| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. As for the future, does he agree that it would be helpful towards meeting the pre-Florence conditions if, rather than moving to a part paper-based traceability system, which could only be bureaucratic and place a heavy burden on farmers, we moved to a computer-based system, and that we did so quickly?
Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend has raised a matter which is of concern to many of my farmers. The sooner we decide on the system that we intend to adopt to tag and identify animals, and move to it, the better. I am mindful of the fact, however, that there are extreme practical difficulties in ear-tagging animals. Although it is easy to do that in practice, in the weeks during which the cattle are grazing, tags are inevitably lost. There is then a huge problem in trying to trace which tag has been lost and its number, and replacing it. As an industry, we must consider other forms of identifying cattle, and certainly my right hon. Friend's suggestion is entirely sensible. I believe it to be the most practical, and I am sure that the Minister will note his suggestion.
The CAP beef regime has had most unfortunate consequences for British beef. When I spoke on "Farming Today", I was at pains to try--when the interviewer would allow me to get a word in edgeways--to explain that in the case of my family business, which runs an abattoir, we gave up the slaughter of cattle about 10 years ago. We did so not because of BSE, but simply because that commodity had become so political that I concluded that I was not clever enough to best-guess the decisions of the Intervention Board and all those people in Brussels who interfere so dramatically in the business.
We need to get away from all that and put the whole industry back in a position in which it can call the shots and decide on the quality and standards that will give the consumer a first-class product. I have no doubt that this country can produce better-quality beef than can any other country in Europe or, indeed, the world.
The system that I have just described provides a sharp contrast with how we did things 25 years ago, before we joined the Common Market. The old British deficiency payment scheme meant that farmers' incomes were maintained, consumers had the benefit of cheaper meat and ate more of it, taxpayers subsidised food production, to the benefit of non-taxpayers and people on low incomes, and food was used for its intended purpose: feeding hungry mouths, not creating wine lakes or beef and butter mountains, which ultimately have to be disposed of at further prodigious cost to the taxpayer.
The Minister may not agree with my analysis, but no one can deny that, for as long as most of us have been in the House, there have been calls for the reform of the common agricultural policy. I have one question for all who say that reform is the answer: how do they intend to bring about such reform of the CAP? It would require either unanimity or perhaps even a qualified majority vote, whereas it is as plain as a pikestaff that there are more winners than losers under the policy. I do not expect that many Germans would share my perspective; but my
perspective is that of a practical man representing the interests of an intensely practical beef industry, which was once the finest in the world.
What reform of the CAP there has been has always resulted in bigger problems, more expense and more bureaucracy. I would ask the Minister not to underestimate the devastating effect of all the bureaucracy on many farmers, especially small family farmers who find all this form filling very difficult. The Minister will be aware of the many grievances that have resulted from forms being rejected because they were filled in wrongly. I have often investigated such cases and I am persuaded that the forms were not deliberately filled in incorrectly. They were wrong either because of poor guidance from MAFF officials or because of their sheer difficulty.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
I paused before rising, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was able to start his speech early, and I should have been more than happy to give time to any other hon. Member who wanted to speak. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I certainly understand the feeling with which he spoke. I heard his truncated interview on "Farming Today" this morning, and I acknowledge the vigour and sincerity with which he makes all his points.
Some weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman and I conducted an exchange across the Floor of the House to the effect that we need to treat this matter in an adult way. It is not a matter for party politics--but we still have to deal with the legacy that we have been left, and that limits our choices.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we must learn the lessons of this affair. Never again must Agriculture or Health Ministers precipitate food scares by the way in which they communicate risk. That is being given detailed attention by my colleagues in MAFF and the Department of Health. We are trying to learn the lessons of the past, and we, too, are practical people living in the real world. A change of Government does not mean that there will never be another food problem. We shall try to manage problems as they arise without causing the collapse of any industry or needlessly putting thousands out of work. Common sense is of the essence.
Certainly, the public need reassurance, which is why, later this year, we shall publish a White Paper on the setting up of an independent food standards agency, at arm's length from the Government but accountable to this House. That should lead to greater confidence on the part of the public and the industry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many hours of civil service and ministerial time are being devoted to the preparation of that document.
Mr. Gill:
The food industry is greatly concerned that the new agency may include nutrition in its remit. That,
Mr. Rooker:
During the consultation period, Professor James has received well over 600 submissions. We have not ended consultation; the submissions are still coming in every week. They are all being considered and fed into the machine. Several people have written to Ministers on the subject of nutrition, but no decision has been taken on it yet: it is still under consideration. We fully expect the White Paper to include several green chapters, on which we are consulting further at the moment. We have no wish to be inflexible. Some issues are clearly in; others are clearly out. But there is a group in the middle on which we are more than happy to allow hon. Members and the industry to comment further, before we bring a Bill before the House.
A central plank of our policy is the restoration of confidence in food. The beef industry has taken a battering, but we are doing what we can actively to encourage consumers, based on the honest belief that beef produced in this country is safer than any other beef in the world.
We have taken steps to beef up the Meat Hygiene Service--the Ministry's policemen--to ensure that what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-cutting plants fully complies with hygiene regulations. We recently closed down two plants on hygiene grounds, while the licences of certain other plants have been withdrawn on structural grounds. The service's officers do a difficult job. It is not easy to go into an abattoir and tell the owner or manager to slow down the line or else he will have to close down. We are giving officers all the powers that they need, and we fully intend to use them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the over-30-months scheme. What he says is wholly reasonable, but 30 months is not an arbitrary figure; nor was it imposed by Europe. It was the recommendation of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. The Government, like the previous Government, are duty bound to accept advice from independent scientists. I emphasise that they are not Ministry scientists, but independent scientists. As an aside, I might add that I relied on advice from independent scientists when making the recent decision on vitamin B6. Those people are not paid by the Ministry; the previous Government were right to rely on SEAC and we shall do the same.
The beef assurance scheme provides an opportunity for animals between 30 months and 42 months to be sold on the market, rather than being sent to over-30-months destruction. I realise that the scheme has never really taken off and, from my few short weeks of experience since coming to the Ministry, I believe that it has not been pushed.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
Before the Minister leaves the subject of the over-30-months scheme, I should like to raise a few points in the same spirit as that adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and the Minister. My hon. Friend raised the issues of the reduction in price and the cap of 560 kg. Will the Minister confirm that the 560-kg limit is the limit that the European Community funds, but that, until next week and under the previous Government's
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |