|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Tim Yeo, you allege that
Labour has turned its back on our farmers, doesn't stand up for them either
at home or abroad, in truth, you're not going to be able to offer them
very much more, if any, than they're getting at the moment, are you?
TIM YEO: Well, first of all, it
isn't just me that alleges that, you go into any village in Britain today
and you'll find that the country people are saying exactly that. That's
what they feel after four years of neglect and even hostility from Labour.
Now what we will do first of all is to show that we're on their side.
We believe that the survival of farming is important to Britain's future.
It's important not just for our farmers, it's important for our consumers
and for our environment and to help that happen we will do five very straight-forward
things. We'll claim the cash that is available from Europe and we'll spend
the money which the government has said it's promised to farming. Secondly,
we'll cut the burden of red tape and regulation which is strangling all
small businesses in this country, but particularly farms. Thirdly, we'll
introduce honesty in food labelling so that consumers know what it is they're
buying, where it came from, and how it was grown. Fourthly, we will stand
up for Britain's interests in our dealings with the rest of the European
Union in a way which this Labour government has totally failed to do time
and again, plenty of examples there, and lastly, in the extreme circumstances,
if the health of British consumers is threatened by sub-standard food imports,
we will block those imports.
HUMPHRYS: Right, let me come to
some of those in a moment. Let's deal, the one bit you didn't deal with
there, was money. What farmers want is a bigger income, it really is as
simple as that, I mean, whatever else you talk about, that's what it all
comes down to in the end, because if they haven't got enough money they
go out of business and a lot of them are going out of business. You are
not going to be able to spend any more money, you do not intend to spend
any more money in total than is being spent at the moment.
YEO: Well, of course, farmers
do want more money, and who wouldn't if you'd had a drop of three-quarters
in your income over four years, but they don't want it in the form of government
handouts, they don't want to be dependant on the taxpayer for the cash,
they want the chance to earn a living in fair competitive conditions on
what they like to call the level playing field with other countries, now
there are two differences between us and the Labour Party on money, firstly,
we believe that the
agri-monetary compensation, a very technical term, that's the cash help
that's available from Europe, to compensate for the weakness of the Euro.
We believe that this year, the Euro is very weak, that farming is in an
acute crisis, the worst it's had for two generations, the two-hundred-million
pounds that's on the table in Brussels which could be claimed today by
the government and we've called on them time and again to do so, they should
take that money up and if the election comes on April 5th as I hope it
does, and if I'm the minister on April 6th...
HUMPHRYS: April 5th? Not May 3rd.....
YEO: ...well, the significance
of April 5th here is that the deadline for this money runs out on April
30th. If it is not claimed by April 30th it is gone, for good, we'll never
get it back.
HUMPHRYS: But the problem with
it is, it's not as simple as saying, ah, there's two-hundred-million quid,
we'll have that, thank-you very much indeed. The problem with it is that
the Treasury has to cough up, as we were hearing in that film, more than
two-thirds of it. Now if you're not going to spend any more money than
we are spending at the moment, how are you going to cough up all of that
extra cash. You can't.
YEO: Indeed we can. The
fact is that this is a decision which has to be taken each year on the
merits of the case and in the current year, for this purpose this year
runs until April 30th, the industry is in such an acute crisis that we
believe that this money should be claimed in full, and Michael Portillo
has authorised me to say that to make that pledge if we're in power before
April 30th, we will claim that in full. Now, what we do next year, will
depend on the level of the Euro, and the state of the industry, and so
on and actually, this money tapers off quite quickly over the next two
years, there's very little of it left, this whole system runs out, but
the fact is, it must, the decision must be made each year on the merits
of the case, and the merits this year are clear, the industry needs that
help.
HUMPHRYS: But let's be quite clear.
You are committing yourselves to what amounts to about an extra one-hundred-and-sixty
million pounds of spending on this particular issue, that's got to come
from somewhere, hasn't it?
YEO: Well, what we're committing
actually is a bit less than that. It's about two-thirds, about a-hundred-and-thirty
million, and indeed we are, that is a current year commitment, if that
money is not claimed...
HUMPHRYS: ...where's it coming
from?
YEO: ...if that money is
not claimed by April 30th it cannot be spent. The opportunity goes for
all time and actually it reduces the amount that is available in following
years. Let me tell you, that when Gordon, well there'll be a budget between
now and April 30th, the amount of extra surplus that Gordon Brown unveils
will dwarf a-hundred-and-thirty..., so it'll be petty cash, the tragedy
is, that if the government refuse to take this opportunity up, then it
is lost, and as I say, it reduces the amount that's available in future.
HUMPHRYS: So two things then, one,
if we have an early election and you're fortunate enough to win it, you
would be giving that extra amount of money in effect to the farmers, you
would be saying, a-hundred-and-thirty million pounds from the Treasury
will go to the farmers so that we can get that two-hundred million pounds
from Brussels. If it's later and you are in a position to do so, you will
not be giving them any more money. Am I clear about that?
YEO: No, what we will do
then, is make a judgement each year on the merits of the case.
HUMPHRYS: So you might give them
more money?
YEO: Well, we can't tell.
We don't know what the Euro's going to be doing over the next six, twelve
months.
HUMPHRYS: No, but if the Euro stays
where it is...
YEO: Well, we will assess
the situation. The farm incomes may have recovered as a result of some
other measures we've taken, as a result of world prices changing.
HUMPHRYS: May?
YEO: No government would
say, a year in advance, what it's going to do about claiming this compensation.
The present government is ten months into the current year, they still
haven't said what they're going to do about the current year. You can't
ask us what we're going to do in the future. As far as the general...
HUMPHRYS: ...I can if you're saying
we are committed to spending 'x' amount and no more, and at the moment,
as I understand it, from what you've said yourself, the overall, I quote
you, the overall spending level will not increase, but it jolly well would,
wouldn't it, if you had to shell out another hundred-and-thirty million
and then commit yourself in future years, given all these other factors,
I grant you, you might have to continue spending large amounts of money.
YEO: Well, as I say we
will judge the situation on the merits of the case. I believe and hope
that we will work within the MAFF budget and the spending under the English
Rural Development Plan which is a seven year budget which the government
has already agreed. There's another item here though, that it the money
that the government promised after the Downing Street summit in March last
year. A big package unveiled, the usual fanfare, spin doctors everywhere.
Two hundred million pounds of cash promised for farmers, less than half
of that has been spent up to date. The twenty-six million pounds for the
pig farmers to restructure, one of the most beleaguered sectors of farming,
not a penny of that spent ten months later. A small business advisory
service for farmers, only two per cent of that has been spent. The Redundant
Farm Building programme, all these promises, money that MAFF had in the
pipeline which they haven't spent, we believe that money should be spent,
it was promised to farmers, they expected it and they actually deserve
it.
HUMPHRYS: So you are promising
to do all of that but you are also promising to do a lot more and I have
a little list here of some of the things that you are going to do; an early
retirement scheme for farmers, that would cost eighty million pounds over
three years; compensating diary farmers for Bovine TB, another fifteen
million pounds; subsidies for hill farmers, eighty million pounds over
three years. Adds up to a lot of money doesn't it?.
YEO: Well, the retirement
scheme for tenant farmers, we've actually said will be funded from the
English Rural Development Programme. That is one of the aims of expenditure
which that programme..
HUMPHRYS: ...eighty million over
three years...
YEO: Well the programme
is one point seven million pounds over seven years and even Labour haven't
gone into detail about how they are going to spend it all over the whole
seven years. So that is one of the areas where there is discretionary expenditure
which has not yet been predetermined and that is one of the things that
we will use it for. We believe that tenant farmers are in desperate need
of retirement help as they come to the end of their working lives. They
don't have an asset to fall back on. In the case of the hill farmers, the
promise is to continue the level of help which the government has done
over the last three years. We have been having sixty million pounds a year
assistance for hill farmers, it comes on a slightly different form in the
future. On the money for the Bovine TB problem, that is a very serious
problem, it is a serious threat to animal health...
HUMPHRYS: Indeed, but it all costs
money is my point. Each of these three things costs a lot of money which
you have not got - you're not going to increase expenditure. That's what's
puzzling me you see. Nobody argues the value of these things that you are
proposing, jolly nice and every farmer would say yeah, very sensible. But
if you've committed yourself not to...to spending no more money, the overall
spending level will not increase, I don't quite see how you square this
circle.
YEO: Well, I've just been
trying to explain how we square the circle. We have identified areas of
expenditure in the current government's budget which were not even being
spent. There are other areas as well, there is research that has been
taking place on things like genetically modified crops. We believe the
cost of that should be borne by the industry which will benefit from it.
We believe that the, as I say, the ERDP, English Rural Development Programme,
is a very substantial expenditure programme, the details of which have
not all been written in and we will want to look at the priorities. Our
priorities are likely to be different from those of the present government
and that is how we hope to fund things like the tenant retirement scheme.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's look at
something that is going to be even more difficult and this really is a
mountain of a problem isn't it, CAP reform. The Common Agriculture Policy.
Now, if you were going to change anything substantially, the CAP has to
be changed but nobody is going to listen to you in Europe because you are
so confrontational and it's all about consensus in Europe these days isn't
it, maybe it always has been. But you have got a problem here, you say
we will to change this fundamental thing against which so many people have
difficulties with, with which so many people have difficulties, and you
are approaching them, if I may say so, swinging your handbag, if you had
one that is, you would be..
YEO: Well, I don't think
that actually is really borne out by the evidence. The fact is that the
present government have cosied up to Europe in the last four years, with
what result? What has being nice to those French Ministers done for British
Beef farmers, absolutely nothing. When the French government imposed its
illegal ban on British Beef exports after the European Commission had certified
that they were absolutely safe. What did Nick Brown do by way of protest,
he didn't utter a whisper in public, in fact on your programme, on the
Today Programme, he admitted he hadn't even rung up the French Minister
to talk about the issue. When we had the Anglo-French summit at Downing
Street, hosted by Tony Blair, the main issue between the two countries
at that time was the French illegal ban on British Beef. It wasn't even
discussed during the whole day. What I am saying is that the idea that
taking a firm line in defence of your national interest somehow makes it
harder to get your way in Europe, is not borne out by the facts. Margaret
Thatcher negotiated consistently and successfully in the 1980s, getting
good deals for Britain on things like the budget rebate. By rolling over
and asking for the European Commission to tickle our tummy or the other
ministers in the Council of Ministers to walk all over us, that actually
sends just the very worst possible signal.
HUMPHRYS: The trouble is that you
are talking about a firm line and we don't really know a firm line on what
because you haven't told us yet what changes you want to make.
YEO: Well I think it was
sad that since the reform of the CAP is probably one of the absolute prerequisites
for the enlargement of the European Union, if we are going to bring in
those other farming countries in Eastern Central Europe. It was a pity
it had so little attention at the Nice Summit which was supposed to be
about enlargement last December. Of course there are a lot of specific
areas which need to be very carefully examined. We have already made clear
that we think milk quotas should be scrapped as soon as possible. We believe
that the way in which farming is moving towards a much more environmentally
conscious industry that the payments under the CAP, which at the moment
have to be made for production, should also be allowed to be made for environmental
purposes.
HUMPHRYS: That's very broad brush
stuff though isn't it. You've got to have much more detailed proposals
than that.
YEO: Well it's very very
important. I don't think you'd expect us in opposition to publish in advance
every detail of the kind of...
HUMPHRYS: But you told us you were
going to.
YEO: Well we've said we
believe that the CAP should be fundamentally reformed, I'm just starting
to suggest some of the ways in which that should happen. As it happens,
another, a very important aspect of this is to see which decisions that
are currently made under the CAP might be better taken by individual governments.
We think that the one way traffic of decisions always going from national
governments towards Brussels should sometimes be a two-way traffic. We
think the scandal of five hundred million pounds of subsidiaries to tobacco
farmers in Greece should be ended. Those are very specific suggestions.
HUMPHRYS: And many of them have
been made by many people over the years. But let's deal with this question
of the one-way traffic. At the moment we are importing a lot of food, obviously
from Europe. You are saying you want to ban food that does not meet our
Animal Welfare Standards and various other standards that we have. Sounds
fine and everybody said quite right too. But again, you can't do it because
the rules, the laws indeed, of Europe do not allow you to do that.
YEO: Well on the contrary,
actually very specifically this is one of the misleading statements that
was made on the programme by Colin Breed, it's been made in the House of
Commons by Nick Brown. The fact is under the European Treaties, just as
under the World Trade Organisation rules, it is possible for the government
of one country to put a block on imports if they believe those imports
are dangerous to the health of their people and for a whole series of reasons
as well.
HUMPHRYS: So the French were right
to ban our beef then.
YEO: They had a legal basis
for which they could do it and at the time that the whole of Europe argued
that our beef...
HUMPHRYS: ...we've taken them to
the European Court...
YEO: ..well hang on a bit.
At the time when the European Commission had said that British Beef was
dangerous, then there was a legal basis for the ban on British Beef exports.
Once the European Commission had said, ah now, British beef has gone through
all these changes, it's now safe, as they did in 1999 and France maintained
the ban. Then that ban at that point became illegal. But what I am saying
is, we don't allow substandard motorcars to be sent here, there are rules
about that, we don't allow substandard toys for children to suck, there
are rules about that as well. There is a framework and we will use that
framework, the question is whether when we know that French meat pies are
coming in here which have been processed from cattle which are over thirty
months old. When those are happening unchecked and when the consumer doesn't
have any information on the label to warn them this is a French meat pie,
then you've got to be prepared to take action and defend your consumer.
HUMPHRYS: All right, ten seconds
to deny what David Curry says which is and I quote "some of our policies
are rather inclined to do what the Daily Mail says.
YEO: Well David of course
is well known for being a very strong pro-European. The fact is that we
have an agenda which will support the British farmer, which will make sure
that the burden of red tape is lifted, which will do things like ensuring
there are separation distances where you've got genetically modified crops
so you don't destroy conventional organic farms. There's a whole series
of specific measures in our policy document and I hope all farmers will
see it next week, which actually set out what we are going to do.
HUMPHRYS: Tim Yeo, thank you very
much for joining us this morning.
|