Beef and Sheepmeat (Hansard, 14 February 1985)

§ 3. Sir Hector Monro
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the beef premium and the sheepmeat regime.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor)
In its proposals for the 1985 common agricultural policy price fixing the Commission has made no provision for keeping the beef variable premium scheme. I believe that the scheme has served producers and consumers well and, in the current market situation for beef, should be maintained. As in previous years, we shall be pressing for its continuation. As to the sheepmeat regime, it has worked reasonably well but we shall continue to seek changes which will make it easier for our lamb to be exported to the rest of the Community and which will improve the stability of the home market.

§ Sir Hector Monro
Is my hon. Friend aware of the crucial importance of these two subsidies to the livestock areas of the west and north? Is he further aware that, without those subsidies, income from the hills of the west and north will be affected disastrously and that he must make every conceivable effort to ensure that the subsidies are maintained this year and in the future?

§ Mr. MacGregor
We had a tremendous struggle last year on the beef variable premium scheme, but my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister was highly successful in maintaining that scheme, albeit in a somewhat changed form. We shall do everything that we can to persuade other member states of the merits of the scheme, which we believe benefits both producers and 466 consumers and reduces the need for costly intervention. We shall resist any changes to the sheepmeat regime that discriminate against our producers.

§ Mr. Nicholson
I welcome the Minister's firm declaration in support of the beef variable premium scheme. I assure him that it has the support of farmers in Northern Ireland, who recognise the great need for it. In view of the continuing delay in the payment of the 1984–85 ewe premium, will he ensure that an interim payment is made to alleviate the hardship that is felt especially by hill livestock producers?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the schemes. As for the delay in payment, I think that he is talking about the rates of advance payment in less-favoured areas. I know that they are important to farmers at this time of year, but a new method of calculation, which we do not believe is quite right, has been introduced. It is important that we get it right. There have been discussions this week on the advance payment issue, and I hope that there will be progress on the matter before too long.

§ Mr. Cockeram
Does my hon. Friend accept that both the beef premium and the sheepmeat regime are vital to the continued viability of farming in hill areas, not merely around Ludlow, but elsewhere? Does he agree that if the two schemes were to be ended it would be a sad day, because many hill farms would cease to be viable?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that he also welcomed the improvements in the hill livestock compensatory amounts last year for hill farmers, in that they are now also payable in marginal areas.

§ Mr. Strang
Is it not scandalous that yet again the variable premium is under threat? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that it continues and seek to establish it on a permanent basis, so that year in, year out we are not threatened with its removal?

§ Mr. MacGregor
The problem is that the scheme is not permanent and it was not this Government who negotiated the position of not making it a permanent scheme. It is difficult to get the beef variable premium on the table every year. As I said, we did it last year, and we continue to believe that it is not in the Community's interest to end the scheme.

Mr. Andy Stewart
In view of the speech of the president of the National Farmers Union on Tuesday, when he claimed that every success in agriculture, including the retention of the beef variable premium scheme, was due to the union and every failure was due to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would my hon. Friend care to put the record straight?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was entirely due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I was pleased to assist, and not to anyone else, that we managed to retain the beef variable premium scheme.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
In addition to the threat emanating from the European Community Commission's proposals on the sheepmeat regime, will the Minister take careful account of the problem faced particularly by Scottish producers because they do not have access to the new qualifying group of animals?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am not sure precisely what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. One or two points are worth taking up with the Commission, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the matter.

§ Sir John Farr
Is my hon. Friend aware that although most beef producers have received the beef premium for most of the weeks of the present year, beef has still been largely unprofitable and people are already leaving beef production? Will he do whatever he can to ensure that the scheme, which is so valuable, continues, otherwise, with the milk quota production, whole sections of the British countryside will change their character as people leave horn and find an alternative?

§ Mr. MacGregor
Both the variable premium scheme and the changes in the intervention system have had a beneficial effect on the market this year, in that the returns to the producers have been about 98 per cent. of the target price. I repeat that the variable premium scheme is beneficial to both producers and consumers and ensures that beef is consumed instead of going into intervention.

§ Mr. John
Since the schemes are justifiable on their own merits because they benefit producers and consumers, will the Minister resist any attempt to use the retention of the schemes as a lever to get unjust padding in other parts of the common agricultural policy, under which too much subsidy is already paid?

§ Mr. MacGregor
Our position on subsidies for products in surplus is extremely clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are to enter into negotiations, but these have not yet begun. Last year we had considerable difficulties with the schemes, and obviously we shall have to see how we get on in the negotiations.