| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brown: I shall not do that; I shall make my own announcement in my own time in the next few days.
Mr. Yeo: When the Minister makes his announcement, will he publish those letters so that we may see exactly whom he wrote to and exactly who bothered to reply?
The fourth step that is needed--which has been mentioned--is to help pig farmers meet the extra costs of offal disposal. The Select Committee on Agriculture made a recommendation on that subject in January 1999, and in the past few weeks the British pig industry support group has again raised the subject. That is another burden that many competitors overseas do not bear. Recently, Belgium secured European Union approval for the help that it has given to its pig farmers in the wake of the dioxin crisis, and I hope that Britain will be able to do the same.
The beef on the bone ban was imposed by the Minister's unlamented predecessor, and we know what has happened to him in the past 10 days. The ban has exposed Labour's disastrous combination of weakness and muddle more clearly than any other issue. The Minister keeps saying that he cannot lift the ban because
of the scientific evidence. However, last month, as he has acknowledged, the chief medical officer for England said that the ban on the retail sale of beef on the bone could be lifted. Nevertheless, the Minister still will not act. Apparently, this is because officials in Wales and Scotland do not agree with the CMO. Does devolution mean that the UK is a convoy that can travel only at the speed of the slowest ship? Does it mean that unelected bureaucrats in Cardiff and Edinburgh now make the policy that applies to England? Does it mean that the Minister is too weak to stand up for the rights of English consumers? How can he expect the French Government to have confidence in British beef when the British Government do not have it?
It is almost 11 months since the Minister announced to Parliament:
Mr. Brown:
We get used to this bombastic twaddle, but I shall correct one factual point. As the hon. Gentleman says, those who are watching the debate and following what he says may think that he is making a serious contribution. Incidentally, there is not a word of apology from the hon. Gentleman about the BSE crisis nor a reference to the Government who presided over it in the first place. There is not a word of apology from him about the previous Government's misguided and disastrous approach to the negotiations within the European Union when they were in charge.
As I have said, I shall correct a factual point, which is important to the industry and important also to those who may be following the debate. The fact is that beef on the bone has nothing to do with the export of British beef through the date-based export scheme--the arrangements for which were devised under the previous Government--which is for de-boned beef. The hon. Gentleman knows that because he read it out. He should not mislead people into believing that somehow the two issues are connected. They are not.
Mr. Yeo:
I think that even the Minister acknowledged in one of his previous statements on this subject that the agreement of the European Commission was secured on the basis of the terms set out at the Florence summit, when Conservative Ministers were negotiating the details. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been able to continue that process, but I deplore the fact that on several occasions he has raised the hopes of British beef farmers that the export ban was about to be lifted. On too many occasions, those hopes have been dashed.
It is deplorable that the Minister made a statement in the House without having established clearly with France--which, incidentally, abstained at the Council last November, so he was on notice that it would need more persuading than some other countries--that one of our most important markets was ready to take British beef. That had nothing to do with the Conservatives. It was the Minister's statement, for which he must take responsibility, just as Labour must take responsibility for the absurd ban on beef on the bone, which, like it or not, is damaging confidence in a British product at home and abroad.
The truth is that the statements made by the Minister on the subject at regular intervals, just like the statements of the Prime Minister himself, are not designed to help Britain's beef farmers. They have been designed to win Labour headlines, like the rest of the Government's agricultural policy. It is about spin, not substance. The price of that obsession with headlines has been paid week in, week out by Britain's farmers.
To help the Minister to learn the facts of life, I invite him to join me on a fact-finding visit to France in the very near future, to learn at first hand about French attitudes towards British beef and about food standards in France, especially those relating to meat.
Beef is not the only issue on which the Government have been undermining our farmers. That has happened in the dairy sector as well. The Minister will recall that discussions about the common agricultural policy reforms were concluded in March, and that after the settlement the Prime Minister's spokesman was quoted in The Times as saying that the outcome was
The direct result of that negotiation will be that Britain's dairy farmers, already struggling with low prices and denied the chance to meet the needs of British consumers, will be further undercut by cheap Irish exports next year, while they remain prevented by quota limits from increasing their own production, despite having some of the best dairy-farming land in the whole of Europe.
If that was not bad enough, the Prime Minister, chasing his headlines about Britain's budget rebate, made it clear to fellow Heads of Government at Berlin that farming did not matter to him, so they gratefully accepted the offer to sell British farmers down the river and they extended the quota regime for a further two years, till 2008.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud):
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Unless the Opposition have changed their minds over recent months, I understand that it is Conservative policy to end the quota. Given that there is currently a surplus of milk in Europe, how do they intend to keep prices up if the quota regime is removed?
Mr. Yeo:
Ending the quota is a necessary objective if we are to allow Britain's farmers the opportunity to compete, as they should, against other dairy farmers. I do not suggest that ending the quota would suddenly have some miraculously upward effect on the milk price. Of course it will not, but it is not intended to do that. It is intended to allow Britain to take advantage of the conditions that we enjoy in this country to compete more freely than we can do at present against dairy farmers in other EU countries.
Labour's milk policy has not ended with the damage done in the CAP reforms. In July, the much delayed Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was published. Labour decided to prevent Milk Marque, the largest dairy farming co-operative in Britain, at least at that time, from doing what other European countries encouraged their dairy farm co-operatives to do--to invest in processing and to use vertical integration to give farmers a chance to benefit from higher value added products. At the very time that it is preaching to farmers about the need to be more market oriented, Labour is blocking dairy farmers from moving in that direction. As usual, Labour is saying one thing and doing another.
In the interests of time, I also shall omit some of what I wanted to say, but I gather from the Minister's remarks that we may get another opportunity to debate these matters in the House before long. I shall touch briefly on three subjects. Badgers and bovine tuberculosis are a growing problem that is a real threat for many farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wrote to the Minister over a month ago asking about the progress of the Krebs trials. He is awaiting a reply. There are worrying reports about laboratories being shut down. Ignoring the problem certainly will not make it go away, and I hope that Parliament will be informed of the steps that the Government are taking to address it.
On abattoirs, the much-delayed publication of the Pratt report on the impact of meat inspection charges confirmed what everyone knew, except perhaps the Minister and his officials. The report states in its conclusions:
"We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban."--[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c.190.]
On 17 December, the right hon. Gentleman referred to that as
"a major breakthrough reflecting months of dialogue within the European Commission and with our European partners."
He made a confident prediction about the timing. He said:
"I anticipate that we will be able to start exporting deboned beef by the spring of next year."--[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 1091.]
That timetable has slipped a bit. However, on 21 April 1999, during an Opposition debate on the crisis in farming, the right hon. Gentleman was at it again. He said:
"We are on target towards the lifting of the beef ban. We are on timetable."--[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c.991.]
Three months later, he was back in the House announcing once again the lifting of the ban. This time we were given a date--1 August. When I had the temerity to suggest that it might be well into August before exports actually started, the Minister slapped me down in a rather uncharacteristically petulant way. He said:
"1 August is the start of August. How can that possibly be grudgingly described 'as well into August?'"
For the record, the first beef to be exported--not sold but taken abroad for a promotional lunch--was on 23 August. For anyone who wondered how this great achievement was secured, the Minister told us, again on 14 July, that
"Labour leadership in Europe and our constructive approach towards our European partners has clearly been shown to succeed."--[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 405-07.]
So now we know. However, three months later hardly any British beef has been sold abroad. When the Minister came to Parliament to boast of his success in lifting the export ban, he had not even checked with the French authorities that they would accept British beef.
"not satisfactory as far as we are concerned."
That deal proposed that milk quotas, which currently prevent Europe from responding to growing world demand for dairy products, should continue until 2006. While Britain's milk quota will be effectively frozen until 2003--I know that there is a very small increase--four countries, including Ireland, which is already four times self-sufficient in dairy products, will receive a substantially higher quota next year.
"It is clear that . . . the British meat industry is seriously disadvantaged compared to other member states through a whole range of costs to do with meat inspection".
When another slaughterhouse closes down every week, forcing farmers to send animals on ever-longer journeys, and when the costs and burdens on slaughterhouses cut the prices paid to farmers for their livestock, still further action is needed at once. I and many others have warned for months of the damage that over-regulation and excessive costs are inflicting on the industry. The Minister's reaction--the announcement of yet another review--is simply too little, too late.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |