| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean : No, I shall not seek to dismiss the comments of one of Britain's most eminent scientists and experts on food irradiation. The extent of the reduction in the number of food sickness cases related to irradiation will depend on consumer uptake. If consumers want to use irradiated foods--and we all know that irradiation is a safe process--if there is a growth in demand, irradiation will certainly have a major part to play. If, as forecasts suggest, only a minority of consumers want irradiation, the part played by irradiation will remain relatively small.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. So that there may be no distress in the Chamber, perhaps I should explain that I am being heavily urged by the Procedure Committee to speed up Question Time. As those who are in the Chamber for agriculture questions know well, sometimes the sun comes out after the rain. If hon. Members do not remain in the Chamber it is difficult to call them.
Mrs. Gorman : As the Ministry has proved to my satisfaction the safety of irradiation, will the Minister consider extending it to the carcases of chickens slaughtered under zoonoses orders because they may be contaminated with salmonella? Is not it an acknowledged fact that most chickens have salmonella, but that so long as they are properly treated they can be used in the food chain? Is not that better than wastefully slaughtering them and dumping the carcases?
Mr. Maclean : My hon. Friend is certainly the sun after the rain-- she is often the calm before the storm as well. It is better not to confuse two separate issues. All that we seek to do is to make irradiation available to consumers if they wish to use it. I have no intention of extending irradiation compulsorily to any process or foodstuff. If consumers want to use irradiated chicken meat, poultry meat and carcases, they may do so, provided that the food is safe.
Column 997
Fishing
12. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the fishing industry.
Mr. Curry : The most urgent need facing the industry and the Government is to work for effective conservation of fish as a renewable resource on a Communitywide basis.
Mr. Taylor : While the Minister looks towards effective conservation, he will inevitably be aware of the great hardship being caused to some in the fishing industry and of the fact that bankruptcy threatens no small number. Will he consider again a decommissioning scheme to help the process take place naturally without the need for bankruptcy and the poverty that that brings? I hope that he will be able to bring better news to the House.
Mr. Curry : No, I do not believe that the answer lies in a decommissioning scheme. I believe that it lies in better management measures, which would introduce a greater element of market forces, and also in effective conservation measures of precisely the kind that we have announced today for haddock.
Sir Michael Shaw : Is my hon. Friend aware that although the quota system has been with us for some time, fish stocks seem never to have been more inadequate? What is the cause? Is it that the quotas have been pitched wrongly or that they have not been adhered to?
Mr. Curry : I think that there is an element of both. I think that the quotas have been over-generous in the past, but the way in which fishing has taken place has meant that there have been discards. Equipment has sometimes behaved in a different way from that expected. For example, we have a 90 mm net, but when it is operated it is equivalent to a 60 mm net in some cases. Therefore, the answer must lie in much more selective gear in the fishing industry.
Mr. Morley : Is the Minister aware of the disappointment of fishermen that licences are still being issued for the dumping of toxic waste, even though the Government promised that it would be stopped by December last year? Is he further aware of the disappointment that licences will be issued for sewage sludge dumping for at least eight more years? I appreciate that there has been a decade of lack of investment in sewage outfall works, but will the Minister take steps to phase out licences for sewage sludge dumping and other dumping and stop our seas being used as a cesspit?
Mr. Curry : First, no licences are issued to dump toxic waste, because the waste is not toxic. Secondly, within two years from now there will be only a couple of licences, and they will disappear very shortly after that. Thirdly, it is by no means an open and shut question that there will be a net environmental gain from incinerating sewage sludge rather than putting it into the sea. We have decided that that is the effective course to take and we shall do so at the earliest opportunity, given the problem of planning permission for building plant. We have an extremely comprehensive programme which the hon. Gentleman should support.
Column 998
NFU Speech
13. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has placed in the Library a copy of his speech to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting.
Mr. Taylor : Conservative Members are always grateful when my right hon. Friend puts a copy of his speech in the Library. Will he note that all farmers in the Esher constituency were delighted with that speech, which showed a forthright approach to all the problems of agriculture but in particular the Government's determination to make sure that the green pound was phased out by the end of the 1992 programme? Will he continue to reinforce that determination?
Mr. Gummer : There is no doubt that the green pound should be substantially devalued as quickly as possible. I am sure that farmers in constituencies other than Esher--and even some Opposition Members--will support that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : As farmers who suffered were compensated following Chernobyl and such matters must have been dealt with at meetings and speeches to the National Farmers Union, why cannot the same principle be applied to the fishing industry? Why should fishermen lose thousands of pounds through storm damage while farmers are compensated when they suffer from things like Chernobyl? Cannot action be taken, especially as the Isle of Man Government now pay compensation to their fishermen?
Mr. Gummer : That really is a collection of things shoved together without a theme. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that farmers are not compensated for insurable storm damage. To compare Chernobyl with storm damage at sea is to compare two totally different activities and thus not surprisingly results in a wrong conclusion. The hon. Gentleman should accept that the British farming industry is helped to look after 80 per cent. of this country's land area and produce food for this nation. Year after year for the past 10 years, except for one year, the British fishing industry has enjoyed an increase in returns from its fishing activities. Many fishermen would recognise the past 10 years as being among some of the best that they have had.
PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. After my duties in the House I shall depart for a visit to Scotland.
Mr. Redmond : Bearing in mind the decision of the Doncaster health authority, the community health council and a recent MORI poll which showed that the people are opposed to Doncaster royal infirmary and the Montagu hospital opting out of the Health Service, for the sake of democracy will the Prime Minister support a local referendum before that decision is implemented?
Column 999
The Prime Minister : No hospitals are opting out of the National Health Service. They are being given the chance to become self-governing and, therefore, to have far more say in decisions about the resources available and much better management, much closer to the consultants and nurses. Many people will want it that way. The hon. Gentleman should see how the system works ; I think that he will find that many self-governing hospitals operate far better than those which do not choose that path.Mr. Devlin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Militant violence has no part to play in the fixing of the community charge in our town halls?
The Prime Minister : I gladly confirm what my hon. Friend says. Any violent or intimidatory demonstrations--organised, I understand from an excellent article in The Times today, by the Militant Left--are the negation of democracy. People should pursue their protests peacefully and in accordance with the democratic process. It is quite wrong for hon. Members to suggest that people should disobey the law by not paying their community charge.
Mr. Kinnock : First, I agree with everything that the Prime Minister has just said, as I have made clear for a long time. Will the Prime Minister say why her Government think that it would "not be in the public interest"
to use their powers to seek the disqualification of the proven liars who now head the House of Fraser?
The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry answered a question-- [Interruption.] --or rather, made a statement yesterday in which he answered many of those questions in detail. I have read fully the replies that he made. The prosecution is a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the other powers are a matter for the regulatory authorities. The quasi-judicial decision is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Indstry ; he has made it and answered to the House.
Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Financial Times that in the Harrods case
"the real issue is public confidence in the business and financial system"?
If the Government will not use their power to disqualify directors who have been shown to be guilty of deliberate and persistent dishonesty, in what circumstances will she ever take action?
The Prime Minister : As I have said, that is a quasi-judicial decision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave yesterday. He said :
"I have considered the matter carefully and have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to seek such an order in this case. Those who read the report can make their own assessment of the conduct of those involved. The provisions of that Act are intended not as a punishment, but as a protection for the public. I can add nothing further to that."--[ Official Report, 7 March 1990 ; Vol. 168, c. 875.]
My right hon. Friend gave many detailed replies, some of which I have read, and some of which were technical. I rest my reply upon his.
Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has still not answered the questions from both sides of the House about why the Secretary of State did not use the powers that he so clearly has. The Government have the powers to act. By their
Column 1000
inaction, they are contradicting the public interest in the honest conduct of business in Britain. Is not that an open invitation to others, who could employ the same dishonesty as that shown by the directors of Harrods? Why do the Government so favour those who are very guilty when they happen to be very rich?The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if there were any fraudulent offences, they would be matters for the prosecuting authorities. Any question on that would therefore lie with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said yesterday, he has answered the questions about the report in full, and I must rest upon them.
I have not, however, answered the right hon. Gentleman's first comment, that he agreed with me fully about condemning Militant-- [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister : Will the right hon. Gentleman also condemn the 28 Labour Members who are urging that people should not pay their community charge?
Mr. Barry Porter rose--[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. I have called the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.
Mr. Porter : Does my right hon. Friend accept that a gentleman came to my surgery the other day who advanced some mild reservations about one or two details about the implementation of the community charge? What concerned him was that he could not understand the alternative, and I was unable to give him that information. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any information from Walworth road which might lead her
Mr. Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for what happens in Walworth road.
Q2. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hughes : Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to the cost of collecting the poll tax compared with the cost of collecting the rates? In Wales, for example, the cost will rocket from £9 million to more than £25 million. All the additional bureaucracy, new equipment and even new buildings will have to be paid for by the community chargepayer. In the circumstances, is not it sheer hypocrisy for the Government to lecture our local authorities on financial stringency and cost cutting?
The Prime Minister : If more people pay community charge than were paying rates--which is part of the object of the exercise, as 17 million people were not paying rates and many of them will pay the community charge --it will cost more to collect, but nothing like so much as it would to collect both a roof tax and a local income tax.
Column 1001
Q3. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Mitchell : Will my right hon. Friend utterly condemn the disgraceful and dangerous scenes that we have witnessed in various council chambers across the country, orchestrated by various Left-wing groups and encouraged by those Labour Members who decline to obey the law by threatening to withhold payment of their community charge? Will my right hon. Friend also--
Mr. Speaker : Order. One question, please. It is not fair on others.
The Prime Minister : Yes, I utterly condemn the violent scenes which seem to have been organised by the Militant tendency. They show precisely the same violence as we have seen before at Grunwick, in the coal strike and at Wapping, and they are the negation of democracy. We also condemn anyone, especially an hon. Member, who chooses to disobey the law by refusing to pay his community charge. That is totally wrong and means that Opposition Members obey the law only if they make it, not when another Government do. That is undemocratic.
Q4. Mr. Orme : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
The Prime Minister : I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Orme : The Prime Minister will be aware that today is international women's day, which is being celebrated throughout the world. In this country, however, millions of women are suffering from the Conservative Government's economic policies? Will the Prime Minister now take steps to help many of those women by increasing child benefit immediately?
The Prime Minister : No, but I am happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman, as it is international women's day, that thanks to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)--women will, for the first time, be taxed separately which will be a great advantage. I must also add how grateful we are that our small number of Heads of Government have been added to by another woman Head of Government, in Nicaragua.
Q5. Sir Hugh Rossi : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Sir Hugh Rossi : In view of the criticisms levelled against the United Kingdom at The Hague yesterday in relation to
Column 1002
the proposals to cease the dumping of industrial waste, albeit non-toxic, by 1992, and of treated sewage sludge by 1998, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of pollution of the North sea is due to those current practices and what proportion is due to the emission of untreated waste of every kind into the rivers Elbe, Weser, Rhine, Moselle and Schelde?The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these matters, knows that trace elements contained in sewage sludge account for only 1 per cent. of the total North sea load. The great amount of contamination in the North sea comes from the rivers that he mentioned. The Rhine, the Meuse and the Elbe deposit about 65 per cent. of contaminants into the North sea, which is more than three times the whole of that deposited by our own rivers. My hon. Friend mentioned sewage sludge being dumped in the North sea. That will have to be replaced by burning it on land and we shall require planning permission for about 10 incinerators to comply with our undertaking.
Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. I called Mr. Ashdown, who is the leader of the second largest Opposition party.
Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise how welcome was her statement over the weekend that she would reconsider some aspects of the poll tax? In that process, will she think again about the advantages of a local income tax, which would be fairer, more efficient and simpler? Does not that enjoy exactly the same level of accountability for local government as that to which she must answer nationally? Does she appreciate that if she will show an open mind on that, she will give hope to many who will suffer under the poll tax?
The Prime Minister : What I said at the weekend repeated what the Secretary of State for the Environment had said in a debate in the House-- that if there was any fresh evidence, he would look again at the calculation of the standard spending assessment. That was the undertaking that I repeated at the weekend.
As for a local income tax, that would be just about the most unpopular and bureaucratic way of raising money for local authorities. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that when the community charge has been working, it will be realised that it is the best way of collecting money for local authorities, bearing in mind that one in four people will have a rebate and that there is also transitional relief, all expenditure on which will be met by the taxpayer.
| Next Section (Debates)
| Home Page |