Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1037-1039)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, LORD WHITTY
AND MR
ANDY LEBRECHT
WEDNESDAY 15 MAY 2002
Chairman
1037. Secretary of State, Lord Whitty, Mr Lebrecht,
welcome. This is the final formal session in our inquiry into
Farming without Subsidies?, and it is really the question mark
I want to start with. Six months ago we were in a terribly Wordsworthian
mood, so glorious was it that day to be alive, etc, etc. Six months
down the road we have a Farm Bill which has been signed into law
in the United States, we have President Chirac re-elected in France
on a platform, amongst others, of the only thing with the CAP
is that there is not enough of it; you have the Social Democrats
in Germany, and so your pal, if I may say so, Secretary of State,
Renate Künast is looking a bit dodgy for the continuation
of her career, ten points behind the Christian Democrats led by
a Bavarian—and German agricultural policy has traditionally
been led by a Bavarian. Are you beginning to feel that all the
stuff about liberalisation of agricultural trade and CAP reform
is all beginning to wave in the wind a bit?
(Margaret Beckett) I think I almost certainly
said to you on the first occasion that I was before this Committee
that people had been talking about CAP reform for all my political
life, and I am very conscious of the fact that these things come
and go. If you mean have I given up, no—for two reasons:
one is because the realities—the EU realities and the world
realities—remain with very, very substantial reason why
we should pursue reform, and, also, because although you are quite
right in identifying that we have an uncertain situation in France
at the moment and that there are, as you again rightly identify,
uncertainties elsewhere in Europe, the figures, the numbers and
the costs have not changed. I think those are the things which
are the key ingredients. We have never, ever said that we are
certain of success; all we have said is that we are in a time
period when we probably have the best chance of substantial reform
for many years, and very probably for many years hence. That remains
my view.
1038. When we discussed this last we were talking
about a mid-term review of the CAP, and Mr Fischler was talking
about being more ambitious rather than modest in what he is hoping
to do in that mid-term review. We are awaiting his proposals before
the summer. We were talking about an agreement at Doha to try
and put together the modalities, by which we agree was actually
meant the details—not just the outlines—of the farm
package of the WTO by, I think, a year from now. Do you feel that
either of these deadlines, and in particular the latter deadline,
is now threatened? What are the chances of those deadlines being
met?
(Margaret Beckett) I do not think, in particular,
Doha is threatened. If that were the end-date of the negotiations
then I would say that obviously makes it more uncertain, but because
it is the starting date I do not think it makes it more uncertain.
Also, Commissioner Fischler is looking towards these things, as
the rest of us are, but I have heard him say, quite recently,
that one of the reasons that the Uruguay round was not good for
the European Union was because the European Union went into the
Uruguay round simply wishing to defend the ground that it held
and not wishing to approach radical change, and that that was
a mistake that we would do well not to repeat at Doha. I accept
your point—indeed, I have had this conversation on a couple
of occasions with members of the United States' administration,
including the Secretary for Agriculture—about the US Farm
Bill. The administration has made it very clear to us and, indeed,
they have made similar remarks publicly that this is not the Farm
Bill that they would have chosen. I know there are those who say
"In that case, President Bush should not have signed it"
but that seems to me to be wholly against the facts of life in
an election year in the United States in a way that you cannot
expect any sensible politician to do. However, it still remains
the case that the US has grounds on OECD figures for arguing that
the European Union subsidises its farming industry to a greater
extent than does the United States, and the administration are
adamant that it has changed neither its approach nor its determination
to pursue reform in the context of the World Trade Organisation
talks and of the framework agreement reached at Doha. So a lot
of the underlying realities have not changed. We may find a different
set of politicians having to grapple with them from the EU side,
but as I said the realities and the numbers are still there.
1039. It is generally accepted that the numbers
in the US Farm Bill still keep it below the WTO thresholds, but
if we are going to remain optimistic we have to be willing to
believe that six months after the congressional elections for
which the Farm Bill was produced—if one believes the theory
of political determinism—the United States is going to be
willing to start negotiating away some of the support it has just
put in place, on the face of what may still be a very weak commodity
market, which I think is one of the things which has stimulated
this package. Do you think that is plausible? In your private
conversations with your American opposite number, what do you
tell her about how helpful this is?
(Margaret Beckett) Just what the Committee would expect
me to tell her, Mr Curry. I made it plain not only that this was
extremely disappointing—and she herself was very disappointed—but
that it was extraordinarily unhelpful to the prospects for reform
since everyone who is unenthusiastic about, or indeed outright
opposed to, reform, whether it is the CAP or any other agricultural
structures, would be using this as ammunition. The American administration
understand that very well. All I can say to you is that they remain
adamant that their purpose is unchanged.
|
