---

Set-aside (Charity Events)

5. Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in respect of changing the EU rules which prohibit charity events on set-aside land. [3724]

Mr. Baldry: I am pleased to be able to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister secured an undertaking from the European Commission in July that the use of set-aside land for charitable events would be permitted in future. The Government welcome that as a sensible change to the set-aside rules which meets public concerns.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the prohibition is one more reason why the public in the United Kingdom are beginning to dislike the European Union? This is nonsenseland. Can my hon. Friend assure me that he will progress the revision of the common agricultural policy as soon as possible?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the type of approach that the Commission took at the end of 1995, when it wrote to us ruling out the use of set-aside land for charitable and local fund-raising events, brings the Commission into disrepute; that is why we sought to persuade the Commission to relax the rules for such events. We were successful, and whenever necessary we seek to ensure that the Community proceeds on the basis of commonsense policies.

Mr. Morley: I have been listening carefully to the Minister's reply, but the House has not yet heard the whole story. As I understand it from the Commission, the Government did indeed approach the Commission for clarification, but concentrated in their interpretation on the issue of the lucrative use of set-aside land--including for charitable purposes. The Commission maintains that the Government's own interpretation is what stopped the charitable use of set-aside land for at least a year before the issue was clarified. The rules most certainly have not been changed--the Minister did not say that they have--but they have been clarified.

21 Nov 1996 : Column 1090

The problem is that the Ministry often interprets European Union rules to suit itself--and sometimes wrongly--and then blames the EU, when the blame should rest with MAFF itself.

Mr. Baldry: That is complete hogwash. The simple facts are as follows: at the end of 1995, the Commission wrote to us ruling out the use of set-aside land for charitable and local fund-raising events, and made it perfectly clear that it was tightening up on the rules. The initiative came from the Commission, not from us--

Mr. Morley: Not on the interpretation of lucrative use.

Mr. Baldry: I know that it is difficult for anyone in the Labour party to understand the idea of "lucrative". When charities organise fund-raising events, they hope to raise money from them. Such activities are, therefore, lucrative. The Commission made it very clear that it was tightening up the rules. We had to take the initiative to get the Commission to change those rules back, and that is what we have done.

Meat Retailing Sector

6. Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish an independent inquiry into the pricing practices of the meat retailing sector. [3725]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): We do not see the need to hold an inquiry into the meat retailing sector at the moment.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that beef farmers in this country, who get no help in the present difficult circumstances--

Mrs. Browning indicated dissent.

Mr. Sheerman: Most beef farmers raise their beef and take their cattle to market, where they get 20 per cent. less for them than they did before March. That has made it not worth feeding the animals over a long period. They want to know--it has not yet been explained to them properly--why a 20 per cent. cut in the price they get at market works through to a reduction of only 1 per cent. in the price to the consumer and housewife--and butchers and supermarkets. Those facts have been checked with the Minister and with the House of Commons Library. Farmers and consumers are not satisfied that they are not being robbed by someone along the food chain.

Mrs. Browning: It is quite fallacious to say that the Ministry has not supported the beef farmer. We have done so with two tranches of money--£29 million already distributed at more than £60 per head of cattle that have gone into the food chain; and another tranche of £29 million due to be paid shortly to support farmers--

Mr. Sheerman indicated dissent.

21 Nov 1996 : Column 1091

Mrs. Browning: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head: it is a matter of record. The hon. Gentleman may not like the truth, but here it is. I do not know how often he does his shopping: I hope that he, like me, goes to the supermarket and the butcher every week. If he does, he cannot fail to have noticed that, since 20 March--[Hon. Members: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it. It is pathetic that when this important market and the issue of consumer confidence in this product are discussed in the House, Opposition boys and girls are so quick to run down this vital industry. [Interruption.] The supermarkets have supported British beef; they said from day one that they would sell it, and they have. I offer the hon. Gentleman one example--[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has a right to answer without being barracked.

Mrs. Browning: Let me give the hon. Gentleman one fact--there are many more. In November 1995, Tesco was selling British mince at 139p per kilogram. This week, mince is on sale in Tesco, as it is in many other supermarkets, at 94p per kilogram. Such a display of confidence will get people back to British meat. That is what the supermarkets are doing.

Sir Donald Thompson: That was telling them --I thank my hon. Friend. I do not believe that she has had any inquiry from butchers for financial support, however deserving they may be. Does she agree that the high street butcher can tell the customer exactly where the meat comes from, how to cook it and what price to pay for it?

Mrs. Browning: Indeed. My hon. Friend mentions an important sector of the meat retailing trade. The independent butchery trade is responsible for the retailing of 40 per cent. of British meat. We have been supportive of, for example, campaigns run by the Meat and Livestock Commission, especially to promote important sales of forequarter cuts such as braising beef and mince. I was pleased to launch the 8,000th independent butcher selling MLC-accredited mince. It has been an extremely successful campaign and it has done a great deal to restore British confidence.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that there is a relationship between the amount of beef consumed and the price? Does she agree that one way to clear the stocks of intervention beef quickly is to give it away to charitable organisations so that they can distribute it to the needy in areas such as mine? Will she extend that scheme beyond beef to butter and, if she wishes to be popular, to wine and cheese?

Mrs. Browning: I can inform the House that 64,000 tonnes of intervention beef has been stewed and canned and is being distributed as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

EC Fruit and Vegetable Regime

7. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the reform of the EC fruit and vegetable regime. [3726]

21 Nov 1996 : Column 1092

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): Now that the Council regulation has been agreed, we are working with our growers to ensure that the detailed implementing rules reflect their needs.

Mr. Lidington: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the reforms that he and his European colleagues have secured to the fruit and vegetable regime. Will he confirm that only through a thorough overhaul of the common agricultural policy will it be possible to eliminate the waste and corruption that is still endemic in the present system of subsidies? Will he also strive for the repatriation of some elements of agricultural policy to Britain so that, for example, the minimum size of fruit that can be sold in our shops can once again be a matter for the consumer, not for politicians or bureaucrats?

Mr. Boswell: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. Credit for negotiating the fruit and vegetable regime should go to our right hon. and learned Friend. My hon. Friend is right to say that our view of the common agricultural policy does not stop at the limited review and reform of the fruit and vegetable regime. We want a much more market-related and competitive CAP. There have been regulations on fruit sizes in the United Kingdom for many years--predating the CAP. No significant changes are being enacted under the CAP or the fruit and vegetable regime, save in respect of one or two of the minimum sizes of traditionally larger apples. I have read some press comment, not all of which is well conceived, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that the Cox's Orange Pippin, and the small Cox's Orange Pippin, are safe in our hands.

Mr. Home Robertson: Why are the Government going to such lengths to turn Europe into a continent of vegetarians? Since the Prime Minister told the House four months ago that the beef export market could be reopened if the British Government fulfilled the Florence criteria and carried out the selective cull of cattle at risk from BSE, why is the Ministry refusing even to undertake preliminary work to identify the cattle that would need to be culled in order to fulfil those criteria?

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. and learned Friend has already responded fully and sufficiently to the issue of the selective cull. The initiative for depriving continental colleagues of the opportunity to eat British beef came at their behest, not ours. We regard the ban on selling excellent British beef in Europe as misconceived and legally inappropriate. We shall press at all times for its removal.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend inform the House whether any progress has been made in Brussels on establishing a potato regime?

Mr. Boswell: We support the introduction of a modest potato regime along the lines of the fruit and vegetable regime, but with no recourse to intervention. It should protect and expand the market, but not involve waste or expense. We adhere fairly closely to the Commission position and we are pleased that several member states came into line with that position at the recent Council meeting. However, we have by no means secured the consensus that will lead to a common regime--although that remains a highly desirable objective.

21 Nov 1996 : Column 1093

---