| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about non-declaration?
Mr. Bruce: The Minister would not support the hon. Lady's contention. She cannot possibly claim that the difference is somehow due to non-declaration and she would be unwise to suggest that there have been no undeclared cases in the United Kingdom. We all know the reality. In the context of Britain and Germany, there may have been some undeclared cases, but there have been 162,500 cases in the United Kingdom and four in Germany. It is not surprising, after a 55 per cent. drop in the home market for German beef, a 40 per cent. drop in France and a 30 per cent. drop in Italy, that there is some concern in those countries. If hon. Members represented constituencies in those countries, they would certainly be calling for action to protect their farmers.
We must deal with the problem and we must persuade people that our measures will lead to the ultimate eradication of BSE in the beef herd. That is the way to get back our own confidence and international confidence and to return to the market with what has been recognised as the best quality beef that people can buy. We can produce it, but we must eradicate this problem, and anybody who diverts his attention from that is not helping British agriculture or British beef production.
I am surprised that, throughout the debate, no hon. Member mentioned the additional, selective slaughter programme. There is no doubt that that must be agreed also if we are to get a final agreement package. Perhaps it might have been better if that had been agreed before we embarked on the major 30-month slaughter programme which is creating such enormous capacity problems. However, we need to get that in place.
A couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friends and I visited the Commission in Brussels to try to establish its view of the situation. The opening position was quite clear: we want to get this ban lifted as early as possible; but for that to be done, we have to have clear proposals on the table that we can recommend to the Council of Ministers; and we have not had them. That was two weeks ago.
On the morning we arrived, the officials received what was described as a "non-paper" from the British Government, with a few "suggestions and ideas". That turned out to be the document that was presented at the Council of Ministers and almost immediately rejected as an apparent British offer on selective culling. When I subsequently saw the document, it did not convince me that it presented a detailed, realistic and thought-through policy. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how it would have convinced our partners.
I can confirm that the Commission officials to whom we spoke said that they believed that it would be possible to agree a slaughter policy that was effectively targeting the most at-risk cattle, and that the numbers would not be dramatically different from those that we were talking about. An agreement could be struck. We desperately need that agreement to get the ban lifted. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us in her reply what stage we are at with that agreed policy.
The prime concern in this debate, which has been mentioned in the speeches of hon. Members from both sides of the House, is the situation relating to the 30-month cull and the removal of the older cattle from the food chain. The simple nub of the problem has clearly been acknowledged: blockage and obstruction in the rendering capacity is causing the main problem. Today, I spoke to my contacts in the Scottish industry, and they said that they could slaughter the required amount, but they cannot get them in for rendering.
One small mart in my constituency, Huntley mart, was hoping to get 150 cattle away tomorrow for slaughter, but it has had to cut back that number to 60 and is not sure whether it can manage even those. The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that we are making progress in Scotland. We are, but it is still a long way short of getting rid of the backlog.
It was pointed out to me that the capacity that was being considered was such that we were still not even building up to a slaughter rate that would achieve a net reduction in the backlog on farms, and that capacity would continue to build up for several weeks before we started to make any real reduction or inroads.
I intervened on the Minister's speech to make a specific point, which I do not think he fully appreciated--I do not blame him for that. The point, which was made to me, is that, because cattle have been kept and fed on farms for extra weeks and months, they have put on extra fat. It is therefore more appropriate to talk not about how many beasts can be processed through the rendering but about the tonnage. The problem is that the Minister may be
miscalculating on those figures to his disadvantage. I say that as a constructive issue that must be dealt with so that we can find the capacity.
If we cannot conduct the rendering process, it seems to be clear that we shall need to increase incineration capacity and storage capacity. Until we can get up to a full slaughtering level that is clearly reducing the backlog on farms, we shall satisfy neither our home producers nor those in Europe who need to be persuaded that we have this issue under control. I think that that is fundamentally why there is so much concern in the country.
The Minister made it clear that his view was that this is a very difficult situation, that it is much more complicated than anything that Ministries have had to deal with before and that we really should understand that he is working extraordinarily well with his officials to get this far. I am sure that the situation is difficult--I am not suggesting that it is not nor belittling it. It is very difficult being a farmer out there, or a meat producer who is trying to sell processed meat without any cash flow, outlook or movement in the market. Most people are saying that seven weeks is too long.
How much longer before we can see a real shift in the market? Effectively, farmers are being told that they have to put their cattle in a raffle. If they are lucky and their number comes up in it, the cattle be designated to go to slaughter. Some of them are now being told that their raffle will not be drawn for six and a half weeks from today. They will not even enter the raffle for another six and a half weeks because all the allocated space has already been taken up by what went in in the first week.
The Minister must understand that farmers are saying such things. When market managers and abattoir managers are having to cope with such comments, it is no wonder that people feel extremely stressed and distressed and inevitably see that there is a need for firm action.
It was interesting that one or two Conservative Members said that what was needed was someone to take control of the situation. It was not quite clear what they had in mind but, to judge from the Conservatives' record, I suppose that it would be a firm of management consultants or something similar. Ultimately, however, the Government must take control--they are in the hot seat. If they need to bring in extra help from outside they should do so, from whatever source is necessary.
It is not unreasonable for farmers, meat producers, abattoir owners, haulage contractors and everyone in the beef trade to say that, whether or not it is the Government's fault, they ultimately require the Government to deliver the goods that will get them out of this mess. People in the industry want the scheme to be working so that they can see the backlog being reduced, and they want it agreed with our European colleagues that what we are doing is enough to persuade them that the ban should be lifted at the earliest opportunity. That being the case, I draw the Minister's attention to two comments.
First, the Minister of State mentioned the Country Landowners Association, which has given the Government credit for measures that have been put in place but still expresses frustration about the situation. In particular, it says:
That is now urgent.
Secondly, this is not simply special constituency pleading although, as I represent Gordon in Aberdeenshire, I probably represent the biggest concentration of beef producers, from primary to end product. We have set up a north-east Scotland red meat industry task force which represents all parts of the industry. On Friday, the organisation sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the first page of which states that it had already written to him on 1 May and to Lord Lindsay on 12 April and was disappointed not to have received a reply to either of those letters.
"The CLA has supported the Government in seeking the removal of the EU ban but not at any price. The UK's effort to persuade other member state Governments, apart from the legal challenge in
13 May 1996 : Column 732the European Court of Justice, must be based on explanation of the comprehensive and effective range of measures adopted within the UK."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |