House of Commons
Thursday 21 October 1999
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
The Minister was asked--
Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs
1. Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): When he proposes to set up the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs; and if he will ensure that it considers the issue of feeds containing genetically modified material. [93385]
8. Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr):
If he will make a statement on the requirements governing the labelling of animal feeding stuffs containing genetically modified crops. [93392]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin):
The Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs held its first meeting on 24 September. It will have an important role in considering both the safety and labelling of genetically modified material in animal feed.
Mr. Atkinson:
I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome her to the Dispatch Box in her new role. It is nice to see the north-east gain yet more power in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Is not the issue of genetically modified material in animal feed vital, particularly for the British pig and poultry industries? A threat to ban it, would be the last straw for those industries, which would then face substantial extra costs getting a separate supply of GM-free soya, which is used for animal feeds. Will the Minister ask the committee to consider this matter urgently and to state that there is not a shred of evidence that this material is in any way injurious to human health?
Ms Quin:
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his supplementary question. Secondly, we attach importance to the work of this committee, which we feel will be able to examine the different aspects that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As a new MAFF Minister, it seems to me that it was a failing of the previous Government not to set up such a committee when they could have done so. I am glad that
Mr. Williams:
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new responsibilities and wish her well. She will know that a large fraction of the United States production of soya and corn is from genetically modified crops and that large quantities are exported unsegregated to the European market for incorporation into animal feed. Should not all animal feeds containing GM crops be labelled as such? Will she confirm that there is no independent, publicly funded research in Britain into the safety of feeding GM crops to animals?
Ms Quin:
I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We believe that labelling is a major aspect of this issue. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), for the work that he did on labelling and giving these issues prominence, not just here in the United Kingdom, but within the European Union. Because of that we are making progress within the European Union towards proper labelling.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of separation. There seems to be increasing pressure now on suppliers in the United States to separate crops. Therefore, in future it will be much easier to tell the source of these products--whether they come from a GM or non-GM source. The wider work that is being done on labelling in Brussels today is an important part of that pressure. We believe in examining all aspects of these issues. Indeed, the committee to which I referred will certainly be able to look at safety and other issues.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
May I press the Minister a little further? Does she agree that farmers have a right to know what they are buying, and consumers what they are eating further down the food chain? Will she guarantee that any animal feedstuffs containing GM material will be labelled so that farmers know what they are buying, and have the right to segregate the supply of non-GM material should they so wish?
Ms Quin:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, from the outset this Government have had a commitment to consumer and producer information so that people know what they are buying and will not be misled into buying products which turn out to be different from what they thought. We have pursued that both in the European Union and at home. Although we are pressing for animal feeds to be labelled in the European Union, in the meantime--because of the length of time that it takes to get those arrangements agreed--we are also pursuing a voluntary labelling system within this country.
2. Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
If he will raise with his European counterparts the incidence of fraud in the common agricultural policy. [93386]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown):
The Government take every opportunity to raise this issue with other member states
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the animal traceability scheme through the establishment of the British cattle movement centre in my constituency by this Labour Government, will not only help to resolve at an early stage the crisis of BSE, but will help to secure safeguards against fraud under the European Union beef regime? Can we have an assurance that schemes such as the one operating in Workington will be introduced throughout the European Community?
Mr. Brown:
I agree with my hon. Friend--Workington is leading the way in Europe. The introduction of traceability is not only an important protection and reassurance to consumers but an important safeguard for the public purse on the beef premium regimes.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
When the Council of Ministers announced the lifting of the beef ban and the resumption of British beef exports to Europe, many farmers thought that the statement was correct, but they now consider it a fraudulent declaration. It was a hollow statement; it clearly did not open the door to British beef exports, particularly to France. Many farmers will think that the French are now acting fraudulently because they are not adhering to that European agreement. What practical steps will the Minister now take to open the door, beyond simply registering his discontent at Tesco supermarket with an empty trolley? So far, his words about getting beef back into France have been as empty as his trolley.
Mr. Brown:
That is an ingenious attempt to link the French failure to lift the ban to the use of the word "fraud" in the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). If the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more assiduous and paying attention, he would have noticed that I intend to answer Question 10, which deals directly with that matter, at the end of Question Time.
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney):
On the question of the fairness of the common agricultural policy, does my right hon. Friend find, as I do, that most farmers are in favour of Britain's entry into the single currency because it will bring stability to the fluctuating payments that they receive under that policy? Arable payments alone amount to an injection of some £55 million into Suffolk's rural economy. Would not a path that led to withdrawal from the European Union defraud our farmers of those valuable payments?
Mr. Brown:
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the exchange rate in agriculture and, by implication, to the importance of the agrimonetary regime. The Government's approach to the broader question that he raised is the right one, and I shall certainly not add any remarks to what has already been said on that subject.
3. Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
What plans he has to support the profitability of hill and upland producers of livestock; and if he will make a statement. [93387]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
We have committed an extra £60 million to next year's hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. Upland producers will also benefit from the other measures we have announced recently to ease pressure on the livestock sector.
Mr. Kirkwood:
Will the Minister concede that the profitability of hill livestock producers has collapsed recently? It has done so to the extent that, for the first time, thousands of families in the hills who produce livestock, have dependent children and have capital assets of less than £8,000 are eligible for the working families tax credit. Surely it is in no one's interests that people have to rely on the benefits system to supplement agricultural wages. I acknowledge what the Government have done, and the £60 million is welcome, but we have had £60 million a year on a one-off crisis basis since 1996. Is it not time that we had a long-term strategy for the future viability of livestock producers which does not sentence them to starvation incomes?
Mr. Morley:
We concede that there are difficulties in the hill livestock sector, which is why we have found the extra £60 million for that sector. That money is on top of the £700 million that is already going to beef and sheep producers in the sector. There are long-term issues, and that is why we are discussing the reform of the hill livestock compensatory allowances system into area- based payments. We have allocated environmentally sensitive area payments and stewardship payments. We are also talking to groups such as the National Sheep Association about the future of livestock. There are complex issues about prices and markets and there has been a considerable increase in the size of the national flock, which has risen by 1.27 million in the past year alone.
Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands):
Is not one of the problems the profiteering of the supermarkets, which buy cheap and sell expensive?
Mr. Morley:
There is certainly an issue of sales and markets which must be addressed. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that supermarkets are currently subject to investigation by the Competition Commission.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
Does not the Minister recognise that it is not a matter of "just some difficulties out there", to use his words? The whole farming industry is in crisis, and the Government are presiding over the devastation of our upland areas, with huge environmental consequences unless we get action from the Government soon--and more action, not just a promise from the Minister not to drink Beaujolais Nouveau in future.
Mr. Morley:
The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed the £150 million aid package recently
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy):
I remind the Minister of the crisis in the sheepmeat industry. Will he consider very carefully a ewe cull system, which is urgently required? If the only objection to a calf cull system in Wales is the fact that it would be treated differently from England, why do not we have a UK-wide calf cull system?
Mr. Morley:
On the first point, the ewe cull system must be subject to state aid rules, and it is unlikely that it would be approved by the European Commission. Indeed, the Commission has already made an announcement on the proposals by the Welsh Assembly.
We have no plans to introduce a calf cull scheme. The date for the end of that scheme was made very clear. The scheme has been extended twice already, and there are signs that a market for cull calves is establishing itself in the meat sector.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
Does the Minister agree that the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone would be one of the best things that could happen to livestock producers? Why is policy in England now being made by unelected bureaucrats in Cardiff and Edinburgh and not by the elected Minister? How much longer will it be before English consumers are allowed to eat beef on the bone, as the chief medical officer for England has now recommended it is safe to do?
Mr. Morley:
My right hon. Friend has made the position clear several times. We have always said that we shall advance on the basis of independent scientific advice. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Conservatives, apparently, would ignore the advice of chief medical officers, no matter what it was. Surely it is much more sensible to approach the issue on a UK-wide basis. That is why discussions are taking place with the devolved assemblies to try to reach agreement on that. That is a sensible way to proceed on this issue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems about handing out these subsidies is that, for example, in the last year during which the Tories were in power, nine separate agribusinesses got £1 million each in subsidies? The system has been skewed towards the big business farmers, as opposed to hill farmers and all the rest. Now that the Government are waging war against the forces of conservatism, when are we going to see the back of this common agricultural policy?
Mr. Morley:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in that one of the problems with agriculture is the distorting effect of the subsidies from the common agricultural policy. We have made it clear that we want to progress with reform of the CAP, to move away from production-based subsidies and to direct that money towards the rural development programme,
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |