| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Common Fisheries Policy
6. Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for reform of the common fisheries policy. [7280]
Dr. Jack Cunningham: The Government are pressing for the common fisheries policy to be improved in a number of ways, including strengthening the economic benefits that countries derive from their quotas, improving the effectiveness of enforcement measures and introducing a greater regional dimension into decision making.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give the House two assurances? First, will he assure us that coastal strips predominantly fished by the non-sector industry will for ever remain exclusively for UK boats after 2002, when the current derogation expires? Secondly, will he assure us that the North sea will never be fished by other national fleets except those that already fish there? The pressure on quotas is already destroying this country's inshore fisheries.
Dr. Cunningham: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks on both counts. I know that fishermen in Brightlingsea, West Mersea and Wivenhoe in his constituency have had particular difficulties caused by over-fishing. We want to press ahead with restructuring our fishing industry to try to deal once and for all with problems such as those that he has rightly drawn to my attention.
Mr. Andrew George: During the forthcoming UK presidency of the European Union, will the Minister ensure that reform of the common fisheries policy is given clear priority and that Britain sets the agenda for it? Does he believe that our presidency provides an opportunity to bring forward the date of the much needed review of the common fisheries policy?
Dr. Cunningham: We certainly intend to set the agenda. We must recognise that we cannot totally control it, because it is partly set by the circumstances that we inherit from the previous presidency. We want reform of the common fisheries policy to be on the agenda. I doubt that there is any way in which we can advance the date for the changes that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but we have begun to prepare for our presidency. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I had a meeting earlier this week with the leaders of the British fishing industry from all over the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Betty Williams: I applaud the Government's efforts to tackle the problems of the fishing industry, which are in contrast to the empty talk we had from Conservative Members when they were in government. What is being done to improve the enforcement of the measures?
Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased to say that one of the commitments my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received from the President of the Commission was that we would move towards the uniform enforcement of fishing controls across the European Union--something that should have been done a considerable time ago.
Mr. Hogg: In seeking to tackle the problem of quota hoppers, in particular by the proposals on landing and crewing, the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be frustrated by the treaty of Rome, as happened in the Factortame case. Does he accept that, in reality, the only way forward is to amend the treaty of Rome, particularly the provisions that deal with the movement of persons and capital? That can be done only at an intergovernmental conference.
Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not agree. Even if I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right on that point, we realise clearly that there is no support from other member states of the European Union for such an approach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Factortame case, over which the United Kingdom was in difficulties. The difference now is that we have a letter of authority from the President of the Commission for what we intend to do. If our proposal was the subject of a legal challenge, the President of the Commission would be on our side, as opposed to being against us, as happened in the past.
Quarantine
7. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of animals held in quarantine. [7281]
Mr. Morley: We are currently inspecting those quarantine kennels that have signed up to a voluntary code of practice for the welfare of dogs and cats in quarantine premises to ensure they can meet all its requirements. We would like to put the code on a statutory basis when parliamentary time can be found.
Mr. Flynn: Is my hon. Friend shocked by the list of situations, reported to him by Passports For Pets, in many of the quarantine kennels that are outside the present code? They are no-go areas for animal welfare. There are cases of neglect and sometimes cruelty, leading to great suffering for the animals incarcerated there. Although my hon. Friend is, I am sure, planning for a major reform of our absurd, cruel and unnecessary quarantine system, will he give an assurance that the Animal Health (Amendment) Bill, which was presented to the House yesterday, will have the Government's full support when it is considered by the House again in November?
Mr. Morley: I was present in the House yesterday when my hon. Friend presented the Bill and I congratulate
him on his arguments on the serious issue of maintaining very high standards in quarantine kennels. At present, 74 quarantine kennels have signed up to the Ministry's voluntary code of practice; five have not. There are no powers at present to insist that they do sign up. We will look at the matter and we will examine my hon. Friend's Bill carefully when it is published to see whether we can use it as the basis of taking this issue forward.
Mr. Walter: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a significant reduction in the problem of the welfare of animals in quarantine could be brought about by reducing the necessity for animals to go into quarantine? Do the Government have any plans to introduce new rules to allow animals coming in from the European Union and other rabies-free countries with the necessary veterinary certificates not to have to go into quarantine for the period at present required?
Mr. Morley: The Government's policy is to ensure that this country retains its rabies-free status; that is obviously very important. Having said that, we acknowledge there have been new advances in technology and new procedures. We committed ourselves, when in opposition, to a review of quarantine procedures. We have carried out that review and we propose to produce a consultation paper in the not-too-distant future on the various options that could be considered, ensuring that we maintain the rabies-free status of this country.
Common Agricultural Policy
8. Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards securing reform of the common agricultural policy. [7282]
Dr. Jack Cunningham: I am delighted that the European Commission yesterday published proposals for common agricultural policy reform, which in most respects reflect the Government's own ideas and priorities.
Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that, although the announcements from the Commission are broadly welcomed by the agricultural sector and the wider environment, there is concern about the possibility of a cap on the proposed ceiling for direct payments to farmers? Will he undertake to resist any proposals for a cap on our farms, which are generally two or three times larger than those elsewhere in the European Union, as that would be detrimental to farmers in my constituency of Lewes and elsewhere in the country?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is referring to what in Euro-jargon is called modulation. I can assure him, as I have told the House before, that I am opposed to the introduction of modulation in the CAP.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend please outline how he intends to consult communities in peripheral rural areas such as the North York moors and his own constituency in Cumbria before the proposed reforms come into effect?
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary and my noble
Friend in the other place are already involved in regional consultation on a regular basis, as are all right hon. and hon. Members. I can assure my hon. Friend that, having represented such a constituency for 27 years, I shall ensure that the voices of farmers in the hills, the dales and less-favoured areas are heard.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Given that the Government have already stated that the reform of the milk quota system is tied up with reform of the CAP, and as many dairy farmers are advising their sons and daughters not to follow them into the industry, but instead to enter the milk quota brokerage industry--assuming that they have also qualified as lawyers or accountants--will the Minister address the reform of the milk quota system as a matter of urgency so that young people are once again encouraged to join the industry?
Dr. Cunningham: The answer is yes. I favour the abolition of milk quotas, as that is the only realistic reform that should be on the agenda. I intend that that issue, among others, will be on the agenda during the United Kingdom presidency. In general, I support the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the CAP has forced up food prices in Britain and elsewhere and represents a substantial transfer of resources from urban areas to rural areas? Why should the urban poor subsidise wealthy farmers? Would we not be much better off if the system were reformed so that prices were reduced substantially?
Dr. Cunningham: It is true that the rural poor as well as the urban poor have to pay high prices--sometimes even higher prices--for their food, so the CAP has been of disadvantage to British people generally. We all pay more than is necessary for our food. I can think of few, if any, other policies that cost £30 billion a year and infuriate the farmers and the consumers alike.
Mr. Paice: Although we welcome the reduction in price support contained in the proposals published yesterday--indeed, I welcome the remarks that the Minister has just made about them--does he agree that they would increase the cost of the CAP to the taxpayer by some £3.5 billion, yet at the same time reduce the income to arable farmers by some £330 million, in addition to the fact that cereal prices this year are already some 30 per cent. down on last year? Why should British farmers believe that the Minister will negotiate firmly on their behalf for proper compensation for further price reductions when he still refuses to commit himself to applying for the £350 million in compensation that is already on the table as a result of the revaluation programme?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right: the proposals--we are still examining them in detail--involve increases in expenditure. The Government have certainly not signed up automatically to that. I also recognise that, if we are to get away from support for production--that is our basic position--there will have to be transitional arrangements for farmers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |