| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Greater Glasgow Health Board
15. Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to meet Greater Glasgow health board to discuss NHS funding. [26067]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has had no request for such a meeting.
Mr. Watson: The Minister knows that one of the acute hospitals covered by Greater Glasgow health board is the Victoria infirmary, which is suffering a severe funding crisis. Partly as a result of that, it is indulging in a competitive tendering process for support services, about which I have written to him.
Will he address the concerns of trade unions, staff and, to some extent, management about the activities of a company called Capita and an individual called Norman Foster, who was previously employed by the hospital? He seems to be giving the company an inside track in the tendering process while an in-house tender bid has been blocked. Those are important issues of public interest that must be investigated. Will the Minister undertake to do so?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
I am happy to look into the case. My understanding is that the NHS trust has already done so and considers that there is not a conflict of interest and that the correct procedures have been followed. I agree that there is a potential conflict of interest. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. I stress that Greater Glasgow health board has been allocated more than £589 million for revenue expenditure, which is a substantial sum for choosing the priorities for its health care.
Order for consideration read.
Considered; to be read the Third time.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg):
With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the meeting of the Agriculture Council which finished yesterday evening.I represented the United Kingdom, assisted by my noble Friends the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
The Council discussed the reform of the Community fruit and vegetables regime and the Commission's proposals for this year's farm price fixing. Both are important matters, and I set out the United Kingdom position on the lines that I have explained to the House on many occasions.
The Council also discussed bovine spongiform encephalopathy. I put before it a dossier of information setting out the measures that the UK has taken. I shall place a copy of that dossier in the Library. My first objective at the Council was naturally to achieve action on the export ban. Progress was made on this, and the conclusions of the Council explicitly recognise that the ban is temporary. They also recognise that the measures already put in place and foreseen form
In addition, the Council has recognised that the lifting of the ban in respect of tallow, gelatine and semen should be addressed in the Standing Veterinary Committee shortly. As the House knows, the relevant decisions are taken by qualified majority vote in the Standing Veterinary Committee, not in the Council. The next meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee takes place next week.
Nevertheless, this welcome progress should not obscure the fact that the ban is disproportionate and unjustified. Accordingly, I made it clear to the Council, and recorded in a formal UK statement, that, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, there should be an early and complete lifting of the ban. Accordingly, we are proceeding with our application to have the ban set aside by the European Court of Justice under article 173 of the treaty. Our application is in an advanced stage of preparation, and will be lodged shortly.
The House will also know that the National Farmers Union has been granted leave to seek judicial review of the export ban, and I understand that the matter is expected to be referred to the European Court of Justice on 3 May.
I turn now to the concept of the selective cull. The Council accepted that the proposals that I have made involving the culling by farm of birth of age cohorts born after September 1990 in which there have been cases of BSE were very much in the right direction. It was also agreed that it would be helpful to investigate whether additional measures targeted on herds where there had been many cases of BSE would be justified.
This is a point which is obviously worth careful consideration, and my officials will be entering into technical discussions on this shortly. It is, however,
already clear that, should we proceed with the cull, the scheme that we have put forward will form the major component of any such policy, and that the scale of any measure finally put in place will be very much along the lines that I have already indicated to the House.
I turn to the link between a lifting of the ban and the selective cull. The Government's position remains as it has always been: the two must proceed in parallel.
I am glad to say that the partial recovery in the beef market has continued. Consumption is now at about80 per cent. of pre-crisis levels for good-quality cuts, and average market prices are 109p a kilogram, compared with 120p a kilogram before the crisis.
The scheme for the slaughter of male calves has been operational from 22 April and the scheme for the disposal of cattle of more than 30 months old, at the end of their working lives, will start operation tomorrow. That follows a decision of the management committee on 26 April, when, on our proposal, specific provision was made for payments to be made on a dead weight as well as live weight basis. That follows strong representation from the farming unions.
I know that many hon. Members and their constituents are concerned about how the scheme--I shall call it the 30-month slaughter scheme--will work in practice. The first point is that the scheme is now launched. The first cattle are likely to be processed tomorrow. More than 60 abattoirs and 80 markets across the United Kingdom will act as collection centres. Farmers will be anxious to have the finalised details. We shall be sending direct to farmers a note setting out all they need to know about the new arrangements.
I would summarise the position thus: in our view, the ban that has been imposed by the European Union is unjustified and should be removed. The conclusions arrived at yesterday have established a process that could achieve that. I very much hope that the Commission and all member states will play a full and active part in resolving this grave and urgent problem.
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East):
I advise the Minister again that we fully share his commitment to securing an early lifting of the ban on the export of UK beef and beef products, and it is very disappointing that he has so little progress to report to the House. He said that the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee is likely to consider lifting the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen. Although any alleviation of the ban is to be welcomed, he will recognise that the number of jobs involved is small relative to the total number at stake.
Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety across the industry at his failure to put in place the programme for the destruction of the carcases of the cattle over 30 months old? There is huge uncertainty about which cattle will go first, to which livestock market, and to which abattoirs.
Does the Minister feel that his failure to put that programme in place, as he agreed to do, undermined his position at the council meeting? Does he agree that it is absolutely vital to the financial position of farmers and the welfare of animals that he brings that programme into full operation as soon as he possibly can? The measure should be up and running now, and while we continue without it fully in operation, many animals are on farms that are running out of feed, where serious welfare problems could develop.
Will the Minister also give very careful consideration to the levels of dead weight compensation and live weight compensation for the animals that are to be destroyed, taking into account the needs to give a fair return to farmers and to avoid further disruption to the beef market?
How are the slaughterhouses expected to deal with animals that are ineligible for human consumption? There is unease in many quarters that animals that are to go into our food may be slaughtered in slaughterhouses that are also dealing with animals that are ineligible for human consumption. Is it the Government's intention that the whole carcases of all the animals ineligible for human consumption are to be incinerated?
Two weeks ago, the Minister spoke about the need for an urgent look at exemptions to the 30-month ban. What progress has he made on that? With regard to the additional selective slaughter programme, can he confirm that the agreement that he reached last night was on the basis of a strengthening of the proposed additional slaughter programme? Does that mean killing even more cows?
Is it not now clear that the Council of Agriculture Ministers was not satisfied with our identification arrangements? Had the Government implemented the tagging policy that we advocated six years ago--which is now in place in Northern Ireland--the Minister might have been in a slightly stronger position in the Council this week. If we are to embark on an additional selective slaughter programme, this must be arranged quickly--not least because of concerns that farmers who have BSE cohort animals may be tempted to sell them on.
The eradication of BSE is a desirable objective. The Minister will have read the letter that I sent to him on Monday, calling for an investigation into the flouting of the ruminant feed ban, and into the high percentage of new cases of animals born after the feed ban was introduced in 1988. Such an inquiry could have been completed within two or three months, and it is necessary if we are to eradicate BSE from our cattle.
Surely the determination--[Interruption.] I can assure Conservative Members that we intend to pursue this issue, which is the major issue facing the Government--the Prime Minister himself has said so. Surely the determination to resolve the issue and tackle the question of eradicating BSE completely from our cattle is vital. The quicker we go down that road, the quicker the ban on exports will be lifted.
Does the Minister recognise that this BSE/Creutzfeldt-Jakob crisis throws a new light on the importance of the research establishments that are carrying out work on BSE and CJD? The Minister will advise the House that the Government have increased expenditure on BSE research since it was discovered in 1986--it would be hard not to have done so--but that increase was against the background of massive cuts in food and agricultural research. Has it occurred to him that the Government's policy of short-term contracts in research establishments is not helpful to the long-term research that is required on BSE and CJD?
3.30 pm
"part of a process which should allow the export ban to be progressively lifted on a step by step basis."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |