Common Agricultural Policy

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the previous speakers.

I am a member of the EFRA Committee, and I agree very much with many of the points made by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). In particular, I agree with her criticism of the current direction of the reforms. The Committee is a broad Church, however, and it would probably be fair to say that I am less critical of the stance the Government have adopted, for the simple reason that all British Governments face the same problem on the CAP: ultimately, the policy is not their decision.

There are complicated negotiations between 27 member states, so our negotiating stance constantly comes up against opposition from other countries. That makes it quite difficult to set out a clear view of what we want to do; indeed, the previous Select Committee criticised the Labour Government for wanting to see everything in the long term done in pillar two, and for wanting pillar one to be phased out. The Committee said that it was unrealistic to suggest that in negotiations and that it was wrong for the Government even to have a vision of where they wanted to end up.

I disagree, and farm policy is a good example of what happens when we stop making decisions at a national level and subject ourselves to the spirit-crushing process of endless negotiations with 26 other countries. We end up with a poverty of vision right across Europe about what a good agricultural policy should look like, and I will say more about that in a moment.

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but does he not agree that if we are to have a common market and a trade in food between our nations, we need commonality and a common agricultural policy?

[George Eustice]

As I will say later, we need common objectives, but not necessarily a common policy. We also need clear state aid rules, as we have in other sectors. In that way, we can have a proper functioning single market and protect it, even though we do not have a common uniform policy across Europe.

The most important point about the proposals on the table is that they are a backward step for the CAP. The aim was to simplify it, and simplification has been the buzz word for many years, but the proposals will make it more complicated. As the Chair of the Committee said, we are effectively seeing a return to set-aside, with suggestions that 7% of people’s land should be set aside. At a time when food security, which should be a key objective of a common agricultural policy, is a growing issue, that is a step backwards.

I also object to the cap proposed on payments to farmers. If we want to encourage farmers to become less dependent on subsidies in the long term, we need to support consolidation and more efficient farms. A cap on payments would force farmers to break up holdings into collections of smaller holdings so that they still qualify for the subsidy, but that makes no sense. If we want a more efficient agricultural industry, why penalise the larger, more efficient farms?

There are some ludicrous things in the proposals. For instance, in an attempt to achieve crop rotation, there is some suggestion that farmers grow at least three crops to qualify for a subsidy. We can tell that the proposal was written by people who do not understand farming, because insisting on growing three separate crops will not necessarily bring the benefits we seek from crop rotation. For instance, somebody might grow cabbages, cauliflowers and oilseed rape to ensure they have their three crops, but those crops all come from the same brassica family, and are all subject to similar diseases, so a farmer who grew them would soon run into serious problems on their land.

What should a new CAP look like? We should start moving towards something that is about common objectives, rather than a unified common policy. The CAP should have key objectives, such as enhancing biodiversity, improving animal welfare and delivering food security. However, we should then give national Governments much more freedom to innovate, try new policies and adopt approaches that work in their countryside, rather than trying to have a uniform approach that works from Scotland all the way down to Greece, which is clearly difficult to achieve.

Allied to that, we would have a clear set of state aid rules that were specific to the agricultural sector, just as we have clear state aid rules for the single market in every other sector. Such rules would prevent, say, France from subsidising its farmers more than the UK Government and thereby putting our farmers at a disadvantage. Provided that we got those rules right, we could protect a single market in agricultural produce.

The key benefit of such an approach is that it would be more fluid. We would be able to hold the UK Government to account and say, “Why aren’t you trying this great new idea that is working so well in France? Surely, it would work here.” Instead, the best we can do now is to say, “How many meetings have you had with Poland to try to outmanoeuvre France?” That is not a good way forward.

When we make such proposals, people immediately think, “That’s a good idea, but it’s not realistic in the current time horizon.” I have heard that, too. Indeed, when I put these ideas to the Secretary of State last week, the answer was that they were ahead of their time, which is a flattering way of saying, “No, we’re not going to do that.”

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has great experience in the European Parliament, and I want to put one point to him. What he describes is already the direction of travel in the common fisheries policy, where there is a strong push from the UK Government, as there was under the previous Government, to move towards a more dynamic, regional-management approach, with much greater subsidiarity and local decision making, albeit in an overall framework. The hon. Gentleman may be ahead of his time on this issue, but practice in other areas is catching up with him.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman is right, except that I was not actually in the European Parliament. I was a candidate in the 1999 European elections, although unsuccessfully—and for a different party, I should add. However, I have followed these issues closely, and the hon. Gentleman is right. The EFRA Committee has, separately, been looking at the common fisheries policy, and there are proposals on the table not only to have a common framework and common objectives, but to give much more devolved power to groups of national Governments so that they can manage their own waters. It remains to be seen whether we get those reforms through, but the Government have been quite successful in getting the Commission to adopt them. That also shows the difference a different Commissioner can make. In Commissioner Damanaki, we have someone who is much more open to such proposals in relation to the common fisheries policy.

I want to question the idea that it is impossible to do what I am talking about. Alongside taking evidence on the CAP, the Committee has been looking at the natural environment White Paper. The striking thing about the CAP is that we hear people say, “We want to green pillar one in a flexible way. All this money is going into it; we need to get some public good out of it and green it.” However, they do not really know where to start, and the current proposals have run into a bit of a muddle.

On the other hand, we have the natural environment White Paper, which everybody says is very coherent and really well thought through, as well as having lots of interesting proposals about valuing natural capital and creating markets in which we can mitigate and offset environmental damage in some areas through improvements in others. The problem is that there is not enough money to bring life to those ideas.

Is it really beyond the wit of man to connect the two? Let us take some of the principles from the natural environment White Paper, link them to the funding in pillar one and see if we can make that work. What would that look like? It would mean replacing the single farm payment with some kind of market in transferable environmental obligations. A farmer on the fens who grows lettuces, and who does not really require the single farm payment for his business model to work, might say, “I don’t want to set aside 7% of my land. I don’t want to get into that. I just grow lettuces, and that’s my business model.”

In contrast, a farmer on marginal land in Wales, for instance—I have nothing against Wales, and there are patches of good soil there—may decide to opt into environmental obligations on a larger scale. That can bring benefit, with the establishment of wildlife corridors, and with critical mass in some areas for improved wildlife habitats. That might actually work, rather than a piecemeal approach with 7% of every farm’s land set aside.

Such a transferable obligations system could also be extended to issues such as animal welfare. For instance, in the case of livestock farmers who pursue less intensive systems that are better for animal welfare, rather than having to fight in the market for recognition for their extra work to improve animal welfare, they could be given that recognition by the Government; we could make them eligible for payments for which those who pursue intensive systems would not be eligible. There are lots of interesting things that could be done with such a system of transferable obligations.

As for pillar two, the Select Committee Chair mentioned the problem of its needing to be co-financed; sometimes the Government have been reluctant to buy into those things. To my mind, the answer is perhaps to bring back even greater control of pillar two, so that it does not become co-financed, but we do not send the money to the EU in the first place, and then have it come back with strings attached: in fact, we try to finance that as an agricultural fund that focuses on several key areas. Developing farm competitiveness is an important one that we should try for.

I also agree with the point that was made earlier about encouraging new entrants into farming. There was an interesting project, piloted in Cornwall, called the Fresh Start project, which aimed to encourage new entrants to the industry. The average age of farmers is incredibly high. I think that two thirds of farmers in Europe are over 60, which is a shocking figure. We need new entrants. The Welsh Government have also started interesting schemes to encourage new entrants to the industry. Pillar two could focus on improving competitiveness and encouraging new entrants, as well as keeping going with schemes such as the entry level and higher level stewardship schemes.

Those two policies, to return to what I said at the outset, prove the point that if a national Government are given the scope, freedom and head room to think through what a good policy looks like, they can get it right. The ELS and HLS are good examples of that. Britain is a trailblazer in that respect, because we have been able just to do the right thing. We have not had to go behind closed doors and haggle about it with 27 other countries. If we could do that in more areas of agricultural policy, our farming would be stronger.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

At the outset, I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for the way in which she introduced what is one of the most important subjects Parliament deals with—the production of food. It is one of the nation’s most important industries. It has been taken for granted too often, and for too long, and cast as a secondary issue, but it is crucial, and it is right and proper for the House to have the opportunity to debate it.

I think that we are all on a common page, if not a common agricultural policy, and that page is headed “The system doesn’t work.” As the Irishman said: “But you wouldn’t start from here”; but the trouble is, we are here. We are at this point after years of implementation of a policy that was initially flawed anyway, and which created huge butter mountains and a waste of food. There is virtually nothing we can do about where we are now. Those who suggest that we can suddenly end this, and everything will be all right for the industry, are just barmy. That is just silly. If anyone were to say that about any other sector of the economy, they would realise how daft it sounds. From time to time, people cry out, “What about New Zealand? It did it.” It took New Zealand nearly 20 years to get things right, and there was a lot of pain in the process. Those who advocate moving away from subsidised agricultural production need to get a grip, and to make comments relevant to the needs of the sector.

[George Eustice]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that when New Zealand abandoned its subsidies it substantially devalued its currency at the same time, so that farmers lost subsidies but gained a dramatic increase in price for their produce?

[Ian Paisley]

That is an interesting debate in its own right; there could be a good examination of what has happened in countries that have tried to reform their agri-food sector. The New Zealand question is not a debate for today, but we should always have it at the back of our mind.

No matter what we try to do, it will be pain for someone. Most importantly and obviously, it will be pain for the farming community. We must ask ourselves whether we want to put that community through pain. Let us put the matter in perspective: agri-food production in this nation is a £20 billion industry. Milk production alone represents more than £8 billion in the industry. Good, clean, traceable food, that the consumer wants to put into their body, is a positive and beneficial product. If we start to mess about with it and ruin the stability of the industry, we must be careful to understand the consequences. The production of food that the public do not feel comfortable with, or about whose production they do not feel confident, will destroy a positive and powerful economic factor for our nation. We always need to bear that in mind when we deal with agriculture; because it goes by the way, which sickens me. We need to get a grip on the fact that agri-food production is, as I said, one of the most important industries, if not the most important, in which this nation is involved.

In Northern Ireland, agriculture is a key driver in our economy. Indeed, the agri-food sector represents approximately 20% of the total private sector employment in Northern Ireland. The food and drink sector contributes £3.2 billion to our little country’s national turnover. At a time of economic difficulty, agri-food production is in a state of growth, whereas other sectors of the industry are either stagnant or in minus figures. The sector is positively growing. Agri-food production will be a crucial factor in rebalancing our local economy away from total reliance on the public sector. The key to achieving those goals is driving an export-led growth in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland.

Given the importance of the common agricultural policy to the Northern Ireland economy, and its cross-cutting nature across the majority of Government Departments, including not only Agriculture and Rural and Development, but Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and Environment, a formal agreement should be reached at Northern Ireland Executive level on how the reformed common agricultural policy will be implemented in Northern Ireland. The implementation of the reformed policy must deliver the objectives of the draft Northern Ireland Executive programme for Government. In bringing that about, it is vital that our Minister, locally in Northern Ireland, should up the game and engage directly with the ministerial team here, nationally.

Let us face it, the Minister present today, and his team, will negotiate the CAP package, no matter what form it takes. I want him to be on my side, and to argue the case for Northern Ireland. He will know that case, and how it affects the part of the United Kingdom I come from, if our Minister in Northern Ireland ups the game and engages more directly with him. I hope that that happens. The challenge is a serious one, because time is against us. The clock is ticking. The Minister needs to know all the permutations and ramifications of each decision that he will take at the CAP reform meetings, and how they will affect my part of the United Kingdom. There is a duty on politicians now to lobby hard, and that is why I welcome the debate. It sets some pretty important touchstones, which need to be recognised, and I think are being recognised, to a greater or lesser degree.

We also need to ensure that Northern Ireland gets its fair share of the UK CAP budget. It is a point that we need to negotiate directly. I do not want to do that against Scotland’s interest. Scotland has every right to make its case too—as does, of course, the great Welsh Principality, which has to be saluted at every opportunity in this place. We must ensure that there is regional flexibility within the United Kingdom. I understand that there could be a degree of flexibility across the regions of Europe. I want flexibility in the UK, so that the Department can ensure that it shares—parcels out—the money fairly and appropriately, understanding the unique circumstances in all parts of the UK. As a politician, I believe that the draft reform proposals outlined by the European Commission are deeply flawed, because they fail to address those peculiar, necessary needs and could have a major negative impact on our major industry in Northern Ireland, which would be proportionately much more significant than in any other part of the UK.

People should stop for a moment, pinch themselves and imagine a United Kingdom economy that does not have an agri-sector. If they do that, they will realise that without that sector we would be bereft of a culture and a way of life for many people and bereft of a powerful, important industry which, as I have mentioned, contributes a £20 billion value. We need to do that to recognise what is at stake and to ensure that we go out there and campaign, lobby for and achieve a settlement under the CAP that is beneficial for the whole kingdom.

The Commission’s CAP proposals will cause a huge redistribution of moneys within Northern Ireland, from lowland to hill farmers—similar to the constituency of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. That will impact greatly on those who are able to make food production sustain a community and sustain a way of life. Under those proposals, they will lose out and will be disincentivised from becoming competitive. We have to put the finger on that and recognise that the policy drivers that Europe is pursuing are upside down. The speed of transition is too fast and will not allow adequate time for the industry to adjust from a 30% flat-rate payment to a 40% transition in direct payments in one year. That is too much. A slow, proportionate transition period is ultimately required.

There should be regional flexibility within the 27 regions that comprise Europe, and internal flexibility. At regional level, it is important that Northern Ireland receives its fair percentage. I mentioned earlier fair distribution between pillar one and pillar two. It will be difficult for us to argue for fair distribution when the Government’s policy appears to be a reduction in CAP money anyway, but the money that we get must be fairly distributed, when we get it, between the two pillars. I will not go into detail in respect of my views on the active farmer, but I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who made that case exceptionally well.

The 7% set-aside rule is nonsense in light of the increasing global population and the increase that we have witnessed in westernised eating habits. In that regard, I should like to reflect particularly on the dairy sector, which is worth more than £8 billion to the UK economy and employs more than 80,000. We are the third largest milk producer in the European Community and the ninth largest in the world. Our products can be found in 98% of UK households.

Jim Begg, the director general of Dairy UK, wrote a pamphlet that has been distributed called “Action for growth”, in which he deals with how the CAP should address the needs of the milk producers:

“A requirement for ecological set aside of 7% of arable land will reduce the area available to dairy farmers for feed crops. Maintenance of permanent grassland will also restrict the ability to increase the production of home grown feed. The termination of historic payment calculation method will disadvantage dairy farmers in particular.

It is imperative that the UK ensures the distribution of payments in the EU and the UK does not discriminate against UK farmers or undermine their productive potential.”

A hearty “Hear, hear!” to that. The milk industry needs that security of tenure. We should not be doing something that upsets an already difficult market, in which prices can be difficult.

I make my comments as a representative of my constituency, in which the single largest employer is the poultry sector. One factory alone employs 1,100 people. Unfortunately, today it announced 19 redundancies, but in the scale of things—in the current economic climate—that could, of course, have been an awful lot worse. Poultry production is incredibly successful in Northern Ireland, but the fact that it, too, is feeling the squeeze at present and is having to announce re-jigs and evaluate job-shares makes it clear that even the most successful parts of our industries face a crisis at present. Heaping CAP reforms on such businesses does not address their real, genuine needs and is a flawed way for us to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Weir, particularly under your knowledgeable chairmanship on this subject. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for obtaining the debate.

I do not wish to go over ground already outlined by hon. Members this afternoon. They have made many serious and important points, most of which I agree with. I want to restate a few basic facts, however, and €57 billion is one of them—40% of the entire European Union budget. This is a fix such as no heroin junkie has ever been on, and it is difficult, in the words of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), to wean farmers off it, sometimes for the good reasons that he outlined.

The CAP provides support in three distinct elements to agricultural producers and rural areas. We should not forget that we are talking about not just farmers, but other land managers and the whole rural community. The three elements are direct income support, market measures and the rural development programme. As we have found, the key point is that the RDP must be co-financed, and we will return to that bugbear.

Given the enormous subsidy, is it not appropriate to consider what the CAP’s objectives are? Our Committee heard five objectives, the first of which should be

“to maintain or enhance the EU capacity to produce safe and high-quality food.”

The second objective should be to enhance

“the competitiveness and viability of the EU agricultural sector”

because a

“competitive and viable EU agricultural sector is the key to producing more while having less impact”—

detrimental impact—

“on the environment and to reducing farmers’ reliance on income support from taxpayers in the long-term.”

The third objective should be

“to ensure the sustainable management of the EU’s natural resources, biodiversity and landscapes, recognising that farmers are the managers of over half of the…land area”

of Europe. The fourth objective

“should be to help to maintain agricultural activity in areas where it delivers significant public benefits, such as the maintenance of biodiversity and cultural landscapes”

such as those that were mentioned earlier. However,

“the CAP should not aim to deliver an acceptable standard of living to every farmer in the EU through income support alone”—

that was a key finding by the Committee and is in the report—and

“farmers should be encouraged to look to the market for their”

fundamental returns.

The aim of this CAP reform should be to enable farmers to achieve the sustainable intensification that is required to meet the global challenge of feeding a world population that will rise from the 7 billion that it reached just a month ago to the 9 billion that it will reach in 2050, but to do so without destroying the very things that it is predicated upon: our biodiversity and our natural landscapes. The Government’s position on CAP reform must be coherent in its strategy for ensuring food security, and DEFRA must decide—I am keen to hear from the Minister on this point—whether and, if so, how it intends to implement the previous Government’s “Food 2030” strategy, taking into account the recommendations from the Foresight report on “The Future of Food and Farming” by John Beddington and co. and the UK’s position on the future of the common agricultural policy.

In the interests of fair trade and the long term, the EU should argue more strongly for a recognition of standards of production in trade agreements, including animal welfare, the use of water and greenhouse gas emissions. That is essential to achieve the global shift towards sustainable intensification that “The Future of Food and Farming” report recommended.

The Commission’s proposals to green pillar one have been at the heart of the discussion throughout Europe and our debate today. There is a suspicion that that was a sop and a way to try to justify the subsidy and support. The proposals did not receive strong support from any of our witnesses. There was concern that they would make the CAP more complicated to administer, as other hon. Members have said, and that they would confuse the logic of the two-pillar structure.

[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]

Several witnesses expressed concern about expanding pillar two, and that is DEFRA’s alternative to the expansion of pillar one. The central issue seems to be the difficulty of achieving political support in Europe, and I want to tell a story about what happened when I was in Europe just last week. I had gone over there, as had the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, to join in the parliamentary debate that the Commissioner with responsibility for reform of the common fisheries policy had called. I spoke to several members from throughout Europe and tried to persuade them of the UK’s good ideas on CFP and CAP reform. I was told universally that although some of those ideas were good, for God’s sake, I should not let the British Government suggest them because they are the most toxic brand in Europe at the moment and suggestions will not garner political support if they come from the UK.

We must consider seriously how the Government have engaged in Europe, and how they have got themselves into a position when even good ideas will not be accepted because we suggest them. Perhaps we should get other people to suggest our good ideas, and then take a back seat.

[George Eustice]

If the UK is putting forward good ideas and they are ignored because they come from us, the failure is on the part of those countries that adopt that stance. Clearly, if an idea is good, they should adopt it.

[Barry Gardiner]

Of course, in principle, we should all work from a basis of fact, science and what is rational and reasonable. The hon. Gentleman and I are totally at one on that, but we are both politicians as well, and we know that alliances are important in politics. We know that sometimes the issue is not having the right idea or the best idea; it is stacking up the votes to get that idea not only on the table, but accepted. That is what the Government have singularly failed to do. They have singularly isolated themselves in Europe, and that is a real problem for our farmers, because many of the ideas are good.

Another aspect is how, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we go about weaning farmers off the subsidies of pillar one. If we are to do that by 2020, or shortly thereafter—perhaps the Minister will clarify when—it sounds a bit like saying, “Make me virtuous Lord, but not yet.” In this round of CAP reform, we should try to get the Commission to set a date for when it will happen. Without a deadline, hon. Members know as well as I do what will happen. Come 2020, we will all be in the same position, saying, “Yes, make me virtuous Lord. Let us wean ourselves off the subsidy, but in 2027, or 2032.” We must bite the bullet. We cannot continue with this junkie habit, because it is damaging the prosperity of Europe as a whole.

It was interesting that one witness told us that the problem with shifting the policy to pillar two was that, when the opportunity was offered to member states with voluntary modulation, all but the UK ignored it, because they did not want to put additional money into match funding and co-financing. In principle, we may be in favour of co-finance in pillar two and putting more into it, but the political reality is that many do not have the money to do so. Another witness told us that expanding pillar two risked creating a very uncommon market. New member states cannot afford their share of the finance, so they cannot draw down European money.

I think we have the right nostrums. We should move away from pillar one and into pillar two, for all the reasons that hon. Members have outlined. However, regional flexibility is a problem. With pillar two, as Members have said, there is a problem of how to ensure, from Finland to Greece and Romania to Ireland, that the measures adopted are appropriate. Inevitably, as we all know, countries try to fix things in their own favour. If it is simply a smorgasbord created by an individual country, that smorgasbord will be arranged to give maximum benefit, advantage and subsidy to the country’s own farmers. Therefore, what is needed within Europe is recognition that although a regionalised, smorgasbord approach is the right one, parity must be ensured through something that we seem to have left out of this debate: sound science.

We believe in evidence-based and science-based policy. We must ensure that the benefits to the environment and the benefits that each country would bring to that regional smorgasbord are established on some sort of points system to show that they are equivalent to what other countries are offering, and therefore that the financial reward that follows from them is likewise rewarded. That is not new to DEFRA. It is already doing that in the UK national biodiversity strategy. It is considering different points for different elements of biodiversity. Why can we not propose that in Europe for adoption there? It is right to move towards a more regional approach and from pillar one to pillar two, but we must do so on the basis of sound science and public good, which must be assessed independently to ensure genuine parity.