HC Deb 22 June 1978 vol 952 cc687-90
2. Mr. Gould

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the developments in establishing a sheepmeat régime.

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

It is too early to express an opinion.

Mr. Gould

Why do we need a sheep-meat regime? Would it simply not push up the prices to something approaching French levels and mean the virtual disappearance of lamb from the British dinner table? Why are the French not being made to dismantle their illegal system of quotas, rather than being permitted to promote a scheme which would be so damaging to the British consumer and to our traditional supplies?

Mr. Silkin

The "we" about which my hon. Friend asks is a bigger "we" than just those of us in the United Kingdom. It includes New Zealand, for example. The difficulty is that the Commission takes the view that if there were a total free trade, which could or might be the result of the French action in the European Court, there would be high prices in the French market and lower consumer prices here. The temptation would be for producers to sell their lamb in the French market, bringing up the price of lamb in this country. That is the danger that the Commission sees. It needs a great deal of examination. It begs a number of questions. I would have thought that the French market would simply saturate itself at a particular level.

Mr. Peter Mills

Will the Minister confirm that, approximately, for every 1 per cent. rise in the price there is a 1 per cent. decrease in consumption, which can be very serious indeed? In his discussions and negotiations in Brussels, will he seek to urge that the French Government deal with the problem of their own sheep-meat production, as it is a social prob- lem, with perhaps grants under the less favoured areas scheme?

Mr. Silkin

I think that the hon. Gentleman has more than one point with which I might agree in the course of negotiations. That is why I say that it really is too early to express an opinion. What I would say is that if there is the likelihood—it may be through legal action; I do not know—of our being forced into having some sort of a regime, the regime must, it seems to me, contain a number of elements for the protection of our own people—to protect our own consumers and producers, and to protect New Zealand. For this purpose, I think that one would need a very long transitional period anyway, and one would need to watch it very closely indeed.

Mr. Raphael Tuck

Does my right hon. Friend think that Mr. Gundelach's recent assurance is reliable—namely, that the introduction of a Community regime for sheepmeat will not involve curbing British imports of New Zealand lamb and butter?

Mr. Silkin

What the Commissioner was talking about was the GATT binding, which ensures that New Zealand lamb comes into the Community. Effectively, it comes into the United Kingdom, as we know, with a 20 per cent. tariff. The only way, says the Commissioner, in which one could get rid of that—he would say that this is reassurance to New Zealand—would be by offering an alternative. The only alternative that one could reasonably offer the New Zealanders is to take more butter or more cheese, and neither of these does the rest of the Community want.

Mr. Peyton

Is the Minister aware that his statement of objectives, which he produced only in his reply just now, is perfectly acceptable to me? But what worries many people is that once a regime is established there is no need for unanimity in order to change it. This would be a source of very great anxiety both here and in New Zealand. I hope that the Minister will take every opportunity—I am sure that he will—to remind the Commission that the real objective of the European Community is to strengthen the free world, and that this should not be lost sight of. Hon Members may laugh, but there is nothing ridiculous in this. This fine objective should not be lost sight of in rather muddy bargaining.

Mr. Silkin

I think that saving the free world is a little outside my departmental remit at present. I think that it is enough to try to save sheepmeat if I can.

I share the right hon. Gentleman's worries. I think that he is on to a good point. As he knows, there are ways and means by which one can say "No", even if one is one of nine. On perhaps one matter, anyway, I think that I have his support. I agree with him that it is a very difficult question. I am very conscious, too, that I shall not always be there. I might have successors.

Mr. D. E. Thomas

Will the Minister accept, on the subject of saving, that he should consider now, in the negotiations, the fact that the guaranteed price system which has operated so effectively for both consumers and producers in the United Kingdom should not be replaced in negotiations on a Community regime?

Mr. Silkin

The guarantee has played a very strong part and I understand it very well. That is why I said at the beginning that it was too early to express an opinion. There are so many facets to this matter and there is so much that we need to save.

While on the subject, perhaps, I may re-emphasise that the main reason for this is that we have more sheep than anybody else in the Community; indeed, more than the whole of the Community put together—and, incidentally, more than the United States and Canada put together. So we have an interest in the matter.

Mr. Stoddart

I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend's remarks, but is he aware that I would have much preferred it if he had made a firm statement that he would not agree to a sheepmeat regime in any circumstances? Does he realise that if a sheepmeat regime were introduced it would adversely affect not only our consumers; it would be devastating to New Zealand farmers and to 30 per cent. of the population associated with sheepmeat, and to shippers and insurance people as well?

Mr. Silkin

I have always had very much in mind the interests of New Zealand as well as those of our own produc- ers and consumers. I have said many times in the House that the debt that is owed to New Zealand is not just one of history; it is one of kinship and of principle. We have to see that that debt remains paid.