HL Deb 11 December 1985 vol 469 cc224-9

3.54 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, with permission, I should like to 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:

"With permission, I will make a Statement on the meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers of the European Community on 9th and 10th December. I represented the United Kingdom accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of State (Commons).

"The Council agreed in principle, subject to the opinion of the European Parliament, to extend the quota system for sugar for the five years 1986–87 to 1990–91. For the first two years the A and B quotas will remain at their existing levels and the Council will take a further decision by the end of 1987 on quotas for the remaining three years. The maximum rates of levy on A and B sugar will also remain unchanged for the first two years except for a small additional levy designed to recoup, over the coming five years, the deficit that has accumulated on the levy account. The additional levy will be shared between member states so that those who have produced most quota sugar will pay the most; as a result the rate of levy will average 1.31 per cent. of the present intervention price for the Community as a whole, while in the United Kingdom it will be set at 0.8 per cent.

"The decision to fix the quotas for two years, instead of five as the Commission proposed, is helpful. In making its further decision the Council will be able to take account of developments, in particular the expected increase in the use of sugar for industrial products. The Council agreed to postpone until a later meeting further detailed discussion of proposals on sugar for the chemical industry and for a revised starch régime.

"The Council also adopted a proposal intended to fulfil a commitment made during the price-fixing negotiations to extend the annual sheep premium to goats in certain regions, and also untupped ewes of certain breeds in mountain areas. The premium is to be paid at 80 per cent. of the full rate. I made it clear that the proposal on ewes is unsatisfactory since it does not cover all the breeds and regions which are affected. I accordingly voted against the proposal.

"There was further discussion of a measure setting minimum standards for battery cages for laving hens. Although falling well short of what I would wish, I recognised that the standards were the best on which agreement could be reached. The Danish Minister, however, was unable to accept the text at the present time, and the matter will be taken up at the next meeting of the Council on 19th December.

"Finally, the Council discussed the Commission's proposal to ban the use of hormonal substances for fattening cattle. All other member states were prepared immediately to accept such a ban from 1st January 1988. I continued to argue that, before reaching a decision, the Council should have available the scientific evidence from the Lamming Committee and should take full account of the implications of a ban for imports of meat and meat products. I also urged the Council to adhere to its previous decision to adopt such a measure only by unanimity."

That, my Lords, is my right honourable friend's Statement.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating to this House a Statement made in the other place. As regards the proposals for the extension of the sugar regime for a further five years with quotas at present levels for two years, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are aware of the considerable dissatisfaction in the United Kingdom with the way in which the sugar regime, as such, is operating? On the one hand, manufacturers are saying that it results in sugar which is very expensive and that it disadvantages them. On the other hand, refiners are saying that the present arrangement of quotas is needlessly favourable to certain member states and consequently disadvantageous to Britain. Will the Minister suggest to his right honourable friend that the time may be opportune to ask the Commission in Brussels to institute a thoroughgoing review of the whole operation of the sugar regime? These dissatisfactions can then be looked at in some detail to see whether or not the regime, which is supposed to be self-financing, is achieving all that was hoped of it when it was first introduced and whether other measures might not be appropriate at the end of the five-year period to which the Statement refers.

Having said that, perhaps I may say that Britain will be grateful for the fact that the Minister was able to ensure that those who produce most quota sugar will pay the most, and the differential levy on quota sugar for Britain will be appreciated, on the whole, by this country.

As regards the future use of sugar, I think there is considerable interest by the chemical industry. As regards the starch regime, I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be aware that your Lordships' Select Committee has produced a useful document on the proposed starch regime which I hope will be taken account of when the Council finally agrees to revising that regime.

We on this side of the House support the Minister's action on the ewe premium. The 80 per cent. is disappointing and the fact that all breeds and all regions are not to be eligible for the refund justifies the Minister's action in voting against the proposals.

I say nothing about battery cages for laying hens except that, as a regular user of the South-Eastern Division of British Rail, my sympathies are with the laying hens.

Turning finally to hormones, this is a subject of considerable interest to your Lordships' House because the Select Committee is currently examining one aspect of this matter; namely, the tests for the presence of hormones and other residues in meat. I notice that there is now a proposal that the total ban on hormones, except for therapeutic use, is to take effect from the 1st January 1988 and that the noble Lord's right honourable friend is reserving his position on that matter. May I ask whether that extension—because, as I understand it, the ban was originally to come into force on 1st January 1986—will allow a proper assessment of the Lamming Committee's evidence? It is of considerable importance to livestock producers in this country and indeed to meat consumers. If a total ban takes place, it is not merely the effect on the price of meat but also the effect on the rearing of livestock in this country which I think would justify the Commission in receiving the final report from the Lamming Committee, which they commissioned and which they appear to have decided to do without in order to proceed to a total ban in accordance with the recommendation of the European Parliament.

Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether, in considering banning hormonal substances, the Council will have regard to the importance of such a ban so far as poultry meat is concerned, since a ban on red meat without a corresponding ban on white meat would seem to some of us to be dealing with only half of the problem?

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, though I cannot say that it is a Statement of immense significance bearing in mind the terrific problems that face us in the CAP. Nonetheless it tackles one or two important points.

I should like to ask the Minister about the quotas. We produce an enormous amount of surplus sugar in the Community and we export many millions of tonnes—I am not sure exactly how many and perhaps the Minister can tell us—to the enormous detriment of the third world countries which produce sugar. Again, we import into this country to the benefit of the Lomé countries about 1.3 million tonnes of cane sugar—and that is of enormous value—but at the same time the export of a surplus of 2 or 3 million tonnes does much more harm to third world countries than all the aid that they receive from us. I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord how much we export, how much C sugar is expected to be produced and how big the levy on that will be? Can he also say what is the size of the deficit which is to be repaid over five years?

I think also one must say that at least the Minister has done well in achieving the smaller levy being paid on the A and B quotas in this country; but, again, can he tell us which countries produce the enormous amount of excess sugar which we unload on the world market? Perhaps he can also say how far advanced are the biotechnical processes. Are we at an experimental stage? Could they use next year 20,000 tonnes or only 1,000 tonnes? How far advanced are we in the actual use of the techniques which are being evolved?

With regard to the yeld ewes, untupped, may I ask the Minister what this means? I know what a yeld ewe is. It is a ewe which is part of a flock and which has escaped having a lamb, but I always understood that it was counted as part of the flock. Does he mean untupped gimmers, and what breeds and what regions are excluded? It would be useful for us to know.

The hen appears to be a subject of some trouble in Denmark, but no decision has been taken.

Finally, as regards hormones, can the noble Lord say whether any decision has been taken? The Statement says that this matter was discussed but does not say when it will be discussed again. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said—that the implications are really horrendous. If we start on the white meat poultry industry, which is the next one that people will look at, we see that that industry entirely depends on such techniques and the feeding of antibiotics in the food to keep the beasts alive in the conditions under which they are reared. If we start to ban hormones for cattle without investigating the harm that may ensue, I do not shudder, but I feel that we are getting on to extremely dangerous ground when we move away from scientific evidence into the field of pure prejudice.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their reception of my right honourable friend's Statement. Both noble Lords have made observations about the Statement so far as sugar is concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said that the sugar regime was a matter for dissatisfaction both to those who wish to use sugar and those who produce it. In answering the noble Lord I shall simply say that at the moment it is not possible to agree a redistribution of quota. Indeed, I think it would be wrong to increase the total Community quota, in view of the surpluses in both Community and world markets. The only prospective increase in demand for sugar in our own country, notably for use in the chemical industry, which has been referred to by both the noble Lords, must depend on Commission proposals which have not yet been adopted for supplying sugar to the industry at reduced prices. I think that reply goes some way to answering a question which came toward the end of Lord Mackie's remarks. Of course, increased demand for sugar for chemical uses will take some years to build up.

Having said that, I am thrown back, as it were, on the "silver lining" part of the Statement so far as sugar is concerned. The levy—called the "elimination levy"—which will pay off the debt on the amount which has not been funded over previous years to make good the export refunds from sugar exported out of the Community is referred to as a small sum in the Statement. If I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the debt is small in Community terms, but it is quite a large sum of money in my terms. It is 400 million ecu (that is £250 million) and it has been agreed by the member states that it is to be paid off at the rate of 80 million ecu for the next five years. The advantage for the United Kingdom is that, whereas the other member states for the most part will be paying it off at 1.31 per cent., we shall only be paying it off at 0.8 per cent., because we, in this country, have not contributed to that huge surplus which has had to be exported in the way that many other countries have contributed.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked me which countries were the greatest producers. Perhaps I may reply in a rather circular way. I think it is fair to say that only Ireland and Greece as well as the United Kingdom have 10 per cent. B quotas, that is, 10 per cent. of their A quotas, and we are therefore low in the league as regards the production of sugar in the Community, together with Ireland and Greece.

I shall move on from that to mention starch very briefly. Yes, indeed, I have taken on board what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said—that the opinions of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House with regard to starch ought to be taken into account when both sugar and starch for industrial uses are further considered in the Community.

Both the noble Lords referred to the difficult question of hormones and I was extremely interested to hear that they both took the view which, if I may say so, is taken by the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred in his closing remarks to this being very dangerous ground and he specifically said that the Community ought to go on scientific evidence and not on any other basis. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who is of course expert in this particular area, asked whether this would apply to poultry meat. The answer is, yes. If the ban were to be implemented from the beginning of 1988, as I understand it the intention is that it would apply to all uses for fattening animals including poultry.

I say to both noble Lords, if I may be perfectly blunt, that the discussions in the Council on the 9th and 10th on the five hormonal substances that are the subject of the proposal were not based on scientific evidence and were very much against our wishes. The Commission set up a special working party under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Lamming to report on the five substances. As I think both noble Lords know, the working group had already reported on three and said that they were entirely safe. It was about to report on the other two when it was simply disbanded. The Commission has apparently decided therefore not to allow the scientific committee to complete its work. We are not satisfied that a ban, if it were imposed, could he effectively enforced; we believe that there would be danger in a black market; and we are at a loss to know what the proposals will be with regard to imports from third countries. The Government share the views of both noble Lords on this subject.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, does the last paragraph of the Statement mean that the Council has accepted the proposal by a majority view?

Lord Belstead

No, my Lords. The noble Lord asked me when, and I am afraid I am not in possession of that information; but the matter must be returned to.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, perhaps I should inform your Lordships that the revised time for the ending of the debate to which we are now returning is5.43 p.m.