Butter Sales (Soviet Union) (Hansard, 9 March 1983)

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the announcement yesterday by the European Commission of a decision to renew export subsidies for butter sales to the Soviet Union". The matter is certainly specific, as we are all aware that subsidies for exporting cheap butter to Russia were suspended following the invasion of Afghanistan and that the ban was renewed as a result of the repression of liberty in Poland. Yesterday, the Commission announced that that policy was to be changed.

You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why it is important to allow these special butter subsidies when subsidies are now available to the Soviets for most other foodstuffs and wine. Vast quantities of cheap subsidised wine and food are being exported to the Soviet Union and those sales have rocketed. In 1978, less than 500,000 tonnes were exported, whereas in the three following years exports increased to 1 million tonnes, 2 million tonnes and then, in 1981, 3 million tonnes.

Naturally, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there is continuing public alarm and anxiety about the Soviets getting such vast quantities of food at about half the price that we pay in Britain. That is a continuing issue and nothing that would justify an application under Standing Order No. 9.

The importance of yesterday's decision stems from the fact that the Commission, which is the executive and administration of the Common Market, has taken upon itself the right to reverse a major political decision that was arrived at by member states. The British Government have made clear their utter opposition to the sale of subsidised food exports to the Soviet Union, as have most other member states. I believe that it is of major constitutional and political importance when such decisions and policies are reversed by EC civil servants.

The issue should have urgent consideration because if the House does nothing, British civil servants in the intervention board for agriculture will be obliged, within the next five days, to pay subsidies to any exporter who wishes to send cheap subsidised butter to the Soviet Union. 840 There is no other parliamentary opportunity for the issue to be debated in that limited time. The sums are considerable. In 1981, our civil servants had to pay out to British exporters £7,671,551, the sole purpose of which was to subsidise food for Russia.

There is a strong body of opinion among all parties in the House and the electorate that it is outrageous that we should be forced to pay taxes to ensure that the Soviets receive vast quantities of food and wine at about half the price that we must pay in our shops. That, however, is not the issue on which I want permission to adjourn the House. The issue is simply that the Commission's decision to reverse a political decision of member states is a significant further step towards the erosion of national decision making. Moreover, it is another step away from decisions being made by elected representatives. For that reason, and that reason alone, I believe that this is an important matter which should have urgent consideration. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will approve my application.