CAP Budget (Hansard, 1 July 1999)

§ 5. Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
If he will make a statement about growth in the CAP budget over the period 2000 to 2006. [87918]

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown)
The spending limits agreed at the Heads of Government conference at Berlin mean that after an initial increase, common agricultural policy costs will, for the first time, fall year on year in real terms from 2002 onwards.

§ Mr. Forth
Does the Minister recall that early in March the Prime Minister was making it clear that he was completely dissatisfied with the deal that was then being hatched? Yet two or three weeks later, mysteriously, the Prime Minister was prepared to have his Government sign up to a deal that was palpably worse than that which he had criticised only a few weeks earlier. Is the Minister satisfied that what is going on in the CAP is remotely in concurrence with World Trade Organisation rules? If not, what will he do if, as a result, we find ourselves with another futile conflict between the European Union and the United States?

§ Mr. Brown
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured a first-rate deal for this country at Berlin. 418 He secured the British rebate and for the first time ever not only constrained the costs of the CAP but got them on a downward trend. That is a substantial achievement. I am surprised that that is not acknowledged by Conservative Members. After all, it is something that they did not manage to achieve.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the agricultural component of the deal that was arranged at Brussels and modified at Berlin. I have made no secret of my view that I think that we shall be revisiting this component before the six years during which it is expected to endure. There will be much to be discussed in the WTO round and collectively we have our ambitions for enlarging the EU, and there are consequences in those ambitions for the current agricultural settlement.

§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)
To take up my right hon. Friend's final point, obviously the CAP was originally designed for six countries. Is he satisfied that arrangements are in place for European Union enlargement, which will have major implications for agriculture throughout Europe?

§ Mr. Brown
I am satisfied with the arrangements that are in place for the next spending period for European enlargement. However, further issues will have to be addressed in the next spending period. It has been my consistent view, as it has been that of the Government—I do not believe that it is a matter of controversy even between the two sides of the House—that we need to start addressing now the way in which the candidate countries can come into not only the EU but the CAP.

§ Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)
The Minister seems to accept that the outcome of the CAP negotiations was an unacceptable fudge, which needs to be revisited. Because of all the uncertainties as a result of the fudged outcome, does the Minister accept that the negotiations should be brought forward, so that the issue of EU enlargement can be properly addressed and the uncertainty resolved as quickly as possible?

§ Mr. Brown
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the impact of enlargement on the current structures of the CAP, but he is mistaken to refer to either the Brussels or the Berlin outcome as a fudge. It was not a fudge. The criticism that can be made of the deal is that it did not go far enough now. The substantial gain for Britain in the deal is that we made a start on reform in each of the commodity regimes, in spite of the fact that the majority of our partners had reservations about going in that direction. We are going in the right direction. The correct criticism—it is one that I would make myself—is that we have not got far enough fast enough.