---

European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 40: 40: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ““excluding”” insert— ““(i) Article 2, paragraph 48, amended Article 36 TEU (TFEU), first paragraph, the words ““European Parliament and””; (ii) Article 2, paragraph 49(c), amended Article 37 TEC (TFEU), new paragraph 2, first sentence, the words ““The European Parliament and”” and the words ““, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and””; and (iii) ”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 40 is in my noble friend’s name. I will also speak to Amendments No. 41 and 41A. I ask noble Lords to note that I am actively engaged in my family’s agricultural and horticultural business and, as such, I must declare an interest. The Lisbon treaty and the new constitutional settlement—that is what it represents, notwithstanding the semantics of the Government’s position—have relatively little to say on the detail of the common agricultural policy. This is probably just as well—noble Lords have enough to give them concern with the Bill as it is. However, it is a matter of European Union history that, other than the Coal and Steel Community, the common agricultural policy is the longest living relic of the idealism of those early days. It would greatly extend the nature of this debate to decide whether in the 1066 and All That version of history it has been a good thing or a bad thing. It has certainly presided over a period of considerable change—both structural and technical—and, up to now, provided the countryside with some economic security and the consumer with good-quality food at reasonable prices. However, things are changing fast and I am far from sure that politicians are changing fast enough. Almost certainly, Europe’s common agricultural policy is too inflexible and hidebound in national self-interest to change fast enough. What have the Government been doing to force the pace of change? For what reason did we give up our rebate? It was in direct return for reform of common agricultural policy. Where is that reform? I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the health check, but Miss Mariann Fischer Boel, the Agriculture Commissioner, expressly stated that it is not reform. The Government know that the enemies of CAP reform are deeply entrenched in Europe. How do they explain their weakness in confronting the opponents of change? Will the noble Lord give any assurances of worth in this area when it is clear that the French have dominated the agenda in agricultural affairs since the founding of the policy? Recent changes in market conditions have alerted all and alarmed some. They are not brought about by poor harvests alone but are also consequent on demand-led changes—global economic changes and the new demands of renewable energy and biofuels. All this has led to a realisation that all is not well in the world of the common agricultural policy. Stuck as it is in the political philosophies which gave it birth, it is overcentralised, overbureaucratic, inflexible and wasteful. The current health check is a long overdue investigation into where this policy is leading. It was originally envisaged that the CAP would support the interests of farmers and the rural community and, at the same time, look after consumer interests, but it is in danger of doing neither. It has become the creature of national Governments operating in their own self-interests and the victim of the trade-off policies which, more than anything, have destroyed the idealism that lay behind the formation of the European Community, now the European Union. Much will hang on the health check, the draft report of which is due next week. It would be useful for noble Lords to know—the Minister might assure the House—that the draft report will be debated here and that nothing in the Bill impedes such reform as may emerge. Amendment No.40 is designed to resist moves to weaken control of national Governments over important framework laws governing the CAP and the CFP. The Committee will know that many reforms have been suffocated by the inability of European institutions such as the European Parliament to come to grips with change. It has consistently opposed reforms such as those affecting the wine industry or increased modulation—that is, the transfer of budgets—whereas this country and Portugal have been alone in initiating them on a voluntary basis. Indeed, the Parliament has vouched to lock many of its current policies after 2013. Amendment No. 40 is designed to exclude codecision-making powers from the European Parliament, for it can be easily seen that it is likely to become a roadblock to reform and a second line of defence for protectionists. This is not assisted by the treaty, which, as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose pointed out on a previous amendment, gives the Community exclusive competence on the marine environment. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has pointed out, that the definition of agriculture includes fishing. Additionally, ““agricultural products”” means the products of the soil, livestock farming and fisheries and covers the first-stage processing of all these products. Amendment No. 41 seeks to challenge the treaty in seeking such competency. We have can have no doubt, therefore, that Europe intends to maintain and extend control over these matters. Already overregulated, we should note that the Commission may also authorise other measures, the conditions and detail of which it shall determine. What role for Defra when the statutory instruments arrive by first-class post from Brussels? Amendment No. 41A seeks to make sure that Parliament here in Westminster still retains a role in the development of the CAP. I hope the Minister is able to reassure the Committee that this will be the case should the Lisbon treaty be ratified. I remember assurances that the whole purpose of the treaty was to engage national parliaments in codecision-making. Perhaps I have misinterpreted this proposal. It is certainly important to know that CAP reform would involve a role for Westminster. Perhaps I may conclude by making a particular observation. The Lisbon treaty makes provision for the common organisation of agricultural markets in one of the following forms: common competition rules, compulsory co-ordination of national market organisation or a European market organisation—different structures for different products. It is not difficult to see that this could lead to a considerable tightening of the interference and control in the marketplace. I am minded that the drafters of such proposals need a seminar on the operation of the market from the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, who, although not in his place, instructs the House as a Minister on this subject regularly and to good effect. Regulation and control have no relevance for a world which has become anxious about food security and where land-use prioritisation, following the development of biofuels, is creating powerful pressures to increase capacity. The Government have presented us with a Bill which they say is designed to set the pattern for the future of the Union. The reality is that it avoids issues such as the CAP, or where it includes them does so in such a way that it makes them irrelevant to the greater challenges facing Europe’s farmers and the anxieties of Europe’s citizens. Our amendments recognise this. I beg to move.