| Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy
|
|
Mr. Hayes: It will never happen. Mr. Rooker: We will achieve reform, but not as fast as we would like. Mr. Best: Can the Minister advise me whether, in any study of the economic impact of BSE, account will be taken of the delay between identification of the problem in 1996 and the subsequent action two years later? I raise that issue because I think that important lessons, which could be usefully applied in the not-too-distant future, should be learned from that period. Mr. Rooker: I think that my hon. Friend made a slight slip of the tongue: BSE was identified in 1986. The previous Government's delay on the issue was shared in by the House. Both before and after I came into government, I was aware that the Select Committee on Agriculture had considered the issue of BSE, and had decided to do nothing about it. A request by the then Opposition for the subject of BSE to be looked at again was voted down. In those days, such discussions in Select Committees were not possible, because of the way in which the House operates. The Conservative Members on that Committee voted down a further Select Committee inquiry in the early 1990s, when it appeared that BSE was a problem. There is outside pressure--not least from the families and legal representatives of those who have died from new variant CJD--for a public inquiry. There is pressure from sectors of the economy to find out why we got into this mess in the first place. There is pressure to find out why we are committed to spend £4 billion of public money. I assure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members--the tragedies are spread across the country, and there is no party line in terms of tragedies caused by new variant CJD--that we are actively considering what the form and nature of an inquiry should be, and hope to be making an announcement on that soon. Clearly, there will be an inquiry even if we do nothing, as the families of new variant CJD victims who have secured legal aid will go to court. We must take into account whether that is a satisfactory way of attempting to unravel BSE's legacy, which has caused human tragedies as well as economic tragedies. Mr. Clifton-Brown: In relation to agenda 2000, what reassurance can the Minister give beef farmers in remote regions in which there is little flexibility? Such farmers face abject misery as a result of the Government's actions. The Government's record over the past seven months consists of the following: the limit in the total of the OTMS; the failure to implement a green pound compensation scheme; the failure properly to update the HLCAs; the failure to negotiate a proper clean beef marketing scheme; and last week's hammer blow of banning beef on the bone, despite the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's alternative suggestions. What comfort can the Minister provide today for beef farmers? Will the Government negotiate on their behalf on agenda 2000, so that they will still be in business in the year 2000? Mr. Rooker: I will take those points in reverse order. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if last weeks' action had not been taken, beef farmers in remote areas would have suffered even more damage. [Hon. Members: ``Rubbish!''] Yes they would. The decisions announced last week--about which we are consulting urgently this week--were taken to improve consumer confidence and to reassure consumers that British beef is absolutely safe. We were right to take that action and to publish SEAC's advice and recommendations. SEAC made more than one recommendation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it was the Government's responsibility to decide what action to take. We freely place that on the record. Mr. Hayes: You made the wrong choice. Mr. Rooker: We do not think that we made the wrong choice. I invite the hon.Gentleman to offer a sacrifice--the extra person who would die of new variant CJD next year as a result of us not taking this action. Let him offer the name of someone as a sacrificial lamb. He would not do that, of course, because deep down he is prepared to put public health first. He will not, however, stand up and say that. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman invited me to comment on SEAC's proposals--[Interruption.] The Chairman: Order, I would like to hear the Minister's answer. Mr. Rooker: I do not think that everyone has rushed out to buy beef on the bone. At the moment it is perfectly okay to do that because it is perfectly legal to sell it. We are considering banning the practice on the grounds of public health and because we want to restore consumer confidence. Having received advice we recognised that there was risk--it was more than a theoretical risk--and we had to take action. We were offered various choices. For example, meat could have been de-boned in cutting plants and abattoirs, but that was not a practical proposition. It would have involved a huge cost on public expenditure and it would not have been consistent with the level of risk, which, I agree, is very low. Our policy is to trust the retail butchers, and we believe that we can do so. Another possibility was to take the bone out of beef from cattle aged between 24 and 30 months, but that would have made it impossible for consumers to know the age of the beef. The only way that we could guarantee to the consumer at the retail end that the meat that they were buying was safe was to ensure that there were no bones in it. It is as simple as that. No one eats--
11.46 amThe Chairman: Order. The Minister was asked a long question, and he is part of the way through a long answer. Regrettably, however, we have reached the end of question time. Many questions have been asked, but Committee members obviously have further questions, and I regret that we have not had time to hear them all. We now have until 1.15 pm for debate. I intend to call the Minister no later than 1.5 pm, which will give him at least 10 minutes to respond to the debate. An amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been selected. Motion made, and Question proposed,
11.47 amMr. Michael Jack (Fylde): I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in line 1, leave out from `Committee' to end and add
The Minister has given wholly unsatisfactory responses to many pertinent questions about the future of the beef industry in Europe in the year 2000. I shall discuss some of the issues that he raised and explain why we tabled the amendment. I must, with respect, draw the Minister's attention to the amendment's first line. The Opposition have a proud record, and we have taken the lead in advocating reform of the CAP. The Minister should re-examine the comments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. Friend knows of the leading role that we played during discussions on the MacSharry proposals. We sought to safeguard the interests of British farmers--especially the smaller farmers--who today doubt whether the Government will take a firm stance over the question of modulation. William Waldegrave initiated discussions in the Conservative party about a comprehensive review of the CAP, and other Conservative Members who have served as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have acknowledged the need for reform. We need no lessons from the Minister: we are committed to a more market-based, common agricultural policy. I resent the way that the Minister criticised our proud record on that matter. With regard to Britain's beef industry, which is the more central issue, the Minister tried to bluff and bluster and to give tea and sympathy. He tried to suggest that the Government have a caring, listening attitude to those who--in the case of many hill livestock farmers--are the poorest people in this land. About 50 per cent. of those farmers have an income of less than £10,000 a year. The Government talk about welfare to work and about keeping people in the labour market, but their agricultural policy is designed to have precisely the opposite effect. Their inactivity is unbelievable. Put simply, as so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends elucidated earlier in their questions, if the Government do not act--and act quickly--it will be no use talking about agenda 2000 and the beef industry, because there will not be a beef industry. We have had a justification for the amendment. In response to one of my hon. Friend's questions about the restructuring of the beef industry in Europe, the Minister seemed to be hellbent on allowing the British beef industry, in reducing its size, to take the entire burden of that restructuring. Unless the Minister makes a clear statement to beef farmers, they will believe that that is the Government's attitude. I remind the Minister that the Chancellor of the Exchequer passed over to the Governor of the Bank of England the job of setting interest rates. The Chancellor's monetary policy since 1 May has driven the pound higher and has caused further revaluations of the pound. It is his Government's economic policy that has resulted in farmers wilting under a weight of imports, not only of beef, but of chicken. Indeed, imports of just about every agricultural item that can be imagined are flooding into the country; we are the sink of Europe for agricultural products. In the meantime, farmers have chosen to do a very un-British thing--to demonstrate. The Government then say, ``Under duress, we are not moving''. The Minister has not defined what he means by ``duress''.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1997 | Prepared 10 December 1997 |
