Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister ought to go back and look at the voting record, because the Labour party voted collectively on that matter.

The thrust of the Minister’s speech was about a more competitive farming industry. We do have a strong farming industry. The question is whether he and his Eurosceptic colleagues can carry that forward through the negotiations. I commend the work of UKRep officials in trying to get the very best outcome from a misguided ministerial approach to the EU. They have stuck their fingers in diplomatic dams, while Ministers have been digging away the foundations. I suspect that the Minister has been somewhat dismayed and has done his best among a very bad lot, but it has been a model exercise in how not to win friends and how not to influence people.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has a vision of the perfect negotiating strategy that his side might have. Might that include giving away half our rebate to get a fundamental reform of the agricultural policy? Will he remind me how successful that was?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

There, once again, speaks the historic Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party. We have always had the clear position that negotiations on the CAP, the common fisheries policy, on which I negotiated, and on Europe more generally are best served by honesty, transparency, frankness and collaboration. I must make some progress, given your dictate, Mr Speaker.

The Government’s approach both in the UK and in the EU has been wanting. Where does that leave us at this critical stage of the negotiations? At EU level, we are taking not two steps forward and one back, but one step forward and three back. The Secretary of State put it well when he wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in February:

“overall I am disappointed in the outcome of the vote in Agriculture Committee”.

So are we. He continued:

“The amendments turn back the clock in terms of achieving good value for money from rural development, especially agri-environment, and do nothing to continue orientating European agriculture to the market.”

We agree, Secretary of State, we agree. He continued:

“There is a significant watering down of the greening proposals”.

It is all getting a bit gloomy, but there is worse:

“I would emphasise concern on the outcome of the vote on the single CMO where the compromises put a halt to, and even reverse, the direction of reform that CAP has been on”.

Yes, the direction of reform and the progress towards reform that had been achieved, including by Labour Secretaries of State working effectively, collaboratively and intelligently with like-minded progressive member states, are being reversed. How times have changed; how progress has stalled and even been reversed in some areas.

I remind the Secretary of State and his Ministers that his criticism of the lack of progress must be laid fairly and squarely at his own door. It is not enough to bemoan a lack of progress, or even a regression into old-style CAP production support, when that has happened under his leadership of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, his Prime Minister’s leadership of the country and his party’s little-Englander, banner-waving, terrified-of-UKIP style of leadership. They have contributed to our current position. “Speak softly but carry a big stick,” has been replaced by, “Shout loudly and antagonise the neighbours.” Despite all that, we will continue here and in Brussels and Strasbourg to support the Government when they try to do the right thing. We just want them to try harder and negotiate cleverer. That is the backdrop to where we are now.

Many of the detailed contributions today will rightly be focused on farming and technical in character. Before I put some questions to the Minister, it is worth reiterating that Labour strongly believes that farming goes hand-in-hand with sound, sustainable farming practices. In addition to delivering food security and affordability, this CAP reform should not shy away from its broader sustainability remit. Profitable farm businesses are based on sustainable farming practices such as protecting and enhancing soil quality and the water environment; conserving special and priority species and habitats, landscape features and archaeological sites; minimising the carbon footprint of farming; promoting access to the countryside, high animal welfare standards and links to the wider rural economy and communities, and much more. That, by the way, is why pillar two and rural development cannot be overlooked while we strive to ensure the productivity and competitiveness of farming.

Collectively, the Government and their agencies have worked with farmers, landowners and non-governmental organisations throughout the UK over many years to deliver food security for this country; to produce affordable food for the consumer; to protect what we, visitors and tourists love aesthetically in our landscape and countryside, which boosts the wider rural economy; to conserve our habitats, wildlife and biodiversity; to enhance the wider public goods in management of our ecosystem and biodiversity; and, in all that, to adapt to the challenges of climate change. On top of that, farmers have been asked to work with the Government as the CAP moves towards a more market-oriented system, with less reliance on payments for production and more transparent use of public money for public goods.

The head of the National Farmers Union, Peter Kendall, is not alone among the farming unions in his concern that farmers are being left high and dry, confused and condemned by a Government who are as out of touch with farmers as they are with the EU negotiations. He states:

“Instead of delivering a genuine policy framework that embraces and fosters a modern, market orientated, competitive farming sector, free of unnecessary red tape, I fear we will be left with a complex mish-mash of competing and contradictory policy components which will leave farmers facing more bureaucracy and more distortions in the market than ever before.”

I ask the DEFRA ministerial team, who are leading our negotiations, how that came to pass on their watch.

How likely is it that the ongoing dispute over co-financing and the movement of funds between pillars one and two could scupper progress at the June negotiations? Equally important, if there is a delay, are there specific improvements that the Minister will seek in the time gained? Is there any possibility of using that time to reverse the undoubtedly backwards steps towards more old-style market support? Will he say whether the farming unions’ argument is correct that, because of the differential application of the transfer of funds between pillars one and two among nations, their members will unavoidably be placed at a competitive disadvantage? If so, will the Minister share with the House his analysis of how that is likely to affect profitability and competitiveness in each sector, as well as UK farming as a whole against our European neighbours? How will the Government ensure the level playing field to which the Minister referred? Our farmers are not afraid of competition, but it must be fair and open.

We have considered competitive disadvantage across the EU, but how will the Minister deal with the same question across constituent parts of the UK? For example, Scottish Ministers have made it clear that they want maximum flexibility to extend their support—including to sectors such as livestock—well beyond the levels of support that may be given to English or Welsh farmers. What is the Minister’s thinking on that and how will he respond to requests from Scottish Ministers for complete, up-front devolution of funding to the Executive? Will he argue against further use of coupled payments in devolved Administrations, or accept that that is part and parcel of devolution? If the latter, how will he explain that to farmers in England?

How will the Secretary of State respond to the view of the Country Land and Business Association, Tenant Farmers Association and farming unions in England that the introduction of greening elements reduces the need for such a substantial transfer of funds from pillar one to pillar two for environmental measures? Does the Minister believe that such transfers are essential to maintain environmental benefits and not substitutable for pillar one measures, or that they are additional and will extend the future scope of environmental measures?

Farmers want clarity on DEFRA’s position on opt-outs from greening proposals. Does the Minister intend that our farmers should be able to opt out of the specific greening measures proposed, forgoing just the 30% proportion of the new payment but without any further penalty; or will he hold them to complying with the whole package, with no opt-out other than a full one? I trust he can explain his position today.

It comes to something when the president of the NFU remarks candidly that “negotiators have come back from Europe with less than we started with.”

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of Ministers’ batting for British food, farming and rural communities. With the Secretary of State as Lord Raglan in this assault, UKRep and DEFRA officials are playing an heroic role as negotiators, unquestioningly negotiating through the valley of diplomatic death he has made for them. There is confusion and misdirection aplenty as UK interests get cut down again and again by the well positioned, well dug-in cannonades of other European nations. The French commander, Marshal Pierre Bosquet, exclaimed of the futile but spectacular charge of the Light Brigade:

“C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.”

It is magnificent, but it is not war. Russian officers offered less praise and more regret, saying of the headlong charge, “C’est la folie.” It is madness.

Labour will continue to engage directly with farmers, farming unions, environmental organisations, MEPs, colleagues in devolved Administrations and Governments, and all who want to see CAP reform deliver for food security and affordability, environmental and wider public benefits, and rural communities. We will support the Government to get the best deal, despite a cack-handed approach to negotiations thus far. I wish the Minister good luck. Where he gets it right he will have our support, but there is a long way to go.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to delay the House, but I sympathise with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who feels strongly about the matter. I have sought advice from the Clerks, but I am not clear. I might be mistaken, but I understand that, should the Secretary of State or his representative on the Treasury Bench choose to raise the matter even in objection to Lords amendments, they would give the House an opportunity to express its view on the matter once and for all. It is annoying that we have no opportunity to debate the abolition of the AWB, but to have no opportunity even to vote on it is a double indignity. Can you advise the House on that, Mr Deputy Speaker?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This group of amendments also includes the first statutory regulation of the press since the late 17th century. For the House of Commons to be unable to vote specifically on such a major constitutional issue seems to me to deny our constituents their right to maintain freedom of speech in the country at large, and I hope that you will find some procedure—and the Clerks, in their wisdom, will find some precedent from the early days of Parliament—so that we may vote on this motion.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Huw Irranca-Davies

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reassurance, but I will be reassured when I see the detail. I will be reassured when I see that this policy will not have the impacts that I have just laid out. We are privileged to be here and to be able to speak up for people. Let us speak up, as I am sure he would want to do, for those who could be disadvantaged by the unforeseen consequences of this response to Daily Mail headlines.

“Ending payments like the health and pregnancy grant and slashing child tax credits at a £40,000 joint income threshold is going to put pressure on families already struggling.”

Those are not my words, but those of Bob Reitemeier, the chief executive of the Children’s Society. He added:

“We are also concerned about the amount to be clawed back from the welfare bill over the next five years as the chancellor aims to find savings of £40 billion.”

Gingerbread, the charity for single parents, has said that families having a second child could be worse off by up to £1,200 a year. Chief executive Fiona Weir said:

“Having a baby puts the family finances under pressure. These cuts will really hit families with young children hard.”

The concerns are not mine alone, therefore, and I am genuinely not indulging in party politics. I will say well done to the Government if their proposals are right and they work, but my real fear is that they are acting prematurely and going in too hard, when there are alternatives that are not being considered and which I shall turn to now.

The Chancellor and the Business Secretary regularly cite the examples of Canada and Sweden when it comes to cutting deficits. However, I shall repeat until I am blue in the face that both countries acted against a backdrop of strong economic growth in their export markets. Unless I have missed something, that is not available to countries in Europe, or the eurozone.

Other positive elements in the case of Canada and Sweden were currency devaluation and the active use of monetary policy. However, in the first case we have been there and done that already with sterling and, in the second, hon. Members will know that our base rate is already low.

Without those three little helpers—those three legs of the stool—we do not get the economic support or growth that, under the plans being put forward by the coalition Government, are essential if we are to mitigate the worst excesses of the proposed cuts, beyond the Red Book. What we do get is all the pain of savage cuts, and absolutely none of the gain. That will go on for years.

In fact—I hate to say this, but I am not alone in doing so—we could well go backwards. If, in a year, we are slipping backwards or limping along like some invalid at the bottom of an economic cycle, it will not be because people such as me failed to stand up and make the opposing case. It is important that someone does that, alongside the economists outside the House.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I do not quite understand his logic. Two of the three legs of the stool to which he refers—the loose monetary policy and the devaluation—remain in place, to the benefit of British industry. It is only the third leg that is absent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. Those two legs have been put in place already, but Sweden and Canada actively used both of them during the period of the cuts in order to make the cuts work. We can no longer do that, and we certainly do not have economic growth.

I put that to the Chancellor in this Chamber on two occasions last week. On the first, he dealt with what I said as a purely party-political matter, and swatted me down. I understand: we do that in this place. On the second occasion, however, he did not have an answer, saying merely that this was a matter of judgment—and that is what I am worried about.

This is a very important issue. All our funding for health, education, social services, local authorities, transport, and the attack on poverty is entirely dependent on one big macro-decision about how we go forward from this recession. If the coalition Government are right, I say good luck to them: they will get my praise in one, two, or five years. However, if they are wrong—and no one on the coalition Benches is willing to accept that there is even a scintilla of a possibility that they could be wrong—they must recognise that some people told them so in advance, and with good reason.

The scenario may have been different in the 1980s, but we saw the effect that the approach adopted by the Government had then. We saw it in a very personal way, as friends who used to have jobs became unemployed. They would knock on our doors asking to clean windows or do other odd jobs just to make ends meet. We knew what was happening, because our children went to the same schools, and that is why I ask the Government please to accept that there is an alternative.

What do others say? Economic commentators such as Will Hutton, Paul Krugman and David Blanchflower have all pointed out that the proposed cuts are about twice as extreme as those undertaken in Canada and threaten the recovery. The cuts seem to be motivated not by a good examination of the alternatives, but by ideology.

I return to my opening comments to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. The Financial Times suggests that the emergency Budget will affect Wales—my home patch—disproportionately. I know that. As many as 50,000 to 60,000 jobs could be lost in the public sector, but that is not all. The knock-on effect of the loss of between 50,000 and 60,000 public sector jobs, in my constituency or in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), will be the loss of jobs in the private sector and the loss of retail confidence. High street shops will go and the bottom will be knocked out of our communities. Unemployment, and regional inequality, will grow and grow.

Will Hutton points out:

“No country has ever volunteered such austerity. It is as tough a package of retrenchment as the IMF imposed on Greece, a country on the brink of bankruptcy.”

He noted that it took Sweden three times as long to carry out the same level of cuts as the UK coalition Government want to impose.

The economist David Blanchflower noted that the effects of the Budget will hit young people disproportionately, and that a double-dip recession is almost inevitable. A double-dip recession is the spectre in the room—a Government Member urged us not to use that phrase but it would be remiss of me not to mention it. Of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, David Blanchflower says:

“If the young are first, I fully expect the disabled, the old and the weak to be the next target.”

There is an alternative way forward and I genuinely ask the Government to consider it. Will they also consider a new version of the Tobin tax, or Robin Hood tax—much derided for many years? It is good to see a bank levy, but it could have been more ambitious. An open letter to the Chancellor was signed by many Members, including our Green party representative, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), Welsh MPs, cross-party civic organisations, Save the Children Wales, Christian Aid Wales, the secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union Wales, the National Association of Probation Officers Wales and GMB Wales. It states:

“We are pleased that you support a bank tax, but a truly ambitious bank tax would mean those with the broadest shoulders bear the brunt of the cost of the economic recovery, whereas a rise in Value Added Tax or premature cuts to public services would hit the poorest hardest.”

That letter was genuinely cross-party. Some of the greatest advocates of that approach sat in the Liberal Democrat camp on the Opposition Benches, and we tried very hard to get a signature from a Welsh Liberal Democrat. It seems that the lines about premature cuts are now out of date.

I say to the Government, please be right. We often pull at the emotional heartstrings about the 1980s, but if the Budget damages my communities as I think it will, when there is an alternative, I shall certainly never forget or forgive, and nor will my communities, because we have seen it all before. I hope we are not seeing old-style 1980s Tory cuts. I hope that the measures that the coalition Government say will mitigate the worst excesses for the lowest deciles and quintiles are well judged, but I fear they are not. Why are the coalition Government not even considering an alternative way forward that minimises the risks to communities such as mine?