6.
asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next expects to meet the EEC Commissioner with special responsibility for the protection of consumer interests.
23.
asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what recent discussions he has had with his EEC colleagues about proposals for increasing protection for the consumer.
I have recently met Commissioner Gundelach, who has responsibility for the internal market and as such is closely involved with many issues affecting consumers. The present Commissioner responsible for consumer affairs will be leaving shortly and my right hon. Friend and I would welcome the opportunity to meet his successor. I met Madame Scrivener, the French Minister for Consumer Affairs, when she visited London earlier this year at the invitation of the British Government, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State regularly attends Agriculture Council meetings.
Will the Minister confirm that our friends in Europe appear to be protecting British consumers' interests by subsidising our food prices to the tune of about £1 2/4 million a day? Does he think that that is a good thing? If so, how does he reconcile that with the Government's accelerated phasing out of our own food subsidies?
One welcomes the fact that we receive a subsidy of those dimensions under the European arrangements. I do not think that there is anything inconsistent between the receipt of those moneys from Europe and the phasing out of food subsidies on a domestic basis as part of an economic strategy.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the EEC and its Commission have a very biased policy in favour of the producer? Will he take advantage of the change in Commissioners to see that the voice of the producer is heard and that there is a proper balance for the first time on behalf of the consumer, changing the EEC's present bias in favour of the producer?
I think that my hon. Friend means that he wants to change the bias in favour of the consumer rather than the producer. It is clear that the common agricultural policy has very much favoured the producer and has paid insufficient regard to the views of the consumers of food. The Government have never disguised the fact that they are dissatisfied with the way in which that policy has worked. I hope that the House will be reassured by the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary attends Council meetings to put forward the consumer point of view.
Does not the Minister agree that, far from the Common Market's subsidising British consumers, the argument is the other way round? Is he aware that in 1975 we could have purchased the same volume of food on the world market for £800 million less than we paid because we are a member of the Common Market? Therefore, in spite of the so-called subsidy of £350 million that we receive from the EEC, surely we are subsidising the Common Market at the end of the day.
It would be dangerous to try to draw conclusions at the end of 1976 from the situation in 1975. Whilst cheaper food might be available without tariffs if we were not members of the Common Market, that fact is probably balanced by the amount of subsidy we receive from Brussels. That does not mean that one is complacent about the present situation.