| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Cunningham: We will probably have a few Geordie speakers, too. I shall look into the possibility. In the interests of efficiency, of course, we would much prefer electronic communication with the centre, but we recognise that that is not yet possible for all farmers.
Let me turn to a more difficult issue, which, although not strictly speaking directly to do with CAP reform, has to do with management of MAFF. It relates to the Central Science Laboratory at York and Norwich.
The health and well-being of consumers and the protection of the environment are, as everyone knows, at the top of our agenda domestically, in the CAP reform
negotiations and elsewhere. In Britain, the Central Science Laboratory, which is an integral part of MAFF, provides essential scientific and technical services in support of those objectives.
However, I inherited a very unsatisfactory financial situation. As the design of the CSL's new laboratory at York was approved, the Department's research and development budget has been reduced. The budget has also been subject to heavy and increasing demands from BSE-related research, an area in which the Central Science Laboratory is not involved. As a result, the modern facilities at York have been under-utilised. That was the set of circumstances which I inherited from the previous Government.
Against that difficult background, I have been reviewing the previous Government's decision that the CSL should continue to operate on two sites--principally the York site, but also a smaller presence at Norwich. In order to ensure a more secure future for the agency and a better return from the investment in the excellent facilities at York, I have decided, after long and detailed consideration, that the work done at CSL Norwich should be relocated to the York laboratory. The relocation will be completed during 1999.
Consolidation of the Central Science Laboratory at York will produce a unique and financially robust centre, with strengths throughout the food chain. It will improve the CSL's ability to compete for public and private sector work, and will strengthen its position as a world-class scientific facility. I know that this announcement will be as welcome in York as it will be unwelcome in Norwich.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
The Minister is making a statement.
Dr. Cunningham:
If I did not announce the decision to the House, I would be criticised and there would be points of order because I had not faced hon. Members and made the announcement in the Chamber. I advise the Opposition to keep quiet and stop whingeing.
Mr. Cash:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham:
No. I am not giving way.
Dr. Cunningham:
I am not giving way.
Mr. Cash:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Minister is refusing to take any intervention from me. Is it not--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. It is entirely a matter for the Minister from whom he takes interventions.
Dr. Cunningham:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining that I have not given way sufficiently during the debate.
I understand and respect the vigorous, sustained and continuing campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on behalf of his constituents, and I pay full tribute to him for that. I have met him
several times on the subject, we have corresponded regularly, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has answered innumerable questions from our hon. Friend.
I also understand the consequences of the decision--the upheaval for staff and their families. More welcome news was announced yesterday by the Government: the Institute for Food Research will relocate to Norwich, so that will be some compensation.
Mr. Charles Clarke (Norwich, South):
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. I pay tribute to the way in which he and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have tried to deal with the matter in an open way. However, the entire food science community will regret that shoddy decision, which will damage food science research in this country.
I acknowledge that it was an extremely difficult decision for the Minister, but I believe that it would have been better to wait for the establishment of the Food Standards Agency before taking such a destructive decision, particularly as it was taken for the bureaucratic reasons that he set out, to fill a laboratory that is a white elephant. As he said, it was an inherited--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is far too long an intervention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
No, the hon. Gentleman should leave it there.
Dr. Cunningham:
I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on the subject, but it is certainly not a shoddy decision. It is a decision in the best interests of the long-term viability of the Central Science Laboratory, although I understand that it is controversial.
Mr. Hugh Bayley (City of York):
The decision will be warmly welcomed in York. We already have a community of 1,500 bioscientists, who have a combined research spend of £80 million a year. Although the decision was difficult, it was the right decision for British science, MAFF and the farming community.
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for the careful and patient way in which he has listened to arguments from me and from other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I hope that he will continue to listen carefully to the York case for building on the Sand Hutton site to allow additional work on novel foods, and a seedbed for small bioscience businesses.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have three hours to debate the reform of the CAP, which is a matter of great interest to the constituents of Conservative Members, but the debate has degenerated into a private discussion among Labour Members about where a quango should be located.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
This afternoon's debate can cover a wide range of topics, and that is exactly what the Minister is doing. Points of order only take time out of the debate.
Dr. Cunningham:
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The distinguished scientists at York, in a leading institution established by the previous Government, will take careful note of the derogatory description of them and their institution by the rather foolish and ill-informed hon. Gentleman who just introduced a bogus point of order.
I want to move on quickly--
Mr. John MacGregor (South Norfolk)
rose--
Dr. Cunningham:
I am not giving way any more. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have just complained about shortage of--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The Minister has clearly said that he will not give way.
Dr. Cunningham:
I shall move on quickly to farm health and safety issues, which I raise in discussions in Brussels as well as in the United Kingdom
Health and safety on the farm is an area where we must all work for major improvements. Everyone has a right to a safe working environment. We should devote more time to discussion of these matters, whether in the context of CAP reform or elsewhere, because of the appalling record.
I recently asked the Health and Safety Executive to brief me on the agricultural industry's safety record. I am deeply concerned that agriculture has one of the worst health and safety records--
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been speaking for some 40 minutes, and is moving on to a new subject that has nothing whatever to do with the subject that we are supposed to be debating.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I have explained that the debate can range widely. I have also explained to hon. Members that points of order take time out of the debate. We have had far too many points of order.
Dr. Cunningham:
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The record shows that, since 1986, 620 people have been killed in farming, and thousands more have been seriously injured. I have made it clear that that is unacceptable and I welcomed the Health and Safety Executive's confirmation that safety in agriculture is now one of its highest priorities. The HSE outlined a rangeof measures that it is taking, which I welcomed. The Government have allocated the HSE an extra £4.5 million for 1998-99. The money is being targeted on inspection and enforcement, with agricultural safety a key priority.
I shall deal briefly with the amendments on the Order Paper, starting with that in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
My first observation is that the amendment is twice as long as the motion tabled by the Government. That tells us something about the verbosity of the Opposition. Secondly, it refers to farm incomes and the difficulties faced by farmers. We know that those difficulties did not
start on 1 May last year. We have no better authority for that statement than the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who stated in his election address:
The amendment goes on to refer to rising unemployment in rural areas, when in fact unemployment is falling in rural areas, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. According to the Rural Development Commission figures, rural unemployment as a whole has fallen by almost 4 per cent. since July last year.
In the amendment, the Conservatives--as ever--complain about CAP reforms costing more money, yet they call for British taxpayers to pay more agrimonetary compensation. They call for reform of the CAP, yet oppose the extra short-term costs that that entails. They call for the Government to get the best from the reforms in European negotiations, yet the Conservative party is increasingly dominated by Eurosceptics who refuse to deal with anyone in Europe.
"I have fought for Fylde farmers during a very difficult time"--
the very difficult time being 18 years of Conservative government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |