| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.46 am
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): I shall speak only briefly, as the report refers to Northern Ireland.
Many of us are sorry that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) is leaving the House. He has been a very robust Member and has always expressed his views clearly. Although I do not necessarily agree with everything he says, he puts his views firmly and I respect him for that. He will be a loss to the House and to his party.
The hon. Gentleman will be a loss, especially to the farming community, given the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture, who appears to negotiate on the basis of what might be attainable. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare would have said, "This is what my country needs and, regardless of what happens, I am going to get it." If the Minister took that approach to Europe, we might end up with what the country needs rather than what we will graciously be given. I do not think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare would have been as soft in securing what the country needs.
One of my pet subjects is tuberculosis in badgers. In my opinion, the disease is a consequence of the British attitude to wild animals. Man is the supreme predator. As we got rid of all the other predators in Britain many years ago, we have a duty to manage the remaining wildlife and to maintain a balance. Unless we do so, some parts of the country will be overrun with badgers and foxes.
Folk will remember that some years ago there was a considerable trade in fox skins out of Northern Ireland. It faded because of all the hullabaloo about wearing furs. When it was over and done with, I tabled a parliamentary question on how many fox skins had been exported from Northern Ireland over five years. The average for each year was 23,000. If anyone had tried to tell me that 23,000 foxes a year could be killed in Northern Ireland--I suppose that some of the foxes probably came from the Irish Republic--I would have laughed them to scorn, but the figures are there. There are a lot more wild animals than most people think.
Mink have caused immense damage. We should have made a serious effort to wipe them out. All sorts of other animals also cause damage, such as magpies and raptors--an issue that will come back whether we like it or not. We had better start thinking straight about these matters rather than allowing ourselves to be ruled by emotion, as we have for far too many years. Some hard decisions will have to be made. Some of us will have to express and defend our attitudes more clearly against all those who look at little furry animals or nice little birds and shut their eyes to the consequences of the imbalances that have arisen among our wildlife.
That is a pet subject of mine that I shall not pursue too far, because I can see that you are becoming a little uneasy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have lots of badgers--I have some on my land. The foxes come round every year and stink them out, breed and then go away again and the poor old badger has to clean his house out. We shall return to TB in badgers when the scientific evidence is available. Whatever that evidence shows, my earlier remarks will still apply.
Northern Ireland is the only part of this country with a land boundary--with a nation that is a strong competitor for our milk and dairy products. The report refers to the fragmented nature of the Northern Ireland dairy processing industry. In another context, instead of lamenting that fragmentation, we would praise it as evidence of strong competition for the market, giving people choice.
We lament that fragmentation because the Republic has built up a strong, vertically integrated milk products industry. It has purchased far too much of Northern Ireland's processing capacity and is still buying far too much of our milk production. Too many decisions are being taken south of the border rather than in the United Kingdom. A dangerous situation for the Northern Ireland dairy industry in the long term has been created and is steadily expanding.
Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark):
This has been one of the last inquiries conducted under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). This morning we have heard probably his last speech in the House. The debate may feature the last speeches from some others of us, but that is for the electors to decide.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his chairmanship over the past 10 or 11 years. His professionalism and his dedication to agriculture have been admired by his colleagues throughout that time. He has been a firm and fair Chairman, running his Committee with authority and always with a sense of humour. He has shown great friendship to us all, regardless of party. I know that those sentiments will be shared by all members and former members of the Select Committee on Agriculture. We wish him well.
We have had quotas since 1984, and they are an established part of the dairy farmer's way of life. They were widely objected to at the outset, as I remember well from my constituency, but now they are widely accepted, as happens with most changes. The system was renewed in 1989 and 1992. It will expire in just over two years, unless it is extended again, which seems unlikely. Because of the uncertainty, farmers need to know what the situation will be after 2000.
It goes without saying that quotas are a valuable asset for the farmer fortunate enough to have them. The change in 1984 was traumatic for farmers. Cutting off quotas and
going for a completely free market after 2000 would be equally traumatic, resulting in a huge loss of asset value for dairy farmers through no fault of their own.
We cannot, however, ignore the fact that there must be some change in 2000, or at a reasonable time after that. The report and the debate are therefore timely, enabling both major parties to set out their thinking on how the situation should be resolved. When they do so, I hope that two factors in particular will be uppermost in their thinking.
First, we must make it clear that any return to the Commission's original idea of the early 1990s of limiting compensation according to a maximum number of cows would be unacceptable. The Commission was thinking of a maximum of 40. It called the idea modulation. British farmers, with their much larger herds, would call it something else, seeing it as another back-door way of harming a settled and prosperous part of our agricultural scene. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister and from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that the Commissioner will be told that the plan is a non-starter. We do not know what the Commission will propose. We are saying that we must not allow drift beyond 2000, which would result in uncertainty and quotas by default. If we are going to have quotas for the foreseeable future, we should be told.
Secondly, we should insist that there should be no reduction in this country's quota in the meantime. We are not self-sufficient in milk and we have a strong case for more quota rather than less. The impression hitherto has been that the Ministry is unlikely to press for additional quota. I regret that. Other countries, with records perhaps less authentic than ours, are robust in asking for extra quota in the price-fixing negotiations. We should do the same, and we should certainly argue against any suggestion of quota cuts. I would welcome assurances from those on the two Front Benches that that is their thinking.
It is tempting to say that we should not alter the quota system. It is not broke and does not need fixing. Farmers like the system, which protects them against cuts in support prices and is a capital asset in their hands. If we continue as we have done, comfortable though it may be, we must recognise that, according to the Commission's figures, in seven years there will be a surplus of 8.6 million tonnes of milk. To deal with that surplus, we are likely to have to end production controls.
That will mean a reduction in price for the producer, but that could be balanced over the years by greater access to world markets, perhaps coupled with suitable compensation for loss of a capital asset. Other countries are expanding and exporting their milk production, and we should do so too. We have the option of protecting the present regime for as long as we can or of getting into world markets. We cannot do both.
I am not too attracted by the idea of 'A and B' quotas; neither was the Select Committee. They have operated in the sugar regime for some time. They produce stability, but the price is uncertainty when each round of negotiations looms. We are in a minority--one country out of many--when it comes to those negotiations. Our competitors are not widely known for protecting Britain's interests in sugar or in anything else.
Another price of quotas is the inability to produce more for world markets. To produce more, British Sugar has to set up plant abroad, whereas it should be able to produce
more in this country, in excess of quota, and sell abroad. Milk 'A and B' quotas would defeat the object of getting into world markets--markets that the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand are already getting into with some success, leaving us and our access to those markets behind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said, while "A and B" quotas might tide the farmers over for a little while, the imposition of two-tier quotas would add an unnecessary administrative complication to the milk regime.
The uncertainty needs to be resolved soon. We should do so now, as farmers are fully aware that the quota system is likely to end. We received evidence from the National Farmers Union that it is advising its members that
"they must not budget for quotas being there after the year 2000".
In addition, the president of the National Farmers Union told farmers:
"the time is getting nearer when the best interests of UK dairy farmers may be to seek an end to the milk quota system".
Whatever new system is proposed, we shall have only a voice; decisions will be made by the European Commission. We must make it clear to the Commission that it must recognise the loss of value that would follow--perhaps time-limited over five years while support prices and import tariffs were reduced.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |