House of Commons
Thursday 4 December 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
The Minister was asked--
Fishing
1. Mrs. Humble: When he last held discussions with representatives of the fishing industry. [17665]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regularly meet fishing industry representatives and I last met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on 19 November.
Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware from our recent correspondence that the Fleetwood fishermen welcome some aspects of the new decommissioning scheme but are concerned about the separation of licence and track record from the value of the boat itself, which may result in loss of quota to the port and, indeed, to the country. In his discussions with representatives of the fishing industry, has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider this matter?
Mr. Morley: This year's decommissioning round was a pilot scheme. It allowed for the first time the separation of track record from the value of the vessel. This was generally welcomed by the industry. There is an issue, however, about the socio-economic effects of this approach. My hon. Friend has been a leading campaigner on the issue, along with the local authority in the area she represents, and she has convinced me that it is a matter that we need to bear in mind in future to ensure that we protect the interests of fishing ports along our coasts.
Mr. Gill: In the Minister's discussions with the industry, has he found anyone who supports the notion of reducing the minimum landing size of plaice, for example, from 27 cm to 22 cm? Given that so much of the regulation that stems from the common fisheries policy is ostensibly to do with conservation, how can the Minister justify reducing the minimum landing size to below that at which the fish could reasonably be expected to breed? What will he do about it?
Mr. Morley: I do not justify that. I spoke against it at the Council of Ministers, and submitted a reservation on the basis that the minimum landing size was too low. I argued that it sent out all the wrong signals to the fishing industry at a time when we were arguing for conservation. The logic behind the move was to match mesh size with discards so as to reduce discards, which is a sensible objective. The answer, of course, is to increase mesh sizes if we want to increase the minimum landing size. Fishermen can do that voluntarily now and I hope that more of them will follow the example of those who do, who are concentrating on quality, not quantity.
Bananas
2. Mr. Ben Chapman: What actions he is taking to ensure that the terms of United Kingdom agreements with the Windward Islands regarding banana imports remain in force. [17666]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): When I met the Prime Ministers of the Windward Islands recently, I gave them my assurance that I will do all in my power to ensure that we meet our historic obligations to their countries. I have told Commissioner Fischler and my colleagues on the EU Agriculture Council of my concerns and of my determination to do everything I can to secure agreement on acceptable new arrangements during the UK presidency in the first half of next year.
Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I say how disappointed we are at the World Trade Organisation's decision in relation to banana producers in the Caribbean? I thank my right hon. Friend for his principled stand on the issue and urge him on in his efforts to ensure that our European partners join us in seeking a solution to the problem. What progress is my right hon. Friend making in getting backing from our European partners?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his disappointment at the World Trade Organisation's ruling against the existing banana regime, which is so important to the Windward Islands, Belize, Jamaica and other African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
The reality is that we shall have to negotiate a new regime that, first, is agreed by our European partners and, secondly, is agreed by the WTO. It is our determination that we should succeed in these objectives.
Mr. Wells:
Does the Minister realise that it was a commitment by the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951 that enabled the Windward Islands to diversify out of sugar and into bananas and that that is the historical background against which he is working? Does he also realise that only he, with his enthusiasm, drive and determination, can get a satisfactory settlement out of Europe?
Dr. Cunningham:
Yes, and I recognise the hon. Gentleman's personal experience and expertise in these matters in the Caribbean. He is right. We have an historic obligation to these tiny countries. I cannot for the life of me see why the powerful nations of the west, with their
Hill Farming
3. Mr. Greenway: If he will visit the North Yorkshire Moors national park to discuss the current state of hill farming. [17667]
Dr. John Cunningham: I have no immediate plans to visit the North Yorkshire Moors national park, although I do admire it. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has a number of visits planned to Yorkshire and Humberside.
Mr. Greenway: If and when the Minister comes up to North Yorkshire, I think that he will find the farmers there more responsible, perhaps, than some of their Welsh colleagues, but every bit as angry. I have never known them so angry. Let us be clear: they are angry with him for his failure to take any action in response to the rapid decline in hill farm incomes of recent months and the fact that many farmers now face bankruptcy. It is not just about beef; lamb prices are also under pressure. I appeal to him to use the hill livestock compensatory allowances and the European monetary compensation arrangements. Frankly, if the present unprecedented crisis does not justify the use of those schemes, how bad must things get before he will act?
Dr. Cunningham: I am well aware of the problem with the incomes of farmers in less favoured areas generally and of beef producers on the hills in particular. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but total livestock subsidies to all farmers in the less favoured areas are estimated to be worth about £530 million in the coming year. I hope to make an announcement about hill livestock compensatory allowance decisions soon. He is wrong to imply that we are doing nothing about this matter. As he would expect, these matters are under active discussion with my colleagues. As for his point about agrimonetary compensation, I remind him that because of the Fontainebleau compromise negotiated by Baroness Thatcher, for every £100 that we might pay under that heading, £71 would have to come from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
Mr. Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree--I am sure that my colleague from North Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) does--that the real challenges facing hill farmers lie in the future of the common agricultural policy? Farmers in my constituency, which is not many miles from that of the hon. Gentleman, are concerned that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I commend to my right hon. Friend an early visit to North Yorkshire, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend that at the root of these problems--and the causes of the difficulties that farmers face--is the failure of existing
provisions in the CAP to provide a long-term, viable income for farmers. It is to that problem that we must look in the longer term, although we shall try to deal with the immediate issues in a different way.
Mr. Curry: When the Minister visits North Yorkshire, will he make two very important points to farmers and consumers? First, it is undoubted that scientific research has shown that bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a much nastier disease than we first thought but, secondly, exposure to it is dropping like a stone because of the measures that have been taken. There is therefore no reason whatever why people should cease to eat beef or to regard it with suspicion.
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the Conservative party's concern about hill farm incomes rather synthetic? Only two years ago, the average net income of a hill farmer was £10,500 and at the beginning of the decade, under the Conservative Government, it was just over £8,000. Is it not a bit rich for Conservative Members to complain about hill farm incomes?
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is astonishing how quickly Conservative Members have flipped. Each time we come to the Chamber, they demand more and more public expenditure at the taxpayer's expense.
Mr. Jack: Is the Minister aware that North Yorkshire hill farmers looking at cattle prices in Banbury yesterday would have realised that they had hit a 20-year low? Does he recognise that, 20 years ago, there was a Labour Government? That is why beef farmers have lost all confidence in the Minister. Will he give us his reaction to the leader article in The Daily Telegraph, which yesterday accused him of going over the top? Instead of pouring more tea and sympathy down the throats of hard-pressed beef farmers, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help them? Will he maintain the level of hill livestock compensatory allowances? Will he remove the extra costs of the Meat Hygiene Service from the backs of farmers? Will he get rid of the upper limit on weight in the over-30-months scheme? Will he mitigate the effects of the new cattle passport scheme on hard-pressed beef farmers?
Mr. Jack: The Minister has just shown a "couldn't care less" attitude towards the British beef farming industry. He knows, because he and the Treasury have confirmed it to me, that Britain's Fontainebleau rebate will increase next year due to underspend on community programmes in dairy, cereals and livestock. Those are the facts. Why is the Minister not asking for this money for the beef industry now?
Dr. Cunningham: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has not only got the facts wrong, he cannot even present them coherently. He has just made, yet again--for the fifth or sixth time--a long list of demands for more and more public expenditure. The previous Government,
of which he was a member, made no provision for that expenditure. Not for one penny of it did they make any provision. We are operating on the plans that the previous Government prepared for this financial year and for which Conservatives Members voted. It is a bit late for them to change their minds now.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |