Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

I repeat the opening remark of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I am as delighted as he was that the Opposition have given us the opportunity to put the record straight and to put to bed some of the producer-led nonsense that we have heard tonight, as if the past of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was a proud record, and as if we had not made progress on the big questions of the environment. I respect the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House representing farming interests. They make a great mistake when they assume that no farming interests are represented on the Government Benches. The picture painted by the Opposition bears no resemblance to reality. I recognise the importance of farming, but it is noticeable that no solutions to the alleged problems have been put forward. I reject the central accusation in the Opposition motion this evening—that the Department is cutting its expenditure. [Interruption.] With respect, that is what the Opposition motion says. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen read their motion. I doubt that many of them have done so. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. The expenditure of DEFRA is to increase from £3.5 billion this year to just under £4 billion by the end of the comprehensive spending review period. It is because of the macro-economic policies of the Government, opposed by the Conservatives, that we can increase expenditure in these areas, including, for example, the £121 million investment in the Pirbright laboratories that have been criticised today. What cheered me up tonight was that the Conservatives have shown that they have not shed their oppositionalism and their mindset—their attitude of mind that condemns them to permanent opposition, because they will not put forward policy ideas that accept the responsibility that all Governments have—that is, to balance budgets. They describe the efforts of my right hon. Friend and his team to balance our budget as cuts. That is not an economic policy. It is the folly of opposition. The speech from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was rather disappointing. I was looking forward to it, but it was short on substance and full of knee-jerk press release language. My right hon. Friend will lead the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations framework convention on climate change this weekend as one of the most respected internationalists and environmentalists in the world, a man of incredible integrity and intelligence, with a grasp of the detail of the brief, as we have seen tonight, that leaves Opposition Members wallowing in his wake. Above all else, despite all the criticism and the pressures that he has faced since he took office, he has remained his father's son, and shows a politeness that is a commendable quality in a leading politician. Contrast that with the points made by the Opposition. Tonight's wisest comment came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). He reminded us that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was a throwback to the 1960s—although I would say the 1930s. Despite 18 years of government, the Conservatives never got rid of it. I have done my research, and should like to refer to the memoirs of the last Cabinet member for MAFF under the Conservative Government. The book, of course, relates to the rosy days of MAFF under the Tories. This is what Gillian Shephard wrote, ““It was regarded by smart political commentators as dull and by other Departments as incomprehensible. The Minister was left alone for the most part. MAFF's budget is so small that it is hardly worth fighting over.”” She went on, ““Much as I love the work of MAFF, its best friend could not claim that its policy issues were anything other than impenetrable, especially when they were being discussed in a crowded, steamed-up car on the way to Heathrow early in the morning.”” She gives us other insights.