| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): If the Opposition will not apologise to my right hon. Friend, I will apologise because he has achieved far more than I imagined possible, given the vested interests in the European Union that make the negotiations tremendously difficult. One argument about the possibility of achieving reform was that, unless there was reform, we would not be able to achieve expansion of the EU because the terms and conditions of the common market CAP would be
unacceptable to applicants. Will the arrangements facilitate the possibility of enlargement, or do we still have to wait for further reforms?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He has put his finger on an important point. The reform package still makes enlargement of the EU difficult. It marches in the right direction, but it does not get there quickly enough to facilitate enlargement on the present timetable. It would not surprise me if we returned to these matters again before the end of the six-year period.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): Who are we to believe this morning--the Minister, who tells us that this is the most radical deal in his generation, or the Prime Minister's spokesman, who says that it is just not satisfactory? On this occasion, I prefer to believe the No. 10 spokesman.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the British public will not find it satisfactory when the issues discussed at the Agriculture Council have resulted in cuts for northern European farm produce and farmers in Britain, but an overall budget that will increase by£1 billion, while the wine lake, the olive oil sludge pond and the obscenity of the £500 million taxpayers' subsidy to tobacco were not on the agenda? Does he understand that British farmers will think that he has been suckered into a deal that cuts their prices while paying no attention to the scandal of the CAP in southern Europe?
Mr. Brown:
I think the right hon. Gentleman has slightly lost the plot. Olive oil and tobacco were never part of this negotiating round, although of course the direct payments would have been affected had the British idea of degressivity been accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whom he should believe--the Prime Minister's spokesman or me. I have good news for him: he can believe both of us. The CAP reform package does not go far enough for me or for the United Kingdom, but it is still the most radical shake-up the CAP has ever had. It is certainly much better than anything achieved by the right hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have described it is as not acceptable. Of course it is not acceptable that there is not some limit of degressivity in the direct payments. I have always made that clear. I made it clear at the conclusion of the Council in the early hours yesterday by reading a statement on to the record on behalf of the Government. We have made it clear that we intend to pursue the matter at Heads of Government level.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and applaud his efforts in what were obviously very difficult negotiations. I believe that there is broad agreement that the common agricultural policy is a very bad system of agricultural subsidy and has always been specifically disadvantageous to Britain. Does my right hon. Friend think that, taken together, these reforms will diminish Britain's relative disadvantage compared with other EU states? Will these reforms, taken together, make a difference and improve the malign redistribution effects between member states?
Mr. Brown:
The question of the balances between member states is very complex. There is a north-south
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury):
Does the Minister agree on the direction in which we are meant to be going? Consumers want to know that prices will fall, and the reduction in price support will be worth while only if there is a reduction in prices in supermarkets. What has been really frustrating for farmers--indeed, for everyone--is the fact that the substantial falls in farmgate prices have not been passed on to consumers. I do not blame the Minister for that, but may we have some discussions with the supermarket chains to ensure that consumers have some benefit from the reforms?
Does the Minister agree that we all acknowledge that an objective of UK policy must be to ensure that eventual common agricultural policy reforms reward efficient UK producers? If we can at least all agree the objectives, there may not be as much accusation and counter-accusation.
Mr. Brown:
We have made a substantial move in the direction of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about producers. We have not got there as fast as I would like, but at least I have got the common agricultural policy to go in the direction that I want it to go.
We did not specifically discuss retail prices because that is beyond the competence--the scope--of the Agriculture Council. I am certain, though, that if producer prices are reduced, that must feed through into benefits to consumers.
Ms Joan Ryan (Enfield, North):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on negotiating this reform. I am certain that it will be good news for consumers; it will certainly be welcomed by my constituents.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this reform is clear evidence that the Government's positive approach of working in co-operation with our European partners is best for Britain and brings benefits for Britain, and is in marked contrast to the approach of, and the outcomes achieved by, the Conservatives when they were in power?
Mr. Brown:
My approach to these negotiations was to make sure that I kept the United Kingdom at the heart of the negotiations on the Commission's proposals, and that I did not allow the United Kingdom to be marginalised in such a way that the other Ministers would gang up on us and introduce a measure that specifically disadvantaged the United Kingdom. In particular, I was thinking about the possibility of ceilings being imposed on these payments, which would have meant that the United Kingdom would pay disproportionately for support measures that we did not welcome.
If we had left ourselves out of the debate about reform, there would have been substantially less reform, but I am not sure that there would have been substantially
less expenditure. I believe that it is right that the United Kingdom co-operates with our European partners--instead of perpetually lecturing them and telling them that they are wrong, even when they suggest things that are in our interests, which was the previous Government's approach.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
Judged by what most of us thought possible, the Minister has probably not done that badly, but, judged by what Labour promised in opposition and in its manifesto, this deal is a complete flop. How can it be radical progress when the budget will be 2.5 per cent. above what was agreed in Germany only weeks ago? How can we talk about substantial progress when it will take longer to reform the dairy regime than the period in which the Government think it is possible for us to join the euro? In the meantime, dairy farmers and farmers in other sectors will see their incomes fall. They are already bleeding to death, and there will be an even worse haemorrhage as a result of this shambles.
Mr. Brown:
The immediate effect of the package on farm incomes is relatively modest. As for the point about dairy reform, no other Government have managed even to make a start on the issue. As I said, 11 countries are opposed to reform, four are in favour, and I managed to secure reform, although it was delayed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his rather more generous introductory remarks.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test):
I congratulate the Minister on what he has achieved in these negotiations and on what I understand is progress on environmental stewardship as part of the negotiations. Do the negotiations include discussion and/or agreement on support for the production of biomass feedstock for alternative energy production? Does the Minister intend to discuss the consequences of these moves forward on environmental stewardship with English Nature and the new Countryside Agency?
Mr. Brown:
I do intend to consult on the rural development measures and yes, there is scope within the regime for environmental measures of the type that my hon. Friend describes, and he and I both support. Right up to the end of the negotiations, I was pressing for a stronger regime on non-food crops. I consider that this is an important area, in which this country could make substantial progress. The regime is permissive, but there is not as much in it as I wanted. We have made an amendment to the text, which goes some way towards achieving what we want, but does not go far enough.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |