---

Mr. Paul Marland (West Gloucestershire): As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, this is an extremely disagreeable subject to have to debate, but if we do not debate it, the situation will go on for ever. The only reason for having the debate and for introducing a selective cull is to get the ban lifted. I should like a reassurance that the European Community will accept the method of selection that we use, and that it will not use it as an excuse and say that we should have a different method of selection.

Mr. Marlow: Moving the goalposts.

Mr. Marland: Exactly. We do not want the Community to move the goalposts. We want it to accept our method of selection and consider lifting the ban. There is no doubt that with the passage of time attitudes towards the selective cull have changed, and not only among farmers. The farmers of Gloucestershire--obviously the ones whom I know the best--were against the selective cull to start with, but now they are all in favour.

In the debate that we had in November on BSE, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave a cast-iron commitment that he would support a selective cull order of the type that we are debating today. To many of us, it does not come as much of a surprise that on this matter, as on so many others, the hon. Gentleman and the whole of his party have changed their minds. I well remember that when we discussed the export of live animals, the Labour party as a body came out against it; but when Labour was last in office, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was in favour. The Labour party does one thing when it faces in one direction, but something completely different when it faces in the other.

It is also worth remembering that already more than a million cattle have been slaughtered under the scheme to try to eradicate BSE in this country and that the forecast for the selective cull is about 100,000. The answer to the question whether the Government will cope competently and implement the measures well is that of course they will. The Government can be relied on to learn from and take advantage of past experience, so we shall have a totally worry-free operation as we carry out the cull. If we do not go ahead with the selective cull, the ban on the export of British beef will never be lifted.

I and farmers in Gloucestershire favour the selective cull because it will restore confidence. I do not know about other Members with rural constituencies, but confidence in British beef among the beef eaters of Gloucestershire never went down. The beef sales of an independent butcher in Newent in my constituency, Andy Crease, never fell off. The favourite Sunday lunch in the Forest of Dean is still British beef, as it always was.

I hope that the implementation of the selective cull will restore the confidence of institutions such as schools, too many of which have banned British beef. I hope that McDonald's, the brand leader in the fast food industry, will quickly reintroduce British beef to its restaurants. I salute, as will other Conservative Members, the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign to rebuild confidence in British beef mince.

We want worldwide sales of British beef to take off again because the markets are still there. Foreigners want to buy our beef. [Interruption.] Yes, foreigners want to

21 Jan 1997 : Column 853

buy British beef. I say that again in case there was a misunderstanding and the Labour party changes its mind again and decides to back British beef instead of continually chipping away at it and at the British agriculture industry.

Many months ago, I told the House that I had discovered at Gloucester market that there were outbreaks of BSE in France. Few believed me or my source of information at the market, but it is now widely recognised that BSE is endemic in France, Belgium and Holland. I wonder whether hon. Members know that the Russians and Egyptians have banned the import of beef from southern Ireland because there have been 70 BSE cases there in the past year. If they are going to ban the import of beef from Ireland, what does the European Community propose to do about the export of Irish beef?

Mr. Gill: Is it not terribly unsatisfactory that Russia can ban the importation of beef from five Irish counties but that the same beef can be exported to the United Kingdom, to the detriment of British cattle producers?

Mr. Marland: My hon. Friend has pinched my next point. I understand that the price of British beef has fallen by 5 per cent.--it may be more; he can correct me if I am wrong--as a result of the import of Irish beef.

On the detail of the slaughter, I join other hon. Members in urging my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that his Department should be as flexible as possible in the execution of the policy so as to minimise the losses of income that farmers will sustain. It should be sensitive to farmers' replacement plans. That is especially important for farmers who are carrying extra in-calf heifers on their farms to replace the stock that will be taken out by the cull.

Compensation should help farmers, not penalise them. I believe that it is wrong to regard in-calf heifers as being involved in establishing the herd. That is a serious departure from normal measurement practice, as only productive cattle are included in Government schemes, legislation and for taxation purposes. Why change that? The inclusion of in-calf heifers penalises farmers who seek to help themselves with replacements, especially as some of them may be carrying extra cattle on their farms.

It would be sensible to reconsider top-up payments, which are not available until at least 10 per cent. of the herd has been slaughtered. With the extra heifers that farmers are carrying on their farms, that could seriously disadvantage the very people whom we are seeking to help. Perhaps the top-up scheme should be on a sliding scale so that it is not cut and dried at 10 per cent. and there is some give in the system.

The setting of a maximum value on the compensation payable for a beast could further disadvantage those valuable pedigree herds, which, as other hon. Members have already said, may have been built up over the lifetime not only of the current owner but of his father. I hope that that matter will be reconsidered.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not like to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think that he may have made a mistake. There are two elements in the compensation--compensation for the individual beast and the top-up.

21 Jan 1997 : Column 854

There is neither ceiling nor cap on the compensation for the individual beast--full value will be paid. The cap applies only to the top-up formula.

Mr. Marland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for putting me right on that because that is a weight off my mind. If I made a mistake, I am quite happy to admit it. We want the farmers to co-operate with the scheme, some of which is voluntary. If we expect them to step forward and volunteer to participate in it, we must make the compensation scheme as fair as we possibly can.

As I said earlier, we want to get the ban lifted. To do that, we must know what the quid pro quo is from the European Union. Other hon. Members have mentioned the Florence agreement. It is true that before today's debate we had instigated five out of the six conditions that were laid down at Florence in order to get the ban lifted. As a result of today's measures, we shall instigate six out of six.

For a long time many of us have thought that the EU has had its own agenda: to inflict pain on UK farmers while letting others walk away without persuading them to take any steps to put the problem right. I have already cited the example of southern Ireland. I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take steps to ensure that there is no more duplicitous behaviour within the EU, and that the ban is lifted as soon as possible.

11.21 pm

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon): There is considerable interest in the debate because, although one understands that there is a political rather than a scientific imperative behind the need for the statutory instruments, it is generally accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the accelerated cull, regrettable though it is, must go ahead. That is why I believe that the House will not divide on the measures.

I shall briefly address the issues that are of most concern to the farming industry because I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak. The Minister will be aware of the considerable disquiet that has been expressed by many hon. Members about the definition of the herd. It is proposed to define it as including the replacement heifers in calf. That is contrary to accepted practice in all countries of the United Kingdom. Farmers believe that that has been done to reduce eligibility for the top-up payments. In view of the representations made tonight, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.

The industry has obviously welcomed the fact that the Government have accepted the case for replacement value to be the basis of compensation for the cattle. After all, we are dealing with some of the most productive of the dairy cows in our herds, and they will be slaughtered when they are at their most productive capacity. Considerable disappointment has been expressed, however, at the fact that that compensation has been limited to 90 per cent. of their replacement value. I am sure that the Minister will have noted all the representations on that.

The way in which dislocation costs are calculated is also a matter of concern. I am anxious particularly about small dairy farmers--they may lose only one or two cows, but that may not represent 10 per cent. of their herds. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider whether an element of flexibility should be included in the system

21 Jan 1997 : Column 855

because, proportionately, the small producer will lose substantially more than the larger producer in terms of their herds' productive capacity?

It is important that compensation is paid promptly, particularly for productive cattle, which must be replaced quickly. Many farmers had to wait a considerable time before they received their compensation under the over-30-months scheme, which had a considerable impact on their cash flow problems. Will the Minister give an assurance that the compensation payments under this scheme will be paid promptly, so that farmers can ensure that they have the money in their bank early enough to pay for the replacement of their stock? Will he also ensure that the farmers are made fully aware at an early stage of when the payments will be made?

My final point relates to the raising of the beef ban. As the Minister is aware, many of us have been persuaded of the necessity of the accelerated cull because of the prospect of the ban being lifted as a result. I understand what the Minister has been saying tonight and his reluctance to give us a firm date for raising the ban, but the industry is waiting for his views and the Government's views on that subject. He will understand that it is because of that prospect that farmers support the regulations on accelerated culling. In his winding-up speech, or in some other form, will the Minister make it clear that the lifting of the ban forms the basis of the statutory instruments?

---