§ Mr. NichollsTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg from 20 to 23 June; and if she will make a statement.
§ Mrs. Gillian ShephardThis meeting of the Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, had a full discussion over four days of the Commission's proposals for farm support prices for 1994–95 and related measures. In the early hours of the final day, the Presidency tabled a final compromise the costs of which were assessed by the Commission to be at the limit of the funds available. Despite this, several member states regrettably continued to press for further measures involving additional expenditure. When the Presidency called a vote Germany, France and Luxembourg rejected the package as a whole and several others objected to parts of it. The proposals were accordingly not adopted and it now falls to the German Presidency to try to break the impasse.
The Council also discussed a proposal concerning the welfare of animals in transit. Along with Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark, I expressed concern that, although the proposal contained significant improvements over the present rules, including a strengthening of enforcement, it failed to go far enough. As a result of our pressure, the Commission subsequently gave a commitment to come forward by 1 July 1995 with a further proposal on maximum journey limits.
The Council unanimously agreed three directives establishing certain maximum pesticide residue levels in cereals and products of animal and plant origin, a decision establishing rules on the storage and marketing of eggs, a regulation fixing the support prices for certain fruits and vegetables for July 1994, and a regulation establishing a 392W Community scheme for plant variety rights. No decision was reached on the site of the European Community plant variety office, and this issue will be considered further during the German Presidency. I urged the Council to locate the office at Cambridge in view of that city's unique blend of scientific and technical expertise and excellent communications.
The Council also agreed by qualified majority a directive establishing uniform principles for the evaluation of plant protection products—Germany and the Netherlands voting against—and a decision designed to provide better financial discipline and prioritisation of programmes for assistance under the veterinary fund. I voted against this proposal because of an associated Council resolution whose wording contained the potential to undermine overall budgetary control.
§ Mr. JenkinTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions she has had concerning the unpublished European Commission report on the reform of the common agriculture policy; and if she will make a statement.
§ Mrs. Gillian Shephard[pursuant to her reply, 24 March 1994, c. 372]: The study to which my hon. Friend referred has still not been published. However an article by Mr. Knud Munk, an economist employed by the Commission's DG II, which appears to cover similar ground, has recently been published in the Journal "European Economy". Copies of this article have been placed in the House Library.
The basic thrust of the article is to point to the attractions of nationally funded direct payments to farmers, de-coupled from production, as a replacement for other forms of agricultural support.