House of Commons
Thursday 19 December 2002
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Contingency Fund Accounts 2001–02
- That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 2001–02, showing:—
(1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 2002; and
(2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]
Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee
- That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions That there be laid before this House a Return of the Memorandum of Reply from the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel on the First Report from the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee, Session 2002–03.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Common Agricultural Policy
1. Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe): What proposals she has to reform the common agricultural policy; and if she will make a statement. [86762]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The European Commission published proposals for reform of the CAP in July and we expect it to come forward with formal legislative proposals in January 2003. We support the Commission's general approach of market reform, the removal of the link between production and subsidies, and a shift in support towards wider rural development and agri-environment measures.
Mr. Goodman : I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. She says she supports the general approach of the Commission. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that the Government oppose the Commission's specific proposal to put a
ceiling on payments to individual holdings which would penalise British farmers? Will she make that commitment?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, we made it plain from the outset, when the proposals were first announced, that we not only oppose the ceiling on the payments at the top and the franchise at the bottom, but have found, as the only member state with much experience of a modulation scheme—about which many people have reservations—that what made it work at all was a simple scheme that was fair to everyone and easily understood. That is what we are recommending to the Commission.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time seriously to consider the abolition of the CAP and its replacement with national regimes of agricultural policy? Is it not appropriate to examine now the fiscal implications across the EU of such an abolition?
Margaret Beckett: I understand why my hon. Friend makes that point, but I cannot agree that it would be better to have national schemes. Indeed, one thing that has bedevilled our pursuit of reform is that every time someone says that we need to reform the CAP, those who do not want reform say, XAh! You just want to return to a national scheme." With great respect, I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that road.
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon): Given the horrific impact of the CAP on some of the poorest people in the world, which arises because it does not allow them access to our markets and prevents them from having a proper reciprocal and fair agreement, are developing countries represented at every level at talks on CAP reform? If they are not, should they not be?
Margaret Beckett: I understand why my hon. Friend makes that point, and I know that she is involved in much work on the issue. Developing countries do not per se have specific representation at such talks. In a sense, it is inevitable that they would not at this stage because the negotiations are between members that subscribe to the existing CAP. My hon. Friend is certainly right, however, that it is important for the wider interests—not least those of the EU as a whole—in and outside the agricultural sector to be taken into account.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): Does the right hon. Lady accept that quite a large number of Agriculture Ministers, her colleagues and some significant voices in Brussels regard the mid-term review as a salvage operation, not a bold and radical reform? In particular, they regard the proposals to levy the production aid to farmers to benefit rural development as dead in the water. What steps does the right hon. Lady intend to take between now and the publication of the detailed plans and thereafter to ensure that there is still momentum behind the reforms, especially on the part of the French and Germans, who obviously have a key role to play?
Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the French and Germans have a key
role to play. On the other matter that he raises, I take his point; I have heard people describe the present state of negotiations in that way. However, there is a large element of wishful thinking in that because those who least want reform are most eager to say that there will be no reform. For my part, I do not believe that the position has changed significantly except that we now have a firm ceiling on the budget. I certainly take the view that there is much interest in all member states in being able to do more, to do different things and to have less bureaucracy on rural development and the wider rural economy, and that I find encouraging.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): In view of the agreement reached primarily between the French and Germans at the recent summit, does the right hon. Lady still believe that it will be possible within the CAP ceilings to afford the transformation of the dairy regime and the move out of quotas, to which the Government are committed?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I do believe that that will still be possible. What is much more to the point, however, is that Commissioner Fischler believes that it is still possible. It will not be easy and is by no means certain, but it is certainly possible.
Mr. Lidington: On a slightly different but CAP-related point, may I invite the Secretary of State to send a Christmas message to her French counterpart to say that the CAP depends crucially on mutual trust and the observance by all parties of the rules of a genuine common market, and that that trust will be seriously damaged if France persists with its plan to impose new controls on British lamb exports, which are due to come into force on 1 January? The French beef ban did tremendous harm to our livestock industry. The new controls would do the same. What representations is the right hon. Lady making?
Margaret Beckett: For once, I am in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman. He is right—[Interruption.] Peace and good will, on this at least. He is right that the beef ban did great harm to the livestock industry, and worse still, it damaged mutual confidence and trust within the European Union. That is never healthy in an organisation of member states. However, we continue in firm dialogue with the French and with the Commission about the beef ban, and we have continued to emphasise the fact that further unilateral action would be damaging to mutual trust and confidence.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there have been substantial moves. We continue to discuss with our French colleagues the proposal that came from their food standards agency some considerable time ago. There has been substantial change in the proposals that they now envisage, and those would apply not only to the British industry, but to the French industry. Needless to say, that is causing some reaction. The position is not as it was, but I share the hon. Gentleman's view that unilateral action is not good.
Fish Stocks
2. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): What encouragement she will give to fishing methods which do least damage to fish stocks. [86764]
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): One of the Government's aims for reform of the common fisheries policy is the encouragement of sustainable fishing. UK and EU funding is available to encourage fishermen to adopt selective catching methods. The Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) is currently representing the UK at the Fisheries Council, where we expect decisions to be taken this week on the future of the common fisheries policy. He will report to the House as soon as possible on the outcome of the Council.
Mr. Blizzard : We all know that our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is doing his best in Brussels, but will my right hon. Friend send him this message: if we want to respect scientific advice in order to conserve fish stocks, and at the same time maximise fishermen's jobs, should we not protect environmentally sustainable methods of fishing, such as long-lining, from the severe restrictions being proposed? Long-liners do not devastate fish stocks, and it would make no sense to impose quota cuts right across the board.
If we value the scientific advice of our own scientists at CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—should we not value the scientists themselves and support their case for equal pay with DEFRA staff?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend knows that our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has worked hard with Fisheries Ministers in the devolved Administrations to develop an alternative approach that will secure cod recovery without the effect on the industry that would result from the Commission's proposals as they stand. I shall not enter into pay negotiations as part of this answer.
Andrew George (St. Ives): If the Minister accepts that the proposals under consideration in the Fisheries Council today are of such severity that they will devastate the British fishing industry without necessarily saving the fish stocks, does he agree that we should stop this 11th-hour method of crisis management and move away from the blunderbuss of blanket effort and quota restrictions, in favour of regionalised management? Because of the severity of the crisis, should not Parliament be recalled next week so that we can consider the outcome of the Fisheries Council, which will have a devastating effect on many coastal communities and thousands of jobs around the coast?
Alun Michael: We would certainly welcome an improvement in the way in which decisions are taken in these matters. The hon. Gentleman is aware how hard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has worked on the matter. We are concerned about the proposals. We are hopeful that different proposals will emerge from the discussions this week, but obviously I cannot anticipate the outcome when the talks are still taking place. We
must have confidence in the ability of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to represent our national interest and the interests of British fishermen.
Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): The Minister will appreciate that past experience of dealing with sustainability issues must taint the way in which we look forward. Is he aware that Scottish fishermen who have implemented mesh sizes of 110 mm and 120 mm square mesh panels, voluntary tie-up schemes and decommissioning schemes have had all of that disregarded in the current crisis? They face the prospect of 40,000 job cuts in Scotland and the Government seem content to do nothing about it.
Alun Michael: That is far from the case, and the hon. Gentleman should not trivialise the issue. He should be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has worked very hard, with Scottish Ministers, to ensure that the best possible case is presented on behalf of the fishing industry in this country, including Scotland. I am sure that he will be working as hard as ever in the discussions that are taking place today.
David Burnside (South Antrim): There are 2,000 jobs, 700 fishermen and 160 boats operating out of Kilkeel, Portavogie and Ardglass, and the Department has recognised that, through the voluntary help of the Northern Ireland fishing industry, cod stocks have increased and haddock stocks have tripled in recent years in the Irish sea. Will the Department give a commitment that in the current negotiations the British Government will not sign up to a deal that affects the 160 boats operating out of Northern Ireland ports, which will affect the jobs of those 700 fishermen or the 2,000 jobs in the fishing industry?
Alun Michael: No one could give such an assurance before the end of the current negotiations. We have sought a different sort of package from the one that the Commission put before the Fisheries Council, and I hope that we shall see some movement. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is negotiating on today, and possibly tomorrow as well. They are serious negotiations and we cannot anticipate the outcome until we get to the end of them.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Is it not the case, as the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) said, that the fleet that is fishing the most conservation-minded fishery in the whole of the European Union has been specifically targeted for destruction, despite the fact that haddock stocks are the highest since 1971? This is not a trivialisation. We want to know, in the next day or two, that Ministers who are meant to be representing that fishery will not sign the death warrant of the white fish fleet and the communities that depend on it around the coastline. That is the guarantee that we want from the Dispatch Box.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman knows full well how passionately my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has defended the interests of our industry. He should recognise, for instance, that fishermen who already use fishing methods such as long-lining feel that they are
being penalised for problems that are not of their making. However, we were able to ensure that English long-liners were excluded from the cod spawning closure in spring 2001. That is an example of looking after our fishermen's interests. We also need to promote the recovery of stocks, because without an improvement in stocks, the industry's future is not sustainable. It is that balance that my hon. Friend will be seeking to persuade his ministerial colleagues to get right in the current negotiations.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): Scottish fishermen will not be convinced by the Minister's arguments about long-lining off the east coast of Scotland. It shows a certain lack of knowledge and a poor mastery of the brief, which I appreciate he is only looking after while his colleague debates in Europe.
Does the Minister agree with the request that I put to him earlier for an urgent statement on these matters today? We need to know precisely the progress of discussions in Europe and what negotiating stance the Government are taking on these vital issues. On what are they prepared to stand their ground? If the Government do not stand their ground, the deal will be done, our fishing industry will be destroyed or at very least depleted in the name of the disastrous common fisheries policy, and the House—we have heard comments from all parties today—will not have a chance to scrutinise or debate the matter until it is too late. It will be a miserable and lonely Christmas for our fishing communities. The Minister owes them at least the assurance of a statement to give them some confidence that the Government care as much as we do about that industry.
Alun Michael: It is disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to imply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is negotiating on the matter, is not doing everything that he can to look after the interests of the fishing industry in this country. He should also recognise that there is a genuine problem with stocks. We cannot jump ahead and give him information about proposals until we have seen them. We hope that different proposals will come forward. Of course, if we have that information, we will make it available to Opposition Members as quickly as we can, as well as to those on the Labour Benches who are interested in the matter. We still hope that different proposals will come forward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |