| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.42 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down): In two short sentences, I should like to remind the House of the great calamity that BSE has been to the Northern Ireland farming community. Of a population of 1.5 million, 60,000 people representing 8 per cent. of the work force are engaged in the farming industry. Two thirds of the farms in Northern Ireland, small as they usually are, are involved in rearing cattle, and they produce a disproportionately high 12 per cent. of the entire UK herd. That is the enormity of the problem facing the Northern Ireland base industry--agriculture--which consists mainly of cattle rearing.
Those in the farming community generally welcomed the proposals for the selective cull and they want it implemented as quickly as possible so that they can re-enter the European market. Northern Ireland exports 75 per cent. of its meat, and 50 per cent. outside the United Kingdom.
I want to raise with the Minister one or two quick points for consideration, as they are causing concern to farmers in Northern Ireland. Although the farming industry in Northern Ireland accepts the reasoning behind the voluntary nature of the slaughter of the 1989-90 cohorts, and the fact that there is a problem given the traceability in Great Britain, nevertheless that traceability is total in Northern Ireland. Could not the slaughter of those 1989-90 cohorts be made compulsory in Northern Ireland? It could be carried out quickly and efficiently, thereby completing the five requirements of the Florence convention.
The other matter that farmers want the Government to address is the proposed method of counting herd size, which will be used to calculate the compensation top-up payments for the cull. We know that it differs from the method that is already in operation for the temporary reallocation of additional milk quota. The method used for calculating herd size for the temporary milk quota allocation should be used for the purpose of the cull as well.
The Ulster farmer is concerned that top-up payment is triggered only when the producer loses 10 per cent. of the herd. The Minister spoke about flexibility. It would be beneficial to the very small farmers, of whom Northern Ireland has a considerable number, if there was a tapering scale from 1 per cent. to 9 per cent. The flexibility offered by such a sliding scale would bring adequate and proportionate benefit to the very small farmer.
21 Jan 1997 : Column 860
The certified herds scheme should recognise the part played by the selective cull as a step towards certification. To ensure that the scheme is of practical benefit, the farming community offers four proposals for consideration. First, as has been said, the flagging of herds should be introduced, instead of the flagging of farms. The flagging of herds occurs throughout Europe. The UK is the only country where farms are flagged. I understand that that is the result of an administrative slip-up at an earlier stage. It could be corrected virtually by the stroke of a pen, if that is done now.
Secondly, the certification of animals should replace the certification of herds. Thirdly, all animals born after 1 August 1996 should be eligible for the scheme, irrespective of the BSE status of the holding from which they originated. Fourthly, BSE-affected herds should be accepted into the certified herds scheme once they have completed an agreed restriction period of no more than six years.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim):
I shall not repeat the matters raised by my two colleagues. They have underscored what is in the mind of the farming community in Northern Ireland. As a Member of the European Parliament, let me tell the House that there is no promise from Europe that, if we do what we are doing tonight, we will receive a firm assurance that the ban will be raised.
The damnable report due next month will raise the matter to new heights. It has been purposely planned so to do by the political managers in Europe. There will be an attack on British beef and wild accusations which will reverberate throughout Europe and build an almost impassable wall.
I regret that my proposal in a previous debate was not adopted. Because Northern Ireland has the traceability scheme, we should have proposed that as a pilot scheme, carried out the cull according to the Florence terms in that part of the UK and awaited Europe's reaction. If Europe had said no, the Government would have known that their actions tonight would not evoke the response necessary.
Baroness Denton, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for agriculture and the economy, announced recently that Northern Ireland had weathered the BSE storm. It has done nothing of the sort. A review of the economy, which will be released this week, states that not only the farmers but the food processors, road hauliers, feed merchants and renderers of Northern Ireland will go under. We are facing the biggest crisis since world war two. If we do not find a way out, the agricultural sector--the basis of the entire Northern Ireland economy--will go under. I must be a prophet of doom tonight--I cannot be anything else--because we would be foolish to believe that, by taking this action tonight, we shall see the ban lifted in Europe. That will not happen.
21 Jan 1997 : Column 861
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
Having listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I am tempted to say that I agree with all that he said and to add nothing further. However, I must take this opportunity to proclaim my faith in British beef and in the British farming industry, particularly in so far as it affects my constituents.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider the question of compensation. I appreciate the fact that a huge amount of money has been spent supporting the beef and dairy industries in the past nine or 10 months, but will he ensure that payment is made under the scheme as speedily as possible? As other hon. Members have said, there is nothing worse than having to wait for one's money--especially in circumstances such as this.
I also draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the question of economic loss. I acknowledge that there will be almost 100 per cent. compensation for individual beasts, but I am concerned about the potential for tremendous economic loss with the top-up regime. For example, if 40 per cent. of a herd is culled, it will be almost impossible to return that herd to an economic basis--not least because the milking cows introduced into the herd will take some time to come on full stream and milk at the same rate as the cows they replaced. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that factor in mind.
I also ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep an eye on the nature of replacement beasts, especially if they come from abroad. We must be assured that the beasts that are introduced into the United Kingdom pass our stringent tests for quality. Can we be sure that they will not have been fed meat or bonemeal, which would cause a new schedule of disasters that we would face at our peril?
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I preface my remarks with a tribute to the patience and tolerance displayed by the meat and livestock industry during the past 10 very difficult months. Those in the industry on either side of the farm gate--both those who have been compensated and those who have not--have adopted a most responsible view in a joint endeavour to see British beef once again assume the position that it rightfully deserves as the best in the world.
In July, I sponsored early-day motion 1180 which said, among other things, that there was no guarantee when the beef export ban would be lifted. I believe that those comments are equally true today. We are debating the issue tonight, not for scientific reasons or because of human or animal health considerations, but because of purely political considerations. Right hon. and hon. Members have already referred to that fact.
What I regret more than anything else in this whole sad business is that our Government, who up until 27 March last year steadfastly said that every action they took in respect of beef and the safety of food in the British Isles would be based on scientific evidence, have been driven because of force majeure from that position to the point
21 Jan 1997 : Column 862
We will have needlessly slaughtered more than 1 million cattle to comply with this political imperative, in just the same way that, as I speak, fishermen at sea are dumping back into the sea thousands of fish that are perfectly saleable and could provide meals for housewives and their families; in the same way that, because of the failure of politicians to make the right decisions, 3,750,000 head of poultry have been killed to comply with the zoonoses orders when so many of us well know that the answer to that problem was to convince the British housewife, the cooks and the chefs in kitchens to cook their eggs and poultry correctly.
For how long can the animal kingdom tolerate this abuse, brought about by the failure of politicians to discharge their responsibilities properly and adequately rather than to blame the fowl of the air, the beast of the field and the fish in the sea for their own inadequacies?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |