§ 4.13 p.m.
Lord ORAMMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"I beg leave to make a Statement about meetings in Brussels of the Council of Ministers on 30th and 31st January on agriculture and fisheries at which I represented the United Kingdom.
"At the beginning of the fisheries Council on 30th January, I raised the question of the devaluation of the green pound which had been blocked by three delegations the previous day. Accordingly, the Danish President 776 called a special meeting of the Agriculture Council for 31st January.
"In the Agriculture Council, the German delegation confirmed that they did not wish to make a link between the devaluation of the green pound and the fisheries negotiations. However, the German, Netherlands and Belgian delegations explained that they saw some connection between the devaluation and the negotiations on common price levels for 1978–79. I explained the United Kingdom attitude to the negotiations on farm prices in terms identical to those I have used on many occasions in this House.
"Eventually it was agreed that the green pound should be devalued by 7½ per cent., according to the following timetable. For beef and pigmeat, a devaluation of 5 per cent. on 2nd February; the additional 2½ per cent. for these commodities, and 7½ per cent. for milk and milk products, to take effect when the Council's decision on prices and other measures for 1978–79 enters into effect; for all other commodities, the full 7½, per cent. to take effect at the beginning of the marketing year for each commodity.
"I regard this as a very satisfactory outcome. It implements the decision of this House to seek a devaluation of 7½ per cent. It gives substantial immediate help to the pig and beef sectors, which need it, and it defers the adverse effects on consumers of a devaluation for as long as possible; I estimate that the saving to British consumers as a result of the Council decision, by comparison with an immediate across-the-board devaluation, amounts to some £50 million over the next six months, or about £3 on average for every family.
"In the Fisheries Council, agreement was reached authorising the Commission to continue negotiations with third countries on fishing opportunities for 1978.
"There was less progress in discussions on the internal régime, and none of the major issues were resolved. It was clear early in the meeting that agreement on a definitive Common Fisheries Policy would not be possible, and accordingly attention was focussed on the arragements to apply in the meantime.
777 "The Council was unable to agree to a United Kingdom proposal that the existing standstill arrangements should be continued for a further short period. For my part, I could not agree to an alternative proposal to adopt, on a provisional basis, the Commission's latest proposals on quotas, conservation and enforcement, which would have left aside the basic issue of coastal preference and other important issues. I maintained the Government's position that the elements of the Common Fisheries Policy need to be considered as a whole and not adopted piecemeal.
"In the absence of agreement, the Community's so-called standstill arrangement lapsed at midnight last night. Other Member States declared their intention to observe, for the time being, the Commission's proposal on quotas and conservation. I made clear the Government's intention to take action in accordance with agreed procedures to maintain existing conservation measures; our right to take further appropriate unilateral conservation measures is, of course, unimpaired.
"I also made clear the Government's intention to continue to work for a settlement which would meet the United Kingdom's essential requirements."
That is the end of the Statement.
§ 4.19 p.m.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for repeating that Statement. It falls into two parts; one relates to the green pound and the other relates to fisheries; I will deal first with the green pound point. I am sure the whole House will be glad that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has come to an agreement with his European colleagues; this is a welcome step forward. Indeed, the Minister says in his Statement:
I regard this as a very satisfactory outcome. It implements the decision of this House to seek a devaluation of 7½ per cent.".Of course it does nothing of the kind, because although we welcome the agreement, we are dismayed that the Minister has failed to achieve what the other place required, which was a 7½ per cent. devaluation forthwith. What he has achieved is only a 5 per cent. devaluation forthwith, and that on beef and pigmeat only, with nothing immediately on dairy products.778 It is of course the livestock side of British agriculture which is suffering immediate and substantial trouble, and it is precisely this area which, by this agreement, the right honourable gentleman has failed adequately to alleviate. The Statement goes on to admit that, by achieving less than what the other place required, this has saved the consumer £50 million in six months. This, of course, can be only at the expense of British agriculture. Will the noble Lord be kind enough to tell us what that cost is to British agriculture?
I am bound to say that some of us who have watched this game being played, knowing the Minister did not want the full devaluation of 7½ per cent. and knowing that the Germans, the Dutch and the Belgians did not, either, wonder how hard the Minister has tried. The Italians got their devaluation, and they got it in full. It is only the British who did not. One wonders whether we are to anticipate our future requests for devaluation being either blocked or modified simply because they come from the United Kingdom.
If I could just turn to fish, we support the right honourable gentleman's efforts in the Council of Ministers to solve the fisheries problem and all the very complex issues which surround it, and we applaud his efforts to ensure that our fishermen retain a proper livelihood. Certainly we hope that the negotiations will eventually bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. But what happens in the meantime? As, according to the Statement, the Council have not agreed to the standstill arrangements, which ended last night, being continued, what is the situation now? Is it a free-for-all? Can any Member State fish where it likes? Are catch quotas to be continued? Presumably not; but, if they are, who is going to monitor them? The Statement says that the Government's intention is to ensure that some kind of policing is carried out. It would be helpful if the noble Lord would explain what this is going to be; and, indeed, if he could say what are the next steps in this dispute. Is there going to be another meeting; will it be of the Council of Ministers? If so, can he give us any idea when it will be held?
§ 4.23 p.m.
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, we, too, are grateful to the Minister 779 for repeating this Statement; and, like the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, we must give it a very qualified and (to use the words of Damon Runyon) small welcome. It will of course do some good to the pigmeat producers to devalue at the present time by 5 per cent., but it will not in any way solve the problem of the pig producers. The breeding herd has declined by something over 20 per cent. I cannot give your Lordships the exact figure—the noble Lord no doubt knows it—but it is one of the most serious declines in a very efficient industry that we have seen since the war. The days are long gone when the pig industry in this country was behind the Danes in efficiency, and I think this cannot be regarded as in any way reversing the process and allowing the industry to build up to its former, extremely useful contribution to the economy of this country.
Nothing is said about another factor which is almost as important as the level of the green pound, and that is the method of calculating the monetary compensatory amounts or the export subsidies which the Danes get for sending their beef here. This is of great importance, and it is a subject which ought to be negotiable because it is demonstrably unjust and unfair. I should like to know what the Minister has to say about that. With regard to the further devaluation, I presume that milk will come in April, and we are now talking about the 7½ per cent. devaluation in regard to cereals and the other farm products taking effect in the autumn. I must say that it is not really a tremendous thing. I do not think the housewives will be dancing in the streets at the thought of saving 11p per family a week, which is what it works out to; whereas £50 million to an important industry which is in decline might make a considerable difference invested for the good of the country.
Turning to fish, I think the position is extremely disturbing. We appear to be making no progress at all. I have just seen on the tape that Commissioner Gundelach has said that Britain does not state its case—" We do not know what Britain wants". I think the position is extremely disturbing. It is disturbing from another point of view, in that, if I 780 may say so, we always put our case in the worst possible way. Quite frankly, I do not think the Minister should have ended his Statement by saying:
I also made clear the Government's intention to continue to work for a settlement which would meet the United Kingdom's essential requirements".I have just come back from Brussels, and I must say that our reputation there is not exactly "Communitaire". It is time we started putting things in at least an apparently more respectable way. The thing which worries my Party about the fishing arrangement is that there is no experience in policing these agreements; and it is for the good of the whole Community, and not only for the good of Britain, that the arrangements are practical. I am sorry to be critical in this matter, but it is extremely worrying, and I should very much like the Minister to comment on what I have said.
§ 4.27 p.m.
Lord ORAMMy Lords, I welcome the fact that the two noble Lords who have spoken at least began their remarks with a welcome, however modified that welcome became as they proceeded. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, at least we can all feel satisfaction at an agreement having been reached. The noble Earl quite rightly pointed out that, whatever the effect on agriculture as a result of this phasing arrangement, there are consequential benefits to the consumer—and that, I do not think, should be lightly set aside. But, quite understandably, he was anxious to know what the effect of the arrangement that I have reported would be to the agricultural industry. I am afraid I cannot give him any precise figures in monetary terms, because, for example, it is difficult to predict the effect on arable farmers of a price increase for their products being introduced in the middle of a marketing year. There are obvious difficulties of calculation in that respect; but we should note that, for livestock farmers, there is an advantage in having the devaluation applied in their sector before it is applied to cereals—and I recall that in another place recently, during the debate upon the green pound devaluation, when the decision on that issue was taken, it was the problem of livestock rather than arable farmers that was mainly at issue.
781 The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, then turned to the question of fish and asked what the situation now is, mentioning, among other things, quotas. I would inform him that no Community quota arrangements apply at the present time, and it remains to be seen how the other Member States propose to fulfil the obligations which they have undertaken. For our part, we shall discuss with the industry how best to discharge our responsibilities in the waters which are under our jurisdiction; and the Government intend to maintain, under national legislation, all conservation measures, including Community conservation measures, which were in force within British waters on the 31st January.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, also began his remarks by welcoming the Statement that I repeated, and then went on to emphasise, as has been emphasised here before, the great needs of the pigmeat industry. I hope he noticed it was acknowledged in the Statement itself that the Government recognise that and that that was behind our making the arrangement for the immediate application of the 5 per cent. devaluation to the pigmeat industry. In terms of recognising the need of the industry there is nothing between us. There is something between us, of course, as to the amount of the devaluation in respect of that industry.
He asked me a question about the formula for calculations and I must ask him to excuse me from commenting on this point. I will seek the information that he has asked for and will let him have it. If he feels that it is something that the whole House should also be acquainted with, we can arrange for it to be published through a Written Answer. He said that he presumed that the arrangements in respect of milk and beef prices would apply from 1st April. That, I agree, is the normal date but I should not like to be categorical about it because one would have to wait the outcome of the negotiations.
On fish, he was rather more general—rather more general in his condemnation of the approach of my right honourable friend to this question. I would only say that his noble friend, speaking from the Liberal Benches in connection with a statement last week or two weeks ago, urged my right honourable friend to 782 stick to his guns. I would say in the outcome of the negotiations that that is what my right honourable friend is doing. It may be that, as a result of sticking to his guns, the atmosphere in Brussels in respect to this country's attitude is that we are not entirely au fait with the Community. That may be so; but I took it from the exchanges which occurred earlier—that is, a week or so ago—that the whole House was well satisfied with the fact that the British Government in negotiating on behalf of our fishing industry were adopting broadly the right strategy and doing so with vigour. I believe that this is true of the recent negotiations in which my right honourable friend has been engaged.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, will my noble friend realise that there is no need to be dismal about the qualified reception of his Statement by the two Front Benches opposite? What he ought to be doing is striking a note of triumph that a member of his own Administration stood up for the rights of Britain and the British people. It is such a rare occurrence that we find the Liberal spokesman almost breaking into tears. There is nothing to cry about. I am delighted that his right honourable friend has gone to Brussels, and to wherever else he goes, speaking for the people of this country, determined that British interests should be put in the forefront and, if possible, brought to a triumphant conclusion. There is every reason for pride and none for sorrow.
Lord ORAMYes, my Lords. Perhaps I may repeat, in support of what my noble friend has said, one sentence from the Statement that I read earlier:
I regard this "—says my right honourable friend—as a very satisfactory outcome".He regards it as a satisfactory outcome for Britain and for the British people.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one thing in regard to the costs to British agriculture. This is important. I quite see, as he says, that it is difficult to anticipate what the costs will be if one alters the devaluation of the green pound in the middle of the cereal year; but where there was a devaluation proposed of 7½ per cent. on beef, it is 783 going to be only 5 per cent. forthwith; and where there was to be a 7½ per cent. devaluation on milk, it is now nothing. Those figures must be available. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Oram—he is not the Minister chiefly concerned—to have them, but I think that they are important and I should be grateful if he could find out what are the costs of this alteration in the decision from the House of Commons to what is proposed now, and let me know.
Lord ORAMYes, my Lords. I recognise that it is important that we should all he informed about the difference between the straight-across-the-board 7½ per cent. devaluation, which was the decision of another place, and the effect of what I have reported to the House. Those details that the noble Earl has mentioned I will certainly seek and we can have an exchange of correspondence or questions to bring those to light.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, will my noble friend realise that use of the word "cost" in this context is tendentious? It is not a cost. It may be that it has cost the agricultural community something, and it may be even that supporters of the Tory party are that much more worse off. But we should not be talking about cost, because it represents a saving to the British housewife—and that is not unimportant.
Lord ORAMMy Lords, far be it from me to support the noble Earl in this matter, but I think he specifically wanted to know the cost to the agricultural industry. That is how I understood it. I fully accept what my noble friend said, that cost, in a more general sense, is many-sided and that there are benefits from this as well as cost to a particular sector of the community.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I hope that noble Lords will realise that we have an important Energy debate to continue and we have been on this matter for 23 minutes.