| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): The hon. Gentleman speaks with a great deal of expertise on this subject. Does he agree that the sugar regime is important to many farmers in East Anglia? Britain is about 60 per cent. self-sufficient while France is about 180 per cent. self-sufficient. The low countries and Germany are all more than 100 per cent. self-sufficient. In the case of the UK, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion means that applying our own rules would be much more sensible.
Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful intervention. In the previous debate on this subject it was suggested that we might produce sugar as a biofuel, which would be a much more environmentally friendly form of fuel production, producing alcohol for fuel. That is one possibility. Whatever the arrangements, we could choose nationally how we subsidised our agriculture. I am sure that we could do that while taking account of all the needs of the rural population, including farmers, as appropriate. I am sure that we would do a much better job of it than the CAP and the EU. Indeed, every country would do better.
We should have a proper and thorough study of the precise fiscal distributional effects of abolishing the CAP. What would happen to France? I have made a rough calculation that shows that abolition would not make that much difference. There might be a small cost equivalent to less then 1 per cent. of GDP if France were to subsidise its farmers directly rather than through the CAP. Indeed, the CAP is so inefficient and so corrupt that France might do a better job of it directly rather than through the CAP. Getting rid of the CAP would solve many of the problems.
Mr. Drew : I concur with my hon. Friend's view on the CAP. Does he agree that one of the problems with the recent budget was the many warm words that were spoken about moving towards rural development in place of targeted support based on production? When push came to shove, all the countries involved fell down on the obligation towards rural development and, again, sucked money back into direct support. That might have happened because of the French, but the British also fell into line. Surely that is shocking.
Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on agricultural matters, and I am pleased to receive his assistance. We should consider rural policies in terms of agricultural subsidies. Perhaps we should regenerate some of our livestock farming, which is so healthy for the countryside, and also good for wildlife and for the environment. That could be done if we had a national agricultural policy rather than having a system that is based on the CAP and the EU.
So often, those who take a critical view of these matters are said to be anti-European. I feel that I am strongly pro-European in the best sense. I was born in Europe, I speak a European language, I love European culture and I love European people. I happen not to believe that the construct that is called the European
7 Mar 2006 : Column 771
Union is a good idea as it stands. I believe that it should be substantially reformed. It is the EU construct that is wrong, not Europe. Europe is a wonderful place.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who are critical of the EU construct can call ourselves genuine internationalists? We believe that it is immoral that so many billions should be sucked into subsidising agribusiness when much smaller sums could be provided to help and support agriculture in the third world.
Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is right. On the point of internationalism, those of us who take a critical view of the EU and the CAP have strong international links with other social democratic and socialist parties on the continent. We have regular meetings with the members of those parties. We try to put forward more progressive social democratic approaches to dealing with European policies.
Angus Robertson: While not agreeing with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, I concur with his internationalist agenda. Is he aware that the unreformed European Union, as it currently stands, is putting some countries off joining? I advise him to read the current edition of The Economist, which outlines the difficulties the Icelandic Government have with possible membership because of the disastrous common fisheries policy. Should that not also be reformed, otherwise the financial problems will continue?
Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree about the commons fisheries policy. The European Union would be much more attractive to existing members, as well as to potential new members, if it worked better and was seen to be more just, fair and effective. I can think of a number of ways in which it should be reformed. However, I wish to stick to the topic of the budget and how the money is spent.
The other matter about which I am concerned, as is the Department for International Development, is the aid budget. That budget is spent ineffectively, is subject to some corruption and goes to the wrong places. It has been heavily criticised by DFID Ministers, both privately and publicly. I have suggested two possibilities for that budget. The first is that it should be repatriated and member states should be required to contribute a proportion of their GDP to aid. Perhaps the proportion might be higher for the richest nations. There should be a formulaic approach to aid so that we make sure we pay enough, but it should be distributed through national Governments or national Governments in collaboration.
The second suggestion involves DFID, because it is recognised as doing a good job with aid and as not being corrupt. I have not supported some of its policies regarding privatisation, but it is highly regarded. I have the greatest regard for our present Secretary of State for International Development, whom I have heard speak on many occasions, who does an extremely good job. If the aid budget for the European Union were handed over to Britain to manage on a franchise basis, I am sure that we would do a much better job than the European Union and that the aid would go to the right places.
7 Mar 2006 : Column 772
Some of the problems with that budget relate to the fact that national interests dictate that some aid goes to slightly richer countries around the rim of the Mediterranean rather than to sub-Saharan Africa where the need is greatest. We have to repatriate the aid budget or introduce fundamental reforms, perhaps even hand it over to DFID to manage. With our present Secretary of State, we would do a good job.
Other aspects of the European Union budget will cause problems. It irritates me when I walk through my town centre and see a large notice, with a big, blue flag with yellow stars on it, saying that the town is to be modernised with money from the European Union. We are massive net contributors to that budget. It is our money, not the European Union's money, that is paying for the modernisation, but the EU gives the impression that it is a benign Father Christmas delivering money to Britain, when actually we are Father Christmas giving money to the European Union. I am not suggesting that we should not give fairly to the budget. Indeed, I have suggested on many occasions that if we had a budget in which contributions and receipts were exactly proportional to living standards in member states, so that richest give most and the poorest receive most, that could be seen to be fair. One could just look at a sliding scale and see a graph of how it worked. Everybody would say that that system was fine and they would sign up to it. But the current budget does not work like that; the CAP distorts it and makes it look unfair.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman refers to structural funds and suggests that we should give as much as we reasonably can and be fair in giving money to other countries. Does not that belie the fundamental point that structural funds are at the heart of regionalisation, which has a severely adverse impact on the United Kingdom—on hospitals, ambulance services, the police, fire authorities and so on? The whole process is disintegrating under the guise of the creation of a more centralised system, which is of course what the EU really is.
Kelvin Hopkins: I was about to say that national Governments should distribute funding according to their needs; they should make the judgment about which of their regions needs money. Indeed, the Chancellor has suggested that as and when our regional fund benefits disappear, as poorer member states join, extra funds will be substituted by the Treasury, which is right. However, we in the House are the best judges of which regions need more or less money. We should make those decisions and the situation is the same for other countries. Distribution should be proportionate to relative GDP per head in member states and they should make their own decisions.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about regionalisation. I am seriously concerned that building up the regions is an attempt to play down the Governments of member nation states. I cannot accept that. Member state Governments are the political entities in which the majority of people believe. I do not suggest that nation states should be nationalistic, but national Governments should have the final responsibility for the welfare of their citizens. The central Governments of member states should have that
7 Mar 2006 : Column 773
democratic role, which should not be undermined by the EU building up the regions and playing down member state Governments. That would be a great mistake.
We have an ongoing problem with the European Union. We are tinkering at the edges of the corruption and incompetence with which the budget is managed, and fundamental change will be necessary if we are to overcome the problems. We have to deal with the fundamental problem that people and institutions in the member states—farmers and so on—are spending other people's money and that that is somehow all right. It has even been suggested that the glue holding the EU together is the fact that money is sloshing about and everybody gets a bit of the action. That is not the way to approach democratic politics. We should know what we are spending our money on and vote to spend it as appropriate, collectively in democratic member states and, where necessary, at minimal level, through the EU.
As the Government have said many times, the EU should be an association of independent, democratic member states working together for their mutual benefit, where appropriate. It should not be the beginnings of a European superstate, which many of us would reject.
6.27 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |