| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
5.47 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): I warmly applaud the concept of greater friendship and co-operation among the peoples of Europe. The treaty of Nice could enhance that vision by, in the words of the Foreign Secretary today, reuniting Europe and welcoming back the states of central and eastern Europe that were lost to communism and the cause of freedom. The treaty of Nice could make that possible by promoting a multifaceted and flexible approach. The description of that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was excellent. That part of his speech deserves reading. Such an approach recognises that the sovereign nation state is, and should be, the fundamental building block of a better world. However, I doubt whether the treaty of Nice will produce such a result. It is true that Europe will emerge wider, but it will also emerge deeper.
I wish that we could have a more honest debate in this country. There is no European plot. Politicians on the continent have no difficulty in being honest about what they want to create. They are perfectly good and high- minded ladies and gentlemen who wish to create a Europe with one currency, based on a single market. They want an ever closer union, in tune with the treaties that they have signed. I agree that the process is often inefficient--even, perhaps, chaotic--but they are united in their aims and perfectly entitled so to be.
Leading politicians in this country, however, pretend that they can ride this tiger yet pretend that the tiger does not exist. It does. I believe that the only honest approach for this country is to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, returning agriculture and fisheries to the control of this Parliament and recognising our sovereignty.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Will my hon. Friend explain how there can be national control over
fisheries, which are by their nature international? We have never had national control over fisheries; we have always had to have international control because of the nature of the fish. Why does my hon. Friend suggest national control when no reputable organisation in the fishing industry thinks that it is sensible?
Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is a member of a reputable organisation, namely the Conservative party, which does propose that. It does so because if national control of our fishing policy were returned to us, we could engage in bilateral negotiations with other countries, and instead of seeing the gradual destruction of our fishing stocks, we could perhaps see greater conservation of them. I do not accept his point.
Mr. Gummer: How can we have bilateral negotiations over fishing grounds that are shared not by two countries but often by four or five? Why is my hon. Friend proposing that we should replace a perfectly sensible system with another system, when we should be changing the policy so that we protect the fish?
I was referring to reputable organisations that are involved in the fishing industry, such as the one that I chair--the Marine Stewardship Council.
Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is entitled to make his point. My point is that the current policy, which I understand was signed up to in the dying hours of negotiation of our entry into the European Economic Community in the early 1970s, has been a disaster for our country. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke with great passion on this issue, and my constituency abuts his. I wish that my right hon. Friend could go to Grimsby and see how our fishing industry has been depleted and destroyed by vast Spanish fleets and others. I believe that there is a better way, but I want to move on because my right hon. Friend is trying to lead me down paths and make me sound more controversial than I want to be. I want to reach out to him and others in my party.
We need to reaffirm our sovereignty over the essential matters of the nation state: foreign policy, defence, border controls and currency. If we are honest about those matters, we could lead a core of nations in Europe that believe in the single market, world free trade and co-operation on such issues as environmental protection. That policy is perfectly sensible and moderate, not extremist, and people who advocate it are not little Englanders or nationalists who decry the points of view of foreigners. Those people simply believe that there are some matters on which it is best to assert the rights of sovereign nations. On other issues, such as trade, environmental protection and perhaps even transport links, it is possible to have a wider dimension, whether in the EU or elsewhere. The same argument can apply to defence, NATO and other such areas.
During the debate, my Front-Bench colleagues have come in for a lot of criticism from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. However, the policy that I have described is that of the official Opposition, and it is completely in tune with what the British public want. They do not want to surrender their currency, foreign policy, defence policy or border controls, yet they are not ready to say that we will march out of the European Union. They want co-operation and friendship with other
countries in Europe. That policy is a perfectly sensible, moderate middle way, which can receive the support of the British people.After making those general remarks, I have more detailed observations to make about a specific aspect of EU policy that closely affects my agricultural and rural constituency: the everything but arms initiative. The initiative is designed to help the least developed countries; it will give them unrestricted access to the EU markets and allow their economies to expand. Those are good things. It will include many of the poorest African, Caribbean and Pacific--ACP--countries, helping them by abolishing the duties and quotas that currently operate when produce is imported into the EU. The plan is to implement the initiative by the end of 2001. Quotas have recently been set up under the Cotonou agreement to allow ACP countries time to adjust and diversify their markets.
The laudable principle of allowing free trade with the least-developed countries is one with which we all agree. There is no problem with that. However, I believe that the proposals are misguided because their effect will be detrimental to the very countries they are designed to help. In addition, there might be severe implications for United Kingdom farming, which is already in a state of crisis. Farm incomes are at their lowest since the 1930s, having dropped by 75 per cent. in recent years. Farms throughout the UK are going bust and farmers are committing suicide at a rate of more than one a week--that is probably a conservative figure. Farming families are struggling with unbearable pressure and action needs to be taken to help them.
The reasons that farming is in such a state of crisis are well known. They include the strong pound, high exchange rates, the reduction of the real value of subsidies from the common agricultural policy, and an exhausting and seemingly endless stream of red tape with which farming families have to deal. The increased power of retailers allows them to dictate prices to smaller farmers. Other factors include cheap imports, the pressures of globalisation, high indirect taxes and the suspicion that the stringent welfare standards that our farmers have to meet are not being as stringently enforced in other EU states, let alone the rest of the world.
Sugar beet was one of the few crops in the UK that offered any hope to farming families; in recent years, it was making a profit. However, the implementation of the EU everything but arms reforms after only a short period of debate will lead to the collapse of the price of sugar beet. That will deliver another hammer blow to UK farming, which is not to be given sufficient time to adapt under current plans.
The EBA agreement will have an equally detrimental effect on agriculture in ACP countries. We should be concerned about those countries, which are among the poorest in the world. Many are members of the Commonwealth. The abolition of quotas and tariffs will result in the flooding of the EU market for the crops in question, as supply outstrips demand. That will inevitably lead to the collapse of prices for those products--although that is unlikely to be passed on to the consumer--and the collapse of many ACP countries economies. Many ACP countries are dependent on cash crops for an unhealthy proportion of their economy--in some cases, as much as
25 per cent. Their economies will be severely undermined and the very people whom the Government and the European Commission are trying to help will be harmed.A good example of the likely effects of unlimited access to the markets is the rum industry in ACP countries. To remain competitive within the EU, producers need to move from bulk rum production towards an ACP-branded value-added product. An agreement to help the rum industry to develop in that way was reached after the Lome negotiations, to allow producers time to boost their competitiveness and build their markets abroad. The timetable was set to extend until 2008, but all the hard work will have been for nothing if the everything but arms proposal is allowed to go ahead unchanged. It will take effect in 2003 at the latest--a full five years before the original deadline. Therefore, even those whom the EBA proposal is designed to help do not want it to be implemented. The Government must take note of those problems and not plough on with an ill thought out plan that ignores the plight of farmers in the UK and ACP countries.
We are still waiting for answers from the Government, but there is complete confusion. I have attended all the debates on the subject, both in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber. Earlier this week, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who responded to the debate in Westminster Hall, was so confused that she had to retract what she had said. The Secretary of State for International Development stated that she strongly supported the proposal; then, the Prime Minister stated that he was concerned about it--obviously, he had not been briefed to respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). What is going on?
It is a serious matter, especially for farmers, who are going through the worst agricultural depression since the 1930s. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who understands the economies of Caribbean countries, was present during the Westminster Hall debate. She asked, "What is the logic in bringing forward a proposal that is designed to try to help the least-developed countries in the world, when it will lead to the collapse of the economies of many of the poorest countries?"
What is the Government's reaction? We are still waiting for it. The Foreign Secretary did not comment on these matters this afternoon. I plead with the Minister to receive briefing and to inform the House exactly of the Government's attitude. It would be a disaster, given all the other pressures that are hitting farmers from all quarters, if we were to see a collapse of the sugar beet economy. I am pleased to see that the Minister is nodding. He knows that we have one of the worst sugar beet quota regimes in the EU.
When the Minister responds, many of us who represent farming areas, whatever our views about the EU--whether we are enthusiastic, sceptical or realistic--will look to him to represent our interests in the EU, to defend the interests of sugar beet growers and to defend the interests of those countries that have loyally supported us in the past, some of the poorest countries in the world which are in the Caribbean. They rely on the Treasury Front Bench to stand firm on these matters.
6.1 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |