| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There have been press reports that the French Agriculture Minister has cancelled his meeting with the Minister. Is that meeting now to take place?
Mr. Brown: A routine bilateral meeting was arranged for Saturday which, I regret, the French Agriculture Minister has had to cancel because the French Prime Minister has asked him to accompany him on another overseas visit. [Interruption.] For Conservative Members to jeer at the French Government will not help. These are routine bilaterals, which often have to be rearranged at the last minute because of pressures on Ministers, and I take no offence at that. Our offices are in close contact.
The important contact between my office and others involved is not that with the French Government directly but that with the EU Commission. We should remember
that France's quarrel is not directly with the UK--although, of course, we are the people most affected by it--but with the Commission. The French Government are defying an EU decision. The ban has already been lifted by 13 member states, a 14th, Germany, is in the process of doing so, and one member state, France, is not complying with what was a collective agreement.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
Does not the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) merely demonstrate the French Government's arrogance? They can have no more important problem than one involving the beef trade between two major EU countries. How much longer will the Government stand by and do nothing about a trade in beef fed with sewage--something that is illegal under European law--and about a ban on British beef that has nothing wrong with it and that the committee will not be able to find anything wrong with today? Will it take months or years in the European Court? What are our farmers supposed to do?
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I can tell him from personal experience that Agriculture Ministers have to deal with many issues, some quite difficult, at the same time, so I make no complaint about the bilateral having to be rearranged. The hon. Gentleman asks what the British Government are doing. I have just set that out. The important next step is the meeting that is taking place today of the scientific advisers to the Commission, to which the French Government will respond and on which the Commission will then act.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Months and months.
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman says months and months, but I say November. It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to say that the matter will drag on. We are looking for a speedy resolution and, after today's meeting, we expect the Commission to stand in our corner.
That brings me to the next matter to which I wanted to refer. We are similarly relying on the science and the law in respect of the use of sewage sludge in French animal feed.
Mr. Brown:
Let me finish my point and then I shall give way.
I have received and published the clear and considered advice of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group, advice which has been endorsed by the chairs of the three relevant independent advisory committees. The advice is that, although
Mr. Brown:
I intend to move on to discuss the other important issues that affect agriculture. If hon. Members
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
Did I understand the Minister to say that proceedings will be resolved by next month? If it is, what penalties does he envisage will be extracted from the French for breach?
Mr. Brown:
We expect a speedy response from the Commission to the scientific evidence, and it is that that I expect in November. Of course I would prefer a quick and decisive outcome, but I do not want one that sets aside our clear rights in this matter. We have the right to offer our perfectly safe beef for sale in France.
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon):
One learns that it is the French intention to attend the meeting in Brussels and give way on the understanding that certain further restrictions are placed on British beef. If that is the case--it seems absolutely unreasonable to me--what steps are the Government preparing to take to deal with that problem?
Mr. Brown:
Some people have been suggesting that I should ring the French Minister and cut a deal with him. I cannot do that. The date-based export scheme is a European Union scheme that has been agreed within the EU. The Commission is the custodian of it. It is not for me to enter into separate bilateral negotiations, nor can I. I am keeping very close to the Commission, and I had two long discussions with Commissioner Byrne yesterday. I am expecting to have further discussions either today or tomorrow, but I cannot go down the route that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be inviting me to take.
Mr. Brown:
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), and will take all the interventions, but then the House will want to move on.
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle):
Is not the Minister's assurance on sewage sludge, which he has repeated, dependent on it receiving adequate heat treatment? Can he tell the House that such treatment is being given? If it is not, his assurance means nothing.
Mr. Brown:
I have put the full advice that I have received in the Library. It deals with the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I refer him to it so that he can see for himself what advice I have been given and why I am acting on it.
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield):
Is not the key point of the Government's position that we are acting in accordance with law and scientific advice? Would it not be the height of folly to act beyond, or in contravention of, scientific advice, as we are being urged
Mr. Brown:
My hon. Friend is right. We have the law and the science on our side, and I am keeping it that way.
Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone):
Why did the Government allow the French to give new evidence to the Commission? Surely the French broke the law. The law is set out, so why is another member country allowed to open the whole issue up again and delay matters, as France is doing?
Mr. Brown:
The French are in breach of the law. Their explanation is that they have new evidence. That claim has to be examined before it can be set to one side. That is happening now. I have looked at what they claim to be new evidence. There is nothing new there, and I confidently expect that to be the outcome of the scientific examination that is taking place today and tomorrow.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being very courteous and answering questions directly. I congratulate him on his personal stand of not eating French food while the problem continues. That is very brave of him--perhaps braver than he expected.
If one of my farmers in Dorset decided to start feeding an animal sewage sludge and/or bonemeal and/or hormones, would the Minister's Department be able to prevent that tainted meat from getting into the food chain so that my constituents could not eat it? If it could do so, why can he not do the same to the French meat that is being produced in such a way?
Mr. Brown:
We have strict controls in this country, most of which we want and some of which we have because of our special circumstances regarding BSE. In my extensive discussions with the industry, I have not met a farmer who wants to feed his livestock contaminated animal feed. British farmers want a premium in the marketplace for the quality-assured schemes that we operate. I think that the hon. Gentleman wants that as well, so I invite him to make common cause with me in supporting the Meat and Livestock Commission's assured British meat schemes.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
We all hope that the beef issue can be resolved quickly, but I bring the Minister back to the meat and bonemeal question. Surely if there is a meat and bonemeal ban for our own farmers, particularly in the pig and poultry sectors, the same should apply across the entire EU. The Minister shakes his head, but what is the justification for having the ban in Britain, but not in the rest of Europe? Does not the sewage sludge issue, which I first raised with the Prime Minister in June and which has come up again during the past few days, present a golden opportunity for imposing on the production of pork on the continent the same standards that we have in this country? Will the Minister think again about that? Whatever the president of the National Farmers Union says about a trade war, the pig and poultry farmers of this country want a ban on meat and bonemeal-fed products.
"the practice of adding sewage sludge to animal feed is repugnant to consumers and illegal under Community law"
there is
"no immediate public health risk and therefore no basis for seeking a ban of French products at either a Community level or unilaterally".
Therefore it would be wrong, as well as illegal under EU law, to impose an import ban on French livestock products.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |