| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Lady will resume her seat I shall answer the question that she raised. All the cattle remains must be either rendered, incinerated or both; we do not propose to use landfill. That is why it will take some time to take the carcases out of cold storage and render them properly. The Government should be congratulated on the steps that they have taken.
Mr. Freeman: I shall not give way--[Interruption.]
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East argued that we should have started the selective cull
earlier. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said clearly that, during the summer, the National Farmers Union opposed a selective cull; it has now changed its mind and supports one. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should have started preparations for a selective cull by identifying the cattle in the autumn. That could not be achieved. One either starts the selective cull, identifies the cattle, agrees the compensation and puts restrictions on the movement of cattle--or not. We have not been in a position to do that until now. I am glad to confirm to the House that we are ready to start slaughtering under the selective cull scheme in about three weeks' time.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I must respond to the debate.
I confirm that we expect the selective cull in Northern Ireland to start on 3 March, about the same time as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
We shall shortly have met all the Florence conditions. We have cleaned up feed at mills and on farms, and banned contaminated feed from 1 August. We have begun the process of tracing cattle and my right hon. and learned Friend has introduced a passport scheme from 1 July. We now have some of the best slaughterhouse standards in the world. We have cleared the backlog in the over-30-months scheme and we shall shortly implement the cull. We shall then formally submit to the European Commission the certified herd scheme and we hope and expect a good and full response from the Commission. As the House will understand, that must follow the detailed process laid down in the Florence agreement.
I come now to the points raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Quite properly, I have visited Ulster twice in the past few months. I know full well that the beef industry there relies on exports and has been particularly hard hit. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that the scheme that we shall put forward to the Commission applies to the whole United Kingdom, but as it is based on good traceability and the absence of BSE from herds, it will be of direct and immediate benefit to Northern Irish farmers. That was very much in our minds when we devised the scheme.
My right hon. and learned Friend has said today that the case for direct and immediate relief for Northern Ireland is very strong--indeed, unanswerable. So it is. He has said that he will urge the case of Northern Ireland. So he will. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that while other parts of the United Kingdom may have producers who qualify too--I think of Scotland and the west country in particular; the scheme is designed to be open to all parts of the country--it is certain that none will have a stronger or more immediate claim for relief than Northern Ireland. That is the case for Northern Ireland that my right hon. and learned Friend will urge in the coming negotiations.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry raised a second point about the additional EC support for the beef industry, and in particular for Northern Ireland. I am glad to be able to tell the House that my noble Friend Baroness Denton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office, having consulted the farming unions in Northern Ireland, has decided on the distribution
of the additional EC support for the beef industry. Besides £250,000 for beef promotion, £9.4 million will be available for suckler cow herds. All suckler herd owners will receive a £25 per head top-up to the suckler cow premium, but in recognition of the unique problems faced by the flagged suckler herd owners, and with the support of the representative organisations, those herd owners will receive an additional £135 to £145 per animal. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. There are far too many conversations going on in the House. The House must come to order to listen to what the Minister has to say.
Mr. Freeman:
I now come to the--
Mrs. Jackson:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the Minister has misled the House.
Madam Speaker:
Order. That is a most serious accusation. Will the hon. Lady raise a point of order so that I know what I can do about it?
Mrs. Jackson:
I have evidence that contracts have been let that involve the landfilling of rendered waste from the over-30-months cull. I have just been told that that is not true. Either this evidence is not true, or what the Minister has said is not true. I want to raise the issue because it needs clearing up.
Madam Speaker:
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. It is not really a point of order, it is a point of argument. I am sure that the Minister is able to cope with it.
Mr. Freeman:
I confirm to the House--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I want the House to listen. This is very important. The House must listen to what the Minister has to say on this important issue.
Mr. Freeman:
I confirm to the hon. Lady and to the House that, for the over-30-months scheme, there will be no landfill of carcases or rendered material. All material is to be rendered and incinerated. If the hon. Lady has any evidence, I should be delighted to receive it. I have stated the Government's policy clearly.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) sought to exaggerate greatly the impact of the selective cull on the dairy herd. He said that he expected between a third and a half of the dairy herd to be affected by the selective cull. That is a gross exaggeration that he has repeated on a number of occasions. I am pleased to confirm to the House that what he has said is not the case. The total number of animals to be culled under the scheme will be, at most, 128,000. We expect the figure to be much lower. The total number of animals in the UK dairy herd is about 2.5 million, so the proportion to be culled is, at most, 5 per cent. I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House who said that they expect the selective cull to be handled in a sympathetic, sensitive fashion. Indeed it will. It will take up to six months to slaughter all the additional cattle involved.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Witney and for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) accurately summed up the purpose of the debate. They both said that the Labour
party was turning an agricultural crisis into narrow party advantage. On 26 May 1996, the News of the World said--[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Labour Front Bench team would listen. The paper said:
I lay three specific charges against the Labour party concerning what has been said during the past few months, and repeated again tonight. The first charge, repeated by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), is that the regulations that the Labour party would have laid in the late 1970s--and if they had become effective--would have stopped BSE. That is the argument and it is wholly without foundation.
Mr. Prescott
indicated dissent.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was a junior Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the late 1970s and he will know that the charge is untrue. He will know what Keith Meldrum, the chief veterinary officer, said in giving evidence to the Agriculture Committee on 27 March 1996. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would listen to me. When Mr. Meldrum was questioned on whether the controls proposed by the last Labour Government on animal feed--which were of course aimed at tackling salmonella, and other bacteria in feed, and not of course enacted because the Conservative Government achieved the same purpose by introducing goal-based, non-prescriptive regulations--would have protected the country against BSE, he said:
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West):
Get on with it.
Mr. Freeman:
I am getting on with it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to what I have to say. The chief veterinary officer said:
The second charge is more serious. It relates to the failure of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and the Labour party to condemn the ban on the export of beef and support the non co-operation movement. The hon. Gentleman sought to evade the point because he said in his press release of 22 March on the ban imposed by France:
"Whatever criticisms we have of the Government's performance so far, this is now a national crisis and Labour's response will be governed by the need to promote the national interest."
Labour Members have deserted the national interest in their behaviour--not only tonight, but consistently.
"I was involved in policy advice at that time"--
the late 1970s--
"so I was involved in those discussions"--
on Labour's draft regulations--
"I can confirm, from memory, that the timed temperatures that we were then talking about that might have been incorporated into the protocol for an individual plant would not have been sufficient to destroy the agent for scrapie or BSE."
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who was a Minister at the time, should have known that. The charge is entirely without foundation.
"Instead of talking about the French Government acting illegally by halting imports of beef and cattle from the UK, Agriculture Minister Douglas Hogg should understand that they were acting prudently."
17 Feb 1997 : Column 713
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. There was no difference between the action of the French Government and the inevitable action of the European Union, because its ban was based on the individual national bans. The Labour party failed to condemn the ban and failed to support the Government's policy of non-co-operation. Who stands up better for Britain's interests?
The Labour party wants to be at the heart of Europe, but it would sell out British interests to suit its narrow party advantage. The Government promptly condemned the French action: the Opposition accepted it, and it led inevitably to the European Union ban.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |