| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Common Fisheries Policy
3. Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Union on the reform of the common fisheries policy. [117725]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I have regular discussions with my counterparts in the European Union about reform of the CFP and other fisheries matters. This week, for example, I visited the Netherlands for cordial and constructive discussions with my Dutch opposite number.
Mr. George: Does the Minister agree that, if devolved regional management of fishing effort is to succeed, as we want it to, it must proceed on the basis of trust, particularly between the Ministry and the industry? How can he explain the situation whereby the Belgians have been given 200 tonnes of UK plaice and sole quota to persuade them to stay out of the Irish sea closed area? Had not he assured the industry that there was a gentlemen's agreement?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's point about relations between member states is important. It is not unusual for member states to help each other with quota management. It is certainly true that we made an allocation to Belgium, in response to the good will and support that we have received from Belgium, which removed its beam trawlers from the closed area--which it did not have to do--and thereby influenced the Dutch and the Irish Republic. Our own beam trawlers were the first to volunteer to come out.
The Belgian Government have assisted us with quota in the past. They helped us to keep the channel cod fishery open for our inshore fleet in 1998 and they helped us to clear some end-of-year overfishes that would otherwise have meant that our quota would have been deducted. That is what European co-operation is all about. The Belgians have removed their vessels from the area and no British fisherman will suffer as a consequence, because we had an undershoot in our quota. I can guarantee that no one in Britain will lose quota as a result of the deal.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): There is not a cat in hell's chance of the French and Spanish Governments agreeing to the comprehensive reform of the common fisheries policy. If I were a French or Spanish Member of Parliament, I would argue against any reform of the CFP. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend must continue to argue the case for both regional management and the abolition of industrial fishing. Both subjects should be on the agenda of the next meeting of the British-Irish Council, notwithstanding the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Our fishing associations have had talks with the French and Spanish on regional management. Unfortunately, some in our industry and in the Conservative party give the impression that when we talk about regional management we are talking about renationalising the common fisheries policy. That is not possible without withdrawing from the European Union. If that is Conservative Members' policy, they should say so. I believe that, through negotiation and co-operation, we can move towards a less centralised CFP, more regional management and more involvement of local fishing industries in managing local fisheries.
Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone): We have heard about the 200 tonnes that were allowed to Belgium. Is there a similar arrangement with the Dutch and the Irish and, if so, for what tonnage?
Mr. Morley: No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no arrangement with the Dutch and the Irish. This is an issue of member states assisting each other. It is a two-way process, and we have benefited from assistance from other countries, including Belgium. We have shown good will in recognition of the good will that has been shown to us.
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood): My hon. Friend is well aware that the Fleetwood inshore fleet is very concerned about the closure of the Irish sea and the allocation of quota to the Belgians. The fishermen feel especially angry because they were not properly consulted. In his debates with his colleagues about the reform of the CFP, will he ensure that the fishermen's voice is heard and that their sensible suggestions about fish management are taken into account? Simply relying on quotas has clearly not worked.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has campaigned strongly on behalf of her fishermen and I recognise the problems. That is why we are allowing the inshore fishermen to fish with our scientists on board so that they can examine the case for continuing to fish without impacting on cod. On quotas, we have got the beam trawlers out of the cod closed area, which her fishermen were keen to see. When it comes to the allocation of quotas, it would be helpful if the industry could speak with one voice, because that is not the case at present.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): Following the question from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), in a recent written answer to me the Minister confirmed that a voluntary agreement had been reached with the Belgians to withdraw their flat fish beam trawlers from the cod protection zone in the north Irish sea. It has now come to light that that was no ordinary voluntary agreement but involved a "bung"--as Fishing News described it--of extra quota of 190 tonnes of North sea plaice and 10 tonnes of valuable Dover sole from the English channel. What authority does the Minister have for dishing out extra quota in that way, without consultation and in secret? Will he reiterate his guarantee that no UK fishermen will lose out as a result of that bribe to the Belgians? How does he reconcile those actions with his shameful treatment of the Fleetwood inshore fishermen who have had no income for two months because of his failure to pay them rightful compensation?
Mr. Morley: When the Belgians helped us to keep the channel cod fishery open, we did not describe that as a bung or a bribe. I repeat that we have a voluntary agreement with them. We have recognised the good will that has been shown to us by Belgium and other countries. The fish come from an undershoot. The allocation of both plaice and sole in the North sea for this year is more than was caught by our fishermen last year. I give a guarantee in relation to plaice that no British fisherman will suffer as a result of that arrangement.
Dairy Farmers
4. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): If he will make a statement on the prospects for dairy farmers. [117727]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Dairy farmers will have welcomed the announcement on 30 March, the more so given current difficulties in the sector. They will receive some £22 million in agrimonetary compensation, which is the maximum we could draw down. We have lifted dairy hygiene charges at a cost of a further £1 million a year, and dairy farmers will also benefit from the changes we are seeking to the over-30-months scheme weight limit.
Other positive factors in the sector are the approach taken by the successors to Milk Marque and the forthcoming generic promotion of milk that will be undertaken by the Milk Development Council.
Mr. Paterson: Ten to 12 dairy farmers in my area apply to get out of farming every week by trying to sell their quotas. That is partly because of the Government's bungled negotiation with the European Union, which deprived my farmers of a market for bull calves in France, where they are worth £150, so that they have to send them to hunt kennels for humane slaughter for nothing. What will the Government do to take responsibility for that, having arbitrarily deprived Britain's farmers of a viable market for bull calves?
Mr. Brown: That is complete nonsense. Instead of misrepresenting the position in the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman should explain to his constituents what the Government are doing to help the dairy sector.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): One cannot underestimate the problems in the dairy industry with ridiculously low pricing. That is a legacy of crazy economics and, dare I say, an absurd structure. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to encourage greater collaboration and co-operation in the sector so that we can have an effective dairy industry that can achieve things locally and internationally?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to the right point. The 1992 changes in the structure of the dairy industry introduced by the then Conservative Government led to an adversarial casting of the supply chain in the industry, which haunts it to this day. I do what I can to draw the supply chain together, because the ultimate answer to dairy farmers' problems lies in the market place and in securing a premium from the working of the supply chain.
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall): Can the Minister clarify the situation as regards his discussions with the European Union on the over-30-months scheme? Is he negotiating for removal or raising of the weight limit? Is that matter on the agenda for tomorrow's beef management committee meeting?
Mr. Brown: Discussions are under way with Commission officials. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman which management committee will deal with the changes that we are seeking as that is still a matter for discussion. The costs of the change that the Government propose will
fall wholly on the domestic taxpayer, so no EU money is involved. As to whether the Government's proposal is to lift the limit or increase it, it is to lift it.
Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth): May I welcome the announcement of the agrimonetary compensation--the £22 million that has been secured? It is £22 million that was never secured by the previous Conservative Government. The removal of the dairy hygiene charges will also be welcomed in my constituency. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to work with the supermarket chains to ensure a fair market for farmers and to ensure a more realistic level for the price of milk so that some farmers who are facing great difficulties can have a secure future?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend summarises the position well. He is right to point out that the previous Conservative Government never paid out a penny in agrimonetary compensation, although the Conservatives have called on me to pay it out. For the avoidance of doubt, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I should make it clear to those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that when I said that the Government intended to lift the weight limit I meant that they intend to remove it, as I can see that they are discussing the matter.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): Potentially far more important than the immediate amount of cash made available in the package of a fortnight ago is the possible change in attitude towards the way in which the regulatory regimes and the costs are applied. With that in view, have the Government now abandoned the policy of full economic cost recovery for inspections and the way in which the regime is applied to farmers?
Mr. Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman will know because he follows these matters closely, the Government are carrying a considerable amount in charges that could have fallen on the industry--not only the charges that I mentioned in an earlier answer, but the cattle passport charges, which are carried by the taxpayer and not the industry.
Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands): Is the Minister aware of how pleased my dairy farmers in Staffordshire are that the area has been identified as a hot spot for the badger culling trials? He will be aware that the area has been plagued by a massive increase in bovine tuberculosis, which has hit many dairy farmers hard. Can he say whether the Minister responsible in the other place will soon visit my constituency to enter discussions with dairy farmers?
Mr. Brown: The Government remain committed to the Krebs-Bourne trials. We are determined to see them through. I am pleased that we have been able to announce the additional matched triplets, which will be a reassurance to dairy farmers. The Government are determined to do everything that they can to combat bovine TB. I am sorry that I cannot say anything about the movements of the Minister in another place, but I hope that my hon. Friend will receive a ministerial visit soon.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): How can the Minister talk about dairy farmers getting more out
of the marketplace after the Government's incompetent handling of the Milk Marque issue, which has caused the fragmentation of farmers' market position? Does he accept that the waiving of the hygiene charges that he trumpeted will equal £30 or £40 to the average dairy farmer, which is not exactly a life saver? Does he not understand the crisis in the industry? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, dairy farmers are going out of business in droves. Is it not clear that soon the only source of bullshit will be Downing street? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. That comment seemed to me and to the House to be unwarranted. It is unacceptable to me and from what I see it is also unacceptable to hon. Members. I hope that we shall employ higher standards in our exchanges and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Paice: At your behest, Madam Speaker, of course I withdraw that particular word. I will replace it with "bovine verbal excrement" from Downing street.
Mr. Brown: I will not comment on the standards of parliamentary debate from the Conservative Front Bench, except to observe that its occupants have nothing to contribute to the debate but bad language.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |