§ 4. Mr. MossTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he next expects to discuss in the EC Agricultural Council proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy.
§ 6. Mr. David NicholsonTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest developments in negotiations over the common agricultural policy.
§ 9. Mr. EvennettTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the latest proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy from the European Commission.
§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer)I expect the next discussion in the Agriculture Council to take place on 23 and 24 September. I will then place on record again our opposition to those parts of the MacSharry plan that discriminate against British agriculture, northern agriculture, specialist agriculture, efficient agriculture, the interests of the consumer, European agricultural ability to compete with the rest of the world, and use the reform not to reform agriculture itself, but to put forward Mr. MacSharry's personal views.
§ Mr. MossWhen my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. MacSharry, will he extend an invitation to him to meet my fen arable farmers in north-east Cambridgeshire—preferably under tight security—to explain to them the Irish logic of his proposals? His suggestions mean that they will be expected to take a cut of 35 per cent. for their cereal prices without any compensation, whereas small farmers in Ireland, Greece, Germany and France will be adequately compensated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are the economics of the madhouse and that the livelihoods of my constituents would be decimated to protect the incomes of less efficient farmers in Europe?
§ Mr. GummerClearly, those proposals are not acceptable, because they discriminate against successful farmers in the United Kingdom and in other countries. The proposals were best summed up in the editorial in The Sun, which stated that the scheme, which was designed to control costs in the future, involved spending an extra £4 billion now. The Sun comments:
More savings like that and we are all ruined.
§ Mr. David NicholsonMy right hon. Friend deserves congratulations and encouragement on maintaining his resistence to proposals which, by imposing an upper limit of 90 head for the beef and suckler cow premium and 750 head in the less-favoured areas for the ewe premium, will greatly damage farmers in my constituency, in Somerset and in the rest of the south-west. When will the European Community start trying to raise the standards in France, Germany and the Mediterranean countries to the standards of efficiency and structure which prevail in Britain, rather than penalising British farmers?
§ Mr. GummerMy hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the plans before us would uniquely discriminate against those producing sheepmeat in the United Kingdom. They would be particularly damaging to farmers in Wales, Scotland and the Lake district. No group of farmers deserve discrimination, but that group of 485 farmers is particularly vulnerable. We have sought to help it through special measures, but it is now suggested that that group should be uniquely discriminated against. That must not happen.
§ Mr. EvennettDoes my right hon. Friend agree that those ridiculous proposals would mean an increase of nearly 20 per cent. to the taxpayer and would do very little to affect the price of bread to our constituents? My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) has spoken about the 35 per cent. cut in the cereal price. If that became operational, would it be followed by a 35 per cent. reduction in the price of bread to my constituents in Erith and Crayford?
§ Mr. GummerThe standard loaf, at a price of 65p, uses wheat worth 8.5p—that is the payment to the farmer. If the cost of the standard loaf were cut by 10 per cent.—one newspaper has suggested that that would be the result of the proposals—the payment to the farmer would have to be reduced to 2p, which is clearly impossible. It has been suggested that the MacSharry package would be helpful to the consumer, but that is not so. All the evidence is that the discrimination would result in higher rather than lower prices.
§ Mr. William RossIs the Minister aware that in his initial response he said no so often, so firmly and with such good reason that I thought that he had joined the Unionist party? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the term "extensive" farming is simply another name for low-level, inefficient production, which would fly in the face of all that we have done in this country for many years? Does he also agree that one does not make the less efficient viable by crucifying the efficient? In the GATT negotiations, will he bear it in mind that we cannot open our doors to all the surpluses of the world, which would destroy all that we have laboured for in this country for so many years? Those who have food surpluses should have a duty to world agriculture.
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman will not lead me down the dangerous path of discussing internal Unionist politics. I am one of those who wish that the Unionist party would sometimes say something other than no.
We in the European Community have proposed in the GATT round a proposition that would be extremely difficult for our farmers to bear, but which would be bearable at the pace at which we have put it forward. I believe that other countries should recognise what a very important offer we have made. I do not believe that it is possible for the European Community to move far from that proposition, because it would then not be possible to bear. Our farmers deserve that other countries should recognise what is on offer and take it. We need a GATT agreement if we are to obtain the extra world trade that we all seek—that is, an agreement that can be borne by those who produce the food and look after the land.
§ Mr. Alex CarlileDoes the Minister accept that his answer to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) ought to be widely welcomed by all the farming unions in Wales? Will he confirm that he regards Welsh sheep farmers, whom he helpfully mentioned a few moments ago, as a specialist sector particularly worthy of support? Does he agree that one aspect that ought to receive attention is the establishment 486 of European Community standard abattoirs available to specialist sheep farmers in Wales to enable them to sell their dead produce abroad?
§ Mr. GummerI am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that it will be much easier to achieve movement on abattoirs and European standards now that, at long last, we have got the standards. We have been very much held up by the length of the negotiations. We hope now to move as soon as possible on that front.
Newspaper reports that suggest that there are those who think that Welsh farmers would benefit from Mr. MacSharry's proposals, must be based on very slim knowledge of what those proposals mean. The report to which some newspapers have referred says precisely the opposite. It points out that under the present headage limits, Welsh farmers would suffer very considerably, particularly those in central Wales.
§ Dr. David ClarkMay I assure the Minister that the Labour party shares the view that the MacSharry proposals, including the proposal to increase the cost of the common agricultural policy, will be unacceptable to the British people? Does he appreciate that although it is all very well for him to get excited and tell us what he is against, the House has a right to ask what he is in favour of? Does he not think that he would be taken more seriously by the farmers and taxpayers of Britain if he tabled his own counter-proposals and built on the environmental proposals in the MacSharry plan? If he did that, he would begin to determine the scope of the debate instead of allowing other people to dominate it.
§ Mr. GummerI know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-time supporter of the Common Market safeguards committee and who hates the European Community, to come to the House and admit publicly that he does not understand how the European Community works. There is no way in which counter-proposals may be tabled.
My views have been made perfectly clear. The five basic points of reform that we want have been repeated time and again, both here and in the Agriculture Council, and they are gaining considerable support from my fellow Ministers of Agriculture. The one thing that this House has learnt over many months is that the Opposition spokesman on agriculture knows so little about the European Community that he finds it difficult to give advice to anyone.
§ Mr. LordWill my right hon. Friend confirm that a 35 per cent. reduction in support for cereal farmers is ludicrous and would be absolutely disastrous for them? Are not the negotiations on agriculture becoming a war of attrition and resulting in lower profits for our farmers? May I urge my right hon. Friend to come up with radical new proposals for reforming the common agricultural policy so that our farmers can see that they have a future in agriculture, instead of having to engage in a continuing battle against what seems to be a continuing decline?
§ Mr. GummerMy hon. Friend must surely agree that it would be acceptable, particularly within the context of GATT, to reduce direct price support, so long as we are able to help farmers by means of more direct and money-saving ways at the same time. What is objectionable about the MacSharry proposal is that about 90 per cent. of farmers would not have the reduction. The 487 reduction would therefore be borne, not only as to their own percentage but to cover that which ought to be carried by others, by the 10 per cent. who remain. What is wrong with the proposal is that the compensation goes to some but not to others and that the cut is borne largely by efficient farmers, many of whom are in the United Kingdom.