---

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : I live in the middle of a golf course in Kent--it has been built around me--for which there is a considerable waiting list. The demand to play golf in Kent seems insatiable.

Mr. Morley : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is so insatiable that everyone will live in the middle of a golf course, because some people might object to how that affects the traditional countryside in Kent. Although there is a role for golf courses in diversification, a balance must be struck.

The Minister recently announced a number of proposals, the first of which was the extension of ESAs, which is very welcome. Secondly, there is the moorland scheme to reduce grazing and, thirdly, the meadowland scheme to create public access and a review of set-aside management, which will include wildlife corridors on margins and watersides and specialist options, which I presume would involve conservation headlands.

All those measures are welcome, but if the Minister is proposing to use public money to negotiate public access, to which I do not object, I hope that he is not agreeing with the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who was talking about charging for public access. If taxpayers' money is used for such a scheme, the public will contribute twice. Although it is a legitimate use of taxpayers' money, I do not think that the public should pay twice. I hope that the Minister is not contemplating such a payment, which could be regarded as a stroll tax on using the countryside.

If the Minister is reviewing set-aside management as part of the agri- environmental package, will he argue for the use of light grazing on set- aside land, which currently is banned, as a conservation measure to control meadows? I believe that such use is proper and I hope that he will raise that point with the Commission. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the dates for mowing set-aside land and the effect that that has on ground-nesting species. That important point was well made.

I note that the habitat improvement scheme, which is linked to water margins, includes coastlines. Is that part of the planned retreat concept that the Minister has discussed, although it is not spelt out in the package? Nevertheless, it is welcome and useful. Proposals have been made to assist organic farming. I hope that the Minister notes the comments of the Soil

---

Column 459

Association and the SAFE--Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment--alliance, which argue that existing organic farmers--those who have made an investment--should receive some support.

Those are the suggestions that the Minister has made. We believe that that is exactly the kind of policy that we want to see. We part company with the Minister, however, over the fact that the total finance for the agri- environmental package comes to a measly £19 million over three years, taking away the ESA element. The Community's budget for the agri- environmental package is less than 1 per cent. of the CAP budget. I do not believe that environmental issues will be given a high priority when only 1 per cent. of the CAP budget is being devoted to them. That pales into insignificance when compared with the £2 billion which the United Kingdom will spend on the CAP.

It is no wonder that the Council for the Protection of Rural England said of the scheme in its press release "MAFF Misses Target" that

"serious funding has not been attached to it".

Although the Country Landowners Association welcomes the measures, in a press release that hon. Members will have seen, it said that the funding was totally inadequate.

With reference to moving to a more sophisticated range of measures, I commend to the Minister the CPRE document "Green or Mean", which outlines an extremely constructive method of using the

agri-environmental package and reforming the CAP as we would wish. The House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities produced a report entitled "The Environmental Aspects of the Reform of the CAP". It included a detailed set of environmental measures as an alternative to the set-aside proposals which are currently the heart of the CAP package. I took special note of the following comment :

"The Committee supports the call for payments to be made to farmers for delivering positive environmental benefits rather than doing environmental mischief. We favour payments for achieving certain pre-determined targets."

I noted the Minister's opening remark that he favoured cross-compliance and wanted to target environmental support. I very much welcome that, but it is important that any shift of CAP funding to environmental support for agriculture is not used to pay farmers to stop doing what they should be doing in the first place. Payment should be made for improvements in countryside and environmental management.

As yet, there is no evidence that environmental measures are at the heart of the CAP. When the Minister returned from Brussels last year, he said that environmental measures were at the heart of the CAP but, as I have said, only 1 per cent. of the budget and a measly £19 million over three years are being devoted to such measures. At present, the CAP is a wasteful system which distorts markets. There needs to be a complete change. Environmental changes should be an integral part of the CAP and should not be regarded as a bolt-on extra as they are now.

We want a comprehensive and integrated approach to rural issues, which notes not only the cultural and social values of farming but the rural infrastructure of which the Government should take account. There should be proper rural transport, affordable rented homes, job and training

---

Column 460

opportunities and support for small village schools, shops and sub-post offices. Many of the latter are threatened by privatisation, which will not help rural communities.

We want clear objectives for support payments and a proper evaluation of the schemes that have been introduced. We welcome the identification of ESAs, which we regard as the way forward, but the money must be spent wisely. We want a rethink on the set-aside policy as it forms the basis of the CAP package.

We hope that the Government will recognise that there is now an opportunity to assist and stabilise agriculture, to protect and enhance our environment and to bring the benefits to all people, whether they live in urban or rural areas. We are currently spending a great deal of money on a wasteful and destructive system. The Opposition believe that people in this country, including farmers, are entitled to a better deal than the one that they are getting under the CAP.

We believe that we have to move in the direction suggested by the agri- environmental package and we want the CAP to be completely restructured. I do not say that that can be done overnight, or that it will be easy to negotiate with other countries to achieve it. But I believe that there is widespread support for such action across all European member states and certainly among the people of this country, whether they live in villages, towns, cities or hamlets. If the Government really believe that environmental measures should be at the heart of the CAP, they should demonstrate that by arguing for such restructuring and certainly by devoting more than a measly and inadequate £19 million over three years to it.

10.59 pm

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : I shall begin with one piece of arithmetic that is essential in discussing what happens with the CAP in Brussels. There are 76 votes in the Council of Ministers, and a qualified majority consists of 54 votes. Even if one is the archangel Gabriel--my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is probably closer to the archangel Gabriel than is any other member of the Council--if one does not get 54 votes one does not get one's policy adopted. So it is no earthly use Uncle Tom Cobbley and all telling us what they will do, how they will do it, and what they will insist on ; if they do not get 54 votes, that is all words, words and nothing but words.

I know that this is all most offensive to the Opposition, but the fact of the matter is that that my right hon. Friend came back with a triumph for Britain. The MacSharry proposals had to be our starting point. And what were those proposals? They were a massive piece of institutionalised discrimination against British farmers--and we wiped them out. The Opposition said that we could not do it, and of course they did not want us to do it, because that would be inconvenient for them, but we delivered on what we had promised and the farming community knows that we did.

Mr. Morley : If the Minister has delivered what he promised, will he tell us whether the £8 billion will be cut from the CAP budget?

Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely innumerate. There has been a major switch in the CAP from commodity support to direct support. That is what

---

Column 461

the hon. Gentleman says that he favours, because that is what his amendment says. There is a switch in support to budgetary cost from economic cost. The gain to the consumers is the gain in total economic transfers, not a gain in budgetary costs. We have said that from the start. That is at the heart of any policy designed to switch support from the commodity. To switch support to direct income aid and support to farmers will show up in enhanced budgetary costs, because to do so reduces the economic transfers at the heart of the income switches within the system.

There have been changes in the Council. Many hon. Members have referred to the new French Government. My right hon. Friend is now the doyen of the Agriculture Council. After only three and a half years we are on our fourth French Minister, there have been three or four Irish Ministers, and I believe that the Italians have reached number five. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) will be glad to hear that Alfredo Diana, a former colleague of ours in the European Parliament, is now the Italian Minister of Agriculture. He has a significant stake in the Italian buffalo herd, so no doubt that will give the Opposition something else to complain about. The number of Greeks has been beyond count, on immediate recollection. If we have done so badly, it is amazing that we are still there and all the others have gone. I believe that we are still here because we have delivered.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) talked about GATT. It is amazing how such talk is usually framed in terms of what Europe has to do to deliver. It takes two to tango on the GATT, and we have to hear from the United States, too. We have to hear that the Americans wish to renew their fast track authority, and that the Blair house agreement remains the foundation for the agreement on agriculture. The simple fact is that we shall not see a major departure from that agreement constitute the basis for an agreement on agriculture. Many other sectors have to be dealt with, too.

answer directly what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said about national aid to France and to the sheepmeat sector. May I ask him if he would put these figures into the equation? I am talking noabout exports of British products to France, and about live sheep. I1991 they were up by 48 per cent. over 1990. In 1992 they were up by63 per cent. over 1991. On sheepmeat, they were up by 36 per cent. i1992 over 1991. In other words, we are capturing that French market.We are successful in that market. Then look at the help for British producers. Of course the devaluation helped us on our way--we do not pretend that that is not the case--but it is there and it is real, anif we had not negotiated the end of the monetary compensatory amountsystem that would not have come through in the benefits for farmers.It is clear wh9 T Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman is saying that the devaluation was an indication of the reverse of Government policy. What I am saying is that, as far as that affects farmers, unless we had abolished the MCA system,

---

Column 462

we would have had what existed when Labour was in power--a massive green pound gap and farmers denied the benefit of that. We have brought that to an end.

Mr. Stevenson rose --

Mr. Curry : I will give the figures and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who has kept his practice from the European Parliament of making long, boring speeches.

Look at the help for producers. The ewe premium increase from the green pound factor is up by £2.65, and the additional payment for less favoured area producers is up by £2.20 a ewe. So who is winning in the battle for sheepmeat production and the battle for lamb production? It is clearly the United Kingdom. That is the point that I would ask him to put into this equation.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) is absolutely bursting to get in.

Mr. Stevenson : Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that the Minister is obviously bored to tears. That is obvious from his presentation. He referred to the unanimous agreement of the Council to allow the French Government to subsidise its sheep producers, and then he related that to the way in which we were capturing more of the French market. Surely the logic of that is that if we capture even more of the market we shall allow the French to give even more national aid. Would he care to comment on that? What he said did not quite gell.

Mr. Curry : That is not how it was at all. We had a request from the French Government. The Council of Ministers traditionally shows a certain competence when member Governments have problems that they wish to solve. That is what the Community is about. The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the European Parliament, will know that that is the case. He has sat in the Agriculture Committee, among others. He will know that that is the tradition by which the Community does business. There comes a point where we can say that we want nothing to do with a particular matter, that we will stick out against it and that this particular thing will not pass, and we all know that there is a point at which we are going to say that we need some benefit for ourselves or a difficulty that we need to resolve.

This happened when we came up to the problem on linseed, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred. There we pointed out that the Commission had made a mess of it, that we were in danger of linseed being put into the area aid payment while the seed was in the ground and that before farmers knew where they were we would have an absolute botch-up, and we needed to get an agreement that such a thing would not happen. The export of live horses has also been mentioned. Hon. Members will have received more letters on that subject than on many other issues. That and whales appear to command the particular affection of the British population. If we had not argued a special case, we would not have got the ability to do it. So I make no apology for it. It is part of the lubricant, part of the way in which the Community works.

Mr. Harris : If I may say so, my hon. Friend has missed the point that I was making. I do not necessarily blame him for that. The point that I was making was that the trade-off which was apparently entered into by our right hon. Friend was on the assurance that the French Government would do what they were supposed to do

---

Column 463

anyway, guarantee reasonable access for our products into France. That is how it appears in the letter that he himself wrote, and of which I have a copy, to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.

Mr. Curry : What my right hon. Friend said was that there was no way that we would even agree to this being on the agenda for discussion unless the French made it clear that they would fulfil their obligations as members of the Community in respect of our trade. I must point out to my hon. Friend that we do not have a quarrel with the French Government in this respect. We have a quarrel with a good many of its citizens because of their actions, but when it came to encouraging the French Government to resolve the difficulty we had an effective response ; and now that there is a new Government in power and we have opposite numbers at last we shall seek to renew those responses as soon as we can make contact with them.

Many hon. Members mentioned the GATT talks. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, a crucial decision has to be made. The talks have wide implications and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, GATT is one of the fundamental questions that will determine the way in which agriculture goes in future. I accept his point that eastern and central Europe is the shadow looming just over the horizon at the moment. It may change our agriculture more fundamentally than will the GATT and the CAP reforms put together. That is a fundamental question that we must face. We debated the sugar regime in Committee this morning, so I will not repeat the points on that on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I dealt with the matter at some length this morning. Clearly, reform is necessary for that regime. It could be argued that it is the least attractive part of the CAP--there are a fair number of candidates for that appellation. The implications for developing countries are especially important. It is, therefore, one of the regimes that need change both because it says something about the way in which the Community works and because it has particular relevance to countries that are dependent on it.

We have rotational set-aside because we needed to take action quickly to reduce production. That has been the story of the CAP over the years. A number of years ago, people said that we needed change and that we must have high prices. There has been a history of Ministers not wishing to grasp those decisions. One gets to the point at which one must take more radical action to deal with the matter quickly. We wish that that were not the case. We are not the Government who have been unwilling to take those more difficult decisions early on. We have found that because of the 54 votes, other Governments have not been willing to take such decisions. We end up with a far more radical proposal. If one is sensible, one tries to build on that and to make something constructive out of it. We are trying to build the non-rotational scheme on to it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) welcomes that, because of the environmental benefits that can be attached. Permanent set-aside was suggested because the creation of woodlands and habitats can be linked. That will make out of a scheme that has its disadvantages something that can create a positive good. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who is overcome with tiredness at this stage, proposed a

---

Column 464

series of objectives, but no mechanisms by which to reach the objectives. The amendment is full of many extremely virtuous objectives that we should probably all like to attain, but no mechanism is specified as to how we can get from here to there. It is easy to list virtuous objectives, but if one wants the 54 votes one must have the mechanism and it must be agreed by everyone else on the Council. If not, it is not even worth trying.

Let us be equally clear about the forms. Farmers will receive a lot of money through the post. There is no point in blinking that fact or pretending that it is not the case. It will be the taxpayers' money that they receive. We must therefore ensure two points--that those who are entitled to the money get it, and that those who get the money know that it is properly accounted for because it is part of public expenditure. If one is running the scheme through the framework of supply management, there is no way in which to achieve those two points without ensuring that one knows who is getting what. That means that farmers will have to fill in forms to get the money. Farmers are filing in forms for their own income. We have, of course, made the forms as simple and sensible as we can. However, the need to have such forms is inescapable because taxpayers' money is involved. Next year, about £1.7 billion of taxpayers' money will ride on those forms. It is therefore reasonable that farmers --who are, after all, business men although they may not perceive themselves as such--should deliver the forms that will guarantee their own livelihoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the problem of the mowing and cutting date and referred to 1 May. The date of 1 May is fixed for the United Kingdom as the first date on which a farmer can replace winter cover with bare fallow or with another cover, but not a crop. However, he does not have to cut as early as 1 May. He must cut at least once by 1 July, so the cutting can be delayed into June for environmental reasons, such as nesting birds. Farmers may apply to delay the cutting beyond 1 July if there are genuine environmental reasons. I am sensitive to these issues as there is in my constituency an environmentally sensitive area where late cutting dates allow seed pods to settle, flowers to seed, and nesting birds to complete their cycle of reproduction. That is very important.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made at least one point with which I agree--that farming in Europe will have to face more competition in the world market if we are genuinely in a liberalising environment. We do not yet know whether we are. The GATT deal has not been multilateralised ; it is simply a bilateral understanding between the Community and the United States, which has to be transformed into a deal. Because we saw that competition, we wanted the aids to be transitional and degressive. We did not want them to be permanent and, indeed, they are not permanent. We want to move agriculture to a lower-cost structure to make it more competitive. We all recognise the danger that the Community could lock itself into a high-cost system and then turn a protectionist face to the outside world. That is why we would have preferred to look for a more subtle mechanism.

Farming has got over the hump of great uncertainty, but there are more uncertainties to come, as much reform has still to be pursued. In addition, some things have not been reformed sufficiently or well enough. We all know that the beef sector is a particular problem which will

---

Column 465

return. At this time last year we would have been arguing that MacSharry was the great threat on the horizon. That threat has now dissipated, the situation has been brought under control, and farmers have benefited significantly. Thus, we are at last able, on the basis of an improving income, to say that it is a time for investment, for confidence and for opportunity, and that the Government have delivered it.

Question put, That the amendment be made :--

The House divided : Ayes 113, Noes 209.

Division No. 228] [11.16 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ainger, Nick

Ashton, Joe

Austin-Walker, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Benton, Joe

Bermingham, Gerald

Betts, Clive

Boyce, Jimmy

Bradley, Keith

Burden, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Cann, Jamie

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coffey, Ann

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Darling, Alistair

Davidson, Ian

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Denham, John

Dixon, Don

Dowd, Jim

Eagle, Ms Angela

Enright, Derek

Etherington, Bill

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Godsiff, Roger

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Gunnell, John

Hanson, David

Hardy, Peter

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Hoey, Kate

Home Robertson, John

Hoon, Geoffrey

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ingram, Adam

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Keen, Alan

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Khabra, Piara S.

Kilfoyle, Peter

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Leighton, Ron

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

McCartney, Ian

McFall, John

McKelvey, William

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Miller, Andrew

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mudie, George

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo, Dawn

Purchase, Ken

Quin, Ms Joyce

Raynsford, Nick

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Rooker, Jeff

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Sheerman, Barry

Short, Clare

Simpson, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Stevenson, George

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Turner, Dennis

Wareing, Robert N

Watson, Mike

Wicks, Malcolm

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Mr. Jack Thompson.

NOES

---