House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Oct 1990

Home Page

Column 1359

House of Commons

Thursday 18 October 1990

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill

(By Order) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [15 October],

That the Lords amendment be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 24 October at Seven o'clock.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill

(By Order) Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Monday 22 October at Seven o'clock.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill

(By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 25 October.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill

(By Order) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 25 October.

London Docklands Railway Bill

(By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 25 October.

Shard Bridge Bill

(By Order)

Considered ; to be read the Third time.

Mr. Speaker : As the remaining private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill

[Lords] (By Order)

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill

(By Order)

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill

[Lords] (By Order)

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill

[Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 October.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of

Column 1360

Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ;

Ordered,

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

Ordered,

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session ;

Ordered,

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table ;

Ordered,

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

London Docklands Railway Bill

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the London Docklands Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ;

Ordered,

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

Ordered,

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

London Underground Bill

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the London Underground Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to date be paid ;

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

Column 1361

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) ;

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session ; That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

To be considered on Wednesday 24 October at Seven o'clock.

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [ Lords ] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; Ordered,

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session ;

Ordered,

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) ;

Ordered,

That no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any Committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matters which arise during the progress of the Bill before the Committee ; Ordered, That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Column 1362

Oral Answers to Questions

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Bait Breeding

1. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about bait breeding.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : My Department has been in regular contact with the British Bait Breeders Association and individual bait breeders about a European Community directive on the disposal of animal waste.

Mr. Canavan : Does the Minister recall writing to me in July and admitting that the then most recent draft of the European Community proposal would, on the face of it, prohibit bait breeding and therefore reduce the opportunity of many anglers to participate in their favourite sport? Has not the overcentralisation of the Common Market reached a ridulous stage when the Eurocrats are not only attempting to dictate the value of sterling but dictating to ordinary anglers what they can or cannot use to catch fish?

Mr. Curry : I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the proposed directive now provides specifically for bait breeders to continue their activities unaltered. That is proof of the success of the Government's difficult negotiations in Brussels. As the hon. Gentleman said, this proposal will be welcomed by millions of British anglers who enjoy the most popular sport in this country.

Mr. Ron Davies : Will not the proposed directive pose particular problems for the British knacker industry? Can the Minister confirm that a considerable burden will be imposed on the British livestock industry and the British slaughtering industry if the directive goes through in its present form? Can he tell us precisely what action he intends to take to safeguard fundamental and vital British interests?

Mr. Curry : The directive was discussed again just two days ago in Luxemburg. As the hon. Gentleman said, the present draft is unsatisfactory in relation to knackers. It would require the trade to cease in 1995. We have said that that is unsatisfactory and have succeeded in getting the document referred for further discussion. We will do our best to get a provision for that trade to continue. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of the trade, but I do not wish to mislead him by suggesting that it will be an easy battle. The system is unique to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and it will be extremely difficult to achieve its continuation, but we are determined to fight that battle to the best of our ability.

Pesticides

2. Dr. Marek : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of pesticides on agricultural land.

Column 1363

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : The use of pesticides on land is tightly controlled under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

Dr. Marek : Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that glib statement is nowhere near good enough? Will he take a leaf out of the Minister's book and rely on scientific evidence, and take into careful consideration the British Medical Association's paper and its harsh criticism of the Ministry? Will he abandon his cheap jibes and admit that there is nothing wrong with natural food? Will he admit that what is required is a lessening of pesticides, especially in affected water catchment areas, and thorough consultation with everyone interested in the matter?

Mr. Maclean : There is nothing wrong with any food if it is treated properly. That applies both to natural food and to food that has been treated with pesticides. If the hon. Gentleman bothers to read the report on pesticide residues that we published a couple of weeks ago, he will see that we are among the best in Europe in having the lowest pesticide residues. On the BMA report, the House should be told--if the hon. Gentleman knows--why some of the few scientists on the committee dissociated themselves from part of the report or resigned from the committee. I note that some other members were representatives of or spokesmen for Friends of the Earth and one was one of Mr. Ron Todd's men.

Mr. Jopling : Is my hon. Friend aware that if he wants to restrict the use of pesticides on farm land, one of the quickest ways would be to make an urgent and substantial increase in environmentally sensitive areas, where the use of pesticides is restricted? At the same time, he would be doing something to help the most urgent and dramatic crisis that is hitting our upland areas, about which I hope that he will do something very soon.

Mr. Maclean : I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having the nous and good sense to introduce environmentally sensitive areas when he did. They are an outstanding achievement and we are committed to reviewing their success in the future. However, I must point out to my right hon. Friend that pesticide use in this country has declined since this Government came to power. We are proud of that achievement, and also of the fact that we stress optimum and best use of pesticides--not maximum use.

Mr. Hague : Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has some of the most stringent and intensive tests of pesticides and releases more data about them than most other countries do? Is not it in the best interests both of agriculture and of the environment to emphasise the need for the continued development of new pesticides which can be more selectively and effectively targeted?

Mr. Maclean : I was surprised to see that the BMA report, which I have here, calls for more information and less secrecy. Has no one told the BMA that we swept away the last vestiges of secrecy surrounding pesticide data when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his announcement a few months ago? The report also calls for regulation. Has no one told the BMA that regulation is now under some of the toughest statutory controls in the world, which were introduced in 1985?

Column 1364

Mr. Hardy : Will the Minister reconsider his rather intemperate reference to Friends of the Earth? Does he not accept that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, while not adding to the comfort of the Government, have exposed many serious problems in the British environment?

Mr. Maclean : I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I have a great deal of respect for the work of Friends of the Earth. I was merely making the point that we should not get the impression that the BMA report was produced by top academic experts. The committee contained people who were not medically qualified, but who were spokesmen for Friends of the Earth. That is perfectly legitimate, but let us not pretend that all those who produced the report were academic experts.

Dr. David Clark : Does the Minister appreciate that there is considerable public anxiety about pesticides, and that the anxiety is heightened by the BMA report? The Minister's complacent answer this afternoon did not help matters. Will he confirm that 41 per cent. of the pesticides currently in use were approved before 1966, and that even with the Government's speeded-up programme it will take a further 15 years to review those pesticides? Will he further confirm that it is currently taking an average of four years to get approvals for new pesticides and that firms such as ICI and Shell have had only one or zero approvals since they made their applications in 1986?

Mr. Maclean : The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain about the time that it takes to review pesticides and simultaneously complain that because we and the companies making the pesticides are so thorough it takes a long time to develop a new pesticide. If there is the slightest question mark over any pesticide, it is automatically brought forward instantly for review. We are prioritising the review of all pesticides so that those in the top category will be reviewed speedily.

Meat Pies

3. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meat pies have been eaten since 28 June.

Mr. Maclean : The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not available.

Mr. Banks : That is a great pity. Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine, who is a regular eater of that great British institution the lukewarm meat pie, has become very concerned because, having eaten a number of them recently, the world has been dropping out of his bottom. He wants me to ask the Minister what checks are carried out to ensure that the unfit meat, of which there is a great deal circulating in London and elsewhere, or meat from BSE-infected cattle, is not going into meat pies. My constituent is worried and I do not want to see my constituents dying off--I cannot afford it.

Mr. Maclean : I am sorry that I was not able to provide the hon. Gentleman with a good line because his wit has been failing of late. However, I can assure him that all meat, as confirmed by the chief medical officer, whether it is in meat pies, sausages or sirloin steak, is perfectly safe to eat, and his constituents have nothing to fear from BSE. We deplore the fact that some unscrupulous or crooked

Column 1365

people may be putting unfit meat from knackers' yards into the meat trade. That is despicable and we will take all possible action to crack down on it. However, that is primarily a job for the local authority enforcement officers who are in charge of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman should contact his local authority to ensure that they are spending a fair share of the extra £30 million that we are providing for enforcement.

Mr. Boscawen : Does my hon. Friend realise that a serious issue lies behind that question, and that is the weakening of confidence in the quality of British meat production? People should at all times try to enhance public confidence in the British livestock industry and the safety of its products, or the situation may become disastrous.

Mr. Maclean : I agree entirely. Many hon. Members will remember that disgraceful night when all were in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister when he returned from Brussels--except those on the Labour Front Bench, who were condemned by all parties in the House for trying to resurrect a BSE scare and to hype up a situation to scare the British people. That was despicable then and if they are still at it, it is despicable now.

Animal Welfare

4. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of veterinarians in promoting animal welfare.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer) : The promotion of animal welfare is central to the duties of all vets and they take an oath to that effect.

Mr. Hinchliffe : Is it not a fact that under the Government the number of vets employed by the Ministry has dropped by about 27 per cent? Is not it also true that, because of BSE, veterinary staff have had to be diverted from welfare visits? When will the Government take the issue of animal welfare seriously and recruit sufficient vets to do the job properly?

Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman must first accept that all vets, whether employed by my Department or anywhere else, must, by their vow, put animal welfare high on the list of their activities. Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that two veterinary colleges that had been suggested independently for closure, were saved after the matter was reviewed. Thirdly, I hope that he will point out that I have been the progenitor of a major campaign for a code of animal welfare for the EC. The Government are the first to have sought for the EC the same high standards, or higher, as we have in Britain. Britain leads the EC in animal welfare and the Government are determined to ensure that we care about all animals in the EC, not just those in Britain.

Mr. Gale : My right hon. Friend is well aware of the concerns expressed by many vets about the conditions in which live animals are transported for slaughter, sometimes throughout the European Community. Will he reassure the House and members of the British Veterinary Association who work in that area that the Government will not settle for any watered-down European Commission directive that will weaken the standards that we are seeking to set?

Column 1366

Mr. Gummer : I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to interfere with the judicial review that is taking place at the moment. In general, however, with regard to our present and future policy, we want to ensure that there are high standards for the transport of live animals in every country of the European Community so that animals receive the kind of respect that they should and are properly watered, rested and have lairages of the kind that we would expect in this country; that should apply not only in the northern countries but throughout the European Community.

Mr. Pike : Does the Minister accept that not only has there been a 27 per cent. cut in the number of vets in his Department, but there is an increasing shortage of vets and environmental health officers throughout the country just when food safety legislation and increasing moves towards European harmonisation mean that there should be more of them? When will the Government ensure that there are enough vets to meet those demands so that animal welfare does not suffer?

Mr. Gummer : I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. In dealing with this matter, in which he has a great personal interest, the hon. Gentleman will probably find that the Government have accepted the main recommendation of the Page committee to remove the ceiling on intakes at veterinary schools. The Universities Funding Council is considering bids for increased student places put forward by the six schools. We are therefore doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman would want us to do, even though some independent advice in the past suggested that we should not do that. We have decided that we need more vets and we shall continue in that view.

We are also consulting on the possible extension of the role of veterinary nurses and laypersons to relieve some of the burdens on qualified veterinary surgeons. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman would agree with our view in the European Community that it does not help if we spread to vets repetitive and basic jobs which could be performed by other people, thus relieving vets for the jobs that they should be doing.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concern about environmental health officers, I hope that he will notice the extra £30 million of resources to local authorities for that purpose.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the major bars to increasing the number of animals exported on the hook rather than on the hoof is the lack of abattoirs that are up to European Community standards? Are there any plans to provide additional support from national or European funds to bring the abattoirs up to that standard?

Mr. Gummer : If that were so, my hon. Friend would have a case. However, there is a demand for live animals rather than animals exported on the hook. So long as the animals are properly exported, in proper conditions and with proper protections, that must be possible within the Community.

Column 1367

Next Section

Home Page