| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.25 am
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and to commend his maiden speech. He was one of the first new Labour Members I talked to on the first day of the new Parliament and we have had many interesting conversations since then. I am quite sure that, as a result of his modest and moderate speech, which caused great excitement on the Government Front Bench--not least on the part of the duty Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice)--he has an exhilarating political career ahead of him.
The hon. Gentleman touched on many issues concerning Reading, the constitution and our parliamentary system. Perhaps it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I agree with a number of his comments. The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished local government record. He follows Sir Anthony Durant as Member of Parliament for Reading, West--about whom he made some very nice comments--so he has a considerable act to follow. I think that he is aware of that fact.
The hon. Gentleman is also aware of the constituency connections that seem to be creeping into the debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you represented the Middleton and Prestwich constituency in a previous incarnation--as was alluded to earlier. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is sitting behind me, won the seat of Reading--which then comprised the whole town of Reading--in 1959. He has reminded me of the considerable struggle that lies ahead for the hon. Gentleman, who will obviously fight for the interests of his constituents and of all the people of Reading.
The hon. Gentleman made certain historical allusions in his speech and he will know that Reading was a royal headquarters during the civil war. I gather that the royalty of the day walked off with the Reading civic silver--royalty are not supposed to behave in that manner, but sometimes they do--which, somehow or other, ended up in Windsor castle. It remained at the castle through the Cromwellian period and the Restoration and is still there. The town of Reading has made various requests for the return of the silver, but it remains in royal hands. I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will make its recovery a priority so that it may play a major part in the egalitarianism of future constitutional reform.
Mr. Salter:
I am slightly worried that the hon. Gentleman is inciting me to commit an act of treason.
Mr. Temple-Morris:
I judge from his maiden speech that the hon. Gentleman is well capable of dealing with the issue of treason and any other issue. I am sure that the institution of the House will look after him in that regard.
I value the opportunity to speak in the debate. Many hon. Members want to speak; these occasions are useful as they enable us to raise matters of concern to us, to the House and to our constituents. I want to raise a matter that concerns my constituency: agriculture and the beef industry. Leominster, in the county of Hereford, has 700 sq miles of rural land with two and a half traffic lights. When I became its Member of Parliament 24 years ago it had no traffic lights.
In my last speech on the beef industry and agriculture in May 1996--a little more than a year ago--I made two relevant points that I want to repeat now. The first--then, it was almost a plea--was that the BSE crisis should not result in what I called Euro-bashing. It seemed to me that if we depended on an institution such as the EU to get out of a crisis, there was no point in attacking it, let alone not getting on with it. In that regard, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who took that point straight away and worked hard to improve relations, which is particularly relevant to making progress in this matter.
The second point, which in general terms the House has observed, is that there is no necessity for undue party politics on the BSE issue and getting the ban lifted. Controversial points will occasionally be made on behalf of beef producers about this subsidy or that support, but in general we are all in the same boat. We must do the best for our farmers and the best to get the ban lifted. The way to do that is, first, to get on with Europe and, secondly, to recognise that the United Kingdom exacerbated, by its BSE crisis and the press reaction to it, a deeper problem which goes beyond BSE--the consumption of red meat in general and beef in particular. All of us, including our farmers, must acknowledge that European beef producers and the EU market as a whole are, if anything, in a worse state than ours.
Addressing the main problem, I shall make four fairly succinct points. First, the problem goes beyond BSE: we are dealing with declining consumption of red meat. That goes right across the EU. I am happy to say that Britain is better than most in that regard. For example, we are dealing with the decline of the family meal--the great Sunday lunch that I continue to enjoy. Good British beef will always sit on the Temple-Morris table, but it will not sit on every table. We are dealing here, I shudder to say, with convenience foods as much as with beef. We are dealing with chicken meat, associated flavourings and all the rest that is found on the sad gastronomic path down which all too many people across Europe appear to have been tempted.
Secondly, we have a problem that is familiar to the agriculture industry--overproduction and structural surplus. An appalling problem is building up. EU intervention stocks of beef, including ours, could reach no less than 2 million tonnes by 2001 and 4 million tonnes by 2006.
Thirdly, we have the continuation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade reforms and the resulting progressive squeeze on subsidised exports to the third world and other countries.
Fourthly, we have increasing national and EU financial constraints on subsidies to farmers allied to the major question of the reform of the CAP and the overall financial priorities of the EU, not least when it is concerned with enlargement.
I can make my next four points briefly because an Adjournment debate is coming up later in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will raise them and an Agriculture Minister will deal with them--no doubt much to the relief of the Leader of the House who has quite enough on her plate already.
First, I welcome the Europewide scheme we have succeeded in obtaining for the removal of the specified risk materials from beef, which means that we can control imports. They have been coming in at the rate of 160,000 tonnes a year, which will have an effect on market prices, not least for the farmer.
Secondly, domestic consumption is up. We have made a remarkably good recovery and I believe that we are almost up to pre-BSE levels.
Thirdly, I welcome, as I am sure will all hon. Members, the decision by McDonald's and Burger King once again to take British beef. I wish that it had come sooner, but at least it has come now.
Fourthly, I welcome the advances that have been made in getting the traceability scheme up and running. I was encouraged by a recent Government statement that we can expect that as a reality by early 1998--the sooner the better, but we need to make progress on the exemption from the ban of certified herds. That is the vital area. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) did a great deal of work on the matter and he knows its importance. We need to obtain a progressive lifting of the ban. To get the ball rolling, I stress that it is vital that we concentrate on the certified herds, but we must also settle the overall direction of policy towards the industry, making it more competitive and less subsidised.
Mr. Martin Caton (Gower):
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall), for Burton (Mrs. Dean) for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). All showed a tremendous commitment to the constituencies that they now represent and a determination to fight for their constituents. I look forward to working in partnership with them in the years ahead.
I was keen to speak today because I want to help to correct the impression beginning to be created--partly, I am afraid, by those on the Labour Benches--that the
Labour party in Wales is seriously divided on the Government's plans to create a Welsh Assembly. If all the Labour Members of Parliament from Wales who oppose democratic devolution and all those with serious reservations about specific parts of the policy are combined, they total just six--six out of 34--and only half that number are totally opposed to the creation of a Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in 1979, only six Labour Members of Parliament were opposed to devolution and the Welsh people voted four to one against devolution?
Mr. Caton:
The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. The great difference between 1979 and now is the attitude of the Labour movement in Wales. It is fair to say that, in 1979, the movement was split from top to bottom; it was seriously divided. That does not happen now, because the policy that has been spelt out in the White Paper is not the product of civil servants in Gwydyr house or Cathays park; it is the product of the Labour party in Wales. It is itself a product of real devolution.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |