| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): Can my hon. Friend assure the House that any body established on the levy principle will be answerable not just to the Minister but primarily to the growers, as the payers of the levy?
Mr. Boswell: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. Appointments to a development council, particularly in the new climate set by the Nolan committee, cannot be in any sense dictated in advance, but are the responsibility of Ministers taking advice. There can be no narrow constituency that automatically entitles one particular group of interests to a seat on the board. If my hon. Friend considers the experience of existing development councils, although occasionally they are not without their critics, they broadly represent the interests of those concerned in the industry. I am sensitive to my hon. Friend's point and hope that he will be sensitive to the constitutional propriety that I described.
The House will appreciate that details of the successor body are not yet available, but the fact that consensus on such a body exists is another testimony to the potato industry's progressive attitude.
I return to the linkage of the revocation of our scheme with agreement on a common agricultural policy regime for potatoes. The Government are well aware of and sensitive to widespread concern within the industry that a lightweight European Union regime for potatoes should
be introduced as soon as possible, to remove national aids currently operating in other member states. The UK has been the only member state that has consistently supported the European Commission's proposals for just such a regime.
Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South):
Will the Minister confirm that there is not an EU potato regime and that any such regime that may be established, no matter how lightweight, will cost a considerable amount of money?
Mr. Boswell:
I can tell the hon. Gentleman immediately, if he is in any doubt, that there is not an EU potato regime. I do not agree with him about cost. We do not wish to involve ourselves in a regime that is inordinately expensive. One of the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House has been the high costs of the withdrawal and intervention system in the separate area of fruit and vegetables. That is exactly what we do not want. Nor do we want to tip the discussion into a mode where we end up having it against our will. We would resist that firmly. That is why we have been consistent supporters of the Commission's proposals for a regime.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
The only supporter.
Mr. Boswell:
I am sure that it is nice occasionally to be on the side of the Commission.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister pressed the Spanish--
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
Will the Minister confirm that he is winding up a scheme which is costing the taxpayer nothing, or next to nothing, and calling for the introduction of a European scheme that is likely to cost something quite significant?
Mr. Boswell:
I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the likely cost of the European scheme. The purpose of a lightweight regime is primarily to safeguard our position on unfair and distorted competition through national aids. That is what we conceive as the main objective. The costs, if any, would be cast with that objective in view.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
If it is, as the Minister says, that Britain is the only country in the Community that is prepared to accept the Commission's proposals and he does not want a regime that will cost money while all the other states clearly do, on what basis can he possibly say that when the present scheme is ended at the beginning of July, he will be able to deliver his undertakings?
Mr. Boswell:
The hon. Gentleman, in his anxiety to interrupt me, has jumped to the wrong conclusion. It is by no means the case that other member states want a heavyweight regime with the full works of intervention, or whatever. There are many member states that do not want a regime. We are interested in and prepared to support one. As I have already said, British potato growers have been doing very well. We are confident that they will do even better when the board is not round their necks.
Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey):
Is not the reality that it is most unlikely that we shall be able to negotiate a potato regime with the other members of the EU? It suits
Mr. Boswell:
With great respect, I do not accept that the practice of subsidising potato growers is by any means universal in the Community among other member states. I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expressed so eloquently during the passage of previous legislation, when he advocated a control system with quotas and the maintenance of the familiar system of the Potato Marketing Board, even though it is in abeyance for this year. Our view, from the experience of member states that do not have such a regime and quota control, and from the experience of British growers who have been able to export competitively into Europe, is that whether or not we achieve a lightweight regime, it would still be justified to wind up the board, which is the expectation of the industry, and the Potato Marketing Board is anxious to make progress to pave the way for the establishment of a successor body.
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke):
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Boswell:
I have given way many times. Hon. Members may make their speeches in a moment.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk):
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Boswell:
I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bellingham:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I know that he has nearly finished. One point that he has not touched on, however, is the cost of winding up the board. He will be aware that there are producer assets with the board and they may well be used entirely on redundancies, property, pensions and so on. Will he please comment on that important point?
Mr. Boswell:
I am aware of the overall situation. There is little indication that the overall liabilities of the board under winding-up procedures are likely to exceed its assets. It is likely to be positive and there are, of course, provisions in any winding-up scheme to deal with the situation if there is no transition to a successor body. To introduce the principle of Government subsidy for winding-up costs would be a difficult precedent. It was not adopted, for example, in relation to the milk marketing scheme, nor would it be justified in principle, however seductively my hon. Friend makes the point, because it is claimed that the board has been run as a producer organisation, and although there have been safeguards for consumers, the board has been for the benefit of producers over the years, and they have incurred some responsibilities as well as benefits. We think that they should meet those obligations, and I have every reason to think that that will be possible.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I am sure that my hon. Friend will concede that the board is being wound up at the behest of Government. Surely there is some moral
Mr. Boswell:
I think that my hon. Friend will be able to share with me some of the memories of the early years of the board. I am looking back to the end of de-control some 40 years ago. I am not sure that that is particularly helpful to the present case. I am saying that I do not believe that it is right to use taxpayers' money to add to the assets of the board on its winding up when we have not been prepared to do that for other marketing schemes.
Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme):
I did not realise that there were so many jokes about potatoes until earlier this evening. As hon. Members went past, we heard, "That lot over there get their chips", "The Minister is in a soup", "Boil them in oil!" and similar jokes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |