HL Deb 05 December 1978 vol 397 cc101-4

7.9 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY rose to move, That the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, by itself the order is not particularly easy to understand. I shall try briefly to explain it in relation to the principal order. That principal order is the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1973. As the title implies, its object is to protect funds which may be expended under the common agricultural policy in support of Community régimes. For commodities which are specified in the order, a range of powers are provided to safeguard public funds. They include powers to require the keeping, retention and production of records.

This amending order will ensure that the record-keeping requirements of the 1973 order will apply whether the person or company concerned is acting as a principal or as an agent. The 1973 order clearly applies to a principal in any transaction. But experience has shown that this is not enough and that it is sometimes necessary to require agents to keep the appropriate records and to produce them on demand. It is uncertain whether this can be done under existing powers. Such a gap in the powers could considerably reduce the effectiveness of the 1973 order. Clearly this is detrimental to proper financial control and Article 2 of this amending order ensures that such agents are required to observe the record-keeping requirements of the 1973 order and to produce their records when required to do so by authorised officers.

As I have indicated, the commodities to which the principal order applies are listed in the Schedule to that order. So that when new EEC schemes are introduced for additional commodities they have to be added to the schedule. Otherwise there could be no protection for the new arrangements. This year a new scheme has been introduced by the Community for the incorporation of peas and field beans into compound animal feeding stuffs. The amending order we are considering adds peas and field beans to the schedule of commodities, so extending the protection of the principal order to Community funds paid out by the Intervention Board under this scheme. I commend the order to the House, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)

Earl FORTESCUE

My Lords, we should again like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this order which, as he rightly said, is not self-evident. I should like to ask one or two questions of the Minister. First, what is meant by field beans? One has runner beans, one has broad beans, and one even has baked beans—and I believe that there are some 57 varieties of these! Again, what is meant by peas? There are dried peas, which I think are known as harvest peas, and also vining peas. Are vining peas included in this order? Finally, can the Government be certain that this order will not result in a bean or a pea mountain?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

My Lords, the noble Earl gave me prior notice of the question, which has been extensively covered in briefing, but he caught me out with the one point we had not got, and that is the type of peas. He mentioned beans, and I am going to assume—and I may be incorrect here—that what applies for peas applies for beans. I am grateful for the information received on this important question about peas. Peas covered by the order are any peas used for feedingstuff manufacturing, such as peas surplus to human consumption or not up to standard, but it does not include chick peas. The noble Earl must not ask me what chick peas are because at the moment I have not a clue.

Perhaps the noble Earl really wants to know what is behind this order. I would say that this is a new production aid for peas and field beans used in animal feeding-stuffs. The aim is to enable them to compete with imported soya meal, and this is the important point. It will be paid to animal feed manufacturers who have made contracts to buy peas and field beans at not less than the specified minimum purchase price. Aid will be payable when the price of soya meal falls below a specified activating price; the rate of aid being equivalent to 45 per cent. of the difference between the activating price and the soya market price. As for a mountain of peas and field beans, of course the imagination boggles at that prospect, but I do not think there is any possibility of it.

In view of the terminology issue covering peas, I cannot foresee a mountain arising. Of course this is all involved in a detailed examination of the Common Agricultural Policy which is now under a great deal of argument, and naturally we want to avoid mountains of this type, as indeed it is the Government's intention to avoid any other mountains, whether it be butter or anything else. I do not think that there is any real danger of a mountain of field beans and reject peas. I hope that our cattle and pigs will thoroughly enjoy our fresh product rather than an imported substitute—which I believe some of us are known to eat in sausages.

On Question, Motion agreed to.