| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): In relation to the application of the national envelope, the Secretary of State said that he would consult. In respect of Scotland, will he confirm that it will be up to the new Scottish Parliament to undertake those consultations and, more particularly, that the new Scottish Parliament will be in charge of deciding how those funds will be allocated?
Mr. Brown: There is not a separate Scottish national envelope, I am afraid. The United Kingdom negotiates in
the European Union at United Kingdom level, but, where there is room for devolved discretion, I am willing to consider any sensible proposal, as long as it does not introduce market distortions. Remember that the common agricultural policy is a common agricultural policy for the whole European Union. There is not a separate Scottish version of it, I am afraid.
Consultations will be done, as they would have been done anyway, by the Scottish Office in Scotland, by the Welsh Office in Wales, by the Northern Ireland Office in Northern Ireland and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, post-devolution, the Scottish Parliament will have a role. I am now discussing--although, of course, we cannot reach a final conclusion until after the elections--ways in which the new Scottish Agriculture Minister can play a full part in the UK delegation to the European Agriculture Council.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I have long argued that the failure to reform the common agricultural policy will have harmful consequences for the applicant states. Is it not likely that applicant states will demand full implementation of all agricultural benefits--or, if we are to stick to the timetable, are we going to finish up with two classes of member states in relation to the CAP?
Mr. Brown:
My hon. Friend is on a very good point. It would be completely unfair to devise a two-tier CAP and a two-tier European Union where some people were fully in and others were only half in and were a second type of member. If countries are going to join, they should join fully and their joining should be facilitated fully.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
Thanet's farmers produce some of the finest cauliflowers in the world. It is a high-risk crop, requiring high investment and providing a low price to the farmer. The supermarket price to the consumer is very high and the farmgate price is very low; that is at today's prices. Given the track record of retailers, if there are to be any pig farmers left in business in this country, their livestock will fly before supermarkets reduce their prices to the consumer. The Minister has made great play of the fact that real savings will be made and will be passed on to the consumer. What possible justification does he have for that claim?
Mr. Brown:
If prices come down at producer level, that feeds through at the retail level; it is as simple and straightforward as that. That is a market economy--a concept that used to be pretty well understood by Conservative Members. Neither cauliflowers nor pigs were part of the negotiations or the Agenda 2000 package.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West):
I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend on securing a hard-won but substantial agreement, albeit not a perfect one. This deal benefits farmers and consumers, such as those in my constituency. Given the negative and nit-picking attitude of the Conservative party, does my right hon. Friend believe that farmers and consumers will be relieved that it is new Labour negotiating in Brussels, and not the Conservatives?
Mr. Brown:
I am certain that that is true. The Conservative party's negotiating approach is to tell
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about farmers. At the end of the negotiations, in the early hours of yesterday morning, I explained the outcome to the leaders of the United Kingdom farming unions who were out there. They all, without exception, congratulated me on what I had secured for the United Kingdom. They shook my hand and said, "Well done."
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Although I recognise the difficult job that the right hon. Gentleman has had to do, does he accept that we have ended up with fudged proposals that are not sustainable in the long term? Does this agreement not extend the period of uncertainty for dairy farmers? Has he confidence that the WTO talks will not intervene during the currency of these proposals? After 2003, there will be a 1.5 per cent. increase in milk quotas for Britain and the other member states. Why will Italy, Greece, Spain and Ireland have those increases in quota earlier? Why are they to get a competitive advantage over our farmers?
Mr. Brown:
Because our increase in quota is part of a general linear distribution of quota, which it was agreed would come later. It comes later for all the countries. Special requests were negotiated for some countries, and I was able to secure an extra allocation for the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.
There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman said about uncertainty in the dairy regime. I should not be surprised if we had to return to these issues when we know the outcome of the agricultural component of the WTO discussions. I regret the fact that we could not start on dairy reform earlier. As I said, 11 countries were against it and four were in favour, so the fact that we have got any reform at all is an achievement. The hon. Gentleman described the deal as a fudge: I would describe it as a start in the right direction.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire):
Farmers' incomes have seen a dramatic decline in the past couple of years. The president of the NFU said this morning that the next few years would be exceedingly difficult for farmers. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will not take any measures that will put in danger the future of Milk Marque, which gives security to many milk farmers?
Mr. Brown:
The Government have in front of them the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque, and I do not think that I should say anything to
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
If, as the Minister says, all the farmers' leaders have been falling over themselves to congratulate him on the CAP compromise, why has Mr. Ben Gill, the president of NFU, been quoted as saying that it will not solve the financial problems of Britain's farmers and that the next few years will still be very difficult?
Mr. Brown:
Mr. Ben Gill was not falling over himself, and I did not say that he was. He shook my hand and said, "Well done." That does not mean that all the problems facing farmers have been resolved in this round of negotiations. He was right to say that times would still be difficult for UK farmers in the future, as they will be for EU farmers. My job is to stay as close as I can to producers and to others, to ensure that we have a continuing dialogue and to do what the Government reasonably can to help.
Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute):
I understand that there is to be a shift from headage to area payments. How will that affect hill livestock compensatory allowances, which are vital, particularly to family farms in the severely disadvantaged areas of the highlands and islands? Who will be the winners and losers? I do not share the Minister's confidence that the consumer will benefit. After all, the supermarkets did not significantly lower their prices when the beef and lamb markets collapsed in Scotland last October.
Mr. Brown:
I shall not go over again what I said about cuts in producer prices feeding through in the marketplace to retail prices. I shall respond to the hon. Lady's very good question about the future for the HLCAs. The new proposals take the system from the current headage arrangements to an area-based arrangement. There are a number of advantages to that, and I welcome the change. We have consulted on the matter, but we cannot give a final view until we see how it will work out in terms of real money. The extra payments on the HLCAs that I secured for farmers--a 55 per cent. increase for this year--have been widely welcomed. The change in regime will be subject to consultation throughout the United Kingdom on precisely how to make the transition. I intend to implement the changes in a fair and even-handed way, ensuring that there are no spectacular losers. It is possible to envisage how they might occur, and I am mindful of the difficulties faced by people who are livestock farming in less-favoured areas.
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Russell Brown:
When I was on my feet earlier, I wondered why so many people had come into the Chamber. I now realise why. Under normal circumstances, I would be upset at being interrupted in full flow, but I was delighted to be disturbed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who came to the House to make such a positive statement for farmers and consumers.
Before the statement, I was going over some of the history of mental health provisions in Scotland. The 1983 amendments and the 1984 consolidation Act were not extensively debated in Parliament, so it is reasonable to say that the Millan commission has the opportunity to undertake the first fundamental review of the legislation for more than 40 years.
Since 1984, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 has been introduced. That was also a private Member's Bill, and was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) to improve the rights of disabled people, including people with mental disorders. However, significant sections of the Act were never implemented, including a statutory scheme for advocacy and a requirement for care planning for people being discharged from long-stay care.
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 reorganised the health service, creating what we all now know as NHS trusts. That has, without doubt, complicated issues raised by the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 relating to who bears legal responsibility for such matters as detaining patients and managing their funds. The Act also established new duties for local authorities to assess the needs of those who require community care, and to plan community care services.
In recognition of the fact that community care services for mentally ill people were underdeveloped, a mental illness specific grant was introduced, with the use of powers under the Act. Directions made under the Act established a new right for people requiring residential care to choose their care home. That is an important aspect of something that is happening in my constituency.
Although the Act did not introduce charging for residential care, the increasing use of community care rather than hospitals--especially in the case of elderly people--and budgetary constraints on local authorities led to more people being charged for residential and home care services. That includes services that people receive compulsorily, under, for example, mental health guardianship.
11.57 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |