| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): You eat it.
Mr. Brown: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting, "You eat it"; he knows full well that I do not do so.
Mr. Yeo: The Minister has read out the conclusion of the advice that he received--I have a copy of the same document. My point is that, if the Government thought that human health in this country was endangered, there is a legal basis for the introduction of an import ban.
The Prime Minister was wrong to say that such a ban was illegal. It would be perfectly legal to take such a step if there was a danger to human health.
Mr. John Townend (East Yorkshire): Does my hon. Friend believe that, if the boot were on the other foot and we had been feeding our cattle or sheep with food that had sewage in it, the French would take no action at all?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in his own way. Many people who listen to the exchanges on this matter will ask why that process is illegal, if it is so wonderfully safe and poses no danger to health.
The precautionary ban for which we have called would have a legal basis.
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo:
No, I must make some progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) asked whether the illegal feed is heated sufficiently to make it safe, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked about the Government's powers to prevent British farmers from doing what the Government think it is unnecessary to prevent French farmers from doing. The Minister's refusal or inability to answer those questions simply strengthens the case for the ban.
The Government's failure to act is leading us to the kind of trade war that they claim to want to avoid. British consumers shun French goods--not only meat--French farmers blockade British exports, while the Government do nothing. Four weeks ago, after France announced that it would continue to block British beef exports, the Minister responded--in a fashion that might be described as tit for tat--with his own one-man boycott of all French goods. Instead of a policy to deal with the problem, he has produced a feeble, ineffective and irrelevant measure--one, incidentally, that even his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointedly refused to support.
Mr. Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
By contrast, the Conservative party believes that the French ban on our beef and the scandal of contaminated French meat are wholly separate issues.
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman invites me to ban those products. Is he still eating them himself?
Mr. Yeo:
I have made it clear that I certainly eat no French meat from animals fed with human sewage. I much prefer to eat British meat at all times, but, as the Minister is aware, those of us who frequently have to eat away from home, in catering establishments, often have no idea where the meat comes from.
Mr. Brown:
My personal gesture, which the hon. Gentleman so derides, is an act of solidarity with this
Mr. Yeo:
Because I believe that a personal gesture by the man who is supposed to be in charge of making policies to protect British consumers and farmers is a pathetic cop-out from his responsibilities.
Mr. Yeo:
No--[Hon. Members: "Give way".]--No.
I have set out our approach on contaminated French meat. I shall now deal with the beef export ban. Almost a year ago, the Minister told the House:
I have traced the history in detail because, this very day, the Scientific Steering Committee is meeting to decide whether to reject the French so-called "evidence" on which their decision to continue blocking British beef exports is based.
We read in the press of a possible compromise: France may drop its illegal ban on British beef if we acceptyet more controls on British cattle and British slaughterhouses. I make it clear that the Conservative party believes that demands for more controls are outrageous and unjustified. Under no circumstances should Britain accept any further intrusion into the way that British beef is produced. Our cattle are among the most carefully scrutinised creatures on earth and, if the British Government allow any tightening of the way in which beef production is regulated, they will prove once again that they do not have the guts to stand up for what is right. Weakness on this issue, at the very time that
France has been exposed as being guilty of disgusting and illegal practices in its own backyard, would simply add insult to injury.
Mr. Blizzard:
Even given all that the hon. Gentleman has said, will he accept that we are much further forward than his Government reached with their ridiculous policy of non-co-operation in Europe, which got us absolutely nowhere? As things stand, the ban has been lifted in the European Union and all but one country are observing it.
Mr. Yeo:
I will not make the mistake of giving way to the hon. Gentleman again.
During Agriculture questions last week, the Minister said:
Mr. Thompson:
Is it not a fact that, if the Minister lifted the ban on beef on the bone in England, other countries would quickly follow suit?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) responds, I must point out that there have been many interventions this afternoon. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and, if there are many more interventions, a lot of hon. Members will be disappointed.
Mr. Yeo:
I shall try to speed up my remarks.
The crisis in the pig sector is so urgent that there is a danger that our industry will disappear. The size of the British sow herd is declining while the Danish, Spanish, German and Dutch herds are increasing. United Kingdom pigmeat imports from the European Union are rising and Britain's pig farmers are losing £3 million a week. I welcome the Minister's allocation of £5 million in marketing aid and his public support for the Meat and Livestock Commission's pork mark. The Minister has recognised that offal disposal regulations are an extra cost on pig farmers of about £5 per pig, which is not borne by our competitors abroad.
"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 1998, the Minister claimed:
"That was a major breakthrough reflecting months of dialogue within the European Commission and with our European partners."--[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 1091.]
Seven months later, the Minister was able to announce a date for the resumption of exports--1 August. He told us that this had been achieved by
"Labour leadership in Europe . . . our constructive approach towards our European partners has clearly been shown to succeed."--[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 405.]
The Government, the Prime Minister and especially the Minister have learned that, as the Prime Minister put it so clearly yesterday, there is a
"difference between an easy headline and a good policy."--[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 1011.]
Two months after 1 August, the French Government announced that they would not accept British beef. It appears that, despite the Minister's confidence about the lifting of the ban, before he made his claims in this House, he had not even bothered to check with either France or Germany that they were ready to agree to the deal. As France abstained on the matter at the November 1998 Agriculture Council, the Minister was already on notice that the French might be less than wholehearted in their support of the Commission. Against that background, any remotely competent or responsible Minister would have phoned his French counterpart. However, we know that this Minister is not in the habit of doing that--whatever the gravity or urgency of the matter.
"Under the Conservative Government's stewardship of this issue, Britain was isolated within Europe. Under our stewardship, France is isolated within Europe."--[Official Report, 21 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 573.]
For the sake of Britain's beef farmers, I hope that the Minister is right. I suggest, again for the sake of our beef farmers, that the Minister should boost confidence today in their product by taking the advice of the chief medical officer in London and lifting the ban on beef on the bone. Why is the Minister too weak to do that? Why do unelected bureaucrats in Edinburgh and Cardiff now make the policy for England? Does the Minister not understand that his Labour Government kept telling us that devolution would mean different policies in different parts of the United Kingdom? When will he understand that, if the British Government have less confidence in honestly grown British beef than in meat from animals fed with human sewage, it is not surprising that the French Government take the same view?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |