| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Common Agricultural Policy
8. Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): If she will make a statement on the prospects for further reform of the common agricultural policy. [160284]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Following the historic reform of the common agricultural policy last June, the European Commission has proposed reforms of the cotton, olive oil, tobacco and hops regimes. We hope that Agriculture Ministers will agree them on 22 March or thereabouts. We are looking at options for reform on sugar, and hope to see proposals this summer.
Hugh Bayley : As we reach the end of Fairtrade fortnight, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that there is no chance of our achieving global justice in trade unless the rich world reduces the absolute level of its agriculture subsidies? She has made great progress in shifting emphasis to non-trade-distorting subsidies, but to secure a deal at the World Trade Organisation meeting the European Union will need to table further proposals for reducing the overall burden of subsidies.
Margaret Beckett: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but dealing with trade-distorting subsidies is the key to
achieving fair trade. There are separate issues. As my hon. Friend knows, we are addressing the issue of what support is given to the farming community, and on what basis, by pursuing reforms that have been agreed. I do not consider it helpful for those who want a successful outcome, and a trade deal that will benefit developing countries in particular, to continue to focus on what is happening to non-trade-distorting subsidies. Let us keep our eye on the ball and try to secure as good a deal as we can for developing countries. We can indulge in philosophical speculation on ideal worlds at a later stage.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): Farmers will be sceptical about further reform of the common agricultural policy unless the Secretary of State and the Government get the current reforms right. The Secretary of State's answer to valid questions about the impact of her payments for severely disadvantaged areas was very disappointing. My hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) have written to her asking whether they can bring a delegation of hill farmers to meet her. Will she now give a commitment to meet that delegation, and also a commitment to review the payments for severely disadvantaged areas, with a view to changing them to ensure that the 5,000 farms that are expecting to go out of business as a result of those payments will not do so?
Margaret Beckett: I note that yet again Conservative spokespeople are calling for more funds to be invested—
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): No, she is not.
Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Lady is not asking for more funds, she must be asking for funds to be taken from someone else.
When resources are redistributed—although in this instance the total is about 13 per cent. and it will happen over eight years—there is bound to be disappointment and concern, and people will want to make sure that the full impact on their own circumstances has been taken into account. As I have said, we are giving careful attention to the concerns that are being expressed. I cannot give the hon. Lady the undertaking that she seeks—I can only say that we will continue to keep these issues under review. We believe—and I think most people in agriculture believe—that the steps we are proposing are taking farming in the right direction. We are trying to employ a manageable time scale so that people can make decisions that are right for their own businesses.
Mrs. May: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not willing to agree to meet that delegation of hill farmers and hear directly from them about the problems that her proposals will cause. Farmers need to have confidence in the system that the Government are introducing. The Rural Payments Agency has only about nine months in which to establish a radically different system. Given the Department's track record—the cattle passport scheme lost 100,000 cattle, and the fallen stock scheme has been
delayed yet again—what confidence can farmers have they will receive their single farm payments at all, let alone receive the right amount, on time?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady referred to correspondence that I have yet to receive. When I receive it I will of course give it consideration, as the hon. Lady and the House would expect.
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con): It was sent on Monday.
Margaret Beckett: In my experience, people frequently claim to have sent letters that have not actually been dispatched yet. I say to the hon. Lady that it would be quite wrong to give the impression—I am sure that she is not under such an illusion—that hill farmers as a group are all bound to lose. That is not the case. Indeed, some may well benefit considerably.
The hon. Lady referred to the track record of my Department. I freely confess that the information technology systems available required considerable investment, and that no parts of the IT systems in the new Department could talk one to another. As I said, a huge amount of investment is going in and much work is being done. When she says that the scheme that the Rural Payments Agency has to administer will be radically different, that may be true to a certain extent, but let us not forget that in the first year there will be only a 10 per cent. shift in payments, so the great bulk of the payments in that first year—not until 2005—will be made on the same basis as those today.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent statement on CAP reform? It was welcome and took a significant step forward. It came as something of a surprise that, on this occasion, the French agreed to the reforms. I wonder whether that might be a good augury for the future, and that more rapid progress might be made towards the eventual dissolution of the CAP and the return of agriculture policy to member state level, which would be a great step forward.
Margaret Beckett: With great respect, I fear that one of the things that would not help us achieve further reform of the CAP is creating the impression that we were about to move to its dissolution. I also tell my hon. Friend that it would be more accurate to say that my colleague the French Agriculture Minister accepted the reform rather than agreed to it. I accept, however, my hon. Friend's basic assertion that there is a great need for reform of the CAP. We accept that and I believe that everyone in the British Parliament accepts it. Most people recognise that the steps we have taken will take us further in the right direction. To be fair, successive British Governments have sought to follow that direction, but the present Government are delivering.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): But does the Secretary of State accept that the reforms have neither reduced the costs of the CAP nor helped to reduce protectionism in Europe? If the Government are serious
about promoting international development and helping consumers in this country, should not the Secretary of State accept that the CAP is now well past its sell-by date and that it is time to get out of it?
Margaret Beckett: It has been a long-standing aim of successive British Governments to curtail expenditure in this area, but the hon. Gentleman will know that under the agreement there is now a ceiling, which will not be exceeded. If expenditure tends to drift above that ceiling, it will be brought back. One aspect that is now completely different—many people believed that we would not be able to secure it—is that resources will be made available to secure what the public want, such as landscape protection, improvements to the environment and so forth, rather than merely to subsidise an industry.
GM Maize
9. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment has been made of the possibility of growing GM maize in England; and if she will make a statement. [160285]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an oral statement in the House on Tuesday. The statement covered the issue of commercial growing of a type of GM maize.
David Taylor : Given the doubts of the Environmental Audit Committee about the robustness, validity and relevance of the farm-scale evaluation results and the view of the British Medical Association that insufficient research into the impact on human health of GM foodstuffs has been conducted, does the Minister agree that few, if any, conventional or organic farmers will be able wholly to escape the impact of GM contamination of their crops, and that the GM industry should conclude a legal liability regime not only with farmers but with the ultimate consumers of the food they produce?
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has raised a number of points. First, let me deal with the British Medical Association report. In fact, the report made it clear that the BMA supported the Government's approach of considering each application on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the BMA conceded and recognised—again effectively supporting the Government—the thoroughness of the detailed work on GM herbicide-tolerant maize. On the issue of liabilities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that this summer we will consult on the shape of a liability scheme and the consultation will include any potential consequences in relation to GM crops.
As for growing the crops, consultation will also be held on a coexistence regime to ensure that GM crops and conventional and organic crops are cultivated separately. These are important matters, and the Government take careful note of Select Committee reports. Much of what was in the EAC report was not new, and a report published in Nature on the same day—of which the Committee was not aware—addressed many of the points that the EAC raised.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con): Tuesday's statement authorising the planting of GM maize in this country was an historic occasion, as it brought to an end this country's GM-free status. Does the Minister accept that to make such a decision before the House had had a chance to debate the outcome of the trials was to put the cart before the horse, and that it served only to aggravate the public's widespread concern?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady talks about this country's GM-free status, but may I remind her that the first authorisation for GM products and crops was given by the previous Conservative Government, before 1997? This Government negotiated a commercial moratorium while we carried out the largest and most detailed field-scale evaluation of its type ever held. No country has been as thorough in its examination of GM, which has been the subject of much discussion and debate in this House. I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a debate in Government time on the outcome of the FSEs, and on the Government's approach to the matter.
Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): May I declare an interest in that, being a vegetarian, I have probably eaten more GM food than many other hon. Members? As far as I am aware, I have not yet shown any ill effects. [Interruption.]
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): But my hon. Friend has a green beard.
I hope that the Government can give a more positive response on the question of health effects on humans. A report that emerged only last week from the Philippines detailed the possible very bad effect on villagers living adjacent to a GM maize crop. Should we not take that very seriously, and listen to the BMA's concerns—albeit on a case-by-case basis?
Mr. Morley: I accept the points that my hon. Friend raises. It is important that we should not be complacent about any report. The BMA report was helpful: it said that there had been years of evaluation of the consumption of GM foods, especially in the US, and that no discernible ill effects had been found. As for the research in the Philippines, the scientist involved has conceded that he has offered his interpretation, and that more work needs to be done. Also, the findings have not been published yet, nor subject to independent peer review. When that happens, we will look at them very carefully.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |