Agriculture Council (Hansard, 15 December 1982)

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 13 and 14 December in Brussels, at which I represented the United Kingdom.
The Council agreed to extend to the end of 1983 the arrangements for controlling imports of live cattle and pigs into Great Britain to protect our livestock against foot and mouth disease and swine vesicular disease. The special arrangements which apply to imports of live animals and meat into Northern Ireland have also been extended for a further year. During next year, the Council will discuss the introduction of rules for trade within the Community in live animals and fresh meat. We shall, of course, ensure that, when such rules are adopted, the special status of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is fully protected.
The council also discussed new provisions which would bring up to date the public health requirements for trade within the Community and with third countries in fresh meat. No decision was reached and the Council will consider this further at its meetings early next year.
Agreement was reached on the 1983 arrangements for the importation of beef for processing. Next year's arrangements, including the quantity of 60,000 tonnes at reduced rate of levy, are the same as those for this year. These supplies are important to our processing industry and this means that imports can take place from the beginning of January.
As the House knows, in October the Council decided the arrangements for imports of New Zealand butter in 1983. However, the French and Irish Governments indicated again that they are not prepared to adopt the necessary implementing regulation until the Commission has authorised exports to Russia. I made it clear that there is no possible justification for the objections of these two delegations, which are an abuse of the Council procedures. There will be further discussion at the management committee before Christmas.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)
The Opposition welcome the decision at last to continue for another year the existing animal import controls. I only wish that the Government had listened to us more fully in the debate last week. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) will be pleased that the Minister listened to what he had to say.
Will the Minister accept that what is really needed is a permanent recognition of the special requirements both of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland? We cannot be satisfied with anything less.
I have anxieties about imported beef. Unnecessary and unfair restrictions are still being placed not just on third countries but on Third world countries. The figure for Botswana for the first nine months is 8,000 tonnes of imported beef. There must now be a gap because of what has happened with Argentina. Is it not possible that the gap could be filled by Botswana? Should we not examine that possibility to see what further imports of beef at that rate could be made?
300 The statement referred to butter. The Minister will remember that we now know that over the past few years, despite the decision of the Council of Ministers, the EC has continued to export subsidised butter. When the Minister says that there will be further discussion at the management committee before Christmas, does this mean that this matter will pass outside our control so that, as has happened over the past few years, the wishes of the Council of Ministers are to be flouted? We should like assurances on that.
Will the Minister give a further assurance that, if the management committee discusses this further, it will not discuss our guaranteed arrangements for the import of butter from New Zealand?
On a more festive note, the House would welcome an assurance that, despite what the management committee may say, the subsidised Christmas butter for the United Kingdom will continue. I should like guarantees on all those points.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
With regard to foot and mouth disease, I welcome the support from the Opposition. We have succeeded in the Council of Ministers in achieving the declared objective that my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made clear to the House. I am glad that we have succeeded in that and, of course, we had the support of the Republic of Ireland and the strong support of Denmark in doing so. I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given.
Beef is important to our processing industries. The arrangements fulfil the agreement under the multilateral trade negotiations which were carried out a number of years ago. As I understand it, arrangements have been welcomed by the countries involved.
The French Minister tried to make a link between the exports of butter to Russia and the continuation of supplies from New Zealand. The French failed in that attempt. The Presidency, the Commission and other delegations made it clear that they believed that to try to make that sort of link was unreasonable and unjustified. In October the Council had agreed, without any condition, that the import of butter from New Zealand should continue. We shall continue to press for that, and I am confident that we shall proceed with supplies continuing in 1983.

§ Mr. Buchan
What will the management committee be discussing if these guarantees are finalised?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The management committee has to deal with details such as implementing regulations and export refunds. A formal meeting of the management committee is due to take place before Christmas.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ulster farming industry w ill be relieved at the breathing space that the Minister, with the assistance of the House, has obtained, and that it relies on the Government to use that breathing space to make an agreement that will permanently secure a special standard of animal health in Northern Ireland, which is so beneficial both to the Province and to the United Kingdom as a whole?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the support which he gave in the House last week. We have a special status, and within the United Kingdom Northern Ireland has an even more special status. We have made an entry in the 301 Council minutes to the effect that this status and the longer-term conditions must be recognised before an agreement is reached.

§ Sir Peter Mills (Devon, West)
I congratulate the Minister on the negotiations. Will he stand firm on the exports of butter to Russia, which are entirely wrong in my view? Any advantages should accrue within the Community, especially for pensioners, hospitals and the Armed Services. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not wise to allow the importation of live animals into this country, especially in the south-west where there are enormous herds of beef and cattle? It would be disastrous if foot and mouth disease were allowed to enter the country.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The United Kingdom has made clear its opposition to the exports of butter to Russia and has voted against it in the management committee. We shall continue to take this position. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. We recognise the danger to our livestock of foot and mouth disease, and that is why we have argued in the way that I have outlined. Until we arrive at satisfactory long-term arrangements, the arrangements that we thrashed out in 1976 will continue. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has so rightly said.

§ Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan)
I welcome the action that has been taken on the importation of live cattle. I am sure that the Minister will agree that foot and mouth disease and swine disease are extremely important issues. Can he give an assurance to our livestock producers that he is still in favour of the eradication system and does not support the vaccinating that has been suggested by our European counterparts? Will he advise the House where the 60,000 tonnes of processing beef is coming from? From which part of the world will it come? Finally, for how long does he think we shall sell our butter surpluses to the Russians?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about foot and mouth disease. We believe that our slaughter policy is the right one. It has proved to be successful in the past. We believe that the United Kingdom and two other countries in the Community have the highest health standards and we hope that others will come up to our standards.
One of the countries most involved in the importation of beef into the United Kingdom is Australia. Half our beef imports come under one system of levy and United Kingdom processors take about 40 per cent. of what is available under it. This is an advantage to Commonwealth countries and of especial advantage to our processors.
As I have said, we have made it plain that we believe it wrong to link exports of butter to Russia to the continuation of supplies from New Zealand. Such exports are wrong in any event.

§ Mr. Thomas Torney (Bradford, South)
I appreciate the Minister's assurance about New Zealand butter, but is he aware of the problems that New Zealand faces due to the unloading of surplus EC stocks, to which Britain has made no contribution, on the world market? Does he recognise that the unloading of these surpluses has led to New Zealand facing difficulties in selling its butter on the 302 world market? Will he ensure that the Common Market cannot in future make it so difficult for New Zealand to sell its butter on the world market and that there will be no effect on the quota that the Common Market agrees to supply to our country, bearing in mind that it is a Commonwealth country?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Over recent years there has been good co-operation between the Community and New Zealand in respect of dairy products on the world market. The Commission made it clear that New Zealand butter should continue to have access to the Community to maintain the good relationship that exists in other world markets. There is support from the Commission and the Council and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Given the strong revulsion felt by the European public about the provision of subsidised butter to the Russians whereby they can release other resources for building up their massive armed forces, is it possible that the handling of this matter could be withdrawn from the competence of the management committee and vested in the European Council? If this is the case, will my hon. Friend seek to move in that direction so that we can veto this nonsense in future?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
Under the provisions of the treaty, these matters are subject to management committee procedure. I do not see prospects of that being changed. However, among others in the Community, Britain is not alone in being concerned about these exports to Russia. Other Governments share our concern and we shall continue to work with them to try to achieve our objectives.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I propose to call those who have been rising in their places and seeking to catch my eye.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
I recognise the international multilateral obligations to which the Minister has spoken that apply to the importation of beef for processing and the needs of the processing industry. Might it not have been better this year, especially when our domestic meat producers are under considerable pressure, to have sought to supply a larger part of the processing industry's needs from our own resources?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
No, because our processors want meat that has a high lean content for the processed meat that they are producing, which is not available from within the Community. Imports are necessary in recognition of the needs of our industry and the needs of our consumers. If our processors are not supplied, consumers are likely to be supplied from sources outside the Community. Therefore, the continued access to this meat is in the interests of British processors and British consumers.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Is the Minister aware that these statements tend to follow a familiar boring pattern? The Minister presents a statement that is an anouncement of defeat and failure, near-defeat or a referral to a committee and he tries to wrap it up as a partial victory. Is it not a fact that we have reached a stage when 303 the catalogue of disasters from the Common Market should be brought to an end? We have heard of foot and mouth disease and Dutch chrysanthemum disease. The list goes on and on. Is it not time that we got out of this mess?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I am quite sure that my statement and the subsequent questions and answers are no more boring than the hon. Gentleman's interventions. I think that our proceedings this afternoon have proved that. If the hon. Gentleman took a slightly wider interest in Britain and went into the countryside now and again and spoke—

§ Mr. Skinner
I do.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
—to those who get their livelihood from farms— [Interruption.] If he spoke to those who work on farms and recognised—

§ Mr. Skinner
I have farms in my constituency.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must not fight a duel. We are all entitled to hear the argument from both sides of the House. I call the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I had not quite finished answering the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

§ Mr. Speaker
The Minister was not answering, he was entering into an argument.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
If the hon. Member for Bolsover went out and spoke to those who earn their living from the livestock industry, he would welcome what has been achieved on foot and mouth, which is a victory.

§ Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)
In view of the report today that European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to refuse to refund over £400 million of the oversubscription to the Common Market, will the Department seriously examine the way that CAP is being operated?
Has the hon. Gentleman seen the article in The Sunday Times magazine last Sunday, which showed mountains of 304 tomatoes, peaches and cauliflowers being destroyed in this country and in Europe? People cannot afford to buy them because of the high price policy. Starving millions could do with the food but because of the crazy agricultural policy cannot benefit from it.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, under this Government, the share that the United Kingdom has obtained from the agricultural budget of the Community has doubled.
We deprecate the unnecessary destruction of food, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the amount of food that has been made available, often at reduced prices, to suppliers and consumers in the Community.

§ Mr. Eric Deakins (Waltham Forest)
With regard to New Zealand butter, can the Minister assure the House that the October decision will be implemented? With regard to exports to the Soviet Union, will the Minister confirm that the Council has no influence or control, direct or indirect, over the operations of the management committee? If that is the case, is the Minister prepared to sit back, wring his hands and let the management committee, once more, under the pressure of blackmail from France and Eire, cock a snook at the Council and resume later this month sales of subsidised butter to the Soviet Union?

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the system under which we operate is the same system under which the Government of which he was a member operated. Perhaps if he had taken an interest in agricultural matters then, he would not have put that question and showed such ignorance.
With regard to New Zealand butter, the decision will be implemented. I make it clear that there are ample supplies of New Zealand butter available, which is to the benefit of the British housewife.