HL Deb 24 April 1980 vol 408 cc913-9

4.40 p.m.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable Friend, the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr, Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) in Brussels on 21st to 24th April, at which I represented the United Kingdom and was accompanied by my honourable friend the Minister of State.

"After two days of inconclusive discussion of the milk surplus, the Council spent its final sessions in agreeing a report for the European Council on the principles which should underlie this year's prices settlement. This statement contains no commitment as to price levels, though it records that a large majority of member States is in favour of larger increases than have been proposed by the Commission. I repeated the view of Her Majesty's Government that there should be no price increases on those items in surplus and that price increases elsewhere should be within the limits imposed by the Commission.

"On co-responsibility levies for milk, there was a consensus that the cost of disposing of additional future production should be borne by producers themselves, by means of a flat rate levy of not less than the 1.5 per cent. level agreed last year and a further levy designed to put additional pressure upon further increases in milk production. There is, however, no agreement as to the form of this further levy. Some member States make their acceptance of the principle conditional upon its being implemented by means of a levy on products going into intervention, and others on its incorporating an lement of discrimination whereby the rate of levy would be lower for certain classes of producers. We were supported by other delegations in our view that there should be no discrimination. Finally the report refers to the decision of the Economic and Finance Council that substantial savings must he made in agricultural expenditure.

"There was virtually no discussion of sheepmeat, but the French Minister and I each circulated a statement of our respective positions, and these will be further considered by the appropriate institutions.

"The marketing years for commodities due to end next week were extended to the end of May. Finally, the Council adopted a proposal by the Commission on the treatment of variable positive monetary compensatory amounts. Under this arrangement, during the two months that this proposal operates Britain will be on the same basis as the other members of the Community with regard to both positive and negative compensatory amounts. I made it clear that I accepted this only subject to thorough consideration of the whole issue on a Community basis during the coming weeks.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.44 p.m.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. May I say, reading it very quickly, that in many ways nothing has happened? It seems to me the most remarkable meeting that I have ever known, and I have followed many price reviews in the Community. Nothing at all has been decided in a big way. I thought the Government were going to make a great fight, certainly with the French on milk. As the Statement says, there was virtually no discussion of sheep-meat, which is one of the crucial issues which affect our own industry; indeed not just ours but others such as New Zealand. I find that rather strange. After all, the Minister has a free hand on this. I thought there was no partisanship on this because both Opposition and Government have condemned the attitude of the French. I hope the noble Earl can expand on it.

On the question of co-responsibility levies on milk, I know this is a difficult question. It is said that, the cost of disposing of future additional production should he borne by producers themselves", on a flat rate levy of not less than the 1.5 per cent. level agreed last year". May I ask the noble Earl whether the National Farmers' Union support this, because there have always been difficulties over it'? I think the levy on products going into intervention seems sensible but I should like to know if it has the blessing of the producers in this country. That is really all I wish to say. I am surprised at the weakness of what has happened. I hope the noble Earl can assure us that all our interests have really been safeguarded.

4.47 p.m.

Lord TANLAW

My Lords, we, too, are grateful for the noble Earl's Statement on behalf of the Government. I think we might take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that after two days of inconclusive discussion no conclusions were reached. The Statement goes on to say that there must be substantial savings in agricultural expenditure. My view is that it is rather a waste of money if they are going to sit for two days and come to no conclusion. While my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will be able to advise noble Lords on the non-decisions taken on the milk price, perhaps the noble Earl will confirm that there will he no price increases on those items in surplus to encourage yet further surpluses in the Common Market.

I want to take up and emphasise only one other point. The Statement says there was virtually no discussion of sheep-meat, but the French Minister and I each circulated a statement of our respective positions, and these will he further considered by the appropriate institutions". I am sure I do not need to remind the noble Earl that this is just the end of the lambing season and there is very deep concern in the farming industry among those who are producing sheepmeat in the form of lambs, as to how sales will go this year. It has been an exceptionally good lambing, but there are fears of surplus and no price support. Just merely to say that there will be further consideration at some later date is not going to alleviate the many worries in the industry, in hill farming in Scotland in particular. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us that there will be some definite statement about the position on sales of sheepmeat into the Common Market by August of this year.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken. If the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was a little disappointed at this Statement, I would merely repeat the words he used when he said that nothing had happened and it was a most remarkable meeting. I think if my right honourable friend were here he would say the noble Lord was quite right. This was a very frustrating meeting. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that trying to get a consensus of agreement over EEC prices is one of the most difficult things imaginable. We wish to sec those agreements made as soon as possible. It was a very long meeting; I think I am right in saying that my noble friend left at three o'clock this morning to come hack to London. The fact is that there was no agreement.

When the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asks for an assurance that there will be no price increases for products in structural surplus, I can assure him that that is my right honourable friend's line. He does not believe and we do not believe there should he increases in those commodities which are in structural surplus. But at the moment we have not carried our Common Market partners with us.

When the noble Lord, Lord Peart, asked whether our interests were being safeguarded, he indicated that there was a degree of weakness on the part of my right honourable friend. I can assure him that there is no such weakness; my right honourable friend has been absolutely determined to push the point.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I did not intend to say that the Minister was being weak at all; I do not think he has been.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, in that case I apologise for misrepresenting the noble Lord; I thought I recalled him using that word. I would merely stress that my right honourable friend of all the Common Market Ministers is the one who is determined to say that there should he no increases for those commodities in structural surplus and that the increases for other commodities should not exceed the Commission's proposals. So I think I can tell your Lordships that our interests are being safeguarded. I can only reiterate the sorrow, if that is the right word, of both noble Lords, that there has not yet been a conclusion.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House whether the reports in both The Times and the Telegraph as regards this meeting have come to his attention, wherein it is stated that the French Government have taken up the position that they want the Farm Price Review in some way linked with the discussions that have taken place over a long period of time concerning Britain's net contribution to the European Budget? Will the noble Lord assure the House that the pledge already given by the Prime Minister in another place, that the question of Britain's net contribution should be considered as an item on its own and not part of a package, still stands; and will he tell us whether, therefore, the attitude taken by the Minister at the adjourned meeting of the Agriculture Ministers will be precisely in conformity with his previous undertaking that he will not agree to any price increase on items in structural surplus?

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, the final result of the negotiations will be one which must accord with the agreements arranged with the Ministers. I have explained that the line which our Minister has taken is that there should be no such increase. As regards the Press reports, it is of course evident that the French would have liked a cut and dried paper on common agricultural prices to go before the European Council, on the basis of which the European Council could then take decisions. But, in the Agricultural Council it was clear that there were substantive differences of opinion on many issues between almost all Member States and not just between France and the United Kingdom.

So, it is not the case that Britain is being asked to come into line with something with which all other members of the Community are in agreement. We accept, of course, that other Community Governments have their problems, and we wish to be as co-operative as possible in examining them. But the Prime Minister has made it clear that any decisions which the European Council might reach on Common Agricultural Policy prices, or other issues, must be taken separately on their merits.