| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
UK Beef Industry
7. Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): If she will make a statement on prospects for the UK beef industry. [126283]
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The prospects for UK beef are excellent. The recent recommendation by the Food Standards Agency to phase out the over-30-month rule is a demonstration of high confidence in UK beef. Producer returns are at their highest level since 1995, and CAP reform will simplify support systems and encourage beef farmers to produce what the consumer wants.
Mr. Duncan : The Minister will be aware that the lifting of the over-30-month scheme will be welcomed by everyone in the UK beef industry, particularly in my constituency. However, the manner in which the scheme
is to be removed poses a real threat to price stability in the industry, with the threat of a collapse in market price if change is effected too quickly. Some very fragile rural communities face uncertainty once more. Will the Minister commit his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to looking once again into phasing out the scheme over two, three or four years, to provide market stability while ensuring that consumer confidence is maintained?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues. It is clear that a large increase in supplies of beef could cause disruption to the market. We are discussing the implications of changes to the OTM rule with the European Commission, which has primary responsibility for managing the market in the EU. We have also set up a working group with the industry to explore the likely impact on the market of increased supplies of beef and how they can best be managed. So we are addressing the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): Does the Minister accept that to get rid of the over-30-month scheme would be an enormous prize for the whole agricultural industry? We had to introduce it because there was an emergency in people's confidence in food and in animal health. That had the consequence of closing our export markets. It would be absurd if we put the cart before the horse and failed to recognise that getting rid of the scheme would be the greatest vote of confidence that we could possibly give our industry. Will the Minister ensure that, even if there are risks of market disruption, they are balanced against the prize to be seized from the scheme's removal?
Alun Michael: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The confidence that has been placed in the British beef industry is well merited. When one meets beef producers around the countryside, it is interesting to see that many are now taking the initiative to connect well with their market, not only by producing what consumers want but by getting across to them the quality of the product that they are offering. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we should have confidence in the industry.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has said? It would also be reassuring to know that the Minister was keeping under review the need to continue testing over-30-month beef. In particular, will he also keep under review the costs of those tests?
Alun Michael: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right; we are absolutely committed to that course.
Genetically Modified Organisms
8. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): If she will extend the period of the Government-sponsored public debate on genetically modified organisms. [126284]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The public debate was announced last July, and we have already extended the timetable by three months at the
request of the steering board. The public can, of course, continue to debate the issues surrounding GM after GM Nation has formally concluded.
Gregory Barker : We have heard in the House this morning that there is still a great deal of interest in this debate, as well as a great many unanswered questions. I simply do not understand why the Minister cannot extend into the autumn this clear channel for the public to focus their remarks, given that so much more research is being produced. The university of Manitoba has undertaken an evaluation for the Canadian wheat board of Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready wheat, which concluded:
- "Under current conditions the release of Roundup Ready wheat in western Canada would be environmentally unsafe."
Mr. Morley: It is because this is a formal process. The independent GM public debate steering board under Professor Grant has done a good job in encouraging public participation. That is why so much has been written about the subject recently and there is much debate in Parliament. That has been the spin off from that debate. However, we cannot keep a formal structure going indefinitely. That does not mean that the opportunity will be closed off for people to comment and to raise issues, for those issues to be examined, and for answers to be given by our independent specialist bodies, but we do not need a rolling, formal public debate with no end.
Norman Baker (Lewes): The public want more time to make their views known. The Food Standards Agency's report yesterday stated:
- "The potential impact of GM crops on the environment was the issue that gave rise to most concern"
Mr. Morley: There are EU agreements on environmental liability. We have also asked for advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on how we should structure a particular liability regime in this country. I suspect that existing law provides recourse in relation to liability, but that is a matter for legal opinion. Liability is but one issue that is not yet resolved. We cannot have commercialisation until we have examined a range of issues and established a proper framework to ensure that, as the bottom line, if people do not want to buy and eat GM produce, they do not have to. That consumer choice should be protected, which is our intention.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Has the Minister noted that it is possible to produce valuable new species without resorting to genetic modification? Is he aware that F.B. Parrish Farms in Chicksands in Bedfordshire has produced a new species of onion called
the "supasweet", which is tear free and a valuable addition to the healthy-eating salad market? Will his Department do all it can to promote that product?
Mr. Morley: I have heard about this new onion development, and I am very impressed. I do not know whether it also helps with breath odour after eating onions, which would be a particularly impressive breakthrough. There have been an awful lot of advances in conventional agriculture. Although, understandably, people focus on GM, the report from the strategy unit stressed that GM is but one approach, and that there are conventional ways of achieving advances in agricultural technology. The hon. Gentleman has given us a good example of that.
Aviation (Environmental Impacts)
9. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): What recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport on the environmental impacts of aviation. [126285]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My ministerial colleagues and I have regular discussions with the ministerial team in the Department for Transport on many issues, including the environmental impacts of aviation. DEFRA Ministers and officials are closely engaged with the Department for Transport in taking forward the aviation White Paper and seeking to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed.
Tom Brake : I thank the Secretary of State for that response. She will be aware that the royal commission estimates that by 2020 aviation's contribution to greenhouse emissions will have risen sharply to 22 per cent. of the UK's total. What assessment has she made of that, and of the impact it will have on the Government's aspirational targets for reducing CO2? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry, supporters of an international aviation fuel tax, to raise the issue of such a tax in the international forums that she attends?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I am conscious of the royal commission's assessment. I have not made a separate assessment or calculation, although people keep this matter under continual review. Irrespective of whether the precise figures are correct—no doubt different scientists will have different views, because that always happens—emissions from aviation make a substantial contribution, and we are mindful of that. As for a fuel tax, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have always pressed the International Civil Aviation Organisation to examine these issues, because they are subject to international, not just domestic, agreement, as he rightly identified.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): During the period preceding the finalisation of moves towards an international fuel tax, has my right hon. Friend considered proposals from the Carbon Trust and other
organisations for voluntary "green" carbon restitution levies on air tickets, related to the amount of carbon that could be restituted from the flights involved?
Margaret Beckett: I know of a number of initiatives from various organisations, of which that is one. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to suggestions that, where emissions continue, we should consider creative methods of restitution. I think that that is a valuable and worthwhile initiative, particularly because it publicises the issue; but, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to agree, it is not as important as mitigating the environmental impacts in the first place.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): As the right hon. Lady will know, the Sustainable Development Commission believes that, given current trends, carbon emissions from aviation will negate all the savings made under the Government's climate change programme. Does she agree with that assessment? If so, are the Government now seriously considering bringing aviation within the ambit of the European Union emissions trading system?
Margaret Beckett: What comes within the ambit of that system is a matter for mutual negotiation, and these issues will obviously be raised during such negotiation.
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), there will always be different calculations and different figures. I know the Sustainable Development Commission believes that the emissions will negate all the savings, and I have noted other suggestions that do not go quite as far. I do not think anyone disputes the fact that unchecked emissions and unchecked traffic could make a substantial dent in the savings that we are committed to making. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping all these issues under constant review.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): Has the Department considered, specifically and in detail, the environmental impact of airport expansion in the south-east, and have comparisons been made? If so, and if it is decided that expanding Luton would cause the least environmental damage, will my right hon. Friend make that point to her colleagues?
Margaret Beckett: That is very much part of the evaluation that my colleagues in the Department for Transport are undertaking. I am aware of Luton's inventive efforts to press its case, and interested to note that my hon. Friend supports them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |