| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
CAP Budget
5. Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): If he will make a statement about growth in the CAP budget over the period 2000 to 2006. [87918]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The spending limits agreed at the Heads of Government conference at Berlin mean that after an initial increase, common agricultural policy costs will, for the first time, fall year on year in real terms from 2002 onwards.
Mr. Forth: Does the Minister recall that early in March the Prime Minister was making it clear that he was completely dissatisfied with the deal that was then being hatched? Yet two or three weeks later, mysteriously, the Prime Minister was prepared to have his Government sign up to a deal that was palpably worse than that which he had criticised only a few weeks earlier. Is the Minister satisfied that what is going on in the CAP is remotely in concurrence with World Trade Organisation rules? If not, what will he do if, as a result, we find ourselves with another futile conflict between the European Union and the United States?
Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured a first-rate deal for this country at Berlin.
He secured the British rebate and for the first time ever not only constrained the costs of the CAP but got them on a downward trend. That is a substantial achievement. I am surprised that that is not acknowledged by Conservative Members. After all, it is something that they did not manage to achieve.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the agricultural component of the deal that was arranged at Brussels and modified at Berlin. I have made no secret of my view that I think that we shall be revisiting this component before the six years during which it is expected to endure. There will be much to be discussed in the WTO round and collectively we have our ambitions for enlarging the EU, and there are consequences in those ambitions for the current agricultural settlement.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
To take up my right hon. Friend's final point, obviously the CAP was originally designed for six countries. Is he satisfied that arrangements are in place for European Union enlargement, which will have major implications for agriculture throughout Europe?
Mr. Brown:
I am satisfied with the arrangements that are in place for the next spending period for European enlargement. However, further issues will have to be addressed in the next spending period. It has been my consistent view, as it has been that of the Government--I do not believe that it is a matter of controversy even between the two sides of the House--that we need to start addressing now the way in which the candidate countries can come into not only the EU but the CAP.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives):
The Minister seems to accept that the outcome of the CAP negotiations was an unacceptable fudge, which needs to be revisited. Because of all the uncertainties as a result of the fudged outcome, does the Minister accept that the negotiations should be brought forward, so that the issue of EU enlargement can be properly addressed and the uncertainty resolved as quickly as possible?
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the impact of enlargement on the current structures of the CAP, but he is mistaken to refer to either the Brussels or the Berlin outcome as a fudge. It was not a fudge. The criticism that can be made of the deal is that it did not go far enough now. The substantial gain for Britain in the deal is that we made a start on reform in each of the commodity regimes, in spite of the fact that the majority of our partners had reservations about going in that direction. We are going in the right direction. The correct criticism--it is one that I would make myself--is that we have not got far enough fast enough.
6. Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
What discussions he has had with EU partners on the control of whaling. [87919]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
We regularly co-ordinate policies with other countries opposed to whaling, both inside and outside the EU.
Mr. Coaker:
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the rest of the Front-Bench team on putting animal welfare
Mr. Morley:
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The IWC was set up to exploit whales commercially. The Government have made it clear that we reject the idea of a return to commercial whaling, and we want the IWC to concentrate more on global threats to whales, such as environmental threats, global warming and pollution, and to extend its competence to small cetaceans, many of which are under threat internationally. In the IWC discussions that I attended to underline the importance that the Government attach to the issue, we received significant support from other EU states and other countries, without which we could not have made the advances that we have achieved internationally.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
In rightly continuing the policy of the previous Government of support for the continuation of the moratorium on commercial whaling, is it the Government's policy to support the exemption to allow the Makah Indian tribe in the United States to continue subsistence whaling which, as I am sure the Minister knows, has been undertaken there for about 2,000 years? If that policy is being continued, what progress is being made?
Mr. Morley:
We accept the case for indigenous aboriginal whaling in certain parts of the world. That is regulated by the IWC and a quota is set. However, I thought that the Makahs' case for restarting whaling was unimpressive and had not been proved.
7. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
What studies he has commissioned on the importance of coral in the marine food chain. [87921]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
MAFF has not commissioned any studies specifically aimed at assessing the importance of corals in the marine food chain. However, MAFF's research includes assessments of the impact of fishing, gravel dredging and other activities on benthic communities.
Mr. Dalyell:
Is not coral--not least the north-west Atlantic coral in our own waters--crucial as a nursery for many species of fish? I was invited by the Foreign Office to a conference on coral for the dependent territories that was held yesterday at London zoo. Could reflection be given to which Department is the lead Department? The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is involved, as are the Department for International Development, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and, marginally, the Department of Trade and Industry. Is it not important that there should be a lead Department, particularly to follow up the report of
Mr. Morley:
My hon. Friend is right. That is a serious matter for the cold-water corals in our waters, of which Lophelia is the main species in the north-west. However, I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is taking the lead role in co-ordinating research, which is one of its functions in relation to UK issues. The Natural Environment Research Council is also conducting research, as is Norway. Some of those corals are in international waters and we are sharing information because we take this issue seriously.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
Under the current fishing regime, British fishermen are dumping more dead fish back into the sea than are being landed for human consumption. What effect is that having on the marine food chain?
Mr. Morley:
The discarding of fish is an important issue, which we are addressing. I emphasise that the bulk of discarded fish are under-sized and non-marketable. We are commissioning a research programme in conjunction with the EU and other member states to look at the reasons for discarding and technical solutions for reducing and eliminating it.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
What possible confidence can we have in the results of the survey that the Minister has announced on the reason for fish discards? As he well knows, as long ago as 1991 the Commission's 10-year survey of the common fisheries policy said that discards were not simply a by-product--some unintended consequence--of the CFP, but a positive obligation under it. Will he also admit that many discards are purely and simply fish that are quite edible and of proper and fit size, but which cannot be landed because of the iniquities of the CFP? That is the reality of the situation and he should not need to commission a survey to tell him what is already an obligation under the CFP.
Mr. Morley:
I repeat that research programmes that we have carried out, most recently in the North sea, show that 90 per cent. of discards are under-sized and non-commercial fish. Some marketable fish are discarded as a by-product of quota control. Although I have repeatedly invited the industry and the Conservative party to put forward alternatives to quota control, no workable alternative has ever been suggested. I received a letter this morning from a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, who was unable to explain the Conservative party's fisheries policy, and it seems that Conservative MEPs have no idea of where their party stands on fisheries policy and tackling such issues as the conservation of fish.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |