| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that a culling policy is not essential in terms of achieving human health, because the controls that we have in place already achieve that. It is also true that a culling policy is not essential in terms of promoting animal health, because of the way in which BSE develops, its relationship with feed and the action that we have taken on the feed regulations. None the less, I would make two points.
First, restoring consumer confidence is an important policy objective for us all, and for the European countries. Secondly, if one stands back and asks oneself whether one is content that, in a country such as Britain, which has such high standards of agricultural quality, we should, after 10 years or so of BSE, still have a substantial number of cases in our national herd, the answer must be no.
Therefore, if, in a targeted and proportionate way, acceptable to the industry and the House, we can significantly accelerate the decline in the incidence of BSE, I commend it to the House and the industry on its merits.
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries):
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the warm thanks of the farming community and the National Farmers Union for all the work that he has put into resolving the crisis? Will he accept that, as of today, the most pressing problem facing farmers, where fodder is now very short, is the disposal of beasts over 30 months old to the auction marts or slaughterhouses under his prime beef scheme? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give me any sort of assurance that the intervention board will have its scheme up and running by next week?
Mr. Hogg:
It is our intention that the scheme should be up and running in the week beginning 29 April. I am conscious that, in the early stages, it may not run as smoothly as one would wish--there is a risk of that. However, I can tell the House that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be sensitive to points that have been made by the industry and by right hon. and hon. Members, and we will do our best to ensure that the schemes--there are more than one--operate as smoothly as possible. We will be as responsive as we can to complaints that the schemes are not running as smoothly as possible.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
Does not the Minister realise that his vacillation,
Mr. Hogg:
I do not think that I have been guilty of any vacillation or of blowing hot and cold. I have tried to pursue a steady course, and I think that I have succeeded. I have the utmost sympathy for people who have lost their jobs or suffered lay-offs in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described, but, as I made plain in my statement to the House on 16 April, our objective in the targeting of financial assistance is to maintain the vital links of the beef industry in good and viable condition. I have never pretended, and I do not pretend, that we are trying to compensate everybody for loss. That is not practical, and it is not the justification for the compensation payments that I brought forward on16 April.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
May I raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the concerns expressed at the meeting of the all-party animal welfare group when it raised this issue earlier this week? First, it was concerned that the scientifically unjustified slaughter plans may turn into an open-ended response to economic blackmail through the Council of Ministers.
Secondly, there was concern about the need to see compensation paid for casualty animals slaughtered on the farm to avoid the inhumane and unnecessary transport to slaughter to obtain payment for unfit animals. Thirdly, there was concern about the need to amend the European directive to base compensation formulas on hot carcase weight rather than live weight, again to avoid cruelty to the beasts.
Clearly we will see the slaughter of many thousands, if not millions, of animals under unprecedented circumstances. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say that he will put animal welfare and animal husbandry at the top of his list of priorities?
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend is quite right to place such emphasis on animal welfare. I hope that he will be reassured by the language I have used--that the ideas that we have in mind involve the slaughter of tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands of beasts. That is what I said on 16 April.
I am conscious that the Government's ability to move ahead with such a policy, if that is what is decided, depends ultimately on the consent of the House and the industry. That is a major reassurance on the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the size of any particular policy. The relationship between dead weight and live weight is indeed important. The draft conclusions on compensation made provision
for both. I raised the question with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday, and he responded sympathetically to the point that I made.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim):
May I put it to the Minister that, while we appreciate the earnestness with which he is trying to resolve the matter, there is inherent prejudice among our European colleagues against accepting his recommendations? In the event of his present proposals not being accepted, will he take account of early-day motion 773, and try to ensure that beef in herds in regions of the United Kingdom that have farm-assured schemes and traceability records that can confirm BSE-free status, can move, and move immediately, without having to cope with the prejudice in Europe?
Mr. Hogg:
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had an extremely useful meeting, at which I was present, with representatives of all the NFUs in the United Kingdom, most particularly from Northern Ireland, although other parts of the UK were represented. I entirely recognise that the system of traceability and record keeping in Northern Ireland is an example to the rest of the Kingdom. I accept that.
I have a very great preference for trying to bring about a collective rather than a partial solution. The point raised about exemptions is particularly relevant. If we can drive through the concept of exemptions in respect of the 30-month rule, it might be part of a process of relaxing the ban, and would, I think, be of particular benefit to Northern Ireland due to the nature of the herds and the very high degree of traceability provided for in the Province.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
May I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his efforts on behalf of British farmers, but remind him that one of the problems facing farmers is the damage to cash flow? Will he please ensure that any compensation packages are paid quickly, so that cash flow, and thus businesses, are not endangered further?
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. and learned Friend makes a very serious point. We will try to ensure the speedy payment of any of the money that is due under the provisions that I set out in my statement on 16 April and in other statements. Other support payments are of course available to producers, and I shall do my best to ensure that they are also made very promptly, especially to producers of dairy cows and beef.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen):
The Minister has said this afternoon and in earlier statements that he is thinking in terms of tens of thousands of cattle, and a figure of 40,000 has been quoted in the media. Will our European partners be impressed by a figure that amounts only to one third of 1 per cent. of the total cattle herd? Would that eradicate BSE?
Is it not now clear that we urgently and desperately need a test for BSE in live cattle, so that we can be certain that the animals slaughtered are the ones that carry BSE? Will the Minister commission urgent work from his Department to develop such a test? I am sure that it could be done in a matter of weeks--certainly months.
Mr. Hogg:
Again, I make the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at his very useful meeting with
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |