| Previous Section | Home Page |
New clause 17
Publicity for determinations (No. 1)
. As soon as reasonably practicable after granting an application under section 25 or 28 above, the Ministers shall make public in such manner as they think fit--
(a) the fact that they have granted the application, and (b) the principles of the approved scheme or, as the case may be, of the approved variation.'. -- [Mr. Jack.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Column 370
New clause 14
Functions under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958
. The functions of a committee appointed under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (consumers' committees and committees of investigation) shall not include the consideration of anything done by the Board in connection with an application under this Part of this Act or the carrying out of an approved scheme.'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 2
Restriction on revocation of scheme (No.
1 )-- .--(1) This section applies until a decision has been made by the Council of the European Communities to introduce a regulation on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes. (2) The Minister shall not lay before Parliament a draft of an order under section 22 of this Act or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 unless
(a) a poll of persons who are registered producers has been carried out for the purpose of ascertaining the level of support among them for the making of that order, and
(b) a majority of the votes cast in that poll has been cast in favour of the making of the order.
(3) --(a) The Minister may direct the Board to carry out such a poll as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section and the Board shall comply with the direction within such time (if any) as may reasonably be specified in the direction.
(b) Such a poll shall be carried out as if it were a poll under section 36(1) of this Act.'.-- [Mr. Campbell-Savours.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following : new clause 3-- Restriction on revocation of scheme (No. 2) :
.--(1) This section applies until a decision has been made by the Council of the European Communities to introduce a regulation on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes. (2) The Ministers shall not make either such an order as is specified in section 22(i) of this Act or an order to revoke the Potato Marketing Scheme in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 until--
(a) a poll of persons who are registered producers has been carried out for the purpose of ascertaining the level of support among them for the making of either kind of order mentioned above, and (b) a majority of the votes cast in such a poll has been cast in favour of the making of such an order.
(3) The Ministers may direct the Board to carry out such a poll as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section and the Board will comply with such a direction within such time (if any) as may reasonably be specified in such direction.
(4) Such a poll as is mentioned in this section shall be carried out as if it were a poll under section 36(i) of this Act.'. New clause 4-- Restriction on revocation of scheme(No. 3) : .--(1) This section applies until a decision has been made by the Council of the European Communities to introduce a regulation on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes.
Column 371
(2) Before determining that it appears to them that it is necessary or in the public interest that the Potato Marketing Scheme should be brought to an end or that the Scheme should be revoked in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, the Ministers shall first cause a poll of registered producers under that Scheme to be carried out for the purpose of ascertaining the level of support among them for bringing the Scheme to an end or revoking it, and shall not make such a determination unless a majority of the votes cast in such a poll is in favour of so doing. (3) A poll under this section shall be carried out as if it were a poll under section 36(1) of this Act with the substitution in that subsection for "The Board" of "The Ministers".'.Amendment No. 49, in clause 23, page 13, line 27, at end insert (2A) Where subsection (2) above applies, no order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Ministers have consulted on a proposal to bring the Potato Marketing Scheme to an end with such persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes as they consider appropriate.'.
Amendment No. 50, in page 13, line 33, at end insert
(3A) Where subsection (3) above applies, then to the extent that the regulation of the Council of the European Communities permits member states to make their own arrangements within a common organisation of the market in potatoes, the Ministers shall consult on those matters with such persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes as they consider appropriate.'.
7.45 pm
Mr. Campbell-Savours : I apologise to the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) : he wanted to move the new clause, but I told him that he could not. As he will find out, I had a reason. I am nonplussed : I do not know what is happening to the future of the potato marketing scheme. However, I am not alone ; the industry--both producers and processors--is in the same position. The policy formation of recent weeks appears to have been based on a nod and a wink to journalists, producers and the potato marketing board. Meanwhile, the industry is in turmoil, at a time when large potato surpluses have driven producers all over Europe into bankruptcy, and the board is again under severe pressure as it fulfils its obligations under the scheme.
We have all seen a number of reports suggesting a ministerial shift of position. On 4 June, Farmers Weekly reported :
"Gillian Shephard, the first woman to head Britain's Ministry of Agriculture, is considering a stay of execution of the Potato Marketing Scheme and a blitz on red tape Mrs. Shephard said reviewing the potato scheme was one of her first priorities." What is the reality? I must confess that I suspected that these statements were being orchestrated by the Whips as part of an exercise in disinformation to head off a Tory revolt. There is no doubt that there is a potential for such a revolt over this part of the Bill ; perhaps Ministers have realised that only recently. Yesterday's events in my office, while not confirming my suspicions, should worry not only me but the industry.
The hon. Member for East Lindsey has tabled two amendments, and I can almost guarantee that the Government will accept them. Why? Because, sadly, the amendments do almost nothing. They merely ensure that no order can be made to wind up the potato marketing scheme unless Ministers have consulted those involved in
Column 372
the industry. The two amendments do not restrict the Government's actions in any way ; they do not tie the Government's hands. I suspect that the hon. Member for East Lindsey does not know that the amendments that he tabled were a compromise, and that the amendment that really mattered was never tabled. I know that, because I tabled it yesterday, when I received it in my office. It features on the amendment paper as a starred amendment : that means that we cannot debate it, but we should be debating it. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman even saw it, but it would have tied the Government's hands on the future of the potato marketing scheme. It would have done the trick. It states :"The Ministers shall not lay before Parliament a draft of an order under section 22 of this Act or under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 unless they certify that they are satisfied that no grants, subsidies or measures for stabilisation of the market are available for the benefit of potato producers in other Member States of the European Community which are not equally available for the benefit of potato producers in Great Britain." What a wonderful amendment. I always believed that the Tories would table it. I waited and waited : every day I went to the Vote Office to look at the latest amendments. I was convinced that it would be tabled yesterday morning, but it never arrived. When I finally saw it, it was exactly the amendment that should have been tabled.
What I find remarkable about the new Minister of Agriculture's attitude is that, when her Department was consulted about the amendment the Government were not prepared to accept it. I say that having unearthed a very interesting speech made in the House on 27 February 1989. It reads :
"It is in this atmosphere of change that I would like to plead for the retention of two areas of stability so that we might ease the process of change for farmers. The two crops involved are sugar and potatoes."
The speaker went on to say :
"potatoes are the second highest value crop in the country, after cereals. They are of great importance in underpinning agricultural incomes for both large and small farms There can be no doubt that the future of the potato crop is looming large in producers' minds. As my right hon. Friend knows, that is because the future of the Potato Marketing Board is under discussion. As hon. Members will understand, that board is always criticised when it refuses quotas, but I think that its response to the consultative document issued by the Government has been thorough and serious.
I also believe that the consumers in the United Kingdom enjoy a potatoes In my constituency potatoes are extremely important and growers there--and, I believe, throughout the country--are unanimous in their support for option 3 in the consultative document"
I do not need to remind the House what option 3 was--
"which will retain area and quality control in a self-financing way. I hope that, during the consultation, my right hon. Friend will consider that unanimous response carefully."--[ Official Report, 27 February 1989 ; Vol. 148, c. 99-100.]
Who said that? Was it my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger)? Was it my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), or my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)? No, it was the new Secretary of State. We therefore know that potato producers in the United Kingdom have a supporter in the Cabinet who will fight for them and not compromise. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will want to make that clear tonight. If she was
Column 373
prepared to make that speech before the general election, why was she not prepared to accept today's starred amendment which was put informally to people in her Department? That is the heart of our case.New clause 2 seeks to delay the introduction of an order winding up the potato marketing scheme until the European Commission has taken a decision. The starred amendment would have dovetailed with the new clause and greatly strengthened the Government's negotiating position at the Council. Their position would have been strengthened had the right hon. Lady been prepared to accept it.
The new clause would allow an earlier wind-up only if a poll of producers cast their votes by a majority in favour of the termination of the scheme. Why do we want to delay the wind-up? The answer is that the Labour party is not convinced that the Europeans will take a real decision, establishing either a light or heavyweight regime. There is no evidence to suggest that they will. A promised agreement on the back of the annual price fix has collapsed in tatters. We thought that Ministers would come home the other week with a potato agreement. The Council of Ministers itself appears to be riddled with differences of opinion about what is needed.
The history of the proposed Council regulation COM(92)185 has been done to death by a thousand objections. It started in November 1982, when it first went to the Commission, and it is due to return to the Council of Ministers some time in September. It has been rejected by the potato marketing board, the European Parliament, the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations, COGECA and the Economic and Social Council.
The only person who appears passionately to support this nonsense is the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--unless the Minister of State wishes to say that he has some residual sympathy for it. Perhaps he will argue for it, or perhaps the right hon. Lady will argue for it if she replies to the debate.
While the Commission promotes the debate, the political realities in nation states are proving major obstacles. Commission officials may try to enforce a level playing field, but the reality is that farmers and politicians are resisting. Why? The argument is not uniquely about level playing fields ; it is about the survival of producers in generally depressed economic conditions.
There is a general recognition that subsidies to potato producers throughout the Community have become entrenched. In Committee, my hon. Friends and I spoke at great length about EC subsidy regimes. Indeed, it is fair to say that our debate in Committee had some influence on more recent debates in another place where many speakers dwelt on whether it was possible to create a level playing field when the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee debated the issue some weeks ago.
In Committee, we were able to identify subsidies in Denmark to promote sales, research, quality control and disease protection, which would have amounted to the equivalent of £6 million in the United Kingdom, taking into account the comparative size of the two industries.
We also identified four schemes in Italy funded by an organisation called AIMA. One scheme paid £74 a tonne to growers, a further £50 to producers of alcohol, subsidies of £9 a tonne to producer organisations, £6 a tonne to
Column 374
co-ops, subsidies for new potato production and the private storage of potatoes. We are told that, in January last year, the Italians paid £26 million in aid to their producers.France has its own intervention schemes, paying millions to main crop growers--last year, the sum involved was £13 million, although I have been told that I have grossly underestimated it. The French Government are right now paying their early potato growers almost £1, 300 a hectare to destroy 1,000 hectares of potatoes in Brittany. French growers receive low-interest priority loans which would survive any new EC regime, which is not supposed to be based on such subsidies. Of course, the French will still receive their cheap loans, because they have already negotiated them. The French even subsidise regular growers to remain in business.
Spain spends millions on loans for storage at preferential interest rates. It even introduced its own import deposit scheme with delayed payments. The Portuguese provide concessional loans for storage, a £32 a tonne export subsidy, special subsidies for co-operatives and intervention buying. They have set a minimum import price of £75 a tonne. What a wonderful Common Market it is where one can set a minimum import price of £75 a tonne and get away with it. Even so, we still think that such schemes will somehow be abolished when the marvellous level playing field is established. It will not happen. Holland, the much-cited paragon of potato producing virtue, offers starch subsidies, rent subsidies, loan guarantee funds, concessional export guarantees and a carefully tailored small business welfare payments system. Ireland is this year subsidising its production, as even Luxembourg does too.
The subsidies that we have identified are but the tip of an iceberg. Whatever assurances are given by EC Governments, the subsidies will remain in one form or another. Political realities are such that politicians and local institutions in rural parts of the Community will not allow a volatile European potato industry to collapse in ruins. Only in Britain have politicians been prepared even to consider the prospect of such a disaster.
I have a question for the new Secretary of State. I shall read out an answer given to a friend of hers only this morning in the European Parliament. A copy has just been faxed to my office. The copy reads :
"As Commissioner Christophersen said in his reply to Written Question No. 3435/92 by the Honourable Member"
Mr. Peter Crampton--
"the inventory of state aid"--
which I understand is the document that lists all the subsidies which have been paid in Europe over the years
"was designed to provide information on state aid to the whole agricultural sector. This being the case, where a Member State has granted aid in the potato sector, data relating to such aid is included by the Member State in its contribution to the inventory for the year or years in question. As was also indicated in the reply, Member States do not provide such data with a view to its publication."
Oh yes, the information is not for publication.
"However, a copy of the updated information provided for the inventory by each Member State is supplied by the Commission, on a confidential basis, to the other Member States and to the Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture."
So, although we have been told that Ministers do not have the information, they do have it. We should do well to recall what was said in Committee on the subject, yet
Column 375
here is the Commissioner responsible telling us that Ministers have that confidential information, which I know Members on both sides of the House want to see, because it is the only means of establishing whether a true level playing field exists within the EC.8 pm
The realities cry out. The scheme cannot work until there is not only a level playing field in Europe, but an agreed system of market support. We cannot leave potato producers naked in a market in which bankruptcy follows high yields. That does not mean public money. The potato marketing scheme has cost very little taxpayers' money over the years. In the context of the wider Community, the level of subsidy paid to potato producers in the United Kingdom is the lowest by far. We run a cheap system in this country. The taxpayers' contribution is low because of the nature of that scheme. Indeed, it is such a good scheme that I have a letter from the Irish equivalent of the National Farmers Union telling me that there are Ministers in the Irish Government who would like to have a potato marketing scheme, but they are not convinced that they would have the support of their English counterparts. Perhaps if Conservative Members are prepared to jump in to the debate--I shall leave them lots of time--they may influence Ministers. Then Ministers may get some spine and some fire into them to go out and defend our scheme, which has worked so well.
People in Ireland realise that an increasingly heavyweight regime--that is what will develop as countries bottle out on removing subsidies--can be no substitute for a managed market that costs the taxpayer almost nothing. They realise that the only way to avoid spurious national schemes being set up is to set up efficient methods of matching production with expected demand. Why do the Government not commit themselves to retaining the existing scheme, or to introducing a revised scheme, which would be my preferred option? In Committee, we did not argue for a pure scheme such as the existing arrangement. We accepted the principle of revision, because the processors have a real argument--so strong an argument, indeed, that I spent the first few months of my present brief trying to devise another scheme to replace the potato marketing scheme, which would take into account the interests of both processors and producers.
I have to tell the Minister that we nearly did it-- [Interruption.] Oh yes, I am sure the Minister has been fully briefed about that. We nearly got there, but in the end there were a few minor obstacles. The problem was that we did not have the weight of the officials behind us to bang heads together and make people sort the problems out and devise a new scheme. It was just my researcher and I, and a few colleagues, and it is difficult to operate in such a climate when one is trying to sort out the problems of an industry worth several hundred million pounds, involving 14,000 producers, many of whom--including Mr. Robertson--have some rather curious views. No one wants a half-baked, unworkable level playing field dreamed up by the Commission. If the Government insist on going down their route, they must tell us what public moneys are available to deal with volatile market
Column 376
surpluses and gluts. Do they have a secret cash store to fund a glut, in these times of stringent control of public expenditure? No doubt Ministers will argue that the United Kingdom market enjoys no more stability than those of our European partners. We have heard that argument before, and I am sure we shall hear it again tonight, unless the Secretary of State intends to change tack. However, I remind her that that argument has been convincingly rubbished by the Nottingham report.In case some of my hon. Friends are not aware of it, I shall tell the House that that report, produced by a noble Lord and a professor at Nottingham university, and called, I believe, "Potatoes--an uncommon regime", challenged the case for closing down the operations of the potato marketing scheme. With the use of tables examining coefficients of yield variability and price variability across the Community, the report proved-- conclusively, in my view--that the United Kingdom has high yield variability and low price variability. That was an important finding. The report showed that the scheme was working.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Yes, the report was paid for by the potato marketing board. But all the research done for the Minister is carried out by agriculture officials. Why should we treat that as any more objective than the research done at Nottingham university? When the Secretary of State winds up tonight, she will say, "Treat me as an honest broker. You know my sympathies. Campbell-Savours rattled out that speech at the Dispatch Box three years ago, so you know where I stand." She may have strong views on those matters which she may want to signal to other members of the Cabinet at some future stage, if there is to be a policy reversal.
But one thing worries me about the right hon. Lady : I do not know whether she is unassailable. I do not know how long she will last. She may be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a few months' time ; Chancellors do not seem to last long these days. Is it not possible that the present Minister of State, Department of Employment, or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, or possibly the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Social Security, or some other prominent member of the No Turning Back group will take on responsibility for agriculture? Perhaps the present Minister of State will be moved to another Department and we shall get one of those mad right wingers at the Ministry.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : The trouble is that, if the Bill reaches the statute book in its present form--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. there is only one occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : I am glad that you admonished him, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I admonished hon. Members.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : We want an assurance that is sought by the potato marketing board and the United
Column 377
Kingdom potato producers. I am conscious that the Secretary of State has constituents, and that there are 300 producers in her constituency. This is a difficult matter for her to handle. I understand that.However, we want an assurance that if the Government are given the enabling powers in the Bill they will not use them before the next general election- - [Interruption.] Let me explain why. A rebellion is being bought off with two compromise amendments on consultation. Judging by correspondence and conversations that I had with hon. Members when the former Secretary of State was in office, I have no doubt that there was to be a rebellion on the potato marketing board.
Conservative Members were prepared to vote with my hon. Friends, and if a rebellion had been on the cards, we would have put on a three-line Whip to defeat the Government. Conservative Members believed that, as the former Secretary of State intended to motor on with the changes and trigger the enabling legislation by introducing regulations, the only way to stop him was to support the Labour rebellion. However, that Conservative rebellion has been bought off. If it was bought off on the basis of consultation, we want an assurance tonight that, if the Secretary of State is given those powers, the legislation will not trigger the regulations. If the right hon. Lady is no longer in her post tomorrow or the day after--I say this with gentle and deferential respect--her role will be filled by someone else. In those circumstances, hon. Members might well say that we should have blocked the possibility of triggering the regulations when we had the opportunity. If we receive the necessary assurances from the Secretary of State tonight, or even an indication from her, I am sure that my hon. Friends will not force the new clause to a Division.
Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey) : I shall relate my remarks specifically to amendments Nos. 49 and 50, in my name, which were somewhat contemptuously described by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell- Savours). It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member in a debate, as he manages to invest every subject with a marvellous frisson of cloak and dagger excitement which might otherwise be lacking. I should perhaps start by assuring him that I did not receive any approach from Saudi Arabia over the tabling of my amendments.
I have to declare an interest in that a considerable number of my constituents grow potatoes and work in the potato industry, and almost all my constituents eat fresh potatoes.
I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to her new post. Although we traditionally discuss such amendments in the House in an informal and light-hearted way, my right hon. Friend, who has a long farming background, knows of the importance of the subject under discussion and the deep feelings on it held by potato growers throughout the country. They are fiercely wedded to the potato marketing schemes, the quota and the intervention fund. Unlike anywhere else in Europe, Britain's staple diet has traditionally been potatoes, which have always aroused strong feelings in this country, and even stronger ones in John Bull's other island.
I have known only one other female Minister of Agriculture--the delectable Madame Edith Cresson. When feelings among French farmers were running rather
Column 378
high, Madame Cresson had to be rescued in a smart white helicopter from a group of angry farmers. I am certain that my right hon. Friend, who will be a listening Minister in a listening Government, will not find herself in a similar position in relation to the farmers of England, who practically vote Tory to a man--at least, they have until now and will, I hope, at the end of the debate gain renewed faith in and enthusiasm for Toryism. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be tempted to follow the example of Madame Cresson, notwithstanding the fact that she went on to be, not just Chancellor of the Exchequer, but Prime Minister of France.There has been some form of potato marketing board in this country since the 1930s, and there have been many changes at various stages over the years in the way that it has been organised. The name "potato marketing board" is misleading to the layman who does not study such matters because the potato marketing board does not sell any potatoes. It would be more appropriate if it were called the potato growers association. If it were, it might attract less criticism from what I might describe as free marketeers--something that I have never been.
8.15 pm
I want to reassure those of my hon. Friends with a passion for completely unlicensed markets that there is a totally free market in potatoes beyond the farm gate, which is not always appreciated. I say that for the particular benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), whose potato farmers constitute a distinguished group in Sussex. The wide support for the present arrangements among potato growers derives from the fact that the arrangements provide a certain stability of price without involving the taxpayer in the cost of intervention buying. Due to our island climate, yields in Britain are more variable than those on the continent, and it is extremely important for our potato growers to be certain about price.
The phrase "the heart of Europe" is often bandied about. Like many such platitudes, it is meaningless as Europe has no heart and never will have. If one were to ask where the allegorical heart might be, one could say that it was the common agricultural policy. One of the ironies of our affairs in the House is that, at a time when many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are keen on closer European union, they are often critical of the common agricultural policy. However, when one goes to continental Europe one finds that the cement that holds the European concept together is the CAP, which is liked by the French and the Germans.
Every country in the world, including the United States and Japan, supports agriculture--Britain has done so since the beginning of the 1939 war. It is right that we should do so for an enormous range of reasons. Agriculture is not like industry ; it needs support. However, the problem of the CAP has been its excesses. I fully accept that urban taxpayers cannot be expected to sign huge cheques every year to support commodities which nobody wants to buy. But the great merit of the potato marketing scheme is that, unlike the CAP, its mechanism keeps supply and demand in balance to a considerable extent. Far from abolishing the potato marketing scheme, we should hold it up to the Community as an example of the sort of device that it should consider using for a variety of other commodities. It avoids the excesses of the CAP
Column 379
financial arrangements, with large imposts falling on the taxpayer. The MacSharry plan was devised to overcome the excesses of the CAP, which cannot be blamed on the potato marketing scheme.When something works, why fix it? The view of every potato grower in my constituency is that the potato marketing scheme works. They will be very upset if it is abolished.
In the European context, potatoes have been the only major arable crop not to be covered by a CAP regime. Although potatoes have often enjoyed governmental support and grants on the continent, as the hon. Member for Workington said, we are now told that there is to be a CAP regime for potatoes. I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Member for Workington that that is another conspiracy, or that it will never come about.
In preparation for this debate, I read the Commission's report of December 1992 and I even read the Rapporteur's report on the subject to the European Parliament. The Council is considering the scheme and I imagine that it will eventually come to fruition. As the House will know, I am not an enormous enthusiast for European arrangements, but if we are to have a regime for potatoes, I hope that it will be sensible and not too light weight.
The declared aim of the Commission's regulation in Brussels in December 1992 was :
"To ensure stability of the market in potatoes and a fair income to the producers."
That is perfectly acceptable and that is the aim of the potato marketing scheme. However, as so often with the Brussels Commission, its good intentions may produce quite opposite practical results. As the hon. Member for Workington and many others have suggested, the Commission may propose such a light weight Community regime in potatoes that, far from ensuring
"stability of the market and a fair income to the producers", it may produce the exact opposite.
However, there is nothing in the British arrangements at present which appears to be contrary to the Commission's proposals, the Rapporteur's report and the European Parliament's response. As subsidiarity is stressed increasingly in European affairs, if the EC produces a potato regime, it would be a very good test of whether subsidiarity has any real meaning if we were allowed to retain the potato marketing scheme that we already have.
Under the British scheme, stability arises from the constancy of acreage planted and the certainty of future acreage which is encouraged by the quota system. In practice, the potato marketing board's buying-in programme is less important than the quota system. However, it also helps to maintain confidence and at no cost to the taxpayer.
We can contrast that with the situation in Brittany today, to which the hon. Member for Workington referred. Very considerable sums of French taxpayers' money--not CAP money--are being spent to help the Brittany potato growers precisely because they do not have a scheme like ours.
Turning from the European context, I want now to consider the British critics of the scheme. It is fair to say that three main criticisms are most usually advanced within the United Kingdom against the case for the retention of the potato marketing scheme.
| Next Section
| Home Page |