| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I wholly share his view. I attended the meeting in Indonesia in the run-up to the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development, and then that summit itself. I witnessed the wrath of people from the developing world at the way in which the developed world exploited matters such as agricultural subsidies. I am therefore under no illusion as to how important they consider the matter to be. Indeed, I will not disguise from the House that I have bored stiff my colleagues in the Agriculture Council for the past 18 months by reminding them of the experiences of those of us who attended those summits, and of their duty to the outside world. I sincerely hope that that helped us get agreement last night.
Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham): In her statement, the Secretary of State said that there was a need to get the best possible settlement for taxpayers and consumers. Can she be a bit more specific about the deal's financial implications for those two groups?
Margaret Beckett: I cannot do so off hand, and certainly not after having been up all night. However, I
mentioned in my statement the price cuts that will be of some assistance to consumers. Those are the sort of implications that we and everyone else will be trying to work through, as we assess the fine detail of the package.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I congratulate the Secretary of State on reaching an historic agreement, but I remind her of the expression about being wary of Greeks bearing gifts. Will she give urgent attention to the vexed question of succession for tenant farmers? The matter is causing great anxiety to small tenant farmers in north Yorkshire and elsewhere in the country. She will be aware that a turkey factory in the Vale of York closed recently, with the loss of 300 jobs. As turkey is not a supported regime, will she raise with her EU partners the possibility that potentially fraudulent tariffs could be charged on turkey imported from Brazil, and the fact that those imports may be treated with illegal drugs? Clearly, that treatment is unacceptable, as is the fact that treated meat could be consumed by people in this country.
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. If she would be kind enough to write to me about the matters that she has raised, I shall certainly look into them and see what can be done.
Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the House so soon after completing the negotiations, but I hope that she will be able to reassure farmers in my constituency on a certain point. The French are notorious in this country for standing up for their farmers at every opportunity. There is real concern that they have signed up to a deal that allows them to opt to do something different that will benefit their farmers. If a debate on the matter is not possible soon, will she at least make sure that documents are placed in the Library that show her Department's analysis of how competition will be affected by the
differential arrangements? Also, she began her statement by describing how bureaucracy would be swept away, but questions from hon. Members about substitution, abandonment and unfair competition make it clear that, if she is not careful, bureaucracy will creep back in to govern the way that farmers use their land.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's final point is perfectly fair. We are very mindful of that danger. I hope that he will recall that I said that we had hoped to find a better way to deal with the issue of unsupported crops, for example. Even so, there is no doubt that the deal represents a massive change in terms of bureaucracy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the record of the French Government, who are rightly proud of the way that they defend the interests of their farmers and others at Agriculture Councils and on other occasions. However, I remind the House of the policies pursued by the Government. The negotiating stance on which we sought agreement was pretty well the stance that all the relevant interests in this country wanted. They believe that it is in their interests to move to this new structure for the CAP, and I share that view.
One of the key differences between the UK and other EU countries is that we have suffered such terrible experiences in recent years. That has forced almost all—certainly great swathes—of the farming community here to think very hard about where the future of farming lies. People in farming in this country have thought very hard about how best to transform their lives and their prosperity. They have considered the future of European farming in a way that has not happened to the same extent in other member states. I repeat what I have said before: had—heaven forfend—the negotiations been put off for a few more weeks, it is possible that there would have been a notable shift in attitude. Privately and behind the scenes, farming organisations across Europe are beginning to say, "Well, actually, maybe this is something we want to do too."
Points of Order
2.36 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given Mr. Speaker advance notice of this point of order.
The list of present ministerial responsibilities states that the Attorney-General, the Government's principal legal adviser, is responsible for dealing with questions of international law, EU law, and human rights. It adds that the Solicitor-General deputises for the Attorney-General in this House. I was therefore delighted to see, in the list of questions published on Tuesday 24 June, that I had secured question No. 24 in today's oral questions to the Solicitor-General. I was therefore somewhat surprised to receive a letter stating that my question had been transferred to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, and that as a result I would receive only a written answer, and would not have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
I know that Mr. Speaker, as custodian of hon. Members' interests, deprecates that sort of transfer, especially as my question was entirely in order, according to the list of ministerial responsibilities. Can we have a ruling as to why my question was transferred? I was telephoned by a clerk in the new Department, but I found it very difficult to return his call, as three clerks there share the same name. I was given the run-around by the Department—not the sort of treatment that I would expect to receive.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Lady, given the situation in which she found herself. Of course, the creation of the new Department means that a somewhat transitional situation exists. However, the transfer of questions is a matter entirely for the Government, and not for the Chair.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a report of an incident that occurred during questions to the Solicitor-General. The Liberal Democrat spokesman on that subject, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), scuttled along the Opposition Front Bench immediately after the Conservative spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), had asked a question of the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General was attempting to reply as the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon cut right across the line of sight. Would it be possible for you to advise the Liberal Whip to give a tutorial to his colleagues on how to behave in the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On that particular incident, the result was that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) was not called to put a question. However, in respect of general matters of behaviour in the House, I would wish that all hon. Members would
take account of the courtesies. I have noticed that on too many occasions people use the House as a corridor. They are breaking the line of sight and failing to respect the position of the Chair when they enter and leave the Chamber. I hope that all the Chief Whips will take notice of these matters. The standard of behaviour in the House is a matter of great importance. We should uphold it, unless we make specific changes to the rules of courtesy that have been traditional in this place.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to early-day motion 1476, in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and 48 Conservative Members? It criticises Labour Members who supported early-day motion 799 on top-up fees for not voting for an identical motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition on 25 June. Among those Members criticised for not acting in line with their previous commitment is my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Everybody in the House and more widely knows that my hon. Friend has had an operation and is under doctor's orders not to attend the House, so that he should be criticised, among other people, for not being here on that occasion seems obnoxious. There is a distinction between Members who abstain because they cannot help but do so and those who abstain deliberately. I am one of those who abstained deliberately, so I am referred to in the early-day motion. I can readily and easily defend my abstaining on that occasion because the motion was tabled by the Opposition in the context of their claim that they would cut the numbers—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |