| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset): What is the point of banning growth promoters and antibiotics on public
health grounds in this country if we then permit imports of meat in which those growth promoters and antibiotics have been used?
Mr. Brown: Four veterinary interventions have been banned by the EU and there are alternatives that are not used in human medicines. The purpose of the ban was to prevent the consumption by EU citizens of quantities of those medicines. The argument is that such consumption is not prevented because of the imports. However, the levels consumed are dramatically reduced if EU produce does not include the promoters. It is not a public health issue but it is a trade issue. We have asked Commissioner Fischler to report to the Council of Ministers' June meeting on that trade point. It is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to raise and, indeed, I raised it myself when I spoke for our country at the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus): If there is no protectionist solution against the import of lower welfare standard products, could there be a labelling solution to let the consumers choose?
Mr. Brown: All Ministers are under pressure on labelling schemes. I urge consumers to look for the assured British pork label, because they can then buy UK pork, ham or bacon reared to ethical standards and which has not been fed on meat and bone-meal feed. That is the product to choose in the supermarket, and we should tell that to our constituents and to retailers. Although most retailers are helping with the labelling scheme, there are exceptions. I shall talk to those retailers and urge them to take part in the scheme.
Mr. Drew: It appears that the Danes and the Dutch are investing heavily in all manner of means to raise their environmental and welfare standards to compete with the British.
Mr. Brown: I am not in the least bit surprised, because it is clear that is the route to achieving a premium in the marketplace. The work that the Ministry and the MLC have done seems to have achieved that, but I accept that it is fragile. The crisis is not yet over and I would be grateful for any help from hon. Members, as well as from my hon. Friends.
Mr. Luff: The right hon. Gentleman is a fair man and he will probably not be surprised that I am disappointed that he has made no reference so far to the severe criticisms by the Select Committee on Agriculture of the response by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Committee's report on the pig industry. I am especially disappointed that he has made no reference to level playing field issues, which are very important. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the problem of French subsidies for the pig industry, which the Minister appeared to think were not happening. What steps is he taking to reassure himself that the heavily reported subsidies being paid by the French Government to the French pig industry are not happening and further disadvantaging the UK pig industry?
Mr. Brown: I am trying to gather information through the usual route of the agricultural attaches at the embassy in Paris. If we find any evidence of illegal subsidies,
we will protest at once to the Commission. If the hon. gentleman has any evidence to supply--perhaps a description of the schemes that he believes are under way--I will examine it carefully. Nobody should doubt that it is the UK's view that no extra subsidies should be paid by individual nation states to try to get their industries through a crisis, to the disbenefit of other nations' pig industries. That would not be fair in what is supposed to be a single market. There should be no extra intervention by individual nation states.
I welcomed the good and thorough report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. Naturally, I do not accept its criticisms, particularly the charges of complacency directed at my Ministry. I do not accept that I am responsible to Parliament for the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission. The point is technical, but it isa non-governmental body. I have departmental responsibility for the area in which it works, but it would not wish me to give it instructions or tell Parliament what I thought it should do. The MLC is an industry group, funded by a levy from producers, not from the taxpayer.
Mr. Luff:
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister. When we reported on floods and coastal defence, we had a helpful response from the Environment Agency. The Meat and Livestock Commission should have provided a response to our report, and the Ministry should have made sure that such a response was forthcoming. He was seriously remiss in not ensuring that that happened.
Mr. Brown:
I do not wish to disagree across the Floor of the House with the Chairman of the Select Committee. I seek a constructive working relationship with the Committee, and many of the points raised in its report are points of detail, not principle. In fact, we all share the point of principle: we all want to get the industry through difficult times caused, at least in part, by factors beyond the direct control of the UK Government. There is an EU-wide surplus, and that is difficult to deal with. I should like Ministers to sit down with members of the Select Committee to work through the criticisms to try to find common ground and to set out why we do not agree in some areas.
We are on target towards the lifting of the beef ban. We are on timetable.
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman laughs. I should have thought that he should be a little more restrained, given the way in which the problem came about in the first place. It has cost our country £4.6 billion, and 39 of our citizens have died.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
Forty.
Mr. Brown:
My hon. Friend tells me the number is now 40. I am sorry to hear that, but there will be more to come. BSE is a serious matter.
That is the background to consideration within the European Union. Ministers from other countries quite naturally want to protect their citizens and to be satisfied that we are doing all we should to protect ours.
Their examinations have been incredibly rigorous, and it is a tribute to those working in public protection that we are passing those examinations.
Mr. Gill:
Does the Minister recognise that many problems associated with BSE arose because his party, when in opposition, was constantly telling the then Government to prove that beef was safe? The Minister knows that no scientist in the world worth his salt will give such an assurance. His party undermined the industry time after time when it was in opposition.
Mr. Brown:
No, no, no. I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), actually takes the opposite position, saying that beef is safe, whether it is or is not. That is the approach that the hon. Gentleman's party has adopted on the beef on the bone ban. If the chief medical officer says that there is a risk, no matter how small, I must accept what he says. There is no point in asking for the CMO's professional advice, then rejecting it because I want to assert a political view.
Anyone who pauses for a moment will realise what impact such action would have on the marketplace. It would be disastrous. Confidence in our public safety regime is of paramount importance to the health of the domestic beef market. People have confidence in the current public protection measures, and that confidence is justified. I will do nothing to jeopardise it, either on grounds of public health or on grounds of market confidence.
Mr. Charles Kennedy:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Brown:
I ought to get on because I am conscious that others wish to speak. I have been generous in giving way and should perhaps move on.
I have been asked about Milk Marque. The motion has something to say about it, but I am afraid that is more than I can do. I have received representations from producer organisations, and I take them very seriously. However, the report rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is also considering representations, and it would be quite improper of me to speculate about it.
I hope that the House will forgive me for moving on over the range of matters I have been asked about.
Mr. Paterson:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Brown:
I watched on television in my Department as the hon. Gentleman spoke in the earlier road haulage debate, so I should be only too happy to give way to him.
Mr. Paterson:
The Minister is most generous, so I shall be brief. The Meat Hygiene Service appears to be out of control. Because it is self-regulating, the more it regulates, the more people it can employ and the more income it can demand from the abattoir industry. What measures will the Minister take to bring the service back under control and to reduce the burden on UK abattoirs?
Mr. Brown:
I am satisfied that control of that next steps agency is perfectly proper. Indeed, I pay tribute to
The hon. Gentleman asked about costs: I have touched on regulatory burdens on the industry, and I recognise deep concerns about the prospect of increased charges for veterinary inspections in abattoirs. Those costs would arise from a possible increase in meat hygiene inspection costs and from the proposal to pass to the industry charges for the enforcement of the rules requiring removal of specified risk material for cattle and sheep. I have listened carefully to all that the industry has said on that point, and to the concern that increases of the scale proposed would cause severe difficulties for many abattoirs and for the primary producers who might have to share the burden.
The Government remain of the view that it is, in principle, right to recover those costs from the industry. Like other member states, we are obliged by EU legislation to recover the costs of meat hygiene inspections, including the veterinary element. In dealing with those charges, we do not intend to put smaller operations--particularly those that specialise in high-quality product--out of business.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |