Common Agricultural Policy: Financing (EUC Report)

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 5:40 pm on 20 October 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Biffen Lord Biffen Conservative 5:40, 20 October 2005

My Lords, it is my happy task to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on his maiden speech. He comes to this House with a reputation as a committed Christian, but above all he will be recognised as having been chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons, where his robust conduct in that post earned him an enviable reputation. I am sure that we all look forward to his continuing contributions in this place.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry and Sub-Committee D on a report that I found immensely instructive in the information that it imparted, as well as in the modest and measured recommendations that it made. Before I consider it, I mention a modest agricultural interest, which is recorded in the Register. Much more, I have a deep emotional interest that derives from both sides of my family having been farm workers or tenant farmers on the Somerset levels and on the Mendips. I bear the imprint of that, even though I have strayed from my native county these many years.

Given the short time available, which is an indication of the interest that this subject has created, I have three what I will call "sound bites". First, there is the single farm payment. I am pleased that mention is made in the report that it should be a transitional feature. I cannot believe that it would be a sound basis for agriculture to have single farm payments perpetuating well into the future. I have to offset the plea for the transitional character mentioned by the report against what is written on page 24:

"We were told by Dr Fischler that the single farm payment will be a reality for European farmers for at least the next 15 years".

It is rather an Augustinian view of life; to make one perfect but not yet a while. I hope that this House and the British position generally will try to emphasise the transitional nature of the single farm payment.

Secondly, I should like to make a reference to Pillar 2, which will encompass rural development and also the environmental considerations, which have already been mentioned. The potential for great spending here is considerable, although my noble friend has mentioned that at the moment there will be pressures to try to contain it. It pleases me that paragraph 125 of the report states:

"Richer Member States should fund a higher proportion of their own rural development programmes".

That echoes the remarks made by that great Europhile the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, in his maiden speech:

"The beauty of the French countryside is a wonderful thing, but it should be paid for by the French taxpayer".—[Hansard, 6/6/05; col. 679.]

I look forward to a situation where Pillar 2 is increasingly seen as a national responsibility to be catered for by national judgments and financed by national treasuries.

On my third sound bite, I wish to pick up points made by my noble friend who introduced the debate. There is a certain unreality, above all the arithmetic and assumptions that run through the report, reflecting the views of the European Commission and the debate generally. I do not see how all those things can be reconciled. Obviously there are the problems of the social character of the agriculture sector of eastern Europe, which accounts for around 20 per cent of states' national workforce, compared with 4 per cent of national workforces in western Europe. That is a social challenge. Above all, we should not overlook the fact that there is a potential output challenge in eastern Europe. As an aside, the report mentions that in 2003–04 cereal production in the new states increased by 40 per cent. Although climatic conditions govern that, we should realise that the imbalance between agriculture production and agricultural consumption will be exacerbated by the development of eastern European membership.

There will be an increasing demand for continued and renewed reform. Sub-Committee D makes that point when it says:

"The disparity between the agricultural needs of the EU-15 and those of new Member States is only likely to grow wider. That reason alone justifies the need for further substantial CAP reform".

In the context of possible Ukrainian membership, all that is then written in spades.

All those points illumine the difficulties of the European Union and the much wider issue of the extent to which its political activities, and the financing and monitoring of those activities, must increasingly be seen in the context of the nation states and their traditional disciplines. If we continue to drift in an ever-larger European context, as my noble friend said, the fortunes of the common agricultural policy could begin to engulf those of Europe itself.