---

Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East): Well, well, Madam Speaker. May I remind the Minister and the House that after the Florence summit the Prime Minister presented the agreement as a great triumph and told us that by November we would have met all the conditions to enable beef and beef products that can be sold in this country to be sold throughout Europe and the world? He told us that the ban would be lifted completely. May I also remind the Minister that he described the Florence agreement as a great success, which provided a solid way forward? Does the Minister accept that the fact that, one month after the Prime Minister's deadline, the beef ban is 100 per cent. still in place is a terrible indictment of the Government's record?

What damage does the Minister think the episode has inflicted on our standing in the European Union? What assessment has he made of the damage it has done to our industry, including the thousands of jobs lost and the damage to farmers' livelihoods? Does the Minister accept that all those matters have been aggravated by six months of vacillation? May I also remind the Minister that throughout those months the Labour party urged him to meet the conditions of the Florence agreement in full as it was the only current mechanism on the table to enable the ban on the export of British beef and beef products to be lifted?

Does the Minister realise that he has completely failed to justify why the Government have taken six months to reach this point and that his excuses are extremely unconvincing? May I remind him that the work of Professor Roy Anderson and his colleagues, and the evidence on maternal transmission, mean that, if anything, we could have a more targeted selective slaughter programme, which would enable us to concentrate more effectively on the cows more likely to go down with BSE? That evidence certainly did not justify the Government's decision to shelve the Florence agreement.

May I remind the Minister of the recommendations made in 1989 by the Tyrrell committee for random testing of the brains of cattle that go through our slaughterhouses? That scientific recommendation was never implemented by the Government. Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for examining the brains

16 Dec 1996 : Column 635

of cattle slaughtered under the selective programme to see if we can judge what proportion of animals has been infected by the BSE agent at detectable levels?

The Minister has used as one of his excuses the fact that we did not have the slaughterhouse capacity to implement the selective slaughter programme, and other hon. Members may have observations on that. Has he used these six months to identify the animals that are to be slaughtered under the programme? Is it correct to conclude from the Minister's statement--certainly it was the impression given--that the Government have not identified the cattle targeted under the slaughter programme? Does that not mean an unnecessary and additional delay in implementation?

Does the Minister recall that his other reason for the delay was that the EU would not lift the ban, even if we met our side of the Florence agreement? Apparently, the best that the Prime Minister could get at Dublin when he raised this matter was that decisions would be taken on the basis of science. Hon. Members who heard the Minister say at lunchtime that he would be hard put to make a scientific case for the selective slaughter programme may not regard that as a convincing statement. Surely the Minister can tell us that if we implement our side of the Florence agreement, we can look forward to a rapid lifting of the ban of exports of British beef and beef products. When will he give us a timetable? We are entitled to that this afternoon. Does the Minister appreciate that, yet again, his total mishandling of the BSE crisis has meant that enormous, additional and unnecessary damage has been inflicted on our economy? As far as the farmers, the beef industry and the consumers are concerned, enough is enough.

Mr. Hogg: I think that it is the sense of the House that it would have been more gracious if the hon. Gentleman had welcomed the statement. I am bound to say that his criticisms would have been more plausible had he not in the early stage of the crisis justified the imposition of the ban by the European member states.

On the substantive points of the hon. Gentleman's question--rather than the bluster--I agree that the imposition of the ban has caused considerable damage to British agriculture, beef producers and related industries, and it is in recognition of that fact that the Government have committed more than £3 billion in assistance. I do not for one moment suppose that the Labour party would have done that.

As regards the publication of Professor Anderson's report in Nature, it was right that we should pause on the range of options there described to see, for example, if member states could be persuaded that one of the other options described was more appropriate, cost-effective and efficient than that described in the Florence agreement. We have been unable to persuade them of that.

On the question of the relationship between the selective cull and the over-30-months scheme, we have always made it plain that it would be highly desirable to complete, or substantially complete, the over-30-months scheme before we move on to the accelerated cull. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made plain, we have now slaughtered more than 1 million beasts under the over-30-months scheme, a logistical exercise of enormous complexity.

16 Dec 1996 : Column 636

On the question whether we have started to trace cattle on farms, the answer is that we have not--for this good reason. Had we identified the animals in question, those animals would have been treated as having no economic value. Clearly, it would have been wrong to do that until such time as we had decided to embark upon the selective cull, as I have described to the House. On the question of justification, the truth is that BSE will die out in the national herd in 2001. The cull itself will reinforce neither public nor animal safety, and its real justification is that, unless we do it, we will not get progress on lifting the ban. That is a political fact, not a scientific one.

As to the timetable, I will say what I have said on many occasions in the past. We will not secure a timetable, and I never pretended that we would. The Florence agreement provides a framework for a step-by-step process that will incrementally lead to a lifting of the ban.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): The large sum of compensation--more than £3 billion to the farming and meat processing industries--has been warmly received and has gone a long way towards helping those who have been hurt financially. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me on one particular point in relation to the Florence agreement, which was a United Kingdom agreement? Will any move towards the certified herd scheme--which I hope will be implemented as quickly as possible--be on a United Kingdom basis, and not country by country?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and very few people know more about this subject than him. The application and criteria for certified herds will be expressed in United Kingdom-wide terms.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Is the Minister now prepared to state unequivocally that he can reiterate the Prime Minister's promise--that control over the timetable is now in the hands of the Government? In the light of what he has said this afternoon, is he prepared to look again at the time scale for the completion of the accelerated cull? He tells us that it will take six months. As 1 million cattle have been destroyed in a six-month period, surely the basic arithmetic suggests that the process could be completed more speedily. Finally, paragraph 24 of the consultation paper suggests that the way in which the slaughter will be allocated to abattoirs will be similar to that under the 30-months scheme. Is he aware of the real concerns about the way in which a small number of abattoirs have profiteered and made a killing from the scheme? The new scheme must be put out to competitive tender.

Mr. Hogg: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman either has not read or has misunderstood the Florence agreement, which never provided for a timetable. It provided for a process--[Interruption.] I am referring the hon. Member for North Cornwall--who is fluffing about--to the Florence agreement, which I suggest he reads. What he will see if he reads it, and is capable of understanding it, is a process whereby the British Government will put documents to the Commission, who will then place those documents before the Standing Veterinary Committee and other expert committees where

16 Dec 1996 : Column 637

the issue will be discussed. The response that we receive is in the hands of the European Commission and the member states.

We will negotiate vigorously along the lines that I have set out--namely, that the application in respect of certified herds is but a first step and will be expressed in UK-wide terms. The scheme will take some time in parts of Great Britain, simply because the numbers are substantial and the tracing process complicated. It is different in Northern Ireland--where tracing can be done rapidly--and, for that matter, in Scotland. In England, it will be a lengthy process and six months is not an unrealistic assessment.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the process of negotiations--as he describes it--is, in effect, no better than a process of appeasement? In fact, the events of the past six months have played further into the hands of those member states who have said that they will not lift the ban. What indication does he have that the ban will be lifted? Does he regard these talks as negotiations?

---