HC Deb 22 July 1977 vol 935 cc2048-59

11.7 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin)

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to report to the House on the outcome of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 18th-19th July, at which I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the discussions on fisheries and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for those on agriculture.

On the future common fisheries policy the Commission rejected the United Kingdom case for extended exclusive zones for the firshemen of costal member States. We warned that unless there was agreement on an exclusive zone of 12 miles with a dominant preference for our firshermen within the zone from 12 to 50 miles we would return to our original demand for an exclusive zone of up to 50 miles. We also re-emphasised our right to take unilateral conservation measures where appropriate. The discussion will be resumed in October. I must frankly say to the House that the Commission's attitude at this meeting was disappointing.

It was agreed that a Community ban should be reimposed on fishing for herring in the North Sea. This will replace the United Kingdom national meaures which we imposed in our own waters following the failure of the Council on 27th June to reach agreement. This Community ban will extend until the end of September and will be discussed further at the September Council. The Government are determined that it will continue thereafter.

Satisfactory quotas for 1977 for the West of Scotland herring stock, provisionally agreed at the June Council, will now come into operation very soon.

The Council agreed to reimpose from 1st September until 15th October the ban on fishing for Norway pout in the area of the North Sea in which such a ban had operated until the end of March.

The Council discussed a proposal from the Commission that the cif price for New Zealand butter and cheese imported under Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession should be increased by 10 per cent. In view of the length of time since the previous increase, we stressed that an early decision was needed. It was agreed that a definitive decision would be taken at the Council's next meeting in September after the necessary scrutiny of the figures at official level.

On the labelling of milk products we have reached agreement that, contrary to the earlier proposal, the terms "dairy ice cream" and "ice cream" which are now used in the United Kingdom should continue unchanged. However, some relatively minor technical points remain unsolved, and the draft regulation will be considered again in September.

We again emphasised the need for a change in the method of calculation of monetary compensatory amounts on pig-meat.

Mr. Jopling

We are grateful to the Minister for coming here on what is a sad day but a day that will be remembered as one on which it has been shown that honour is still a feature of public life in this country.

We welcome the Minister's announce-meant about the ban on industrial fishing for herring and the ban on herring fishing in the North Sea. Is the Minister confident that the ban will extend beyond September? Has he taken note of the effect of this ban, together with the greatly reduced opportunities for our distant and middle water fleets, on our remaining inshore waters? Is he aware of the likely pressure on North Sea stocks of whiting and haddock and on stocks of mackerel on the South Coast? Is he aware that South-West waters are likely to look like the Serpentine on a Saturday afternoon, with the possibility of more than twice the estimated sustainable catch of 240,000 tonnes being taken out by British vessels alone? Has he anything planned to preserve these stocks, such as a ban on purse seining?

The Minister is belatedly pursuing the interests of our beleaguered pig industry. Will he confirm that the price demanded for New Zealand cheese has increased by 28 per cent. and for butter by 24 per cent.? Do not these demands show how dangerous it is to speak of masses of cheap food available round the world?

I should like to comment on the way in which the Minister has conducted the negotiations this week and in previous months. We have not been in on the negotiations so it is difficult for us to join in the attacks on the Minister. We have read about attacks on his manner and attitude and their damaging effects on the British interest. The attacks have come from certain Commissioners and knowledgeable journalists. They are summed up in the July edition of Green Europe, which hon. Members who protest about the attacks might like to study.

Will the Minister spend the summer pondering whether his approach has been influenced by his anti-European instincts and whether that is the right approach? Will he remember that he is negotiating not for a small group but for Britain?

Mr. Silkin

I shall answer the detailed questions rather than deal with the polemics of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). It is our intention to ensure that the ban continues beyond September. On a number of occasions I have said clearly to the House that where the Community is unable or unwilling to institute proper conservation measures we shall be forced —and, indeed, we are determined—to introduce our own unilateral measures. There can be no question about that.

I agree that there is great difficulty, particularly for those who must switch from fishing herring to other types of fishing. The hon. Member for Westmorland is correct to point out the difficulties that may occur over the fishing of mackerel. I made the same point a few weeks ago in a statement to the House. This matter, like purse seining and beam trawling, is under constant review.

I am sorry that the hon. Member thinks that my assistance to the pig industry is belated. I seem to recall introducing unilateral aid for pig farmers. Let me remind the hon. Member exactly how much that aid was. Before I was stopped, it amounted to £17 million. I do not regard that as either belated or insignificant.

I do not accept what the hon. Member said about butter and cheese. The present New Zealand cif price is 46 per cent. of the common intervention price. With the increase suggested, it should go up to the princely percentage of 51 per cent. That does not strike me as an illustration of very dear food coming in. The reverse is true. In the period since the last New Zealand increase in price no fewer than three increases in the common intervention price have occurred—in April 1976, September 1976 and as recently as May 1977.

The question of attacks was dealt with a long time ago by Abraham Lincoln. He said that if he were to reply, let alone read, all the attacks made on him the shop might well be closed for any other business. He said that he did the best he could and that he meant to go on doing it to the end.

Mr. Jay

Do not the offensive remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) come ill from a member of a party which got us into this situation?

Does my right hon. Friend recall that last winter we were promised that we would obtain at least some concession in Icelandic fishing waters? Is it not clear that since we handed the negotiations over to the skills of the Commission absolutely nothing has happened?

Mr. Silkin

I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) back in his place. I wish him well. I do not pretend to be a psychologist or a psychiatrist and I cannot, therefore, analyse the motives of Opposition Members. I do not regard the Commission's negotiations over Iceland as one of the great success stories of our time.

Mr. Powell

Is it not the case that in the Council of Ministers the right hon. Gentleman is representing the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, and that canting references to the standard of public life from the so-called Conservatives on the Opposition Front Bench are no substitute for the maintenance and defence of the national interests of this country? Is it not true that the Council proved unwilling to consider even a 12-mile exclusive coastal belt—an ill omen for the likelihood of a reasonable settlement to cover the minimum requirements of this country? If the Minister finds it necessary to revert to this country's previous proposition, will he make it a requirement for a 50-mile limit as such, without qualification?

Mr. Silkin

I am grateful for what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said. I am dominated by the right to advocate United Kingdom interests. That is what I assume I am here for, and nothing else. I have been asked about my general attitude to fishing limits. I hope that I have said frankly to the House, on the last two occasions particularly, that it seemed to me that we had to say that we were prepared to be flexible if other members of the Community were. However, if they were not, we must reserve our rights. On that basis I stand.

Mr. Grimond

Perhaps it would be in order to utter a word of appreciation and sympathy for our colleague who has left us.

The Minister has made an extremely serious statement. Is he aware that we still need a 50-mile limit and that a proposal for a 12-mile limit with dominant preference does not meet the needs of the industry? Is he aware that if he resists the present proposals he will have the wholehearted support of hon. Members of my party and of the industry in taking a tough line in the autumn?

I do not complain about the herring ban, but it will have a peculiar and disastrous effect in Shetland, because the processers cannot get any herring from the West Coast and they will go out of business. Will the Minister consider paying compensation or operating a small quota system so that these local people can remain in business?

Mr. Silkin

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I reiterate the first remark that he made, which was not connected with my statement.

As to the question of the 50 miles, 1 want to make it clear that it is not a dominant preference for 12 miles. It is an exclusive right for 12 miles coupled with a dominant preference, which, on the terms that I reported to the House, gave us a sufficiency of fish and a dominant control. As far as the remainder of the fish was concerned, it seemed to me, doing the sums, that there was enough for others. It was on that basis. It seemed to me that that was a flexible approach. However, I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if we were reasonable and others were not prepared to be, it would be time to consider our own position. It is certainly that pondering which the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr Jopling) asked me to do—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember—that I shall spend my time doing during the summer.

As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, I fully understand the difficulties. I have a great deal of sympathy with them in this regard. I am afraid that I do not agree with the idea of quotas, because we are really faced with the possible extinction of the herring stock, and that I am not prepared to countenance.

As to the other points that the right hon. Gentleman made, I shall certainly discuss them with my right. hon. Friend.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the support of not only the Government side of the House but of every sensible person in this country in his defence of British interests? Is he also aware that we are becoming increasingly sick of the squalid attacks of Opposition Members who do not seem to be at all concerned with the interests of the British? Has he ever made an estimate of the man-hours spent by his civil servants and himself, and the cost to the British taxpayer, in considering absolutely stupid regulations, such as the exclusive use of the description "ice cream", which are at present costing a small fortune for no obvious or real reason?

Mr. Silkin

Such an estimate might itself be rather costly. However, I agree with the general tenor of what my hon. Friend says. The truth of the matter is that absurd bureaucratic regulations of this sort, which in the end—the House should realise this—result in a decision that is not very different from one that we ourselves have been imposing under our own national law for years, are an illustration of what my hon. Friend means.

Mr. Donald Stewart

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his manner and attitude in these negotiations has the full approval of my hon. Friends and myself? [Interruption.] I may say in passing that it is very odd that opponents of Scottish independence should be so keen on throwing away the independence of their own country.

On the question of conservation, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the two vessels in my fleet, and possibly some others in other parts of the country, which fish for herring by drift net only and which, by the nature of their operations, are conservationists and have been all along'? Will he keep that type of vessel in mind?

Mr. Silkin

In the interests of brevity —because I did not think that the House wanted a long report—I omitted rather detailed points. However, the right hon. Gentleman's question is very important. I can tell him that I raised this question relating not only to his two small fishing vessels but to small fishing vessels fishing really small amounts of fish, in Ireland, for example, and other parts of the Community, and I shall continue to press the matter.

Mr. Jim Spicer

The Minister has made clear that he is fully aware of the threat faced by the mackerel industry in the South-West. He must also be aware that trawlers in the North-East and in Scotland are fitting out for the sole purpose of moving into the waters of the South-West. Will he give an undertaking that if this move takes place he will examine very quickly the possibility of giving absolute priority to the West Country fishermen in those waters, who depend for their sole means of livelihood on the existence of mackerel in those areas?

Mr. Silkin

Yes, Sir, but the question of getting a proper balance of such fishing within our own waters depends upon our asserting our rights to have the exclusive control of those waters.

Mr. John Ellis

Did my right hon. Friend note the muted support that he received when he made his announcement on fishing, and the comments made by Opposition Members, and then the Opposition Front Bench attacking him on the principle of his being a bad European? It is they who put him in the straitjacket and then cavil when he stands up for this country. As such, they should be dismissed.

On a serious note, will the prospective increase in the price of butter have any effect on the price to the British consumer?

Mr. Silkin

This is a very important point and I have to make it absolutely clear to the House. The increase in New Zealand prices proposed, as I have said, only brings them up to 51 per cent. of the common intervention price anyway. The effect in the shops of this country and, therefore, to British housewives would be nil, as a result of a reduction in levies, and this has always been, as my hon. Friend knows, part of our policy.

Mr. Temple-Morris

Does the right hon. Gentleman fully realise—this is not the purport of my original question, but I am driven to it by Labour Members—that we need things out of the Common Market and that it is Government policy to remain in the Common Market, not least concerning the reform of the common agricultural policy? Unless we go in as Europeans, that policy will never be reformed.

I add to that my original question. What is to happen if anything, about marketing boards for milk and potatoes? That is another question on which we need progress.

Mr. Silkin

I suppose that there are two methods of trying to obtain United Kingdom interests. One is to sit back and do nothing but agree with others. I do not regard that as the correct method. The other is to make very clear what our own interests are and to seek to obtain those, and to point out, sometimes with a certain strength of feeling, if necessary, and, perhaps, even vocabulary, what those interests are.

The hon. Gentleman has given us an example of the marketing boards. I have not the slightest intention of letting any EEC calm relationship get in the way of getting that for ourselves.

Mr. Christopher Price

Is my right hon. Friend aware that to some of us in the European Assembly his forthright style in these matters appears to be in the best interests of not only the United Kingdom but all the eight other countries, because it brings a degree of clarity to situations which otherwise are covered with obfuscation and bumbledom? Is he further aware that the quotation read by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is just part of a paper mountain of drivel produced in Brussels commenting on these things, which is best consigned to the waste-paper basket?

On a particular point, is my right hon. Friend aware that we need to be very worried indeed about the whole future of access of New Zealand products to Britain, because there is a very strong lobby in Europe that would attempt to solve its dairy problems in Europe by trying to exclude, completely and for ever, New Zealand products from Britain, and we have a very special responsibility?

Mr. Silkin

I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. On New Zealand products, I absolutely agree with him. Indeed, it is more than that. It is not only a special duty, it is a special kinship and a special affection. It is our job to see that that is maintained.

Mr. Crouch

Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any hope at all for the big farmers of this country—many of whom are in my constituency—who are rightly disgruntled because some of them who are not mixed farmers but solely pig farmers are going bankrupt and out of business? Parliament is running out of time. Is there any chance that before the Summer Recess the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some hope to pig farmers, even if it is only something little?

Mr. Silkin

The difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is that it is not a matter that we can decide by ourselves. It was the solution that I tried to get earlier this year in January, when I knew that the situation had become as difficult as it is. All I can say is that we shall have to keep trying. I would not give any odds on what the final decision of the European Court will be, but that will not be until after the recess, I am afraid.

Mr. Body

I recognise that the Minister is trying to permit continuing access for dairy products from New Zealand, but is he aware that the Australian Prime Minister told an audience in this country recently that no less a proportion than one-third of the dairy farmers of Australia had been driven out of business as a result of our entry to the EEC? Does he think that there is any chance of pressing his friends in the Council of Ministers to accept that it is wicked folly to drive out of business so many thousands of the most efficient farmers in the world, at a time when other people are asserting that there may be a shortage of dairy products or an increase in their price?

Secondly, will the Minister confirm that pigmeat MCAs cannot be adjusted unless all his colleagues on the Council of Ministers unanimously agree to that course of action? Does he believe it likely that those who represent the Danish and Dutch pig producers are likely to agree to his proposal to realign the MCAs so long as they have a glut of pigmeat in their own countries which they want to export over here to the disadvantage of our own pig producers?

Mr. Silkin

On the second question the hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. My hon. Friend made a very convincing and what I thought was an extremely forceful speech on the question of re-calculation of pigmeat MCAs, and he got some support, notably from Italy. But my Danish colleague was absolutely clear and absolutely resolute. I understand his point of view. He was dealing with Danish national interests.

With regard to the first question, I have decided that my first major tour—Ministers of Agriculture undertake a tour every year—will be to Australia and New Zealand, next month. I intend to continue the discussions that I had with the Australian Prime Minister and the New Zealand Prime Minister very much along the lines that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) suggested.

Mr. Nott

Is the Minister aware that there is great concern about mackerel stocks in the South-West, and that there is perhaps not quite as much optimism there as among his advisers about the future of mackerel stocks? What considerations are going on in the Community about conservation in this part of the Community? Is any consideration going on of restrictions on the use of gear and nets, for instance? Will the Minister bring us up to date on the present situation?

Mr. Silkin

My advisers are by no means optimistic. Indeed, nor am I. I told the House on the last occasion, or the time before that, that the herring industry is absolutely threatened and the mackerel fishing might very well follow. There is no optimism about it. On the contrary, we all accept the need to maintain a close watch and promote conservation measures where necessary. The Commission is currently considering a number of conservation measures, very much on the lines that the hon. Gentleman has put to us, for example, on the size of nets and things like purse seining and such methods of fishing.

The difficulty is always that the Commission makes a proposal and then one has to get the nine member States to agree to that proposal. That is why it is vital that we reserve our national right to introduce conservation measures in our own waters if the Community itself is unwilling or unable to do so.

Mr. Hurd

Does the Minister accept that it is not really good enough to ride off criticisms of his tactics by saying that he is standing up for British interests? [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] That is not the question. Of course he should stand up for British interests, but the question that he should ask himself is whether the tactics that he chooses are always the right ones to protect national interests. It seems to us that there is clear and overwhelming evidence now that —not always, but on many occasions—the tactics that the Minister chooses are not the ones that best protect national interests. If he wants evidence of that he should consult the scientists at Culham, where a major British interest has apparently suffered because of the Minister's ham-handed tactics on another matter.

Does the Minister accept that what I am saying is intended to be helpful? Opposition Members share his objective, which is often stated, of having a substantial reform of the common agricultural policy. During the summer will he consider whether some revision of his tactics will be required if we are to have any hope of achieving the revision at which he rightly aims?

Mr. Silkin

There are a number of ways in which the United Kingdom is different—in its interests, in its history, and in its politics—from the other eight member States. One difference is that it is the only country in which the Minister, when he stands up for the interests of his own country, is attacked in his own Parliament. I hope that the House and the country will be aware of the direction from which that line of attack comes.

I do not think that I have to justify my own tactics on the basis of whether every single one of them will achieve the successful outcome that one would like. I believe that that would be a totally childish point of view. What I have to do is to look back and see what has been achieved in the past six months, however small. We are in a straitjacket, as I have always maintained. I have to ask whether those achievements would have been gained if I had adopted any other tactics. My conscience is totally clear about that.

Mr. Mikardo

Arising out of the last question, does my right hon. Friend realise that I for one would be very happy to leave to the judgment of anybody who has heard the exchanges here this morning the question whether it is my right hon. Friend or the Opposition who would be the best judges of how to handle British interests in Europe?