| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BSE
10.32 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East): I beg to move,
- That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3186), dated 18th December 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
- That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3184), dated 18th December 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
The selective slaughter scheme that the House is debating tonight is part of the Florence agreement that the Prime Minister accepted in June. The House will recall that the Prime Minister said that the Florence agreement meant that all the conditions for lifting the beef export ban would be met by last October. However, today the beef ban is in place 100 per cent. and the Government have delayed progress for six months.
In September, the Government announced that they would not meet their side of the Florence agreement after all. Ministers gave various reasons for the delay, citing, first, the new scientific work available. However, as we pointed out at the time, any new scientific evidence simply meant that we could have a more effectively targeted selective slaughter scheme and certainly did not justify the Government's reneging on the Florence agreement.
The Minister also gave as an excuse the statement that the backlog in the Government's over-30-months scheme meant that there was not the abattoir capacity to begin a selective slaughter programme. I make the point that the enormous backlog--in October last year, it was estimated at 400,000 animals--was the Government's fault. They were responsible for the chaos. We appeal to the Government to ensure that the implementation of this slaughter scheme is operated considerably more efficiently and without all the problems that surrounded the OTMS.
Secondly, I do not accept that if the political will had been there, the Government could not have made some progress towards implementing the Florence agreement. The Minister admitted in December that no attempt had been made during the six-month delay even to identify the animals that were likely to be slaughtered under the selective slaughter programme. Valuable time was wasted.
The final reason that the Minister gave for the six months in limbo was that if we went ahead with our side of the Florence agreement, the European Union would not meet its side of the bargain and start to lift the beef ban. That is the most important question that the Minister must answer tonight. Now that the Government have done a U-turn on the Florence agreement, what hope can he offer
21 Jan 1997 : Column 843
The Government have still not submitted the working paper to the European Commission regarding the lifting of the ban on certified herds. I trust that the Minister will enlighten us on that. Indeed, if Radio 4 was correct this morning, I trust that he will advise us that the formal submission will go ahead and that progress can be made so that we can at least achieve quickly the first step of allowing the export of beef from certified herds and then have the whole ban lifted.
It is a terrible day for our livestock industry when Parliament has to agree that thousands of productive animals are to be slaughtered. It is vital that the selective slaughter programme is carried out sensitively. Some farmers and herdsmen will deeply resent the fact that animals that have not reached the end of their working lives are to be compulsorily killed. The cattle, some of them high-value pedigree animals, will have been a source of great pride to the herdsmen and farmers involved.
The Ministry must adopt a flexible approach to minimise the damage to farm businesses, accommodating concerns such as the operation of the milk quota scheme, and seeking to ensure that any herd involved in the compulsory slaughter is treated in such a way that farm businesses do not lose out in terms of fulfilling the milk quota. There is also the quota for suckler cow herds. It would be wrong if businesses were penalised through a reduction in the suckler cow quota as a result of animals being slaughtered under the programme. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the flexibility will enable them to avoid not only a reduction in quota but losing out on any suckler cow premium payments as a result of the scheme.
The House will also be aware that there is concern about the definition that the Government are using to determine herd size. If more than 10 per cent. of the animals in a herd are to be slaughtered, the compensation is so much higher and a premium is payable. There is great concern, however, that on this occasion the Government have, unusually, chosen to include for the first time heifers in calf. That will reduce the number of herds that qualify, in terms of over 10 per cent. of the animals being taken.
The Minister will be aware of many of the concerns about which the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have written to us. I trust that he will address these in the course of the debate. I must also impress upon the Minister that the highest standards of animal welfare must be upheld during the implementation of the programme.
There is the issue of maternal transmission. The Minister will remember that the Oxford study paper, which was published by Roy Anderson and his colleagues, included an assumption of maternal transmission. Indeed, Roy Anderson and his colleagues advised that the most effective targeting scheme would make some allowance for such transmission, albeit on a small scale. Is it the Minister's intention that if there is no change in the present fairly inconclusive position, and bearing in mind the evidence that will become available in February or March, nothing will be built into the targeting to include maternal transmission? It would be
21 Jan 1997 : Column 844
I know that many Members wish to speak in the debate. In conclusion, I remind the House that there can be no doubt that we would not be facing a crisis on such a scale had it not been for the fact that successive Conservative Governments throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s delayed in regulating to protect human and animal health. Above all, they failed abysmally to implement and enforce the regulations that they had put in place.
As I have said, it is a terrible day when the House has to agree to the slaughter of thousands of our cattle. However, the industry is facing a crisis on a huge scale.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Strang:
This is a short debate that will continue for only one and a half hours. To allow as many hon. Members to speak as possible, representing as they do the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and all political parties, I do not intend to give way.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg):
The House has discussed the selective cull on a number of occasions and is well acquainted with the issues. Furthermore, the time allocated for debate is short. Therefore, my intention is to be brief.
There are two statutory instruments before the House. The first is the Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996 and the second is the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996.
The House will be aware that there is another order, the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1996, which provides the powers to restrict and slaughter animals. That order is not subject to parliamentary procedure, but was made available in draft to hon. Members last summer when we discussed the cull before the summer recess.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |