Common Agricultural Policy (Hansard, 19 December 2002)

§ 1. Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe)
What proposals she has to reform the common agricultural policy; and if she will make a statement. [86762]

§ The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
The European Commission published proposals for reform of the CAP in July and we expect it to come forward with formal legislative proposals in January 2003. We support the Commission's general approach of market reform, the removal of the link between production and subsidies, and a shift in support towards wider rural development and agri-environment measures.

§ Mr. Goodman
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. She says she supports the general approach of the Commission. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that the Government oppose the Commission's specific proposal to put a 988 ceiling on payments to individual holdings which would penalise British farmers? Will she make that commitment?

§ Margaret Beckett
Yes, we made it plain from the outset, when the proposals were first announced, that we not only oppose the ceiling on the payments at the top and the franchise at the bottom, but have found, as the only member state with much experience of a modulation scheme—about which many people have reservations—that what made it work at all was a simple scheme that was fair to everyone and easily understood. That is what we are recommending to the Commission.

§ Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time seriously to consider the abolition of the CAP and its replacement with national regimes of agricultural policy? Is it not appropriate to examine now the fiscal implications across the EU of such an abolition?

§ Margaret Beckett
I understand why my hon. Friend makes that point, but I cannot agree that it would be better to have national schemes. Indeed, one thing that has bedevilled our pursuit of reform is that every time someone says that we need to reform the CAP, those who do not want reform say, "Ah! You just want to return to a national scheme." With great respect, I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that road.

§ Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon)
Given the horrific impact of the CAP on some of the poorest people in the world, which arises because it does not allow them access to our markets and prevents them from having a proper reciprocal and fair agreement, are developing countries represented at every level at talks on CAP reform? If they are not, should they not be?

§ Margaret Beckett
I understand why my hon. Friend makes that point, and I know that she is involved in much work on the issue. Developing countries do not per se have specific representation at such talks. In a sense, it is inevitable that they would not at this stage because the negotiations are between members that subscribe to the existing CAP. My hon. Friend is certainly right, however, that it is important for the wider interests—not least those of the EU as a whole—in and outside the agricultural sector to be taken into account.

§ Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that quite a large number of Agriculture Ministers, her colleagues and some significant voices in Brussels regard the mid-term review as a salvage operation, not a bold and radical reform? In particular, they regard the proposals to levy the production aid to farmers to benefit rural development as dead in the water. What steps does the right hon. Lady intend to take between now and the publication of the detailed plans and thereafter to ensure that there is still momentum behind the reforms, especially on the part of the French and Germans, who obviously have a key role to play?

§ Margaret Beckett
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the French and Germans have a key 989 role to play. On the other matter that he raises, I take his point; I have heard people describe the present state of negotiations in that way. However, there is a large element of wishful thinking in that because those who least want reform are most eager to say that there will be no reform. For my part, I do not believe that the position has changed significantly except that we now have a firm ceiling on the budget. I certainly take the view that there is much interest in all member states in being able to do more, to do different things and to have less bureaucracy on rural development and the wider rural economy, and that I find encouraging.

§ Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)
In view of the agreement reached primarily between the French and Germans at the recent summit, does the right hon. Lady still believe that it will be possible within the CAP ceilings to afford the transformation of the dairy regime and the move out of quotas, to which the Government are committed?

§ Margaret Beckett
Yes, I do believe that that will still be possible. What is much more to the point, however, is that Commissioner Fischler believes that it is still possible. It will not be easy and is by no means certain, but it is certainly possible.

§ Mr. Lidington
On a slightly different but CAP-related point, may I invite the Secretary of State to send a Christmas message to her French counterpart to say that the CAP depends crucially on mutual trust and the observance by all parties of the rules of a genuine common market, and that that trust will be seriously damaged if France persists with its plan to impose new controls on British lamb exports, which are due to come into force on 1 January? The French beef ban did tremendous harm to our livestock industry. The new controls would do the same. What representations is the right hon. Lady making?

§ Margaret Beckett
For once, I am in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman. He is right—[Interruption.] Peace and good will, on this at least. He is right that the beef ban did great harm to the livestock industry, and worse still, it damaged mutual confidence and trust within the European Union. That is never healthy in an organisation of member states. However, we continue in firm dialogue with the French and with the Commission about the beef ban, and we have continued to emphasise the fact that further unilateral action would be damaging to mutual trust and confidence.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there have been substantial moves. We continue to discuss with our French colleagues the proposal that came from their food standards agency some considerable time ago. There has been substantial change in the proposals that they now envisage, and those would apply not only to the British industry, but to the French industry. Needless to say, that is causing some reaction. The position is not as it was, but I share the hon. Gentleman's view that unilateral action is not good.