| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I call the hon. Member for Ryedale(Mr. Greenway).
9.7 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): One of the greatest strengths of our parliamentary system, certainly in so far as it applies to the House, is the relationship that all hon. Members enjoy with our constituencies. I dare say that every hon. Member is proud of the constituency that he or she represents. In this past nine years, I have certainly been proud to represent Ryedale and I have good cause for that pride, because those who have been to North Yorkshire know that it is one of the jewels of our countryside.
Much of my interest and concern in the affairs of Ryedale has focused in those nine years on the fortunes, welfare and interests of the agricultural community. Were any of that community able to speak in this Chamber tonight, they would want to say that the crisis that they are facing is unprecedented in their memory and,I suspect, that of their parents and grandparents, who have farmed the land for generations. Therefore, it is time for us to stop a lot of the party political bickering that has marred debate on this matter in the past seven or eight days. The electorate will be able to judge that in due course. Now we must concentrate on what measures we can take to stem the prospect of a complete collapse of the interests of many farms and other businesses that are dependent upon agriculture.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Whole communities.
Mr. Greenway:
As my hon. Friend says, whole communities could be devastated.
We face the prospect of a grotesque obscenity. It is grotesque because we are likely to have to spend hundreds of millions of pounds, perhaps more than £1 billion a year, to put things right--and for what? To destroy cattle, livestock, meat and meat products that are entirely wholesome--some of the highest-quality produce anywhere in the world. We shall spend money that, whatever our views on the Budget and the need to contain public expenditure, we could have spent on the health service, education and social services.
The purpose of the debate is to ask ourselves what can and should be done to ensure that we do not suffer the catastrophe that many of us think may occur. It is abundantly clear that, while the Government have rightly followed all the scientific advice that they have received, and have done so speedily on virtually every occasion, more action that goes beyond the science is needed.
Other hon. Members have mentioned what they have discovered at their markets. Last Friday, I discovered at one of my local markets in Malton a unanimous view that, above all else, we must differentiate in the public's mind between clean beef and cow beef. Beyond peradventure, that must be the most important way to begin the difficult job of rebuilding consumer confidence.
The housewife and the consumer want to know that the meat or other beef product that they are buying or consuming in restaurants, canteens, schools and factories has come from an animal that could not have had BSE.It is difficult for us to give that guarantee, but it is much more easily given if we take cow beef out of the food chain. For that reason, I strongly support the proposals of the National Farmers Union. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, knows that, for almost a week, I have advocated that. I know how seriously he is considering it. The Country Landowners Association has also supported it.
The question is whether that proposal will work. It is no good us being convinced that it is a sensible proposition; we have to judge the expenditure on the likelihood of its success. Will it make any difference to the European Union veterinary committee? It clearly must, because there can be no real basis for the ban that has been placed on British beef and beef products against the advice of its own veterinary scientists. Will the supermarkets support the proposal? I believe that they
will. Will McDonald's and the other fast food restaurants support the move? I believe that they should. Will schools lift their bans on beef? I am sad that North Yorkshire has also succumbed and taken that ridiculous measure. Will the consumer generally be reassured? Those are the issues that Ministers have to judge. That is the objective.
It is very easy for hon. Members and for the general public to say, "Here is an easy way of resolving the problem." However, it will not be an easy solution unless the organisations agree with our decision. It may take more than tomorrow's meeting to reach agreement--I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend knows that--in which case we must decide what we will do to support the market in the immediate future.
I intervened during my right hon. and learned Friend's speech to ask whether all cattle would be available for intervention. He replied that the cull-cow beef that we want to remove from the food chain may not be available for intervention. I am grateful for his comment that other support may be available in that case. Under our system of intervention, all the intervention boxes are not available to United Kingdom producers. Some cattle--whether they are premium cattle or those that weigh too much--are not allowed through the intervention system. They must be available for intervention as a matter of urgency.
If the European Union ban is not lifted, we shall not be able to export livestock, not just beef and beef products, to Europe. It will be utterly grotesque if veal calves are slaughtered at a cost of more than £100 each, the trade in veal calves is stopped and many businesses are ruined by that ridiculous measure.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
As I came into the Chamber this evening, I learned that Cornhill and Maud--two of the historic marts in the north-east of Scotland--closed today and are never to reopen, regardless of the state of the industry. Buchan Meat, another famous name in the industry, was closed in January. Following a vigourous community campaign, we attracted a buyer, and it was due to reopen last Monday. That reopening has now been postponed for days, weeks or months--who knows? I am aware that such events are occurring not only in Scotland but in the rural communities of Northern Ireland, Wales and England. However, the north-east of Scotland is one of the heartlands of the beef industry.
The train of events is affecting farmers, processors at the marts, factory workers and butchers. It is not simply a question of compensating companies: individuals need compensation, too. Individual workers--not just individual farmers--are losing their jobs. I hope that, in summing up, the Secretary of State for Health will mention compensation for rural communities as well as for individual enterprises.
Earlier today I likened our present situation to a blocked drain. That is the reality: unless the meat can be shifted from the abattoirs, those who finish the cattle cannot sell them for slaughter and they cannot buy the
stores of the hillmen who have nourished the cattle through the long winter months. The drain must be unblocked--and quickly.
It has been said this evening that we should not refer to the past too much. I shall put one idea to the House. There may be a small premium in apportioning blame, but a significant problem of feed contamination in the dairy industry, which was identified 10 years ago, has turned into a black hole that threatens to envelop the whole of the beef industry. That hardly represents a wise carrying through of official policy. The Government say that we should not be wise after the event, but they are foolish after the event. They still do not think that they have done anything wrong during the past 10 years. That is folly.A bit more humility would come well from Ministers.
We are told that Europe is to blame--that the French have done us down. I ask hon. Members to consider what would have happened if the French Agriculture Minister had said in the Assembly of the Republic, "We have a problem with our poultry industry. It is a small risk,of course, but some people have unfortunately died."The very Members of the House who blame the French would be blockading Dover to keep out French chickens, and they know it.
What policy prescription do they advocate? That we should withdraw from the European Union. Would that make the European Union buy British beef? Would that advocacy be successful? What nonsense. The responsibility for the BSE outbreak and its repercussions, not only in what foreign Governments are doing but in what the domestic public are doing, lies much closer to home than Brussels, Paris or Bonn.
Four things must be done now to stabilise the position. First, we need tough measures to enforce the regulations that have been made. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that that is a problem of the past, but it is a problem of the very recent past indeed. There is a credibility problem with regard to the enforcement of regulations. I hope that we shall hear something from the Minister later about stiffer sentencing. People who break those regulations are jeopardising the livelihoods of thousands of people, and not paltry fines but gaol sentences are required.
Secondly, a selective slaughter policy should be agreed with the European Commission, to provide the basis for reopening markets at home and stabilising consumer confidence in this country. The NFU has proposed, not a compulsory cull, as I understand it, but a 30-month restriction, and after that, when animals come to the end of their useful lives, they will not go into the human food chain. There is an important distinction. I am not sure that all hon. Members fully appreciated that. If we go for a compulsory cull--which I think will be necessary for certain categories of animals--let us concentrate on the BSE-infected herds, the animals at risk, and not carry out a global cull, which will satisfy no one and will not even have the public relations value that some people advocate for it.
Thirdly, Scottish beef must be marketed as a quality product, which can be guaranteed BSE-free. I have a letter here from Professor Hugh Pennington, whom many hon. Members will know as a professor of medical microbiology at Aberdeen university, an expert in the field that we are discussing. Looking at the low incidence of BSE in Scotland, perhaps one sixth of the incidence elsewhere, cow for cow, he says:
There are quality assurance schemes in Northern Ireland and Scotland, there may be some in England and I understand that a small one has started in Wales. If the Ministers do not succeed in lifting the global ban, we must get beef that is traceable as quality assured on to European markets, to try to unblock the system.
"Second, Scottish Quality Beef can be traced back to BSE-free herds. From the scientific point of view it would be irrational to rate the health risk from consuming this beef as higher than that run from consuming beef from any other country that had reported BSE in its own cattle--a risk that is currently considered to be negligible."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |