§ Sir Peter Mills (Torridge and Devon, West) (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement on the ban on imports of meat by the French.
§ The Minister of State, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor)We understand that the French Government yesterday restricted the number of points of entry through which fresh pigmeat and all live food animals may be imported into France. On hearing of that possibility, I immediately expressed our concern direct to the French Minister of Agriculture, when I met him last Friday, that nothing should be done to impede the normal flow of trade and sought clarification of precisely what was entailed. He agreed that our officials should meet to discuss the detail, and that meeting will take place this afternoon.
§ Sir Peter MillsI thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Is he aware that if the ban continued it would seriously affect producers of cattle, sheep and pigs, especially in the south-west of England? Will he redouble his efforts to clarify the position with the French Government, especially that relating to the ports?
Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be genuine reasons for banning imports of food, such as foot and mouth disease, water in milk and Newcastle disease? Does he further agree that it would be unfavourable to both sections of the Community if there was a tit-for-tat war?
§ Mr. MacGregorAs we understand it, it is not a ban but a restriction on the number of points of entry. I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel that it is a total ban. I accept entirely his first point. It is important that the trade should be well aware of what is happening, and as soon as we clarify the details we shall make them known. I recognise that my hon. Friend has a great interest in these matters, and I will let him know exactly what we discover.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I agree that there should be genuine reasons for such action. It is worth recalling in this context, however, that there is nothing illegal or wrong in principle about restricting the number of ports of entry for meat. There may sometimes be good reasons for that—it all depends on how it is done. That is what we shall try to clarify this afternoon.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no benefit to either side in engaging in a trade war. That is especially important to the United Kingdom because, I am glad to say, we have an expanding export market, and it is important to insist on a proper flow of trade.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Does the Minister accept that if this is a genuine restriction by the French because of foot and mouth disease or swine fever, we would support it? After all, Britain has very high standards and we would allow no dimunition of them. But if the restrictions are simply a masquerade in an attempt to apply trade restrictions, strong action must be taken to ensure that there is a proper movement of trade.
§ Mr. MacGregorI am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I agree with both his points. That is why we shall this afternoon try to clarify the precise details of what is being proposed.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)Will my hon. Friend seriously consider bringing in a regulation that all 20 French wine must be shipped through the port of Fowey in Cornwall so that the labels can be inspected to determine whether the animal glue used on them might introduce a disease to the United Kingdom? Such an idea might have great material influence on the French when they consider the advisability of the steps that they are taking.
§ Mr. MacGregorThe important point, with respect to my hon. Friend, is that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) about the importance of not impeding the legitimate flow of trade, because we should certainly not benefit from that. We must find out in this case whether the measures that the French Government are taking are reasonable on health grounds or whether we feel that this is an unnecessary imposition on the free flow of trade. We must clarify those details first, before considering exactly what view we take of the proposals.
§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)Will the Minister make doubly sure that this is not yet another example of Gallic gerrymandering? If he suspects even for a moment that it is, will he reduce to nil the number of ports through which it is possible to bring in the poisonous UHT milk?
§ Mr. MacGregorThe answer to the first question is yes, Sir. The answer to the second is that we give careful consideration to the number of ports that are permitted for the importation of UHT. There are 17, which we think is broadly the correct number, at which we have the proper inspection systems for examining health and other implications.
§ Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford)Does my hon. Friend agree that the timing of this ban, in view of the nature of the agricultural protests that are going on in France, leads one to suspect that this is nothing more than pandering to the agricultural lobby there? Is he aware that that is how it will be seen by farmers here? Is he aware, therefore, that it is of the utmost urgency that he clears the ground as quickly as possible so that the proper flow of trade can continue?
§ Mr. MacGregorTo make the position again clear from the point of view of our traders, we are facing not a ban but a restriction on some points of entry. I hope, therefore, that traders will not feel that it is not possible to export fresh pigmeat or live food animals at this time. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we establish precisely what the reasons and motives for this move are, that we clarify any problems and remove any fears. That is why I expressed concern direct to the French Minister—I had the opportunity, fortunately, to meet him face to face on Friday—and made it clear to him that we were anxious that nothing should be done to affect the normal flow of trade and that, as soon as we had the details, we could assess exactly that point. In response to me, he underlined the point that he was doing it for animal health reasons.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)How can there be any ambiguity about what the reasons are? Why did the Minister, when he met his French counterpart, not clarify this issue once and for all? Will he make a statement to the House on the subject in the next 24 hours.
§ Mr. MacGregorThe procedure by which a statement is made is not for me. It was extremely difficult to 21 establish over the weekend precisely what was being proposed, and it was only yesterday that the announcement was made in France. I reported what the French Minister said to me, but obviously it is a detailed matter; we must look at the number of ports involved and see the exact pattern and so on. That is what our officials are trying to do this afternoon. It is more complicated than just a simple ban, and we shall be giving serious consideration to what we discover as a result of the meeting this afternoon.
§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)Does this ban apply to other countries in the EC? If so, should we not be discussing it with other countries, it being a matter for the whole of the EC and not one just between Britain and France?
§ Mr. MacGregorThat is correct; it does apply to other countries. The reason that has been given for it is the fear of contaminated imports as a result of foot and mouth disease in the Netherlands. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, under a Community decision, meat and certain meat products may not be exported to France and other member states from those areas in the Netherlands which are now subject to foot and mouth disease restrictions. The Commission, I know, is also looking into the matter to establish the details, and if necessary we shall consider raising the issue at the next Council meeting.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Is this restriction or ban—whatever one cares to call it—another benefit that we have gained as a result of our entry into the Common Market? Can the hon. Gentleman recall how much we were promised by the Social Democrat types and others who dragged Britain into the Community in 1971? I am waiting to hear of the benefits that we are getting. All we seem to get from Government spokesmen on the subject is a load of misery.
§ Mr. MacGregorThe straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that our meat exports are expanding all the time and that we are benefiting in many ways from our membership of the Community. That is why we are anxious that there should not be artificial restrictions on that increasing flow of trade.
§ Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be delays at the ports where the restrictions are in force and that this will have an effect on the amount of beef that is able to pass through them? As there were problems in the recent past about the entry of the meat through the French ports even when they were all operating, will he ensure in the course of his investigations that there is a faster movement of meat through the ports? Any diminution in the time that it takes for it to pass through is important, and I urge my hon. Friend to make the necessary representations to the French authorities. Any waste of time will seriously affect the meat, including that which comes from Scotland, especially from my constituency.
§ Mr. MacGregorI accept that there should not be undue delays in the importation of the products affected into France. It was precisely for that reason that I raised the issue so quickly on Friday, and that is why we shall be having a meeting this afternoon. I think that my hon.
22 Friend will agree that we could not have acted more quickly. Once we have the precise details we shall be following them up.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)Could my hon. Friend at the earliest possible opportunity calculate the additional cost by commodity in terms of the delay in distribution and publish the details in the Official Report? Would he agree with me that the underlying reason for this ban or restriction has much to do with the recent insurgency of the French agricultural lobby and with the fact that the common agricultural policy is running out of funds, and that the way in which we should proceed is to have more national agriculture policies within the CAP so that individual countries are better able to look after their own farming interests?
§ Mr. MacGregorThese are extremely early days and we are not sure at this stage whether any meat has been restricted. However, if my hon. Friend wishes to table a question in due course, I shall attempt to answer it. I cannot make any comment on his second point at this stage. I shall be unable to do so until we have further details. On his third point, I do not believe that we should return to a heavy dependence on state aids as distinct from having a common agricultural policy because of incidents such as the one that we are discussing. That is not the right way to meet the problems that we are facing.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)The Minister referred earlier to the number of ports of entry for UHT milk, which he thought was about right. Is there not now an entirely new situation and ought we not to be reviewing the number of ports of entry for UHT milk as a way of levying pressure?
§ Mr. MacGregorWe have 17 points of entry, which we think is right for UHT milk. These are the ports where we have the machinery for the work that is necessary. I think that we should wait to see how many points of entry will continue to be available to meat exporters to France before we even begin to consider judgments of the sort suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) said, a tit-for-tat trade war would not be in the interests of either party. That is why I put the emphasis on not impeding the flow of trade.
§ Mr. SpeakerI believe that I called the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in error. I should have called the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), and I do so now.
§ Mr. Mark Hughes: (City of Durham)Can the Minister assure the House that he is satisfied that this action is not a riposte to the campaign in The Sun and by other elements against the French manipulation of regulations? If the discussions with the French authorities bear fruit, will he ensure that the opportunity is made available—I see that the Leader of the House is sitting next to the Minister—for a statement to be made in some form tomorrow?
§ Mr. MacGregorOn the first point, I have no evidence that that is so. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's representations have been heard; perhaps we can discuss the matter, if necessary, in the usual way.