HC Deb 19 February 1987 vol 110 cc1043-5
3. Mr. Ralph Howell

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the implications of adopting a policy in the European Economic Community of two-tier pricing.

Mr. Gummer

We have received such representations, many of which point to the likely discrimination against the United Kingdom, of the two-tier pricing system and remark that the leader of the SDP's two-tier pricing policy would mean that only 30 per cent. of British grain would gain Community support, as against as much as 80 per cent. of continental production.

Mr. Howell

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that these proposals have been totally dismissed by the NFU and by its president, Simon Gourlay, as they woud mean that farmers in Britain would miss out tremendously compared with the rest of the European Community? Furthermore, will he give serious consideration to an overall set-aside system to reduce surpluses?

Mr. Gummer

As my hon. Friend knows, we have been pressing the set-aside system in the European Community, and we shall continue to do so. It is now part of the proposals on the socio-economic scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals put forward in the Bledisloe lecture were serious for Britain and would have meant that British farmers would have suffered losses and continental farmers would have gained.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the two-tier principle that is wrong and that once this alliance-backed policy is accepted—it would cut out most British farmers—the argument would no longer be one of principle but only one of degree?

Mr. Gummer

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It is clearly wrong to discourage the most economic producers of cereals. That is not a sensible way to ensure that farming develops properly. The way to deal with the problem of surpluses is to reduce the land area used for growing cereals by enabling people to do something else on marginal land.

Mr. Home Robertson

Whatever else may be said about the two-tier pricing system, it is at least a policy, which is more than can be said for what is coming from the Government. If the shambolic performance last week was actually supposed to be the launch of a policy, does the Minister seriously expect a diversification package worth £25 million to have a significant impact on a surplus problem which is costing the country £1,600 million? I commend to the Government the positive and comprehensive ideas put forward by the Labour party in its Green Paper on agriculture.

Mr. Gummer

It is a little difficult for the hon. Gentleman to commend to us a Labour party Green Paper which was published at the personal expense of the Labour spokesman on agriculture because the party would not pay for it. It is extremely difficult to take that document seriously because, as I understand it, it runs counter to Labour party policy and does not mention the Labour party's proposal to rate agricultural land.

Sir Anthony Grant

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in condemning the foolish two-tier pricing policy of the SDP the president of the National Farmers Union said in effect that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) did not have the faintest idea what he was talking about? Would the right hon. Gentleman not be better informed and make less foolish remarks if he took the trouble to turn up at Question Time when agricultural matters are dealt with?

Mr. Gummer

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that, but I find it even more surprising that at the NFU meeting last week—at which I was present—the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is the alliance spokesman on this subject, told the farmers that the 140-tonne proposal had never been put forward, even though it was in the Bledisloe lecture.