Farming Industry (Hansard, 30 October 1986)

§ 1. Mr. Hardy
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the farming industry; and what subjects were discussed.

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling)
I am frequently in touch with representatives of the farming industry on a wide range of agricultural matters.

§ Mr. Hardy
Does the Minister appreciate the great uncertainty that exists in agriculture? Is he aware of the existence of large surpluses and the market decline in land values, which cause farmers great anxiety and feelings of insecurity? Secondly, the Government's commitment to conservation has not led them to present their position with clarity on farm and forest development in environmentally sensitive areas or, for that matter, anywhere else.

§ Mr. Jopling
The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a certain amount of uncertainty throughout agriculture worldwide, where massive surpluses exist and export markets become fewer and fewer. I believe that our work over the past few years in Brussels to return the common agricultural policy to reality and prudence is a move in the right direction. I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments about conservation. He will recall that we have had a warm welcome from both sides of the House and from many other places to our proposals for environmentally sensitive areas. We have specified these areas and we are now negotiating terms with those concerned.

§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the dairying community, and certainly in my constituency, there is strong objection in principle to the imposition of the new statutory inspection charges, and that when there is not objection in principle there is a strong feeling that the charges are too high anyway?

§ Mr. Jopling
I have discussed with the leaders of the various sections of the farmers unions the statutory charges. My hon. Friend will recall that the proposed charge per visit under the milk and dairy regulations will be about £90. That figures will reflect actual costs. It is important to bear in mind that farmers with high standards of hygiene on their farms will be visited only once every three years, or even less frequently. A £90 per visit charge is equivalent to only £30 a year or less for those who have high standards of hygiene on their farms.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Will the Minister confirm the report that was carried on the front page of The Independent that he is to take on the fanning lobby? If it is true that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Departments of Employment and Environment are engaged in secret discussions about alternative land resource use and employment, does he agree that that will increase uncertainty? Will he confirm that the debate is being conducted in secret, and would it not be better to conduct it in public with the National Farmers Union?

§ Mr. Jopling
The Government's policy is to continue to support British agriculture, which has made a massive contribution to our economy for a long time. The hon. Gentleman should not make statements such as he has just made, because agriculture is our finest industry.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Will my right hon. Friend explain, if he can, why he considers it just that farmers should have to pay for inspections that they do not want at a cost of £90 when factories do not have to pay for inspections by factory inspectors or by health and safety inspectors? Why should farmers have to pay when others do not?

§ Mr. Jopling
My hon. Friend will know that the Government took the view that we should make certain charges on certain statutory duties. The National Farmers Union asked us especially whether we could be sure not to make charges for tuberculosis and brucellosis testing. I am aware of the anxieties, but charging is appropriate when the producer derives a benefit. The high quality and reputation of the product helps to maintain consumption, and thus benefits the producer.

§ Mr. John
Has the Minister had raised with him in his discussions the question of intereference by French farmers in the British lamb trade? What steps, beyond writing to his French opposite number and to the President of the Commission, does he propose to take? Will he make it clear in words that even M. Guillaume can understand that the French do not have a unique prescriptive right to strain the CAP rules, and that if we were to respond in kind they would have much more to lose?

§ Mr. Jopling
The hon. Gentleman should know that I have twice spoken to M. Guillaume about the 'hijacking incident. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken to President Mitterrand about the matter. We were both given assurances that fresh and firm instructions would go out to all police authorities and that compensation would be paid.
The House must be in no doubt about the strength of the Government's resolve on this matter. Actions by lawless French producers or interference with imports are absolutely unacceptable to us.

§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
Bearing in mind the Government's oft-stated wish to support farming and the problems caused to the port of Aberdeen as a result of the fall in oil prices, would it not be sensible to insist that all imports of Perrier water should be routed into Britain via Aberdeen, where they would be subjected to chemical analysis? Would that not encourage the French to stop interfering with our sheep?

§ Mr. Jopling
My hon. Friend gives us, in general terms, food for thought. I am sure he agrees that, when we are criticising lawlessness by citizens of France, the last thing that we should do is resort to lawlessness ourselves.