Kelvin
Hopkins: I agree very strongly with much of what was said
from the Opposition Benches, in particular the powerful speech by the
right hon. Member for Fylde. I have spoken many times in debates on the
CAP in such Committees and I am grateful, as only an attending Member,
rather than a Committee member, for the opportunity to speak again. I
think that I might be the only Member here who represents a purely
urban constituency—it contains not a single square inch of rural
land. However, urban people need food, too, and I am sympathetic to
farmers and the agricultural industry.
What has been
said here confirms and reinforces a view that I have taken for a long
time: the CAP is the problem and should be abolished and replaced by a
system of agricultural policies at nation-state level within the
European Union. We have seen the contrast between Romania and
Britain—they are polar opposites. No one policy can accommodate
all the differences and variations across the EU, let alone the world.
The best policy would be to repatriate agricultural policy from the EU
and to have perhaps bilateral agreements of some kind, but not a policy
determined by the
EU. Agricultural
policy is complex and subtle, and I do not pretend that I can determine
an appropriate policy. Security of supply is vital. I was born during
the second
world war. We grew up in a world where we had to produce everything
possible, because otherwise people died coming across the Atlantic. We
have heard about the carbon footprint. Do we want to fly across the
world using lots of fuel to get things that we can well produce
ourselves? Employment in rural areas is another matter, as too are the
environment, our way of life and culture. Do we want all Welsh hill
farms to disappear and there to be no more sheep and sheep dogs?
Perhaps those things are not as vital as feeding people, but they are
significant, and I want them to be taken into
account. The
CAP is perverse in so many ways and in some of the questions that I put
to my right hon. Friend the Minister I tried to set out why. I really
believe that, at national level, countries would be able to determine
much more appropriate policies for themselves that would, collectively,
be better for Europe and the world. We might wish to subsidise some
things, but not others, and we could choose whether to import cheaper
products from elsewhere rather than produce them ourselves. We could
choose whether to expand our dairy industry, and we could be
accountable to Parliament for that choice. We cannot do that at the
moment.
The great
lump in the middle of Europe that is the CAP takes up a third to 40 per
cent. of the EU budget. It is complete nonsense and has been from the
beginning. The fact that a rich country has to have a rebate to
accommodate the fact that we are net losers from the policy is silly.
It is also silly that most of the beneficiaries are among the richest
countries in Europe and that we have special rules to prevent poorer
countries from coming in and benefiting from the same generosity as
France, Denmark and Ireland. The CAP is nonsense and I have called for
it to be abolished on many occasions. At some time, we must challenge
France on it once and for all, and decide for ourselves what our
agricultural policy should be.
There are
problems with distributing CAP income across the European Union. If we
want to help the poorer countries in the EU, let us have an open policy
in which we contribute to a budget that is distributed according to the
relative living standards in different countries so that rich countries
are net contributors and poor countries are net recipients. That is
fine. Let us have it up front. Let us not have a machine that does the
opposite in many cases, is perverse in the way it operates and does not
help agriculture, food prices, the third world or anybody else except,
perhaps, a small number of EU members who have relatively high levels
of prosperity and relatively rich farmers.
I have made
this speech on many occasions and I try to think of new words each
time, but it is very difficult, because the CAP is nonsense. I have
said before that the budget should be distributed according to relative
prosperity in different member states; that point has been specifically
answered in a European document, so I think that I have had some
impact. I do not think that anyone else has suggested that—at
least, I have not heard them—but it seems obvious, logical and
fair to me. However, the idea was rejected in a European Union document
that we have debated in the Chamber. It said something like, “It
would be inappropriate,” but what does that mean? There was no
good argument against it.
It is time for
us to face up to the fact that the CAP is nonsense and that it should
be abolished and replaced by sensible policies at national level. I
wrote my first critique of the CAP in a 1980 policy paper, and I am
sure that I am using now some of the words that I used in that paper,
but the policy has been with us for all that time. Reform, reform,
reform—we keep hearing that word, and every time we hear it,
hats go in the air from the Front Bench. They say, “We’ve
got the final reform, and it’s all going to work now,”
but it does not. It is still nonsense, it should be abolished, and I
hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be robust in her
negotiations in the EU during her term of office as our
representative. 6.33
pm
Jane
Kennedy: I look forward to becoming an aficionado of and
expert on the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton,
North.
I am grateful
to hon. Members who have contributed today for their courtesy in
welcoming me to my new role and for their generosity regarding my
occasional inability to answer questions directly. I know that that
patience might wear thin if I do not rapidly become almost as steeped
in the subject as many of those hon. Members who have participated in
today’s
debate. It
has been helpful to consider CAP reform and global food prices
together, and I am grateful to the Committee of my hon. Friend the
Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for referring this matter for
scrutiny. High food prices are a global problem and they require
co-ordinated international action. To tackle the problem effectively,
we need an open, global trading system and an end to the
trade-distorting subsidies and export restrictions that the CAP
maintains. As well as open markets, we need increased global
investment, particularly in agricultural research—a point that
the NFU raised with me last week—and in increasing the
production capacity of developing
countries. Current
high food prices add to the reasons to reform the CAP rather than
return it to a production-based policy. Some of the measures proposed
in the health check should lead directly to lower prices. Although I am
grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for his
guidance and suggestion that we approach the subject warily, permanent
elimination of set-aside should reduce the EU price for cereals, for
example, by up to 5 per cent, and removing milk quotas could lower the
price by up to 11 per cent.
For more
long-term results, the CAP reform needs to reduce the distortion of
world markets, and dismantling trade barriers will help both consumers
and producers in the longer term as farmers become better connected to
the market and can respond to increasing demand, which will lead to
lower food prices. Again, the NFU suggested that the majority of UK
farmers would welcome that.
In response
to something that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, I
shall give the example of the phasing out of dairy quotas. The removal
of the quotas might be a good thing in itself, but success will depend
on how we do it. We need to do it in a way that supports dairy farmers
in the UK and enables them to accommodate the new environment, and the
best way to do that is to provide certainty and what we might call
a soft landing. Dairy farmers in the UK want gradual annual increases in
the milk quota to help them achieve a soft landing with minimal
disruption to their market. They want a clear path ahead to 2015, when
milk quotas are due to end, so that they have the certainty they need
for their own business planning. We are making that point strongly
within the EU. In July, we
published a discussion paper that asked whether we are focusing on the
right issues for ensuring our continued food security. For example,
that means access for all at all times to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food that is adequate for an active lifestyle and is
produced sustainably. That document has successfully encouraged debate
on the short-term risks and long-term challenges and on how best we can
respond, and I will be interested to hear the eloquent enunciation of
that debate even further this afternoon. In considering those issues,
we will be supported by the new food policy advisory council. I am not
yet in a position to announce the membership of that committee to the
House, but it will not be long until we are able to do so.
I would like
to turn to a couple of the points that have been made, as it is proper
that I should respond to some of the detailed questioning and to some
of the issues raised in the debate on which I was not able to give an
answer earlier. On set-aside, it is important to get the
Government’s view on the record as I might not have made it
clear. The Commission proposes to strengthen aspects of
cross-compliance that require that farm land be kept in good
agricultural and environmental condition. Specifically, it proposes the
introduction of the protection and management of water as an issue to
be addressed, with additional specific landscape features such as
hedges, ditches and trees and the establishment of buffer strips along
watercourses as potential standards.
I do not
believe that that is sufficient to capture the benefits that we have
experienced from set-aside, and there should be more flexibility to
allow for a greater variety of habitats and to offer more choice to
farmers, so we are making the case for managing a small percentage of
land primarily for environmental purposes. We are pressing in the
health check negotiations for a common framework that is flexible
across the EU, so that all member states would need to take appropriate
measures to mitigate set-aside loss. I am mindful of the need to
minimise the impact on the farming sector. Our approach offers
flexibility for farmers and involves a much smaller amount of land than
would be the case under set-aside, and on which some production could
take place. That approach has been recommended to the Secretary of
State by a broad group of stakeholders, including farming industry
representatives, convened by Sir Don
Curry.
Mr.
Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and
for coming back to the subject. I think that she is saying that when in
answer to my question earlier she said yes, she meant no. In other
words, cross-compliance will require some land to be taken out of
production. We can call it set-aside or whatever she likes, but to
maintain the environmental benefits and gains of set-aside, she
proposes to replace it by forcing farmers, as part of cross-compliance,
to take land out of production. I hope that she does not, but I think
that she will confirm that that is what she has just said. Will there
be any financial recompense for that?
Jane
Kennedy: I would need to study what I have said to be
clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We made the case within
the EU for our preferred mitigation approach, which will require arable
farmers to manage a small percentage of their land primarily for
environmental purposes, complemented by voluntary top-up options for
farmers in what we call agri-environment schemes. On what the hon.
Gentleman says, to a degree, there will be a requirement on farmers to
do that. However, it does not replicate set-aside because farmers can
choose from a range of common land, for example winter stubble or
environmental fallow. It does not preclude using the land for
production. I believe that this is a more effective and better targeted
way of helping biodiversity and using farmland birds, for example, as
an indicator for wider
biodiversity. The
hon. Gentleman raised the issue of article 68, as did other hon.
Members. The Commission proposals restrict distorting payments to 2.5
per cent. of the direct payment budget. However, I agree that that is
still too much. We are pushing for constraints such as time limits or
sectoral funding
limits. The
hon. Gentleman also pressed on the question of simplifying
cross-compliance. We think that the Commission has made some good
proposals for cross-compliance standards that should be deleted, but we
believe that there is scope for further simplification in terms of the
standards and the way in which they must be administered, inspected and
enforced. While we want to achieve public benefit from the standards,
we recognise that there is little additional return for the inclusion
of some in cross-compliance. For example, we believe that the statutory
management requirement for the protection of the environment when
sewage sludge is used could be deleted as it requires little action on
the part of
farmers. We
had quite a discussion on the issue of self-sufficiency versus food
security. I accept what was said and was not seeking to suggest that
self-sufficiency is the entire response. We are a trading nation. Of
the food that we import, the vast majority—70 per
cent.—comes from the EU. That is why it is so important that we
work for fair CAP
reform. On
the question of de minimis payments, I was interested to hear the
response from the Committee. I was very impressed with the hon.
Gentleman’s briefing. The proposal on the table now is for
variable rates for each member state, linked to the average farm size.
We have relatively large farms and the 5 hectares figure has been
supported by the NFU, but I will want to reflect on that given what has
been said in this debate. Clearly this is something that we need to
examine very closely. On his point on modulation increase, we too would
support more ambition in increasing the rate, but he is right that
there is strong resistance from others in the
EU. I
will not be able to give the comments of the right hon. Member for
Fylde the full response that they deserve. However, I am sure that we
will get the opportunity on another occasion, perhaps next week, to
have a more detailed discussion. I am grateful to him for recommending
the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which
he chairs, on the 2005 “Vision” document. I am collecting
reading material and will also look at the Royal Society of
Edinburgh’s report.
On milk
quotas, half the Council wants a more than 1 per cent. increase and the
other half wants less. The priority for the UK is predictable phasing
out for the dairy sector, as I said in answer to the point raised by
the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The right hon. Member for
Fylde asked about the position of new member states with regard to CAP
funding levels. New member states are pressing hard for a level playing
field. They will reach parity with the old member states in 2012, but
equally, they face strong resistance from those old member states. I
will be happy to write about some of the more specific details that I
have not had to hand this afternoon, particularly as the debate has
been wide-ranging.
The hon.
Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale raised the issue of maintaining a
vibrant countryside through agriculture. We began that discussion on
the future for hill farming and the impact on hill farmers of the
changes that have taken place. We accept that some areas do not have a
comparative advantage in any agricultural product. Those farms must
think about diversifying their farm business into areas where they do,
so as to provide environmental benefits, or, in some cases, making the
decision to leave farming.
Issues such
as land abandonment must be addressed with targeted rural development
policies on jobs and services, particularly at national level and not
via the poor proxy of a damaging and distorting common agricultural
policy. There can be a link to the need to manage our landscapes and
the environment. In so far as farming in those areas delivers public
benefits, which we all acknowledge but the market does not reward,
there may be a case for pillar 2 funding in those
circumstances.
| 
