---

Mr. Hogg: I shall shortly outline the steps that we intend to take with the European Commission to secure a relaxation of the ban. However, our optimism is based on the high quality of Scottish beef, a factor that is acknowledged throughout Europe.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Minister says that he expects the cull to be completed in approximately six months. Does he mean that in that time the cull and the disposal process of the slaughtered beasts will be completed, bearing it in mind that so far a mere 3.8 per cent. of those disposed of under the 30-months scheme have been finally incinerated?

Mr. Hogg: By the cull, I mean the slaughter. There are large quantities of beef, particularly as a result of the 30-months scheme, in cold storage and it will take a long time to dispose of that. When I mentioned six months, it was in relation to the slaughter programme and did not relate to the beef in cold storage plants.

I shall now deal with maternal transmission. What we are discussing does not include measures in relation to maternal transmission, if I may use the jargon. I hope that we shall have a clearer view in February or March about whether there is true maternal transmission. When we have that evidence, we will be better able to determine whether it would be right to seek to add to the numbers contemplated under the present arrangements to take account of potential maternal transmission. At this time I am unable to say whether we shall seek to extend the cull to reflect possible maternal transmission. That will depend on our assessment of the scientific evidence that I hope will be available in two or three months.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East): Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I should like to make some more progress.

Subject to the House agreeing the statutory instruments, I currently expect the first visits to farms in Great Britain to begin tracing cattle to take place in the next few days. The first visits will be to the natal herds--those in which BSE cattle were born. After that it will be a matter of tracing any animals that have moved from those herds. Our aim is to complete the process of tracing and culling the affected cohorts within six months. That is the matter on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) sought further clarification. The tracing of animals moved out of these cohorts might take a little longer.

As I have said, I recognise that the cull will create uncertainty and upheaval for many of those farmers affected, and that it represents an interference with their

21 Jan 1997 : Column 849

private property. Nevertheless I commend it to the House because, without it, there is no prospect of any lifting of the export ban on United Kingdom beef. I am pleased to see that that point is now generally accepted by farming organisations and by my colleagues in the House, including the Opposition.

By implementing the cull, all five of the preconditions in the Florence agreement will be met and it will allow us to move to the second part of the agreement which sets out the procedures for a relaxation of the ban. We are ready with a proposal for a certified herds scheme to submit to the Commission. I anticipate submitting our proposals early next month. I must tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that it would be presumptuous of me to submit any proposals to the Commission before getting the clearance and approval of the House, which is what I am seeking and which I regard as a necessary precondition to the next step.

Our certified herds scheme would permit exports of meat and meat products from animals whose movements are fully documented and which could be certified as having no association with BSE. Once we have secured agreement on such exports, we shall aim to move on rapidly to other categories, such as animals born after a given date. In other words, we regard certified herds as being the first step in the relaxation of an unjustified ban on British beef and beef products.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): In seeking the approval of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the cost of the scheme to the British taxpayer? Am I right in thinking that it is an entirely a United Kingdom cost and does not involve any refund from the Community? On the terms that have been set out, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me what the Government are putting forward as funds to meet the cost of the scheme?

Mr. Hogg: The net cost is about £120 million. My right hon. Friend is not entirely right to say that there is no co-financing. There is co-financing to about 70 per cent. of market value. That does not take account of all the elements of compensation encompassed within the compensation scheme. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that I talked about 70 per cent. of market value and he will recall what I said about top-up and about the fact that replacement value is one of the benchmarks for calculating compensation. The recovery is based on market value. As I have said, doing the best we can, the net cost will be about £120 million.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, because I have given way to the hon. Gentleman's party already.

On the basis of my comments, I commend the statutory instruments to the House.

11.2 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I believe that all hon. Members would prefer not to have to debate this issue, but here we are. Many of us have to take a serious and sober attitude towards this issue as we represent many livestock farmers.

21 Jan 1997 : Column 850

A farmer in Cornwall wrote to me yesterday saying:

"It is a very dangerous precedent to kill healthy animals on this basis, a thing the United Kingdom has never done."

I believe that that is the view of many hon. Members.

There are only two possible justifications for the action: first, that it will accelerate the eradication of BSE in the British beef herd and, secondly, that it will accelerate the reopening of the worldwide beef export opportunities. It must be on both counts that we test the statements made by the Minister today.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall the words of the Prime Minister on his return from Florence. He said:

"It is now up to us in this country--the farming and ancillary industries and the Government--to ensure that we meet them. The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands.--[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 22.]

When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be more specific about the timetable that he sees ahead of us as a result of the action that he is asking the House to take. To justify it, the Government have to believe that this scheme will accelerate both the eradication of BSE and the reopening of the export markets.

Some important questions were left unanswered. First, after Florence, why did Ministers not at least consult the industry so that they could move as quickly as possible as soon as the legislative process had been completed, so that we would not have these last-minute glitches? Six months have been lost during which such consultation could have taken place and uncertainty could have been removed. As it is, livestock farmers have found their business plans totally up in the air because they were not able to plan ahead.

Secondly, will the cull be managed in the same way as the over-30-months scheme? As yet, we have had no answer to that question. On 16 December, when the Minister made a statement on the subject, I asked him whether the accelerated cull would be by competitive tender, enabling the participation of all those slaughterhouses--they are represented by Members on both sides of the House--that have been squeezed out of the over-30-months cull and have lost out disastrously as a result. I was given no answer. When I raised that matter in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment on 18 December, the Leader of the House assured me that he would put that point to the Ministers responsible and get an answer, to ensure that there was no profiteering out of the new programme as there has been with the over-30-months scheme. I have had no answer as yet, nor have I heard one today.

Thirdly, what notice have Ministers taken of the response from the farming organisations to the Government's consultation document? The definitions in paragraph 11 are still incredibly vague, causing widespread concern. There is considerable concern at the apparent mismatch of cohort years with feeding groups. Do we yet know that the scheme is acceptable to the Commission, or are we passing something that is still a pig in a poke as far as acceptability in Brussels is concerned? Representations have been made to the Minister and copied to many other hon. Members from the Scottish National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the South-West National Farmers Union and individual livestock farmers, all of which have been constructive and positive--not negative

21 Jan 1997 : Column 851

in the least, but they still have not had an adequate response in terms of the statutory instruments placed before us today.

On statutory instrument No. 3184, there has already been much discussion on both sides of the House about the definition of a herd. Clearly, the issue of in-calf heifers is incredibly important for closed herds. Since the Minister acknowledges that closed herds will have considerable difficulty in replacing without great cost, and that the dislocation to the management of those herds will make things extremely difficult, surely it must be important to establish what farmers and their representatives think is the best way to define a herd. As hon. Members have said, the new definition is totally unprecedented. There must be an extraordinary reason for including in-calf heifers in the way suggested. The Minister used the phrase "productive animals only". Why can we not stick with that definition? Similarly, in schedule 2, the way in which consequential loss is compensated is still causing considerable concern.

Suckler cow producers also have a major problem. We are receiving representations from all parts of the country. Surely it is essential for Ministers to allow producers to ghost those animals during the period when they are being retained for suckler cow premium. Otherwise, it will cause a major problem for the cash flow of the enterprises concerned.

Similarly, flexibility is being quoted on all sides. The Minister says that he intends to be flexible, but there is nothing very flexible about the provisions of the two statutory instruments. It is difficult to foresee how the provisions can be extended to ensure that there is flexibility to assist farmers who have a particular difficulty.

We must consider, for example, the question of local milk supply, especially where there are producer-processors and producer-retailers, and most especially where there are speciality milks such as Channel Island or organic milk. There will be a major problem if that is not taken into account in compensation. There must be maximum flexibility in the timing of the way in which cattle are taken to cull.

Flexibility may be the Minister's watchword--I hope that it is--but there is no evidence so far, from our experience of the over-30-months cull or from what we have heard today, that flexibility will in fact be delivered. In its response to the consultation document, the National Farmers Union, summing up the position of most livestock farmers represented by hon. Members of all parties, said:

"The removal of healthy animals off farms will be traumatic. A sensitive approach will be needed throughout in order to secure the cooperation of producers, many of whom will be seeing a lifetime's breeding work disappear. Whilst the national benefits of the scheme are well understood, many producers are participating in the scheme with the utmost reluctance."

We should all recognise that everyone who takes part in the scheme will do so with great reluctance. It is not a scheme in which anyone would want to participate. In those circumstances, the unwilling participants, who are the victims and not the authors of the situation, have every right to expect from the Government--from every Minister and official--the maximum flexibility, sensibility and sensitivity to their needs.

21 Jan 1997 : Column 852

11.11 pm

---