| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.38 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes): The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument exactly.
I entered the debate to draw attention to the fact that this problem is shared in Sussex and the south-east.I come from that part of the country, and represent a constituency there. The experience of my constituents has not yet been represented in the debate. Farms are affected whether they are on the downs or on the Weald, and the problem affects dairy herds, but is not confined to them, in the constituency that I represent. Food producers in my constituency and in the surrounding area have been desperately affected by the beef crisis.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford(Mr. Cash)--who is no longer in his place--I am grateful for the assiduous work of the Minister and his colleagues in coming to grips with the problem. I am also grateful--this has not been said so far--for the continuing interest and deep involvement of the Prime Minister and other Ministers. There have been unending discussions at the conference table in Brussels--something which seemed to be overlooked by my hon. Friend. In addition, Ministers have worked continuously to prepare the measures that have been developed and put into action.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset(Mr. Bruce) pointed out, the crisis is not the result of Government bungling--as was claimed by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), in his unusually dramatic speech, and by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). The crisis came about because of the leak of information about a possibility of a link between BSE and CJD--a claim that was unproven. The Government were correct to respond immediately. The crisis is due to the ambivalence of British and continental scientists, and to the untimely European Union ban.
We have a long-established BSE problem. In fact, British beef was banned by the United States in 1988--it was certainly some years ago--and by Canada a year or so later. Therefore, it was all the more peculiar--this is a criticism not of the Minister but of the Government as a whole--that there was no, or did not seem to be any, contingency plan for this sort of event. There was no contingency plan against the possibility of another BSE breakout, against the possibility of other scientific developments, against the possibility of greater information becoming available about CJD, against the possibility of an extension of bans existing prior to last March, or against many other aspects.
This is something that the Government should take to heart and note. In this sphere of Government activity--as in almost any other--there must be contingency plans for the most unlikely events, so that the Government are better prepared to meet the exigencies.
I refer to the present needs of the beef industry. Action must be taken to help the clean beef market. A farmer in my constituency reported that prices for beef cattle fell, on average, by 15p a kilo between February and March--when he last took them to market--and this month. Therefore, I was delighted to hear the Minister say--if I understood him correctly--that consideration is being given to some top-up payment for food for animals that are sold and slaughtered, and for food for animals that are being kept prior to sale or slaughter.
In some small part, a top-up payment will compensate farmers for the additional cost of feeding and pasturing cattle while they await slaughter. This is particularly important in my part of the world--it is probably all-pervasive throughout the nation. The lack of
availability of food for cattle is becoming severe--food stocks ran down over winter and, because of the present cold weather, the grass is not growing.
There is a strong belief that all cattle that are slaughtered under the 30-month policy should be tested for BSE. I understand that there is no provision for such tests in the present plan. If all the cattle are tested for BSE, it will provide invaluable information for future policy development, and it could help to develop techniques for live tests for BSE in the future.
I give the Minister two plaudits. First, there is general acceptance of the marketing activities that are being undertaken--they are much appreciated. They have been based on careful research. I hope that they will lead to the restoration of consumer confidence and to the restoration of consumer purchase and consumption of beef. The fast food chains were too quick in their emotional reaction--it was an unsatisfactory reaction--to this crisis, and in banning British beef.
The second plaudit is that, until now--I do not know whether it is the result of Government influence--the banks have been reasonable. I refer to this not just to praise the Government, but to anticipate their giving support to the banks so that they continue their support in the future. This will be a long-drawn-out process, and their help will be important.
In summary, I believe that immediate action is needed for the clean beef market, and I hope that the Minister will soon be able to announce the details of his plan. Ever better management of the present scheme is needed to get matters moving and to keep them moving. A number of hon. Members have mentioned various activities that need to be pursued. All arms of Government need to be involved in and committed to burning the midnight oil to bring the matter to a conclusion.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East):
I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for referring to contingency plans, to information and to action. I hope that the Government follow through many of the points that he has made.
Although this is a general debate on the common agricultural policy, it has been dominated by the BSE crisis. There is real anger and frustration throughout agriculture and its ancillary industries. Yesterday's lobby was part of a wider campaign by an industry under threat and running out of time. Farmers and ancillary businesses are facing cash flow problems that threaten their existences. We have seen eight weeks of inadequate action, failure in Europe and continued dithering by the Government.
I remind the Minister of the importance of agriculture and the beef industry to Scotland. Agriculture represents approximately 3 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic
product--twice the proportion in the United Kingdom as a whole. The beef industry represents approximately30 per cent. of Scottish agriculture, compared with 10 per cent. in the United Kingdom. In 1995, 20 per cent. of our top-class beef was exported, at a value of £118 million. Therefore, the economic effects of the current beef crisis are proportionately greater in Scotland than in England precisely because of the greater importance of agriculture, particularly beef, to our economy.
Agriculture represents approximately 2.1 per cent. of total civilian employment in Scotland, and approximately 21,500 Scottish jobs are directly affected by the current crisis. The BSE crisis has the impact on Scotland of two Ravenscraigs. It affects farms, auction marts, abattoirs, renderers, manufacturers, retailers and bakeries.
The transport situation is critical, with four out of every five vehicles that are involved in transporting meat and livestock now off the road. It is estimated that, for every 100 jobs lost in agriculture, 288 jobs will be lost in the Scottish economy generally. The similar figure is 342 in the slaughtering and meat processing industries. That is a devastating situation, which requires urgent action.
At the end of March, The Scottish Farmer stated that the total number of reported cases of BSE in the United Kingdom comprised 88.89 per cent. of cases in dairy and dairy cross-breeds, compared with 5.74 per cent. in beef and beef cross-breeds, and 5.02 per cent. in beef-dairy crosses and dairy-beef crosses. According to the Highland Cattle Society, only 5.5 per cent. of all beef herds have home-bred cases of BSE. In the case of the Highland breed, the figure is 0.01 per cent.
The incidence of BSE is lower in Scotland than in England, where it resides mainly in the dairy sector. In Scotland, there are two beef cattle for every dairy beast. In England, that ratio is reversed, at 3:1. About 70 per cent. of Scottish beef originates from suckler herd cows which are kept to produce only beef animals.
I believe that the Government have been completely ineffective in addressing the fears of our European Union partners about a crisis impacting across Europe. The Government's proposals comprise two aspects: the disposal scheme for cattle aged more than 30 months, and the cohort slaughter policy. While we believe that the former is wholly arbitrary, we welcome the latter as a step in the right direction.
However, the cohort policy must go a step further. We believe that the solution should involve an extension of that policy and of the quality assurance scheme, to guarantee naturally fed BSE-free herds. If there is a recurrence of BSE after the cohort slaughter policy has been deployed, the entire herd should be slaughtered, as occurs in France and Ireland. The Ministry of Agriculture has not been prepared to go that far, but it would help to restore public confidence in the beef industry--which is the admitted aim of the Commission.
I recommend to the Minister the Trustee Savings bank report by Donald MacRae, which was published on31 March. It notes:
MAFF predicts that the identification scheme will be in place in two months, and that could lead to a lifting of the ban for quality beef products. The EU Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, made it clear to Scottish National party and Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament that a regional or zonal approach could be applied to quality herds. Happily, his view is shared by European farm Ministers.
However, the Commission said that such a proposal must come from the Government. I ask the Minister: who is representing the Scottish case? The Secretary of State for Scotland is not in the Chamber, and Scottish Office Ministers are notable by their absence. We cannot expect MAFF Ministers to represent our case adequately.
The proposals to relax the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen confirm the willingness of both the European Union and the British Government to adopt an incremental approach to lifting the ban. The priority is to breach the blanket ban now and to extend that breach, step by step, as quickly as possible. It does not matter whether the ban is breached for gelatine or, preferably, for quality beef products from Scotland or Northern Ireland: it is important simply to breach the blanket ban and gradually push back the frontiers.
However, the European Union will react only to United Kingdom Government initiatives. Scotland and Northern Ireland quality beef should be at the forefront of any step-by-step breach of the blanket export ban. I recommend to the Government the early-day motion--signed by about 90 hon. Members from all parties--which supports a zonal or a regional exemption scheme.
The crisis has emphasised the interrelationship of different agricultural sectors. I shall give the Minister an example. Rotational grass forms a large percentage of cropping area in Scotland, which means that big swings in cropping area are possible on mixed arable and livestock units. The BSE crisis could encourage mixed farmers to plough out grass and to sow spring barley, causing an increase in overshoot of the base area--which was never large enough--that does not have less favoured area status.
What will the Government do to prevent that increase in overshoot, which could be as much as 5 to 7 per cent. this year? Purely arable farmers could be penalised for the actions of mixed farmers who are trying to solve their problems. Worse still, derogation on arable overshoot lapsed last year, with full penalties to apply in 1996.
The Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations has called for the total abolition of penalty set-aside. The Commissioner said that he would examine the situation but that he needed some feedback from farm Ministers. However, as yet he has received no help or encouragement from United Kingdom Agriculture Ministers. If agreement were reached, farmers could accept the financial penalty for overshoot without being required to set aside extra land.
Scotland is a net importer of cereals. Why should we set aside more land than is required of other countries under the standard rate of set-aside? There was discussion in Europe about averaging base areas within member states. Why has that not been agreed? Last year, non-LFA in Scotland overshot by 3.8 per cent., and LFA undershot by 10 per cent. If the areas were averaged, Scotland's non-LFA would have undershot by less than 1 per cent.,
which would mean no penalty set-aside. The BSE crisis is rippling through other sectors, and I ask the Minister to address those problems.
"Scottish beef is sufficiently different from British beef both in origin and in BSE incidence to merit a different approach to the problem".
That view is shared by experts in the field, including Professor Hugh Pennington, professor of microbiology at Aberdeen university, as well as by many Scottish farmers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |