House of Commons
Thursday 5 February 2004
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Bovine TB
2. Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): What steps her Department is taking to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis in Cheshire. [152864]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): In view of the relatively low incidence of TB in Cheshire, not just herds neighbouring TB incidents but all herds within a 1 km radius of any incidents are tested, with a further extension of testing to a 2 km radius if the case is confirmed by post-mortem examination or laboratory culture. Cheshire is also included in the gamma interferon policy pilot. We will announce new proposals to help tackle TB soon.
Mr. Osborne : My local farmers, and many others, feel that the Department has done too little, too late. I understand that it is publishing a draft strategy next week. Will the strategy include proposals to require pre-testing of cattle moving from highly infected to less infected areas such as Cheshire, so that such areas can remain relatively disease free and there is a source for restocking in future?
Mr. Bradshaw: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to pre-empt what we might say next week. I think it is right for Parliament to know what the proposals are first, in full. His argument in favour of pre-movement testing is persuasive, but I do not think that what he says about the general policy on TB is fair. There are no quick fixes when it comes to animal diseases. For many years, cattle herds suffered from brucellosis. It affected a far bigger proportion of the herds than TB does now, and it took decades to eradicate. We are doing what we can, and I think that the strategy we will launch next week will show the way forward.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I look forward to the release of the strategy, but given the deluge of written questions to my hon. Friend from Conservative Members, would it not be useful for
Members to be briefed properly on the science behind TB so that we can really understand all the difficulties? Will my hon. Friend treat that as a matter of urgency? We need to have a proper discussion.
Mr. Bradshaw: That is a good point. It had not escaped my notice that I had been deluged with written questions on the issue. I have offered my opposite number a technical briefing along the lines described by my hon. Friend, but so far he has not taken up the offer.
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con): On 8 January the Minister said in an Adjournment debate:
- "It may be a good idea to allow lay testing for the simple procedure of the skin test."—[Official Report, 8 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 504.]
Mr. Bradshaw: In principle, we still believe that there is a strong argument in favour of lay testing, not least to help us deal with the backlog, but also to relieve practices that are under pressure. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the future of rural practices. Lay testing would not be forced on anyone; it would only be done if practices themselves chose to do it. We will make an announcement in due course.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): Stopping the spread of TB in Cheshire and every other part of the United Kingdom is important to all of us. Has the Minister or his Department seen recently published claims that selenium and iodine used on farms have prevented TB from occurring on some farms?
Mr. Bradshaw: I do not know of those findings, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has just pointed out from a sedentary position that he has been making that point for some time in regard to trace elements. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the findings.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): I thank the Minister and his officials for the way in which they have, so far, replied to the questions about TB that I have tabled. The Minister kindly invited me to go and see him. There is a big difference between questions being answered on the record and an informal chat. I may take up his offer at a later date, but I will continue to question him.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that accurate diagnostics are vital to the control of any disease. I am sure that he also agrees that while the tuberculin test is a good herd test, in individual animals, sensitivity is only 60 to 65 per cent.—as opposed to 98.4 per cent., which has been achieved with gamma interferon in Australia. Why, then, has he not taken up the Independent Scientific Group's proposal to establish three groups of 50 herds in a major trial of the efficiency of gamma interferon? At present only a small number of field trials are being conducted, which is not satisfactory.
Mr. Bradshaw: The gamma interferon test could not be taken in isolation; it would accompany the current
test. Although we have some sympathy with the ISG's wish to increase the science return, what it proposes would not only add to the logistical difficulties involved in the pilot, but raise ethical and legal issues. It would mean identifying disease but not acting on the information or informing herd owners.Common Agricultural Policy
3. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): If she will make a statement on the proposals to implement the revised common agricultural policy. [152865]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I hope to make an announcement on the model for allocating entitlements under the new single payment scheme in England in the near future.
Mr. Jack : I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer, but she will realise that since 26 June—when she announced to the House the outcome of the Agriculture Council, detailing the largest single change to the CAP since it was envisaged—Parliament has remained silent on this issue. Can she explain why no debate has been afforded to this House, in Government time, to inform her thinking on this matter? As an announcement from her is imminent, could she draw to the House's attention her reaction to the letter that she received from Herr Fischler? It clearly indicated his wish that member states use the historical basis to determine the allocation of single payments, which goes against the line floated by Lord Whitty at the Oxford farming conference on 6 January.
Margaret Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman correctly points out that the reform deal was agreed in June, and I am glad that he has at least recognised that it constitutes a very substantial reform. Of course, we then initiated a consultation process, and responses were received until—if I remember correctly—October or November. The responses were varied, a range of different views was expressed, and analysis of those views is being undertaken. I believe that I have reported that to the House on occasions such as this, and I know that I have made clear in exchanges across the Floor of the House the two biggest decisions: the full decoupling of subsidy from production; and the introduction of that change at the earliest possible date, in 2005.
On the letter that I received from Herr Fischler—he has written to all member states—I have read it with care and discussed these issues with him. His concern is that an attempt should not be made artificially to redistribute support on other criteria. He is of course also concerned that in every member state we establish sound principles for future schemes that will be of benefit to the farming community as a whole.
As for my noble Friend Lord Whitty's remarks at the Oxford conference, he made it clear that a range of issues has to be considered and weighed carefully. Indeed, such analysis and thinking is currently going on in the Department.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could assist in ensuring that the wealthiest of farmers, such as the Duke of
Westminster, do not benefit from CAP reform, and that support continues to be given to low-income farms and to tenant farmers, who struggle to make a living?
Margaret Beckett: As I said a moment ago, the Commission has advised against seeking redistribution for its own sake; on the other hand, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of low-income farmers and those who are currently beset by difficulties. The impact of potential change on the various participants in the world of farming, particularly the most vulnerable, is precisely one of the factors that we are seeking to weigh very carefully.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): But is it not the case that even a reformed common agricultural policy will perpetuate grotesquely high food prices for consumers in the United Kingdom and maintain the distortion of international trade, which consciously, by means of protectionism and subsidies, ensures the impoverishment of primary agricultural producer countries in Latin America and elsewhere?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to suggest that the reform deal will not have a major impact on food prices. However, he is doubtless conscious of the fact that if the British Government are able to achieve the reforms that we are seeking through the World Trade Organisation—to be fair, the rest of the European Union is also seeking them—that could have an impact on food prices in the longer term. But I accept part of the point that he makes, in that the impact on consumers will not be as great as some had hoped.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab): My right hon. Friend's earlier answer to the substantive question will be welcomed in my part of the world. However, has her Department thought through the communications strategy, so that farmers, particularly those in the more remote areas such as the North York Moors national park, can fully understand the implications for their incomes, bearing in mind their particular status within the subsidy regime?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My Department is giving careful consideration to how we can best communicate the implications of any proposals for farmers and farming communities. He and other hon. Members will know that we are slightly handicapped at the moment because some of the detailed regulations have not yet been produced. We are talking to the Commission and pressing it to come forward, which may help to shape the outcome.
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con): While it is clearly important to have widespread consultation on the matter, does the Secretary of State accept that the delay in announcing the decision is causing widespread uncertainty across the whole industry, and that it is also giving the Rural Payments Agency very little time to prepare for such an enormous change? Will she recognise that the vast majority of farmers have supported the case for decoupling, but on the basis of a historically based method of allocation? Whatever model is finally chosen,
the one thing that we must avoid is substituting one bureaucratic, complicated and costly system with another.
Margaret Beckett: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's last remarks: we do want to avoid replacing one complicated and costly system with another, but we all recognise that there will be transitional issues. I am mindful of the impact on the Rural Payments Agency of the timing of any decisions, and we are constantly in touch with it. I accept that if the issue continued to drag on, it could become a cause of uncertainty, but farmers know the two most important points—that we intend to abandon the link between production and subsidy, and that we wish to do so as early as possible—and all our economic analysis suggests that that is what will have the greatest impact on our economy and the decisions that farmers take. Other factors are important, but less so in the scale of things. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we in no sense wish to delay the decision for any longer than is needed to assess all the implications of the decisions that we have to take for the farming community as a whole.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |