---

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1125

House of Commons

Thursday 6 February 1997

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Cattle Cull

1. Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the selective cull scheme in the north-west. [13102]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): A scheme booklet will be available shortly and will be distributed to beef and dairy farmers, setting out the arrangements for the selective cull throughout Great Britain.

Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: It seems probable that farmers in the north-west will have to import cattle to replace those taken out by the selective cull. Bearing in mind the fact that bovine spongiform encephalopathy exists in other countries, can my hon. Friend assure the House about the health status of any cattle that may be imported?

Mr. Baldry: It is likely that a large proportion of the replacement animals will be bred in the United Kingdom. There is already evidence of farmers rearing more animals to replace culled stock. Trade in live animals between member states and the importation of live animals from third countries are subject to detailed animal health rules, most of which are harmonised within the European Community. The rules lay down precise conditions for trade, including a requirement that consignments are accompanied by health certification, signed by an official veterinarian in the exporting country.

Mr. Olner: How many of the carcases have been disposed of during the selective cull? I am led to believe that the number is very small. Perhaps the Minister could inform the House on the matter.

Mr. Baldry: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two schemes. The selective, accelerated cull has only just started--the tracing has just begun. As soon as the animals are taken, they will be slaughtered and incinerated. The hon. Gentleman is confusing that with the over-30-months scheme, under which, to get rid of the backlog of 1.3 million cattle, it was necessary to store some carcases to maximise rendering capacity.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I support the gist of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1126

and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd)? There have been problems with the veterinary inspection and certification of imported cattle. As we shall have to import more cattle, there are serious concerns to be addressed about the standards of veterinary inspection and certification in some European member states, although everyone in the House will have full confidence in the veterinary profession in this country.

Mr. Baldry: The veterinary rules are harmonised throughout the Community. If we come across any examples of other member states not being up to standard, it is important that we deal with them. The House recognises that we have to get on with the selective cull to fulfil the Florence agreement. That means that farmers must have replacement animals. I hope that the majority can come from the United Kingdom herd.

Sea Defences

3. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Ministry has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into different methods of sea defence. [13105]

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Ministry invests more than £1.5 million annually on strategic research aimed at ensuring a better understanding of coastal processes and stimulating the use of new techniques in the design of flood and coastal defences. We also issue guidance to operating authorities.

Mr. Whittingdale: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I also thank him for taking the trouble to come to my constituency to see the experiment in managed setback that is taking place at Tollesbury? He will be aware from his visit that there is concern in the farming community about the possible adoption of managed setback as a widespread method of sea defence. Will he assure me that no decision will be taken until there has been a full and proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of such a policy?

Mr. Boswell: I very much enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend's constituency and looking at the fascinating managed setback experiment at Tollesbury creek. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is an experiment. It is part of our effort to inform ourselves on the various options available which will be considered as part of the Essex shoreline management plan. As a native of that county, I am conscious of the fact that, with 250 miles of sea walls, it will not be the automatic expectation or recourse to retreat and avoid our responsibilities. We shall consider the appropriate solutions, having regard to various criteria and informed by research. There is no hidden agenda.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister referred to best design. Is not the best design of coastal defence actually the sand dune? What is being done to protect sand dunes, especially from those who want sand for commercial purposes?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point in respect of particular parts of our coastline. I have seen some fascinating activity designed to build up sand dunes

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1127

and reinforce natural defences. We all now know much more about various options that allow the nap to work with the grain of nature rather than fight against it. Clearly, sand dunes represent an important opportunity in Tollesbury, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) referred, where there is the possibility of recreating a salt marsh as part of the natural defences.

Genetically Modified Food

4. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take to enable consumers to make a choice over whether or not to consume genetically modified soya and maize. [13106]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): We intend to continue to encourage food manufacturers and retailers to provide information for consumers about the use of these products.

Mr. Pickthall: No doubt the Minister is well briefed on public anxieties about genetically modified ingredients in food. Does she agree that consumers should be free to choose non-genetically modified food and that their freedom depends on accurate labelling? Will she join United Kingdom producers and retailers in campaigning to get Monsanto, the American firm, to segregate genetically modified food from non-genetically modified food to allow for such labelling? Will she urge the Commission to reinstate its ban on unprocessed genetically modified maize?

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman touches on exactly the point in the production chain where segregation is needed--right at the beginning. Under legislation, it is not possible for me to ban a product; but, as he rightly pointed out, it is possible for the people who are sourcing the product to stipulate quite accurately whether or not they will buy genetically modified foods. I had a series of meetings with the industry on 7 January to discuss exactly this point. Some companies, such as Iceland and Tesco, have publicly said that they are making that a requirement. The hon. Gentleman will know that three committees of the Commission examined the issue which he raised. They decided not to change their mind about it and we are bound by Commission rules in terms of what we can and cannot ban in this country.

Sir Donald Thompson: Arising directly out of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), clearly the new food safety council will need to be carefully harmonised with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and other advisory councils, otherwise there will be duplication and a muddle, which would be unusual for the Ministry.

Mrs. Browning: The chief food safety adviser will have an overview of all the committees. In respect of the matter that we are discussing, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes chaired by Professor Burke has been in place for many years to scrutinise and examine applications for genetically modified foods. We believe that strict scrutiny is necessary--something that is not available in other countries such as the United

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1128

States--and we are pleased that the European Union has now adopted the British system whereby an advisory committee makes recommendations to Government. The point that my hon. Friend raised means that, when a chief food safety officer is appointed, he or she will also have the opportunity to comment on the advice that the Government receive and how they put it into policy.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister may have seen early-day motion 280, which I tabled more than two months ago and which gained all-party support from Members. Does she accept the view of the Consumers Association published in today's Which?, which suggests that she and her colleagues throughout Europe may be simply too late to be able to guarantee segregation of genetically modified ingredients in our foodstuffs? Is it not a classic case of the horse charging around the countryside, having long since bolted, while we are trying only now to shut the stable door?

Mrs. Browning: I wish the hon. Gentleman would do his homework a little more carefully. We have just agreed, in December, with the European Commission--a body of which the hon. Gentleman and his party are very much in favour--that we should have Europewide regulation in this matter. It has been the United Kingdom Government who have been pressing--

Mr. Skinner: In the lead.

Mrs. Browning: I could not have put it better myself. I notice that today's Consumers Association report does not question in any way the safety of the product. It raises the point about labelling--

Mr. Tyler: And segregation.

Mrs. Browning: And segregation. As a Minister I cannot insist on segregation; if I were to insist that only segregated crops came into this country, I would be in contravention, first, of European Union rules and, secondly, of World Trade Organisation rules. It is a matter of the industry, of which we are very supportive, sourcing its product by making it very clear what it will and will not buy.

Dr. Strang: Following on from the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), will she make it clear that the Government accept the principle that consumers should be able to choose whether they eat genetically modified foods? That means that there has to be proper labelling and segregation at the point of production. Is it not of concern that genetically modified maize incorporates a gene that confers a resistance to the antibiotic Ampicillin and that there is a danger that such resistance will be transferred to humans? Having failed to block the entry of that maize at European level, what are the Government doing about it?

Mrs. Browning: The Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes, which looked at genetically modified maize, gave the product its approval, but added a caveat. The caveat was not sufficient for it not to allow the approval to come forward as a recommendation to Ministers. The committee stipulated, however, that work

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1129

was needed in respect of unprocessed modified maize that could go into animal feed. We accepted that and took that case to Europe. Three committees of the European Commission looked at the advice of Professor Burke's committee that was given to us, and rejected the case.

I have just given the hon. Gentleman an account of why it is not in legal terms possible for Ministers to block entry into this country. However, there is an opportunity for the industry, which we are supporting, to make it very clear what it will and will not buy. For our part, I can tell him that we will take forward work and research and look at the effects--

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Too late.

Mrs. Browning: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman shouting out, "Too late." We have an extremely good and well-qualified advisory committee, whose advice the Government take. If European committees do not accept that advice, we are subject to qualified majority voting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands how that works. Unfortunately, the European committees did not accept our committee's advice.

---