located there, are competitive not because of the exchange rate but because they offer first-class working practices, in which quality, safety and the consumer are put at the head of the game-- rather than be for ever looking over their shoulders at the value of sterling.

The policy implication of article 130 is that it must mean what it says about Community action not distorting competition. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will make other countries hold as firmly to that as we intend to do. There should be no subsidies for competitive businesses. There should be no subsidies for Renault or Fiat.

Last year, I queried a subsidy agreed by the European Commission, for Ferrari of all companies. If people can afford to fork out £40, 000 or £50,000 for a Ferrari, they should do so without being subsidised. I was told that Ferrari was given that subsidy because it was producing in a particular part of Italy having assisted area status.

I do not believe that subsidies of that kind should be paid. If an area requires a subsidy, it should be channelled in other ways. Such subsidies merit the most careful scrutiny. The Council, the Commissioner, and everyone else concerned should have a predisposition to say no to subsidies to car companies in other countries.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham) : My hon. Friend may like to know that Ferrari's grand prix cars are now made in Britain.

Mrs. Currie : The company still should not receive a subsidy. The subsidy that I queried, which was equivalent to about £4 million, was paid to Ferrari in Italy.

Mr. Fatchett : Does the hon. Lady favour subsidies being paid to the shipbuilding industry, and would she agree with the President of the Board of Trade if he advocated subsidies for the British coal mining industry?

Mrs. Currie : As to the latter point, the Whips Office already knows my view-- [Interruption.] If Opposition Members want an answer, they must shut up and listen while I give one.

All industrial subsidies ultimately distort competition and trade, and do not create employment--they weaken it. A subsidised business is encouraged not to look hard at how best to serve its existing customers and to win customers from its competitors. Instead, the managing director and the senior management are concerned only about beating a path to Whitehall--and that is where they spend all their time. As a result, the business becomes even

Column 73

less competitive than it was in the first place, which destroys employment. Coming from Liverpool, as I do, I can tell the hon. Gentleman in all honesty and sincerity that I believe that it also destroys entire environments, cities and regions.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mrs. Currie : I will not give way ; I want to make progress.

Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am sorry to take up the House's time in such an important debate, but I understand that, when an hon. Member makes remarks about another hon. Member, it is traditional for the latter to receive some indication that that will happen. The hon. Lady may now wish to repeat the references that she made in my absence, or, alternatively, to withdraw them.

The Chairman : That point has already been dealt with.

Mrs. Currie : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to behave in a way that prevents the House from knowing that Toyota is in his constituency, that is for him to decide.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The hon. Lady was asked to withdraw her remarks, but she has not done so. All she has done is repeat her original slur in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)--which she made without giving him notice. She should be asked again to withdraw it.

The Chairman : The hon. Lady has said nothing that was out of order. This is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Barry Jones : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but I wish to ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) whether she wishes to repeat what she said when I was not present.

The Chairman : I do not think that that is necessary. It is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman knows what was said then. I dealt with it at the time, and addressed the hon. Lady accordingly. Let us now make some progress.

Mr. Jones : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The Chairman : Is it the same point of order ?

Mr. Jones : I seek your guidance, Mr. Lofthouse.

The Chairman : Is it the same point of order ?

Mr. Jones : No, Sir. However, I shall be very brief ; I am sorry to take up the time of the House in such an important debate. I do not know the details of what was said by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, but I have been informed that she made a critical reference. I thought it reasonable, therefore, to ask her to have the courage to repeat that reference now that I am in the Chamber.

The Chairman : I repeat that I dealt with the point at the time.

Mrs. Currie : Thank you, Mr. Lofthouse. It is open to any hon. Member to read Hansard tomorrow.

Toyota is here in the United Kingdom because we are part of Europe : that is the last and main reason for Toyota's being based in our country. That means that we should be at the heart of Europe. It will never be easy for

Column 74

the United Kingdom to be at the heart of Europe, because we are geographically on the fringe and because we have been historically outside, tending to look down on continentals. That is all the more reason for sadness over the fact that we may be the last to ratify the Maastricht treaty : wanting to be at the heart of Europe means actions, not words.

If we are not at the heart of Europe, industry and employment will be most affected and most damaged. Businesses such as Toyota, which was raised earlier, will eventually revise all their plans for manufacture in this country if we pretend, or hint in any way, that we do not want to be at the heart of Europe. Under phase 1, output is planned to rise to 100,000 cars a year, probably by the end of next year ; phase 2 will increase output to 200,000 cars a year by about 1995. That can be done by means of expansion within the existing buildings.

It is the phase after that which is at risk, and I am sure that the pattern will be repeated in many other businesses throughout the country. I am talking about the increase in output to 400,000, which we hope will happen by 1999 and which would mean the company's expanding to occupy more of the 600 acres that it owns--as well as, probably, an investment of the same order as the £700 million that it has already invested in this country.

That is the investment that matters most to the United Kingdom, because it takes production past the critical mass to roughly the same as the output achieved by Rover at Longbridge. At that point, it is worth while for far more suppliers to come to the United Kingdom--to come close to the factory, and thereby to increase employment.

Mr. Michael Spicer : In order to achieve that critical production level, the firm will need a large market. Everyone agrees that a free trading market should exist with European countries. I do not think, however, that Toyota wants a mass of impositions involving additional costs as a result of political union. That is what we are really discussing. My hon. Friend is not making that distinction, but she should.

Mrs. Currie : I am not sure what all those fantastic costs might be. The most expensive thing that the company had to do was install a pile of machinery. It did so according to its own choice. It has two pieces of pressing equipment which had cost £10 million apiece. That is what such companies mean by expense.

As for the free market, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I sit on the same side of the House, and we share many ideas about the development of the free market and its importance. In view of that, I find it strange that my hon. Friend should object so strongly to proposals in the Maastricht treaty that will strengthen the competence of the European Court of Justice and the efforts of Ministers to make the free market stick, and to insist that restrictions and subsidies are removed.

Mr. Needham : I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about Toyota and the Japanese. The Minister of International Trade and Industry was in London last week. What he consistently wanted to know was whether Britain would sign up, whether we would stand by our position on the social chapter and whether we would be seen as driving forward the European debate and being able to defend and support Japanese car companies as British car companies within Europe.

Column 75

Mrs. Currie : The Minister is absolutely right : he has put it far better than I have. Our British view on industrial policy is widely shared, particularly by Japanese companies. The trouble is that, if we are not at the heart of Europe, if European countries move at different paces and we are not at the centre, if we are in any way hesitant and if we fail to use Community institutions to enforce the provisions--I am entirely serious about this--Ministers will, at some stage, be obliged to take another country's Government to court over the question of subsidies to competing car companies, some of which they own. As I have said, certain key companies are state-owned and subsidised by taxpayers.

If we do not take that approach--if we are not vigorous in our defence of new businesses operating in our country when the next phase decisions are on the table in Tokyo or wherever, it will be in Spain, Germany, Hungary or some other country with a clearer vision than ours that such companies will open the next European Toyota, Nissan or Honda factory. Ultimately, we shall be the losers. I believe that article 130 is a modest improvement on previous legislation, but it will serve us only if the Government put their heart and soul into ensuring that the Community is a free market--that it is open to competition, free of subsidies and free of interference in business. If that happens, our industry will be efficient and strong, and fit to compete throughout the world.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : I am sure that you will be relieved to hear, Dame Janet, that I intend to concentrate on a single amendment, on which I hope to speak very briefly.

Amendment No. 184 deals with the inclusion in the Bill of the common policy on agriculture and fisheries. The amendment would delete all reference to agriculture and fisheries.

I am sure that other hon. Members share my concern about some of the changes that have taken place in the common agriculture and common fisheries policies. No doubt other hon. Members believe that some of the proposed changes will prove mistaken, retrograde and--probably for that reason--transitory. Few hon. Members--at least, those representing fishing and agricultural areas--would wish to tear up the existing European Community common policies and make a completely fresh start. The amendment puts nothing in the place of the existing policies.

The common agricultural policy as it stands--the common agricultural policy is a moving target, as we all know--had, we thought, several core objectives. They were identified and analysed by Mr. MacSharry while he remained the Commissioner. During the negotiations in the Council of Ministers, they were analysed all over again. The intention seems to be to increase the simplification of the CAP, to eradicate surpluses, to reduce costs, to remove all artificial price mechanisms, to increase environmental benefits and, perhaps most important of all, to reverse the widening gap between farmgate and retail prices. The Agriculture Ministers set themselves those objectives. The Commissioner also set himself those objectives. We have yet to see whether the proposals that were made following that process meet the objectives.

Column 76

7 pm

Mr. Cash : When it comes to British farmers, upon whom the hon. Gentleman no doubt wishes to concentrate, does he not agree that they have paid a price for the policy that he advocates so strongly, in that net farm incomes fell between 1975 and 1985, to the extent that they were halved? According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, between 1988 and 1992 dairy farmers' incomes fell, in real terms, by 45 per cent., those of cereal farmers by 75 per cent. and those of livestock farmers by 90 per cent. Given that this is such a comprehensive policy, does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is a case for absolutely radical reform, let alone all the fraud that the system represents?

Mr. Tyler : If the hon. Gentleman had been patient and allowed me to warm to my theme, he would have found that I sympathise in some respects with his point of view. There is a dramatic difference, however, between radical reform and tearing the whole thing up, with nothing to put in its place. Those hon. Members who represent agricultural or fishing constituencies would need their heads examining if they went to their constituents and said, "We should vote for the complete abolition of this policy." If they said otherwise, it would mean that they had huge majorities.

It is important to identify the objectives of the reforms and to measure whether the proposals meet those objectives. That does not mean, however, that we want to go back to square one, or that we want the CAP to develop in the 11 other member states, with us outside. One only has to contemplate what the position would be if we were unable to deal with GATT on a Communitywide basis. Chaos would ensue. The fact that there has been radical change and reform in the Community, within the CAP context, demonstrates that the CAP is a moving target and that one can negotiate and move forward. It would be absurd if we, as an offshore island, were to be deprived of the opportunity to take part in collective, corporate negotiation.

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central) : I am one of those Members who seek the abolition of the CAP. It is a total nonsense. I would argue firmly and, I hope, fairly sensibly for the repatriation of agriculture to this country, which I believe will happen sooner or later. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that anybody who understands anything at all about Europe says that the CAP is a total nonsense and that in the same breath they say that it is a linchpin of the Community? What sort of an organisation is that?

Mr. Tyler : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I do not regard the CAP as the linchpin of the Community. Much wider issues are at stake. However, it is critical for the future of our producers and fishermen that we should be able to negotiate in the world, within the GATT context, as a member of the European Community. Without that network, we should literally be at sea--an offshore island without any negotiating rights.

Mrs. Dunwoody : I have been trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. It would help the Committee if he could refer to any other time in our history when we were subjected to an agricultural policy that was decided outside this country, a policy that owed none of its allegiance to our climate, to our market needs, to the

Column 77

abilities of our people or to the needs of our countryside. If the hon. Gentleman could tell me when, at any other point in our history, we have been put in that position I should be prepared to accept what he says about the need to protect our existing agriculture.

Mr. Tyler : I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making a typical Little Englander contribution to our debate. It is absurd to suggest that any institution of which we are a member somehow imposes on us alien and totally hostile proposals. Her argument would mean that our membership of the United Nations somehow allows the United Nations to impose sanctions upon us--sanctions against a foreign power.

I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is sitting on the Treasury Bench. I hope that that is an indication of the importance that Ministers attach to the significance of the common agricultural policy. I warn the Minister, however--I think that he will accept the point--that we are not setting in aspic, to use a phrase that was used during our earlier debate, the CAP as it now is. We are seeking to maintain a framework within which our farmers and producers--and our fishermen in the parellel policy for fisheries--are able to negotiate from a position of strength.

It is often said by the farming community and by the general public that one of the objectives of our participation in such an international framework should be to seek a level playing field. One of the most serious criticisms of the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Commission is that we made virtually no progress towards a single market, in terms of the way in which farmers are controlled and helped. One of the explicit advantages of the Maastricht treaty proposals is that, at long last, some sort of mechanism has been provided and is ready for us to use to ensure that member states, which abide by the rules but not all of which have the same effective inspection and professionalism, are able to put the decisions of the Council of Ministers or the Commission into effect with equal rigour.

One of the advantages of the Maastricht treaty is that at long last we can ensure that all the high-flown proposals that emerge from Brussels are imposed on a much more level playing field throughout the whole Community.

Mr. Marlow : This is a very important point. Many people in this country are uneasy about the common agricultural policy and the common market because of the level playing field. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when milk quotas will be applied effectively and accurately in Italy? Will it be this month, this year, in five years', 15 years' or 20 years' time? We know that the Government of Italy cannot run affairs in Italy. At least half of it is run by the mafia. How convinced is the hon. Gentleman that European institutions will be able to operate these policies in Italy?

Mr. Tyler : If the hon. Gentleman had a little patience and if he were to vote for the Bill, there might be a better chance of that happening. His present position is entirely antagonistic to the effective policing of the European Communitys' decision-making process. I see that some Ministers are nodding in agreement. A critical part of the treaty is that we should make certain that future decision-making is carried right through to every level of Government.

Column 78

There are a number of features of the reforms that we are applying in a way that does not make good sense. That is up to the British Government. For example, their reliance on set-aside as the core of the proposals is nonsense, but I do not see the Governments of other member states falling for this with the same enthusiasm as our Minister. To blame the common agricultural policy for something that, by definition, is a subject for national decision-making--derogation or development within the United Kingdom--is particularly absurd. Similarly, there is a complexity about many of the regulations imposed in this country that is not to be found in other member states. By definition, that must be open to our Government to modify. The classic example--I see a number of hon. Members in their places who have raised the issue--is the food and hygiene regulations for slaughterhouses. I understand, and I hope that I am reasonably correct, that the Commission proposed about four paragraphs, but by the time the Ministry's multiplication system had worked, there were about 94.

I am glad to say that the Minister is now retreating. That is good news for those concerned about animal welfare as well as for the farming industry. It shows that what is at fault is not the Community or common agricultural policy but the way in which the regulations are being applied in this country.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : The hon. Gentleman and I have made common cause on this issue, and rightly so. Does he agree that, if meat from abattoirs is not for export but for domestic use, it should be a national responsibility, as the Germans have suggested, rather than a European responsibility? Is not that a good example of where subsidiarity should work and where we should insist that it does?

Mr. Tyler : I am grateful to the hon. Member, who makes a fair point. The corollary is that meat for export should meet the same conditions for rearing, animal welfare and so on. It is a national scandal that young calves are bought in Britain and exported by French buyers to the continent only to return as veal. Often supermarkets do not identify where rearing took place and may pretend that the animal originally came from this country. These are examples of how Maastricht could make improvements, and we should welcome that.

Mr. Cash : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Maastricht treaty makes no attempt to do anything about agriculture, which in itself is a major omission from the negotiations and one of the reasons why I take such exception to it? Does he agree that the intensification of production will lead to more land being set aside? Recent calculations suggest that the amount set aside will increase by 20 per cent.

Next Section

Home Page