| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.13 pm
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak at this stage in what is a very interesting debate.
One of my sadnesses is that, as I look at the place where the press would normally sit to report our affairs, I find large vacant spaces. It is a matter of some considerable sadness that a debate on matters that affect the well-being of the United Kingdom, our position in Europe and the world will go largely unnoticed by the media, who are sometimes all too quick to comment and to criticise on some of the complex issues that right hon. and hon. Members have already touched on in the debate.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) gave us some thoughtful observations on many important security matters. I found interesting his focus on the role of Russia. Clearly, some people might have felt that, had there been a stronger, more stable internal position in Russia, it could have played a more decisive role in negotiations before the conflict in Kosovo developed in the way in which it did. It is interesting to see the role that Russia is now playing to reach, I hope, some form of resolution.
I was interested in the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the situation in Kosovo and the role it will play in the Cologne summit. It was one of the occasions when he perhaps did not use the word "intensify". On just about every occasion that any statement has been made on the matter, when it comes to military action and to the bombing, the word "intensify" is used, as if that will give some guarantee of success. Yet, what is success in the conflict? I find it difficult to understand the measure of success.
Success at the beginning was to degrade the Milosevic war machine to such an extent that ethnic cleansing would be stopped, but still the tide of refugees flowed, still we pressed on with the bombing campaign--understandably, in humanitarian terms. Listening to the Foreign Secretary this evening, success seems to be being redefined as creating the opportunities where ground forces will be able to enter Kosovo, taking the refugees back to where they came from. It shows the difficulty in understanding and, at times perhaps, in supporting elements of the Kosovar policy. The aims and objectives of the campaign have shifted.
The debate takes place during preparations for the meeting in Cologne. I make a couple of quick points on what should be on the agenda before turning to the main part and focus of my remarks: agriculture. I should like the Heads of State to reclaim the agenda for politicians in Europe.
Too often when I go on the doorstep campaigning, the impression that is fed back to me is that it is the Commission that runs Europe, yet it is the Council of Ministers--in the many ways in which that institution manifests itself--that gives the democratic element and democratic accountability to what happens in Europe. If public confidence is to be maintained in the European Union--at a time when the purpose and membership of the Commission have properly been the subject of discussion and questioning in the debate--it is vital that people understand that it is elected representatives who have the final say, whether they be in the Council of Ministers or, indeed, the European Parliament. If Europe is to safeguard its institutional development, recapturing in the public mind the fact that it is politicians who are in charge will be important.
I make a short appeal to the Minister to reflect to the Leader of the House that, to give that important element of accountability further solace, we should reconsider the way in which the House scrutinises European legislation. I am aware that some improvements are coming along, but they do not involve the House of Commons and its Members looking at European legislation early enough in the process.
We do not have debates and comment on some of the Green Papers and pre-directive or regulation documents. The Minister looks sceptical as I say that, but in terms of the scrutiny process--I have been on both ends of it--Members of Parliament do not get stuck in, if I may put it that way, early enough in the process, when new ideas are floated that have yet to formulate in the form of directives or regulations.
Ms Quin:
Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises the recent improvements that were introduced via the European scrutiny White Paper, and the changes to procedures in the House to allow hon. Members to have an early say on matters that would come before European Council meetings.
Mr. Jack:
I acknowledge that. In fact, I said it in shorthand in my earlier remarks. I said that I recognised that some changes had taken place, but I am looking at the position further upstream. It may be that, in reality, those changes do deliver what I still believe is lacking in our system.
One of the sadnesses is that the Cologne summit will not consider any further changes to the common agricultural package, which are much needed. Recently,
the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was triumphing some great reform package, but, when one looked at what was agreed, one found that there was much difference between the rhetoric and reality.
The concern that British agriculture has about the whole question of reform arises against a background where, in the past two years, in real terms, farm incomes in this country have declined by 74 per cent. It is therefore hardly surprising that our farmers had hoped that the discussions on common agricultural policy reform would free them to use their efficiency in operating to the advantage of British agriculture. Sadly, the discussions did not have that effect.
The CAP reform package agreed in March neither meets the requirements of the World Trade Organisation, nor addresses the issues of preparing for European Union enlargement. Undoubtedly, the matter will have to be revisited.
The document prefacing this debate--on events ofthe past six months in Europe--mentioned, perhaps optimistically, the possible ending of the ban on British beef exports to Europe. It was a pity, however, that Opposition Members had to point out to the Government that invitations should be issued to European Union officials and veterinarians to inspect our facilities. The Prime Minister said that invitations had been issued to officials--to start the process of unlocking Europe's meat markets to our beef producers--but, at that time, they had not yet been issued. Had the Opposition not acted, the invitations would not have been issued until much later.
Sadly, not one ounce of British beef has yet crossed the channel for sale in European markets. Despite all the Government's triumphal rhetoric on the subject, British beef producers have not yet seen the result that they seek. I hope that the issue of speeding up the lifting of the ban will be addressed at the Cologne summit--if nothing else, in the margins--so that Europe's beef markets are once again open to our farmers.
Will the Minister have a word with the Heads of State also on the British pig industry--which is in desperate straits? The industry has not been helped by, for example, the French Government paying what seem to be illegal state aids to assist the French industry, while our own Government are sitting on their hands.
There would have been no movement on the issue of the French payments had it not been for Opposition Members' efforts in providing the Agriculture Minister with concrete evidence of them. He even challenged us--almost as a precursor to taking any action--to provide such evidence. So far, however, the Government have taken no action, and parts of our pig industry are facing extinction. The Government owe it to those producers at least to ensure that all our producers receive even-handed treatment within the European Union.
In March, the Minister of Agriculture returned from the meeting on CAP reform. Before the meeting, he said that he was in favour of scrapping quotas and shifting subsidies from production to income, and that the Commission's proposals did not go far enough. However, after the package was agreed, the Prime Minister--in The Times of 12 March 1999--dismissed all the Agriculture Minister's optimistic rhetoric by saying that the outcome was
Perhaps that is why, on 11 March, the National Farmers Union issued a press release entitled:
The results of the unpicking were a reimposition of restrictions on British farmers, a reduction in arable area payments to British farmers, and delay in reforming the dairy regime--one sphere in which the efficiency of Britain's farmers really does shine--probably until 2006. If ever there were a betrayal of the interests of one of the most efficient parts of British agriculture, allowing that deal to be unpicked was it. The betrayal was most distressing.
Other member states seemed to triumph in the negotiations on the dairy regime. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and one other member state managed to win an increased milk quota, whereas it will take years--until 2003, to be precise--before we receive a small increase in quota. Why was not British back-bone used in objecting to a settlement conferring a competitive advantage on those countries, at the expense of British dairy farmers? Our farmers are receiving prices that, in real terms, are the same as they were four years ago.
In the farming press, the Minister of Agriculture was telling us that the cosy so-called London club was meeting quietly with Denmark, Sweden and Italy to plot the downfall of the milk regime, which was restraining competitive forces in British agriculture. But--oh, dear--as soon as Italy got a whiff of more quota, Italy was off, the club collapsed, and the British Minister's back-bone went very soggy indeed.
All of those so-called developments add up to a so-called reformed CAP--which will cost Europe's taxpayers dear. Agriculture expenditure already accounts for over half of the Community's budget, and it is rising. In 2000, expenditure will rise to 37.3 billion euros. By 2002, it will have risen to 39.6 billion euros. After a small decrease, expenditure will rise again, in 2006, as the dairy reforms are implemented. Those costs will be a further
burden on Europe's taxpayers, and will go a long way in off-setting what the Agriculture Minister claimed would be a benefit to consumers.
Today, in just one line of his speech, the Foreign Secretary said that consumers will save £1 billion on their food bills. However, he forgot to add the salient detail that that estimate was predicated on the proposition that the savings will not begin until 2008. In fact, the reforms will create only £90 million savings in the first year.
Furthermore, the facts do not support claims that the CAP amendments will deliver real savings. Research provided to me by the Library shows that, in previous CAP reform, returns to producers have generally decreased, whereas shop food prices have increased. The research gives the lie to that much-vaunted claim that the reform will benefit Europe's consumers. Moreover, interestingly, the research also shows that food prices have decreased only in the potatoes and fresh vegetables sectors, neither of which have been subject to the current CAP reform.
"not satisfactory as far as we are concerned."
25 May 1999 : Column 222
I agree with the Prime Minister on that point. At the meeting, the Minister of Agriculture effectively sat on his hands--he really did not have anything positive to contribute to it. From the intelligence that the Opposition have gathered from behind the scenes of the meeting, it is certainly clear that the Minister really did not do very much properly to represent the interests of Britain's farmers.
"CAP Package 'Mixed Bag', says NFU".
Ben Gill, the NFU president, said:
"The package is a 'mixed bag' for UK farmers, with most positive and negative elements contained within it."
The situation worsened, however, 15 days after the package was agreed in Brussels--when it was dealt with at the Berlin summit, and there was a betrayal of British farmers. The rats, as they say, got at the package and started to unpick it. Only 15 days after the package was agreed, the NFU president was saying that the results of the Berlin summit were deeply disappointing. He said:
"The original agreement made by farm ministers has been partially unpicked and is now considerably worse. While superficially this deal may seem attractive there are significant hidden dangers.
He was indeed right about that.
British farmers will pay a heavy price for a deal which seems to have been made to allow some Governments to claim a symbolic victory."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |