---

10.15 am

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on saying everything that I would have wished to say. He has, therefore, considerably shortened my speech on those points. I am grateful for that, because I can now say something extra.

It gives me no pleasure at all to be critical of the Government when, at last, matters seem to be coming right for our farming industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which the cull is starting to make a deep impression on the crisis in the countryside. The situation is coming right. However, one problem is not coming right.

On 20 March 1996, my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement to the House on BSE. I asked him about the paramount importance of food safety and the need for market support mechanisms. The answer he gave could not have been clearer. He said:

"People sometimes suggest that the interests of agriculture and farmers are MAFF's overriding concern, and obviously they are of great concern to us; but our paramount duty is to public safety--the safety of the food chain and of British food. That is the paramount duty owed by my Department, and myself as Minister to the House and the country."--[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 396.]

He cared, most of all, for the food industry.

On 28 March 1996, at Agriculture Question Time, I raised the issue of head deboners, warning of the closure of food processing plants. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), replied:

"While I sympathise with, and have every concern for, my hon. Friend's dilemma, it would be quite wrong for the Government to challenge the scientific advice that we have accepted at this Dispatch Box."--[Official Report, 28 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 1160.]

She said that she had every concern for my dilemma. I was not asking for the Government to challenge the scientific advice.

Nine months later, it is demonstrably clear that the interests of agriculture and farmers are MAFF's overriding concern, and that "every concern" does not extend to the head deboning industry. Nine months later, I am posed another dilemma. On today's Order Paper, I see that my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister invites me to congratulate

"the Government on the action it has taken to deal with the BSE crisis",

13 Nov 1996 : Column 280

and to welcome

"the package of support the Government has provided to the beef industry".

That is, indeed, a dilemma.

I think of the case of Touchmead Ltd., in Amesbury--an important town in my constituency, which has suffered job losses because of the situation. I shall listen carefully to what Ministers say in this debate, and in the debate later today, before I decide whether I can, in all conscience, support the Government today.

Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend touched on a very powerful issue. If there is a need, in the public interest, to take action--as, for example, in the case of guns or of beef--we can agree with the principle, but the action must be applied with justice if the Government want to have the support of their Back Benchers. That is the message that the Minister should take away from this debate.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall now reinforce the point that he has so clearly made.

Touchmead Ltd. of Amesbury constructed a whole new plant. It moved out of the centre of town to a countryside location. It did so to conform to new regulations. In 1995, that new plant was once again upgraded. The head deboning section was renewed. The firm was working for the quality end of the market, supplying some of the best-known food chains in the country. It was a major exporter of some of its products, particularly to France, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has pointed out. "Waste not, want not" was a pretty worthy phrase to use with regard to head deboners--a little-known part of the British food chain.

We are talking about large quantities of food. Touchmead Ltd. was dealing with 800 bovine heads and 900 porcine heads a day, and a tonne of bovine flank and rib and two tonnes of offal every week. A veterinary report on the company said that public health risks were very well catered for. It continued:

"Particular attention has to be paid to the safe handling and disposal of Specified Bovine Offal. Changes have been made in the handling techniques with the advent of the new guidelines.


The present management has a very positive attitude to meat hygiene. They regard themselves as being at the forefront of their particular field. They often turn to the OVS"--

the official veterinary surgeon--

"for help and guidance in the resolution of meat hygiene related problems.


As the proprietor is always anxious to seek new markets, a considerable effort has to be made to ensure that he is aware of the requirements for these.


Because of the restricted hours of attendance it has been our"--

the vets--

"deliberate policy to vary the time of day at which we attend the plant."

That report was made on 26 February.

On 28 March, I received a letter from the veterinary officer who was responsible to MAFF for looking after that company. He said:

"This purpose built factory conforming to EEC standards has been visited by us on every working day for the past 2 years.


In our opinion they carry out a good job in their function of removing useable meat from bovine and pig heads for further processing.

13 Nov 1996 : Column 281

To our knowledge they have complied with all requirements from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where necessary amending their techniques to conform to any new legislation.


We feel it is ridiculous for their factory to be under threat of closure due to proposed changes in legislation which are likely to prohibit the use of any useable meat derived from bovine heads."

On 29 March, Touchmead Ltd. was closed by the Government. A decision was taken somewhere along the line not to pay any compensation. There is no alternative use for the deboning capital equipment, and the irony, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has said, is that imports are continuing of foreign head meat--meat subject to less stringent controls than our own.

I feel very sorry for my hon. Friend the Minister. It is a peril of collective responsibility that he has drawn the short straw today. I would rather see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, with whom I have had many discussions on the matter, sitting on the Front Bench. Ultimately, of course, it is his decision whether this tiny amount, this maximum of £11 million, is paid. Farmers have received £2.5 billion to cope with the crisis that affects them.

A line always has to be drawn somewhere concerning any payment and it is the unpleasant duty of Ministers, acting on the advice of their civil servants and MAFF's accounting officer, to decide where to draw it. Clearly, with such decisions, natural justice should not be offended. The decision should not be arbitrary but should properly take into account all relevant factors--in this case, compulsory new investment. The decision taken by the Government not to pay anything to the small number of firms in the head deboning industry is unfair. It offends natural justice and it is arbitrary. That is bad government. I do not mind whether the help is called compensation, ex gratia payments, intervention or market support. If there is no precedent, it is time to set one. Mention has already been made of firearms, salmonella in eggs and other inconsistencies.

During the BSE crisis, the Government have been accused of many things. Let us face it, that is partly because 80 per cent. of hon. Members do not understand rural affairs very well. They do not therefore understand that the entire rural industry--be it animal feed, machinery or Land Rover dealers--has been shaken by BSE and the cash flow in the rural economy has simply stopped. Even lawyers and accountants have had to wait for their bills to be paid. The banks have been very understanding about head deboners. I talked to the bank manager concerned and he was very helpful. I talked to the collectors of taxes on behalf of my friends in the head deboning industry, and they were very understanding. The Inland Revenue has behaved impeccably. Even travel agents have been affected by the BSE crisis in the industry. Things are becoming right at last--but not on cattle head deboning.

What has happened to the head deboners did not happen to farmers, who have been through hell but have at least had £2.5 billion to help them during the crisis. What has happened to the deboners did not happen to the livestock transport firms, which have been very busy indeed. I dare say that some of the people involved will end up millionaires, and good luck to them. The same did not happen to the abattoirs or the renderers, which have worked very hard and are doing very nicely, and good luck to them. The same did not even happen to the livestock markets. They lost massive revenue but could

13 Nov 1996 : Column 282

limp through the crisis, and their market trade is returning. The head deboning industry will never return. The Government had to act on SEAC's advice, but they did not have to confiscate private property, put hundreds of people out of work and not pay a penny piece to help.

It is the ill-fortune of the deboning industry that it comes within the remit of MAFF. The DTI would not have treated it in the same way, nor would the Department of Health. The industry got tangled up in MAFF and has been treated as the tail-end Charlie of this awful crisis. One Minister has been quoted as saying recently,

"there is no cattle head deboning industry and that's tough".

It is especially tough for Mr. and Mrs. Ron Styles and their 60 former employees, who did everything that was asked of them and have been let down.

What is to be done? It is not too late. The Government do not have to wait to be forced into action by the courts. There is something else, of course, that they can do: contribute the modest amount of money that we are asking for on behalf of our constituents. When the nightmare of BSE is behind us and farmers, consumers and the food industry have regained their old confidence and worldwide markets once again respond to the excellence of British food from British farmers, we shall have to revisit the reform of MAFF itself. The food production industry can hold its own with any industry. It belongs in the DTI, and so does the fishing industry, given the chance.

Land stewardship and land use are increasingly integrated into the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment. Perhaps those functions belong there. Food regulations and standards should long ago have gone to the Department of Health. Consumers would prefer that and as a result would have more confidence than they do in the self-policing of poor old MAFF.

---