| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Animal Slaughter
3. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for changes in the arrangements for the protection of environmental and public health in connection with the slaughtering of animals. [27457]
Mr. Boswell: We are always prepared to make any appropriate changes to our arrangements which are recommended on the basis of the best scientific advice in the interests of the environment and public health.
Mr. Hughes: It follows from recent announcements by the Minister that in the next few months abattoirs will be called on to deal both with uninfected cattle--as in the normal course of events--and with infected cattle. What steps are being taken to reassure the proprietors of abattoirs and, more important, the public that there can and will be no risk of cross-infection while people are trying to do the difficult job of separating infected from uninfected cattle?
Mr. Boswell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has not expressed himself precisely. There is no question of infected cattle being treated in that way in abattoirs, because they will be destroyed by incineration. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, however. We have imposed the most stringent possible controls for the separation of the various types of material: for instance, all specified bovine material is being stained blue and all cattle being slaughtered under the 30-month scheme are being stained yellow. Regular checks and inspections will be carried out to ensure that those controls are followed rigorously and that the different materials are kept separate, and there are signs that abattoirs and the trade are co-operating fully.
Mr. Nicholls: Has my hon. Friend considered the public health implications of the fact that BSE is considerably more rife on the Continent than is currently being admitted? I have already sent that information to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. Has my hon. Friend considered whether it is necessary to protect the British public by imposing a ban on products bought from abroad, given that conditions and safeguards abroad are nowhere near as good as ours? Indeed, has he considered imposing a worldwide ban on exports of such products from other European countries?
Mr. Boswell: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and the representations that he has made to my right hon. and learned Friend. The question of a ban would be a matter for the Government's advisers, and no doubt it could appropriately be considered in due course.
Mr. Garrett: Between 1988 and 1991, some 360 BSE-infected carcases were disposed of in a refuse tip in Norfolk. How general was that practice at the time, and what research has been carried out into the risk of leaching of infected matter from open refuse tips?
Mr. Boswell: It is a matter of record that the rules governing the disposal of BSE-infected carcases have been progressively tightened. As I have told the House, a move was made at about that time to complete incineration of those carcases. As for any potential risk caused by carcases going into landfill, I have no evidence from the experts, including those at the Environment Agency, of any danger to the public. That is not surprising, as there is no evidence that the infectious organism persists in the soil.
Lady Olga Maitland: While we are discussing health and safety, does my hon. Friend agree that unfounded scaremongering is downright disgraceful? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that Wimpy is now ignoring that scaremongering and is rightly returning British beef to its menus? We should all go straight into a Wimpy bar this weekend.
Mr. Boswell: I should be delighted to engage in an excursion there in due course; perhaps my hon. Friend would care to join me. Wimpy has commendably recognised the scientific advice that is available to all such burger chains. It is a matter of considerable regret that one or two others, despite the advice that they acknowledge, have not yet seen fit to return to the entirely safe and sensible practice of buying and serving British beef.
Leather Industry
4. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist hide and skin merchants and their employees who have been adversely affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy situation; and if he will make a statement. [27458]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The Government have taken a wide range of measures to rebuild consumer confidence and to get the
beef market moving again, which will assist all sectors associated with the beef industry. Supplies of hides from the 30-month slaughter scheme are now available to the hide and skin merchants. I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman who is interested in this subject.
Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that reply, but I do not think that it deals with the situation. Is the Minister aware of the serious plight that faces companies such as Wescot Hides in my constituency? A ban has been placed on the export of controlled hides arising from the slaughter of cows over 30 months old. What measures does the Minister propose to protect and underpin the value of those hides?
Mrs. Browning: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is awaiting a reply, which I understand will soon be forthcoming from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to whom the hon. Gentleman has written about Wescot Hides and the effect on its business. We do not think that hides should be included in the worldwide ban. My right hon. Friend will address that point when he replies to the hon. Gentleman.
Meetings have taken place between industry representatives and officials to arrange for hides to be taken at least to the wet, blue stage, which is the first stage in the tanning process, so that the industry does not lose out on the opportunity for more hides that will now become available in the domestic market.
I realise that the industry has had a difficult time until now because of the short-term shortage, but I hope that what I have outlined will assist the industry and the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The supply that I have mentioned will be available, and we shall do all we can to restore the export market as quickly as possible.
Mr. Viggers:
My hon. Friend has been helpful in discussing the allied trade of beef head boning with me. She knows how highly specialised are firms in that trade. They tend to specialise only in that business and they have been wiped out. What plans has my hon. Friend to compensate such firms?
Mrs. Browning:
Yesterday I wrote to the solicitors representing the head boning industry who had been to see us. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government's policy of putting public money into the industry generally has been targeted at restoring the movement of the beef trade from the farm to the abattoirs and slaughterhouses and then to the renderers. It has not been Government policy directly to compensate people who have lost money over this matter, and I regret to tell my hon. Friend that there is no offer of compensation for the head boning industry.
5. Mr. Dowd:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met farmers' representatives to discuss bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [27459]
Mr. Douglas Hogg:
We meet frequently.
Mr. Dowd:
In those frequent meetings--I do not know how recent they are--have the farmers' representatives given the Minister any idea that they are now satisfied that the confusion and chaos surrounding the introduction of the 30-month culling programme last week have been overcome? If not, can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the programme is now working as it was intended to work? On the broader question of the international ban on beef products, is it not the case that if the Government had acted with dispatch and urgency, when the ban was first imposed by countries such as the United States and Australia, much of the pain, grief and hardship of the past eight weeks could have been avoided?
Mr. Hogg:
When I attend the Council, one of the problems I have to face is the fact that the remarks by some Opposition Members are always played back to me. We must not underestimate the ill effects of intemperate language by, for example, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). The hon. Gentleman asked about the 30-month slaughter policy. It is picking up and it is important that we get it running fully effectively. I hope that we shall shortly be able to slaughter at the rate of about 25,000 animals a week.
Sir John Cope:
Will my right hon. and learned Friend help our farmers' representatives to get across to their continental counterparts the fact that continental Governments' actions and statements during this difficult period have damaged their domestic beef markets more than our Government's statements and actions have damaged the market here? It is important for continental farmers and continental Ministers to realise that fact, because once they do they will have a much greater incentive to lift the beef ban and to take different action. The damage to their markets has been much greater, whereas our Government's actions have helped to protect the domestic beef market here, despite the scaremongering to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
Mr. Hogg:
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that beef consumption has fallen further in some member states than here. It is in those member states' interests that the ban should be lifted. The discussion and the argument surrounding the ban, always public at the time of the Agriculture Council and continuously in the newspapers both here and abroad, are not only unjustified, but positively damaging to the interests of member states and their agriculture, so I share my right hon. Friend's views.
Mr. Salmond:
What assessment does the Minister make of any Commission recommendation to lift the ban on beef by-products? Would he argue that that is an admission of the principle of the resumption of exports and could be the first step in leading all exports back on to European markets? If that is the position, is he prepared to argue the case for Scotland and Northern Ireland and our quality beef production, a case in which interest has been shown and for which sympathy has been expressed by many European farm Ministers?
Finally, on the subject of loose tongues, will the Minister remind his Back Benchers and those who have been speculating about trade wars that, although the United Kingdom as a whole has a substantial deficit
with the rest of Europe, Scotland has a substantial surplus, and that in Scotland--and, I believe, in Northern Ireland--we are more interested in getting our beef back on to European markets than in the internal politics of the Conservative party?
Mr. Hogg:
The Commission proposals to relax the ban in relation to gelatine, tallow and semen, are justified by scientific evidence, and I hope that next week's standing veterinary committee meeting will endorse the Commission proposals. It is true that one could proceed step by step thereafter, leading, I hope, to a swift lifting of the ban entirely. In that context, we are considering the concept of establishing certification for mature herds, in terms both exempting them from the 30-month rule here and of constituting another step in the relaxation of the ban. Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland in particular would benefit from that latter approach, so the scheme would be of particular value both to Scotland and to Northern Ireland.
Sir Jim Spicer:
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the farming community has welcomed the letter he sent it last weekend, but can he give us any indication of when farmers will know when their cattle due for slaughter will be called forward? We are having a late spring, food stocks are appallingly low and farmers are worried stiff that they will have to keep cattle probably for another five or six weeks without knowing what is happening.
Mr. Hogg:
It is not within the capacity of MAFF to organise the prioritisation of cattle for slaughter. That can be done only between marts, abattoirs and farmers. The Ministry cannot determine a ranking system for that purpose. What is important, however, is to ensure that the rendering industry is capable of rendering to its maximum capacity as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently had encouraging discussions with the rendering industry, especially yesterday. It is also important that we should try to increase the throughput of the slaughterhouses by providing, for example, cold storage facilities so that carcases which cannot at present be rendered can be taken into cold storage.
Dr. Strang:
Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's objective to eliminate BSE from our cattle? He has made it clear this afternoon that the Government still believe that the cause of that terrible disease is contaminated feed. Has he had an opportunity to consider my request for an investigation into the fact that two thirds of the new cases of BSE are in cattle born after the feed ban, which came into operation eight years ago? Surely there could be great benefit in tracing the cause of those cases. What have we got to lose by trying to find out precisely how those animals came to eat contaminated feed?
Mr. Hogg:
I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has raised with me. I have today signed a letter to him setting out my considered conclusions. I am sorry that he has not yet received it. We are confident that the reason for the disease in calves born after the ban was contaminated feedstuffs. That is why in April we imposed a total prohibition on the incorporation of any mammalian
Mr. John Townend:
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the British public are rapidly losing patience with the Europeans? If they continue to procrastinate over lifting the ban, despite the fact that the Agriculture Commissioner has said that there is nothing wrong with British beef, is not the time rapidly approaching when we should take retaliatory action? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a bigger problem in cost and overall effect on this country than when Argentina occupied the Falklands? If we had dilly-dallied then as we are now, the Falklands would still be occupied.
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that public and political opinion are running out of patience with member states' refusal to lift the ban. That is entirely true. It is something that I impress on Agriculture Ministers whenever I meet them--for example, at the informal Council at the beginning of this week. When my hon. Friend talks about retaliation, I hope that he will ask himself whether whatever retaliation he has in mind would be more or less likely to advance our interests than the present policy of seeking to obtain by persuasion a relaxation of the ban. One should not do anything that would be positively injurious to our interests.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |