| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is a undercurrent of private conversations, not confined to one side of the House. It would be courteous to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Morley: As we have heard today, the certification scheme is important to Northern Ireland and to Scotland, and many other herds in England and Wales would meet the criteria laid down in the agreement.
We have heard it said tonight that farmers support the Government and back what they have done, but that does not appear to be true of those who voted in the NFU to
censure the Minister--and very few Ministers have been censured. If Conservatives want to hear the views of a farmer, not just those of the Labour party, I happen to have here a letter chosen at random from the farming press.
It is from a Mr. Cateaux of Pembrokeshire, and appeared in Farming News. It appears under the heading, "Catalogue of Tory incompetence"--I could not have put it better myself--and states that the Government have
The question is whether the Government have lost confidence. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), has been appointed to front the BSE issue, making him the Minister for the Minister of Agriculture--the first such Minister in history to have a minder to go around with him. That suggests to me that his own Government do not have much confidence in him.
The final straw in this debate, and what made it clear that the motion must be supported, was the Minister's performance at the recent NFU annual general meeting. Far from being contrite and apologetic for this disaster, he and his colleagues used the opportunity deliberately to distort and misrepresent Labour party policy, and to boast about the £3.5 billion cost of the BSE package.
Some hon. Members have asked whether Labour would make that money available to agriculture. To them I would say that, had the Government implemented the measures which the Labour party has been arguing for since 1989, we would not be facing a bill for £3.5 billion, which represents 2p in the pound for every taxpayer in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Conservatives party sometimes accuses the Labour party of levying various taxes. We have been accused of levying a windfall tax and a tartan tax, but at least we
have never been accused of levying an incompetence tax, which is what this Government have levied on the people of this country.
The future of the beef sector, of course, lies in the lifting of the European and worldwide ban. However, that will involve making progress on the certification scheme, which will require agreements with the Commission.
We recognise the case for Northern Ireland, and hon. Members from Northern Ireland have told us tonight how important lifting the ban is for their industry. In many ways, Northern Ireland is a special case--as are some Scottish producers--because its herds have been free from BSE. Moreover, Northern Ireland has maintained a traceability scheme, which is a very important part of any certification scheme.
However, I ask hon. Members from minority parties, and particularly those from Northern Ireland, to consider whether the Government--who have so little credibility in the European Union--will be able to make progress in gaining acceptance of a certification scheme or in lifting the European and worldwide ban. Ministers who waged the beef war seemed to think that they could get the European Union's co-operation by insulting it, and by blaming it for a crisis that was very much of their own making. We need a fresh approach to Europe to make any progress, and that will come only with a fresh Government who have a more positive and more determined approach to the issue.
Although the BSE issue is in itself worthy of discussion--as Ministers must answer some questions on it--we make no excuse for taking every opportunity to bring down the Government and to bring on a general election. Regardless of whether we succeed or fail in those objectives today, it will not alter the Government's handling of the crisis. They have damaged the industry and retarded progress in lifting the ban.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman):
I start by paying tribute to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be retiring at the next general election, and who have probably participated in their last agriculture debate. For their very positive support today, I particularly single out my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare(Sir J. Wiggin) and for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer). We thank them for their strong support.
On behalf of Conservative Members, I also pay tribute to the ministerial team at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, and to my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the two Parliamentary Secretaries. They have pursued the matter with determination and robustness. They have put up with a lot of abuse, and they have succeeded.
I am sure that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that I do not think that any hon. Member underestimates the scale of the impact of the BSE crisis on the families affected by the new strain of Creuztfeldt-Jacob disease--15 cases have now been identified--on farmers, on the industry or on the taxpayer. The Government maintain four key principles in dealing with the crisis: to protect public health; to eradicate BSE as quickly as possible--my right hon. and learned Friend the Agriculture Minister said that we will achieve that goal by 2001--to support the farming industry in achieving a balance in supply and demand; and to reopen world markets for British beef. Those are the principles on which we have been working.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who opened the debate, questioned the timetable and the progress that we have made. As late as the middle of July, we forecast that, by the middle of October, we could meet the conditions and start the process of lifting the ban in stages; during the summer, dairy farmers in particular chose to put more than 250,000 extra dairy cows into the over-30-months scheme. No one forecast that, not even the Opposition. We therefore had to take urgent action to increase rendering capacity and the amount of cold storage, and we were able to clear the backlog in the over-30-months scheme with only two months' delay.
According to The Independent on Sunday, the deputy leader of the Labour party, with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), have suddenly discovered that we have been using cold storage. Given the sharp, deft, rapier-like thrusts of the deputy leader of the Labour party, I read:
Mrs. Helen Jackson:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman:
No, I shall not give way because I have a lot to get through. Let me tell the hon. Lady that we have not a million carcases in cold storage but 265,000, with 2,900 at Hull. That was a great success for the Ministry of Agriculture because it enabled us to increase the slaughter rate and deal with the backlog in the OTM scheme. There are no mass graves in our countryside and there is no fear of disease.
"Caused the crisis by crass irresponsibility/stupidity.
That letter reflects the view widely held in the farming community about the impact of the Government's policy on farmers' livelihoods.
Done nothing to compensate specialist beef farmers for the huge cuts in our incomes.
Ensured that most of the compensation is going to those who already get the bulk of other farm support.
Invented the calf destruction scheme on the excuse that it would mean less surplus beef to dispose of--most of the calves are useless for beef production.
Given free rein to slaughterhouse owners and their dealer agents to cream off a lot of money that is supposed to be supporting farmers.
Exploited those who had to sell over 30 month beasts dirt cheap. Because there is no official rationing of placement of cattle into the OTMS, all farmers would have had some cattle taken.
Left the running of the scheme to an old boy network so that the Mr. Bigs got preferential treatment and all their cattle taken at the highest price.
Given most of the slaughter contracts to a handful of large companies, apparently paying them rates for beasts that are far higher than normal.
Given them millions in excess profits plus the value of the skins at about £15 each.
Refused small operators contracts on the excuse they had to have EU export licences. The Commission has said this is not true.
Used the crisis . . . to lift import bans so that meat traders/supermarkets can import cheap beef from anywhere in the world."
"So we face a choice of turning power stations into incinerators, creating mass graves in our countryside, or maintaining mountains of containerised carcasses--without spreading fear of disease being passed by air, land or water."
What a reasonable statement.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |