§ 2.7 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they endorse the Written Reply by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to a Question asked in another place on Friday last, December 13 [Hansard, col. 131), in which he wrote that the present total prohibition on health grounds of imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from France should now be lifted and arrangements made at once accordingly; if so, whether the resulting effect upon the price and subsidy of our home beef products can be estimated, and whether it is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage and allow imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from a country in which foot and mouth disease was very prevalent recently.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)My Lords, the lifting of the prohibition, on health grounds, of imports of uncooked beef and beef offals from France followed very thorough investigation of the animal and public health aspects of that country. We were satisfied that the foot and mouth situation had improved to the point that, given the extremely strict safeguards required concerning each consignment to be imported, there would be no justification in maintaining this ban. On the question of the effect on the price and subsidy of our home beef products, 373 the reply by my right honourable friend, to which the noble Lord has referred, went on to say that the amount to be imported during the period to March 31, 1964, will be up to 500 tons. We do not expect the marketing of home-produced or other imported beef to be affected by this relatively small quantity. Average supplies for the first quarter of the year from all sources (home and imported) have, over the past three years, been about 310,000 tons and the impact of 500 tons is therefore unlikely to be significant.
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his lengthy reply, may I say that the present situation, or the possible situation which will arise, in regard to this importation is creating great unrest among the agricultural industry? May I put one or two additional questions to the noble Lord? The first one is this. Can he state when the last importation of uncooked French beef came into this country? how many years ago was it? And can he say whether or not the importation of this uncooked beef will mean a heavy subsidy by the French Government to their producers? Can he also give us any information as to what that is likely to amount to? Further, can he inform us whether the Commonwealth have been consulted in regard to this particular action on the part of Her Majesty's Government? Furthermore, will the noble Lord be able to give us an assurance that after April 1 next there will be no further importation of French beef into this country on a basis which would be detrimental to the interests of British farming?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I will try to remember those questions. The first is very easy because I do not know the answer and I cannot give it without notice. The second question related. I think, to a form of dumping which the noble Lord envisaged. Well, of course, we do not know. We cannot tell at what price French beef will be coming into the country; it is early days to be able to say. But, of course, the noble Lord knows that there are powers under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, which would enable us to cope with that after April if it happened; but we have no reason to think it will happen. We have not, 374 to the best of my knowledge—and I may be corrected here—informed the Commonwealth countries or the Commonwealth suppliers because, as the noble Lord will realise, this is simply an animal health and food health issue. We have no right to keep out imported food on health grounds unless these grounds can be justified, which they can no longer be.
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that the agreement after April 1 next will not he detrimental to British farming?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, the French Government are seized of the importance we attach to our market not being disrupted. We are in continual touch; and if action detrimental to our market should occur, then talks would be resumed at Government level.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask whether there is any existing foot and mouth disease in French cattle to-day?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHFrom what date?
LORD ST. OSWALDVery recently. The slaughter policy is fairly recent; but the figures of the reduction of foot and mouth outbreaks in France are very impressive. To pick out one figure at random, in October, 1960, there were 508 outbreaks; in 1963, the corresponding figure was two; and the comparative figures are, in fact, similar. They give the same impression. There were some months in which there was no outbreak at all. The success the French have had in bringing foot and mouth to an end has been very impressive indeed. The present situation does not justify us in condemning them under the animal health regulations.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, what steps are the Government taking to make sure, when cattle are slaughtered for this purpose in France, that they do not reach here as uncooked meat? Is not this part of the beginning of a new policy for the Minister of Agriculture? The French Government are members of the 375 Common Market, I take it; they will operate the taxation of food put round all the Six countries. What are the conditions of our exports of meat to France in relation to the free import the Government are giving to their meat here?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, as I have explained to the noble Earl's colleague, until now these imports of French beef have been kept out by animal health and food health regulations. When this ban is no longer justified on a basis of animal health or food health, we certainly cannot misuse these regulations; and I know that the noble Earl would not expect or wish us to. The only new thing is that the French have overcome their animal health problems. As regards the means we have of knowing the conditions in French slaughterhouses, I referred to this in my substantive Answer. The regulations are so elaborate and complete that it would take too long to relate them to the noble Earl now, but I will gladly inform him of them afterwards. They are very complete indeed.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, what about the second part of my question about free import here? What rights have we to put free imports into any of these Six countries of the Common Market? Why cannot we send meat free to France, as we are allowing her to do here?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, the question relates specifically to animal health and food health regulations and I am answering that question.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not a fact that only a week or so ago complaints were being made from the Benches on my left about our export of lamb to France? Is it not also a fact that we must look at the interests of the consumer as well as of the producer in this matter?
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government 376 had to some extent satisfied themselves about the state of slaughterhouses in France or, at least, that the regulations were very good indeed. As a result of a visit to France some years ago, when I inspected slaughterhouses, I found that their regulations were wonderful but their observance of them did not stand up to inspection. Have the Government really gone into this aspect of the matter?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was inspecting slaughterhouses from which meat was to be imported into England. This does make a difference, because in point of fact the standards insisted upon by us are higher than the standards insisted upon by the French authorities for meat supplied within France.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether any British veterinary inspectors or public health inspectors will be present to look at these animals, or must we rely entirely on French inspectors for this?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I am not absolutely sure about the detail of this. But we do send people over to inspect the abattoirs from which meat imported into this country will come.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, in view of the fact that in our importation of meat from the Argentine we have our own very well-qualified inspectors to make sure that we are kept free of foot and mouth disease from that country, would it not be strongly advisable, in the interests of our animal health in this country, that at any rate in the initial stages we should take the same precautions in France?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I would give the noble Lord the same answer as I gave to his noble Leader. I would gladly go over with him the regulations that we have agreed with the French authorities, under which meat which is to be sent to this country has to meet certain standards, and I think that they will satisfy him. They are really too long to read out to the House at this moment.