Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and distinguished member of the Select Committee for those remarks. I could go through the witness statements at some length, but the record speaks for itself. For the record, the Government response states:
“The UK Government accepts that there is more for us to do in this area and are continuing to develop our ideas for reform. A UK Government priority will be to continue the good work undertaken in previous reforms, such as phasing out the remaining coupled subsidies and continuing the market orientation of the CAP.”
I am sure that the Minister would like to stand by the evidence that he gave to the Committee in an oral session.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I need to point out to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that if she read her speech as I believe she did, she said that I had stated in witness evidence that the policy was to phase out the single farm payment over the next seven years and end it shortly thereafter. That in itself is a contradiction. That is not our policy. Our policy is, yes, to seek a phasing out of the single farm payment. However, she implied that I had said that it was to be extinguished by the end of that seven year period. That is not the policy.
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful for that clarification because the Committee was led to believe that that was the desire of the Department and the Minister. Certainly, that was the understanding of the witnesses—both the witness statements—from the farming community as well. I am sure that hon. Members will want to return to that matter.
We have already moved away from the historic basis of payments, and it would be anachronistic to continue to pay farmers on the basis of what they produced a decade ago. However, a flat rate per area would result in considerable redistribution within the UK, suggesting that national flexibility will be needed.
Turning to greening the CAP, the Committee agrees with the principle that the future CAP should reward and encourage sustainable farming. The Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability”, says that we will need to produce more food but use fewer inputs. We conclude that greening measures should not come at the expense of productive successful agriculture, but we need to find win-wins for sustainability and competitiveness. I repeat: we applaud the fact that, in this country, our farmers are already greening through agri-environmental schemes to a much greater extent than elsewhere in the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
Good afternoon, Mr Sheridan. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for that expression of support. I will start by reminding hon. Members of my own interests, as already declared, and thanking them for the way that they have contributed to this debate on what everyone agrees is an extremely important issue that probably does not get enough debating time in the House when compared with many other issues. That probably reflects people’s concerns and the fact that the country has become more urbanised in the past few decades.
As my agenda for my remarks, I want to use the proposals about CAP reform. As Members will know, although the subject of the debate is the Select Committee’s report and the Government’s response, both documents are basically obsolete, given that the report was produced last summer, since when we have had the Commission’s detailed proposals. Indeed, we have been able to explore those proposals. Negotiations have started and the Government have obviously been able to develop our own ideas. So I think that it will be more helpful to use the Commission’s main proposals, most of which have already been referred to during the debate, as a framework, and in doing so I will try to pick up on all the comments that colleagues have made about the proposals and some issues that arise from them.
First, we need to reflect, as one or two of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have done, on the background against which—uniquely, or certainly for the first time in many decades—this round of CAP reform is taking place. In my view, which I think is shared by the hon. Member for Ogmore, that background is one of optimism.
As was mentioned right at the start of the debate, also in the background is the Foresight report, which demonstrated that global demand for food will be somewhere between 70% and 100% greater—different figures are used—in the next 40 years than it is today. That rise in demand will be brought about not only by the population increase that Members have referred to, but by the fact that a large part of that population increase will happen in the two most populous countries—India and China—both of which have a rising middle class and a rising demand for higher quality and better diets. That is part and parcel of this change; it is not just about the rising number of people.
It is also worth making the point that 1 billion of those extra people in the years ahead will live in Africa—a continent that has immense potential for agricultural production, but a potential that is woefully underused for a whole raft of reasons, many of which were mentioned by hon. Members.
Furthermore, all of those changes are set against the background of climate change, which will render parts of the world almost impossible to farm but which perversely appears to make northern Europe one of the best places to farm.
The background is crucial in assessing not only the Commission’s proposals, but where we go with agriculture in the coming years. It creates great opportunities, and the Government are disappointed that the Commission’s proposals do not really meet the opportunities that that background provides. At their worst, they could take us backwards—I do not believe that they will, but they could—so I should like to spend some time analysing them. I accept—the hon. Member for Ogmore is right—that some of what I will say is a repetition of what we discussed in a European Committee, but it was so good that I will say it all again.
The most important issue to start with is the future of the single farm payment. I am disappointed with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on the single farm payment. I know a lot of farmers—farming has been my life—but I do not know a farmer who would not like to do away with subsidies. Of course, there are issues around that, but they would far rather not have a subsidy and not be dependent on public money. They would prefer not to have to be apologetic sometimes or to justify themselves. That in itself is an important point, and we should therefore set our sights on achieving that.
I want to put the record straight on the issue that we touched on earlier and say exactly what the Government’s position is. When I gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I said:
“I have always believed…that direct payment support…will end eventually… We are not going to see it happen in this financial perspective, but I think it will happen and I think the challenge is to help the farming industry face up to that day whenever it comes.”
That was my view, and it remains my view. It has been my view for the 25 years that I have been a Member. To confirm the official position, as opposed to merely what I have said, I refer hon. Members to the official Government response to the report. It states:
“we have made it clear that phasing out such payments”—
single farm payments—
“by 2020 is unrealistic, in both practical and negotiating terms.”
That is, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, a significant change from the previous Government’s position. I therefore hope that there can be no debate about what we are suggesting.
The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that a date needs to be fixed. In an ideal world, one would be, but the first argument to win is that we should set a trajectory. It is clear that the Select Committee does not agree. It is perfectly true that many member states and the commissioner do not believe that we should be ending, or even considering ending, single payments. We should recognise what I think will be an inevitable event at some time in the not-too-distant future but beyond this financial perspective.
We can look at what is going to happen, even though the crystal ball is extremely murky about the outcome of the negotiations. Even if the Commission’s own budget proposals for the CAP go through, that will mean a reduction in the single farm payment. That is clear. There is a cash freeze over the whole financial perspective for the CAP. Excluding one or two movements such as convergence between the highest and lowest paid member states, the single farm payment will reduce, certainly in the UK, so let us not pretend that we can somehow protect it and live on it for ever. That is not going to happen, so it is important that we spend a lot of our time and effort focusing on the CAP and trying to ensure that the industry can accommodate that and, as has been said, become more competitive.
Dr Whiteford
Will the Minister press for a fairer deal for Scottish farmers in the pillar one support, because we are currently well below the average in the UK and less than half the average in the EU?
Mr Paice
I was going to come to that point. The hon. Lady referred in her speech to the fact that I was in Scotland yesterday. I met the Scottish NFU, and I gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in the Scottish Parliament. I was asked the same question. I cannot give clear commitments, because we do not know what the outcome will be. We do not know what the total CAP budget will be. We know what the Commission is proposing. We certainly do not know how much there will be in pillar one or pillar two. We do not know what the convergence debate will lead to and whether that will be reflected in how we divide up the UK’s share of the cake, whatever it may be.
I will make the point that I made yesterday. It is a blunt instrument simply to take the total payment—to Scotland in this case—and divide it by the number of acres, because the acres are not all equal. As the hon. Lady rightly said, 85% of Scotland is in less favoured areas. Some of the land in the highlands is of little, if any, agricultural use. That bald statistic is a blunt way to compare resources. In any case, as she will be aware, the resources are simply based on the historical payments before the advent of the single farm payment. That is fact. As for the future, I made it clear yesterday that we will sit down with all the devolved legislatures to consider how to split the cake once we know how it has been arrived at and how big it is. We cannot prejudge the outcome.
I will say, because the hon. Lady intervened, that the point about the less favoured areas is crucial. The British Government fully support the need for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to target support at such areas, which will be renamed under the CAP. I have forgotten the phrase, but it will come back to me. Those areas will get a new title, but little else will change. I am told that they will be called areas of natural constraint. In an ideal world—I will come back to the wider aspects—the targeted payment is best made from pillar two. The hon. Member for Ogmore referred to the uplands entry level scheme, which is what we have in England. Pillar two targeted payments for those areas with natural constraints could be just as effective as a blanket per acre, or per hectare, payment.
Miss McIntosh
We are benefiting from the fact that the Government’s thinking has moved on. If the Government are eventually moving away from direct payments, what tools does the Minister hope to use to make UK farming more competitive? I do not think that agri-environment schemes make British farming more competitive. They deliver sustainable farming, but we are looking to develop more competitiveness across the EU.
Huw Irranca-Davies
When the Minister enters the final stages of the negotiations, he will draw up a list of priorities with colleagues in the devolved Administrations —a top three, a top five, a top 10. If there is a feeling, as seems to be emerging from the devolved Administrations, that the transition from historic payments to more flat payments is a top priority, will he be mindful of that and ensure, if necessary, that it is one of the red line negotiating positions with the EU?
Mr Paice
I am very happy to address that. Indeed, I addressed it yesterday in the Scottish Parliament. I am not sure about red line issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no requirement for unanimity, so we can have a red line issue that stays a red line issue and not get our way. On key negotiations, I can assure him and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that we have made it absolutely clear that we think the Commission’s proposals for the shift to an area basis is too draconian. The 40% first-year drop is far too dramatic, and we will support the proposition that there should be a more gradual transition.
I shall move on to the greening issue. As other hon. Members have said, that is perhaps the most important subject—it has certainly grabbed the most headlines in the farming press and in debates. As the hon. Member for Ogmore said, to put it mildly, the greening situation requires a lot of improvement. There are three components. First, farmers with permanent pasture must keep it as such and must not be allowed to plough it. There has been grave concern—and, indeed, anecdotal stories—that some farmers have started ploughing such land because they do not want to be stuck with that obligation. I urge them not to do that because we can negotiate around it. Indeed, at the NFU annual general meeting three weeks ago, the commissioner said that he did not see a problem with farmers who wanted to reseed such land every 10 years. As long as we can get that commitment in writing, we have largely resolved the issue. So there is no justification for farmers to consider ploughing up permanent pasture.
The second issue that has been debated is the requirement for a three crop rotation. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) properly identified one of the nonsensical issues with that. A further issue with a three crop rotation is that very large numbers of dairy farmers, particularly those with outdoor stock farms in the hills, will grow a field of turnips, maize or barley to feed their own stock. It is clearly nonsensical for them to have a three crop rotation. We have made that point to the Commission repeatedly. I hope that we can get somewhere, but we will have to wait and see. I assure hon. Members that we have pressed very hard on that subject.
The third part of the greening proposal is, of course, the 7% ecological focus area. The commissioner has said repeatedly in Council meetings that he is not trying to reintroduce set-aside. However, one has only to listen to the language of this debate to realise that that is how the matter is perceived. The commissioner has said that someone will be able to count their hedges, ditches and I think that I even heard him say tracks—in other words, what someone has not got in production—and take out some land to get to the 7% if they have not got enough out already, as will be the case with most farmers. If farmers are fortunate enough to have perhaps a piece of woodland, they may well already be up to their 7%.
The Government consider that taking land out of agriculture, when, as hon. Members have all said, we need to increase production, is clearly wrong. However, there is a more fundamental problem with ecological focus areas. I have used the phrase that this is about trying to reach down to the lowest common denominator—the thing that most farmers will be able to meet without having to do anything—and that if they really have to, they might have to take a little bit more land out of farming.
The British Government take the view that we need to be far more active. Several hon. Members have rightly referred to our stewardship schemes. Such active management is far more important. There is plenty of science to demonstrate that, in terms of environmental care, biodiversity, water retention or whatever, active management of a small area of ground can deliver far better results overall than simply watching—for want of a better word—the 7%.
I will come back to the comments made by the hon. Member for Brent North in a moment before he leaves because I want to talk about his remarks on engagement. We are working very closely with a number of other member states to develop a proposal of what we might call equivalence measures: a menu of different options that member states can choose from, all of which have an environmental equivalence in quality terms. The commissioner has already made some good noises about appreciating the concept of equivalence, but he still seems to equate it with quantity rather than quality. That still concerns us.
Mr Paice
Give me a minute. I see that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to leave. I am sorry if I have bored him already. Frankly, what he was saying about engagement is, I am afraid, nonsense. He obviously has a very selective group of people to whom he speaks in the European Parliament, because the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have spent a great deal of effort over nearly the past two years developing relationships through the European Council, the Commission and the Parliament.
As I said to the hon. Member for Ogmore in our earlier debate, nowhere is there a better example of that than fishing, which has been mentioned. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for fishing, visited Brussels four days after the Prime Minister executed—I mean exercised—his veto. He executed the issue, but exercised his veto. Yet my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary came away from that Fisheries Council having made a superb step forward in terms of the overall EU fisheries policy, which demonstrates that the British voice is still being listened to. Frankly, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who has left his place, said, the previous Government’s attempt to renegotiate the CAP did not exactly put them in a good position from which to criticise others.
Barry Gardiner
Not at all. I apologise that I have to leave, Mr Sheridan. I am delighted to hear what the Minister has said, but, of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Mr Paice
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I have two further short points to make about greening. First, it is a good example of something where one size does not fit all. Others have used the same phrase; we have used it regularly in Brussels. We have tried to persuade Commissioner Ciolos that he needs to accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, there are a vast range of farm sizes, types, soils, topographies and so on across the EU. The rigid three-legged stool that the commissioner has invented for greening the CAP is too inflexible to meet all those needs. I fear that, as I suggested earlier, he is simply trying to deliver something that most farmers could achieve.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Equivalence is a welcome development. Although, understandably, the focus of the UK negotiating team will be very much on how it will apply here, what work are they doing about ensuring that equivalence is not used as an excuse in other member nations for avoiding delivering those environmental goods? We must refer to that moral duty to try to raise the level throughout the EU, which is where the greening measures are probably intended to impact most heavily. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that equivalence raises the floor and is not used as an excuse for abdicating any responsibility for the measures?
Mr Paice
The best answer I can give the hon. Gentleman is to point to what the Commissioner said at the NFU conference a few weeks ago, which I have already mentioned. He said that people in Britain are the “champions”—that was his word—of environmental conservation, stewardship and so on, and he did not want to penalise us. Therefore, we are using our own experience as the benchmark. We will be pressing the fact that standards need to be raised, rather than reaching down to the lowest common denominator, as I have suggested. My phrase “equivalence” is not about whatever is down at that level; it is about what is at a higher level and trying to raise concern for the environment and so on across the whole of the EU, including in those member states where lip service is barely paid to the matter.
I shall make a final point on greening. I should have mentioned this earlier as it was raised by several hon. Members. I have said publicly in writing in many places that any British—sorry, I meant English farmer in this context, although there will be similarities in the rest of the UK. Any English farmer who is either in a stewardship scheme or who is considering renewing or entering one need not be concerned about any changes that may come. I have said clearly that if—we hope that this will not happen—the outcome of the negotiations are to someone’s detriment, we will allow them to opt out at that stage with no penalty. I cannot be clearer than that; that is absolutely the case.
A number of Members referred to capping. Capping is, first of all, anti-competitive and does not stimulate businesses to grow. It will give the wrong message to the industry, which we want to be competitive. Secondly, in its proposed form, we think that the capping is quite bureaucratic. Bringing labour costs into it will complicate the process, which is completely opposite to the direction in which we wish to go. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, there will be a great deal of business for lawyers in trying to find ways around it. When the hon. Gentleman referred to the Co-op, he also inadvertently put his finger on the fourth point to consider—corporate structures. Many of our largest farms operate under a corporate structure, which means that the issue of whether we break them down then comes into play.
That leads me to the closely linked issue of active farmers. The Commission’s proposals for active farmers are twofold. First, farmers should be actively farming—doing the job—and I will come back to that. The second aspect, which has caused the most concern, is the idea that the classification should be based on a proportion of farmers’ total income that subsidy comprises. That again falls foul of the corporate structure argument, because farmers may have businesses in a number of different corporate structures. Secondly, it prompts the scenario—the nightmare, almost—of having the Rural Payments Agency’s computer talk to Inland Revenue’s computer to establish whether someone’s non-farm income is at a specific level. Again, that is a non-runner in terms of implementation.
However, we have great sympathy with those who believe that the money should go to the people who farm the land. That touches on the question asked by the hon. Member for Ogmore. If they are tenants, the money should go to them. Under whatever form of tenancy, management or contract farming arrangement, the money should go to the business that controls the land. That is the way in which the system should operate.
That brings me back to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about the issue of slipper farmers in Scotland. Again, we understand that problem entirely, and we will do our best to find a way through it. It will not be easy, but it is important to ensure that people are doing something on their land before they receive any money. Whether the solution to the problem is that proposed by the Scottish National Farmers Union, namely, a minimum stocking rate—the problem tends to be associated with that sort of land—or another mechanism, I assure hon. Members that we will try to find a way forward.
A few Members spoke about the young farmers’ proposals, but, again, this is another example where one size does not fit all. The Commission’s proposal is simply that if young farmers—I say “young”, but new entrant young farmers can be up to 40 years old—have some entitlements, they will be able to get a 50% premium on them for a certain number of years. That would represent a small increase in their income, but it would bear no relevance to the size of the business and, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, it would ignore the fact that they probably would not have any entitlements anyway, because of how the system operates. Virtually every Minister at Council agrees that we should help young farmers; there is no debate about that. However, it should be left to individual member states to decide the best way forward, which is how we address the issue of access to capital.
No one mentioned this afternoon the Commission’s proposals for small farmers. The only reason why I want to mention them is that the Commission is proposing that small farmers could opt for a small farmers scheme, in which they fill in a form and get the money with no questions—I will not go quite so far, but that is the impression as to the proposal. The key thing about the Commission’s proposal is that small farmers will be exempt from the greening requirement, which we oppose. We are quite happy with the idea of a simplified scheme for small farmers, as that makes sense, but to exempt them—and we are talking about a massive swathe of farmers across Europe— from the fundamental greening obligations facing other farmers would be wrong.
There was a lot of discussion about pillar two. The Government’s position, which has not changed since we took office, is that we would like to see a bigger share of CAP funds put into pillar two, and that any reduction in the funding should primarily be at the expense of pillar one. We believe that, because through pillar two it is possible to make targeted payments for public goods, whether they are existing ones or new ones that we can develop under the ecological assessment that DEFRA published last year. For example, we could start to fund farmers in the hills for what they do for water or carbon retention. That is how one could target payments through pillar two.
The hon. Member for Ogmore asked me about agri-environment taking a bigger share of pillar two, but given that it takes more than 80% now, I am not sure that it should take an even bigger share, because—I come back to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—of competitiveness. We believe that pillar two is the best way of enhancing competitiveness, and we have already started to do that. In the past few months we have launched three different schemes in the existing rural development programme for England to fund, grant-aid and help farmers and other rural businesses to invest for the future. That investment may be in plant. For example, there will be £20 million, which I announced—I hope I have announced that; I think I have just announced it; I just have, if I had not.
Mr Paice
Yes.
We will have a £20 million scheme for skills and training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced last week £60 million for large schemes, and I have previously announced another £20 million for smaller schemes of up to £25,000. That is how one can help farmers to become more productive and competitive, to work together, develop new skills through the training funding and face the big challenge lying ahead.
As for the Commission’s other proposals that have not been discussed much, we are quite happy to see market support remain as an instrument, whether it is intervention or private storage. However, it has to be right down at safety net level; it must never again become part and parcel of the marketing structure, which is what it became in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, when people were openly producing just to go into intervention. It was madness, and those days must never return.
Linked to that, the Commission is proposing a global crisis fund, about which we have some reservations. Our biggest concern is that the Commission is proposing that it should be outside the budget. We do not support off-budget measures, and if the Commission is to have such a fund, the fund must come within the budget. That applies equally to the proposals on risk management.
We believe that research is central to the issue of competiveness and improving the industry’s ability to compete and become more sustainable, a key point highlighted this afternoon. We therefore support in principle the Commission’s doubling of the money for research and the development of the European integration partnership, although we need to see more about that.
I will now try to pick up points raised in the debate. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, talked about regulation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton kindly referred to the work that we have already done on that. The hon. Member for Ogmore is right to say that not every regulation is bad. What we have tried to do through the Macdonald process—we have discussed this and Richard Macdonald has been to the Commission to promote his proposals—is not to say, “We just have to get rid of regulations”, but to look at how we implement and enforce them in a way that causes minimum burden on business while achieving the standards that we are trying to achieve. We will continue to press that approach.
We have said over and over again that the groceries code adjudicator is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I am hopeful that the relevant Bill will be introduced shortly.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The Minister has expanded on many points, for which we are grateful.
One of the things that we and successive Governments often struggled with was the complexity of the EU and its machine. Regulations will come from the least expected direction. They may not come from the Agriculture Committee. They may come from the Environmental Committee, from somewhere else, or, nowadays, from other parts of the institution entirely. In light of the MacDonald proposals, has the Minister or the Department developed anything about that early warning system where, at the earliest possible moment, it is flagged up that it might arrive on the Minister’s desk in five or six years’ time from the least-expected direction?
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, may I remind hon. Members that I wish to leave five minutes for the Chair of the Select Committee to conclude?
Mr Paice
Thank you for reminding me, Mr Sheridan.
I will not say that we have developed a rigid blueprint system, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the response to the MacDonald report, it is clear that we understand fully the point he rightly makes; indeed, it is a point that I made when I was in his shoes in opposition. We need that early warning. The general thrust is that the whole industry—DEFRA officials, and other Departments’ officials for that matter, which is something that we are discussing in government, or other arms of the industry, all of whom who have their Brussels people working out there—feeds this back and knows, together, the moment that some official has what they think is a bright idea.
The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned Food 2030. It is fine—a good document. However, I think he would be honest and agree that it was pretty vague on how to deliver. That is why we have set up the green food project, which we announced in the “Natural Environment” White Paper last year. The green food project is bringing together all the different interests to try to see how we meet that big challenge of increasing food production and productivity, while doing so sustainably. It is about producing more and impacting less, and sustainable intensification. Whatever phrases we have been using, the green food project will produce its first report in the middle of this year. It has set up a number of working parties and is working through different themes and food products. I am hopeful that we can build on the Food 2030 document.
The hon. Gentleman asked about moving from pillar one to pillar two. For the life of me, I cannot remember why he asked me that. However, it is currently 10% in the proposals. He asked why export refunds are still there. I agree with him. As he rightly said, the EU had agreed to phase out refunds as part of the offer on the table for the Doha talks. We agree with that, which brings me on to sugar, an issue he also raised. We have made it clear that, while we support the Commission’s proposals to do away with sugar quotas, we do not agree with its idea that we should retain all the barriers around the EU. The issue of Tate & Lyle and raw cane sugar imports is very important for the whole country, not just for the 1,000-odd people who work in the refinery. We are determined to continue to press forward on that.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about producer organisations. He is entirely right. There is a great deal of noise about their importance, and we share that view. We would like to see many more farmers working together in producer organisations. Britain has a chequered history of producer organisations, co-operatives, farmer-controlled businesses, or whatever we call them. The only carrot being held out by the Commission is that of being exempt from competition law. That prompts two questions. Is it a carrot? For most producer organisations, it is not. The idea of having 20% of their market—where most competition law clicks in, or even higher—is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. It also prompts the question: is it actually right to exempt farmers, co-operatives or producer organisations from competition law? The most reasonable answer to that is no. Why should they be any more exempt than any other? Why should they not comply with competition law?
The EU’s proposals have a long way to go. We think that it will be at least a year, probably more, before we secure a final outcome. As several hon. Members have said, there will be a lot more discussion. The proposals will evolve through the European Parliament and the European Council. We have already made our commitment to keep the House informed as much as possible as that goes forward. I, for one, foolishly—I will regret saying this—will welcome further debates, as we go forward, to keep the House informed and to help the Government decide on new positions. I hope that is helpful.