HC Deb 29 November 1984 vol 68 cc1189-204 10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7685/84, 7686/84 and 7948/84; and in respect of 7685/84 and 7686/84 supports the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions to trade; and in respect of 7948/84, supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that the provisions of any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.

I shall deal first with the two documents concerning the harmonisation of charges for inspection of meat, that is 7685/84 and 7686/84.

The background to this subject lies in the strenuous criticisms which were initially made by the poultry processing industry in this country some years ago. It argued that the Community requirements for inspecting poultrymeat were not being properly enforced elsewhere in the Community and it was therefore subject to unfair competition. The Government argued on behalf of our industry in Brussels and in 1981 the Commission brought forward proposals intended to remedy the problems. One of its proposals to reduce the distortions of competition was designed to harmonise the charges which were paid by the poultry processing industries of the member states to meet the cost of the inspection work.

The proposal was amended this year by the Commission, which also produced a parallel proposal to cover red meat inspection costs. The Commission proposed that a flat rate charge be made on the industry, with responsibility for any extra costs which were incurred being met by the authorities responsible for the inspection work. In Great Britain meat inspection is the responsibility of local authorities, which have the power to charge the costs of the work to the slaughterhouse operator. The effect of the proposals would therefore have been to place on local authorities a new financial cost. It was because a potential new cost would be placed on local authorities that the Select Committee on European Legislation originally recommended these proposals for debate.

During study of the Commission's proposals in the Council of Ministers an agreement has emerged that the form of the legislation should be further adjusted. The concept of a fiat rate charge is being replaced by a minimum charge, enabling member states to charge more than the standard rate, up to the level of their actual costs of inspection. This will enable local authorities to continue to obtain reimbursement from slaughterhouse operators for their full costs; and this, of course, resolves the problem identified by the Select Committee.

I should add that the proposals, which are now being discussed as a single joint text covering both red meat and poultrymeat, also make provision to implement a longstanding decision at the Council of Ministers to set a charge on imports from non-Community countries, to cover the cost of inspecting meat at the ports.

In its present form the proposal leaves open the level at which the standard, or minimum, rate of charge would be set. The level and the detailed arrangements would be set in further legislation by the middle of next year. The rules would then become effective from 1 January 1986. There has been discussion in the Council whether the minimum charge should be set in the proposals before us today. Progress in considering the levels has so far however been rather slow and it is not at all clear that the Council will be in a position to take decisions on this aspect when it next meets.

I am well aware that these proposals are the subject of criticism by the slaughtering industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister has carefully considered the arguments put to him and has explained his views to the industry. We understand fully that the industry disagrees with the principle that the costs of meat inspection should be met by the industry. Nevertheless, I can offer no hope that the Government will change their policy on this issue; a policy which has been maintained over a substantial period of time by successive Governments.

I have sympathy with the argument put forward that standards of inspection for poultrymeat should be harmonised before inspection charges can be harmonised. There would clearly have been advantages in proceeding in such a logical manner. We have pressed for the harmonisation of the standards of inspection of poultrymeat, and will continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stressed the urgent need for action on this matter at the last Agriculture Council. So we are to a considerable extent in agreement with the industry on this point. However, I do not consider that it is necessarily unjustifiable to make progress on both fronts at the same time; and since the proposals on charging are before us we are prepared to consider them in order to help to remove distortions in competition between the industries of Community member states.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)

If my hon. Friend can answer my question, she may go a long way towards allaying the fears of the poultry industry, which have been forcefully expressed to me, and no doubt to many of my colleagues. There is concern that if Ministers go ahead and agree a standard charge for poultrymeat there will be distortions. It is more important to concentrate on the standard and quality of poultrymeat inspection. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that she will not go ahead with agreeing a standard charge before the quality of inspection point has been settled?

Mrs. Fenner

My hon. Friend will see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is on the Front Bench. He is seized of the importance of getting the standards of inspection harmonised, but there does not seem to be a reason for not seeking to avoid what would be a distortion if there was not harmonisation of minimum cost. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully seized of the industry's view that that is important in preventing distortions.

It is also argued that these proposals will not achieve complete harmonisation of charging practice, and this is true. However, there is also a provision for a review of the system. If the legislation were approved, we would have recognition in Community law of the principle of harmonisation and a minimum rate. These would provide a basis on which to build further in the future.

Finally, I should explain that an agreement on this issue at the Council of Ministers would have further implications of benefit to the meat industry. A range of other proposed measures is currently blocked in the Council and is to be brought into force only when the harmonisation of charges is settled. These other measures include import arrangements related to control of foot and mouth disease, brucellosis testing, and some adjustment of the rules for control of classical swine fever. They also include two provisions of importance to the poultrymeat industry itself, namely, the extension of the authority to produce New York dressed poultry and to chill poultry by immersion without subsequently freezing it. The Government will take account of the interest of the industry in those other issues in assessing their position when the proposal comes before the Council again.

I come now to the proposal in document 7984/84, which would amend the existing controls over the use of hormone growth promoters.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the first order, I should be grateful if she would clarify one matter. She said that the cost of inspection that is not borne by the processor should fall on the rates. On whom does the cost fall for inspecting poultry and meat products imported from the European Economic Community to ensure that they are correctly graded? Does it fall on local ratepayers, or on United Kingdom taxpayers generally, since the benefit or disbenefit of inspection or lack of inspection is not concentrated in the area of the port, but is spread throughout the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Fenner

If I am to give my hon. Friend an accurate answer, I shall get a response that I can send to him in a note. I take his point and will answer it later.

As the House will recall, the preparations which are currently allowed consist of a solid pellet implanted in the ear of a beef animal. The implant slowly releases a hormone which improves the feed conversion of the treated animal. These hormone implants represent important tools of management to livestock farmers which reduce costs and are of benefit both to him and the consumer.

A number of these implants have been licensed in the United Kingdom for some years under the stringent controls of the Medicines Act 1968, under which Agriculture and Health Ministers have to be satisfied as to the safety—that includes the consumer's safety—quality and efficacy of a product before it is allowed on the market.

Some years ago there was a scare in Italy over baby food that was discovered to be contaminated with a forbidden hormone growth promoter. The baby food had been made from carcases originating in France. The result, predictably, was a call for panic legislation at European level. After much discussion, the controls currently in force were agreed. They made little difference to the United Kingdom because, by contrast with some member states, we already had good regulatory machinery in operation.

A feature of the existing European controls is that member states are allowed to avail themselves of five active ingredients for these implants. Three are found naturally, namely, testosterone, progesterone and oestradiol 17 beta. Two are derived from sources outside the animal body, namely, trenbolone and zeranol. Preparations based on the last two are widely used in the United Kingdom beef industry— and elsewhere in the world. However, the European Commission has been required to produce a scientific assessment of those five active ingredients with special respect to their safety. The outcome of its deliberations has been that the three natural substances have been declared safe, while judgment ha; been suspended on the two synthetics pending the provision of further scientific information.

In passing, I may say that the information shortfall or trenbolone was made up almost immediately, while that on zeranol is being prepared.

The document before the House translates the scientific findings into new controls and advances other aspects of the controls over the preparations. First, it is proposed that member states should allow the use of preparations based on the three "natural" active ingredients. There would be a Community system, of authorising preparations based or them. Secondly, it is proposed to ban preparations based on the two synthetic active ingredients. Then there are proposals imposing much stricter controls over the use of all of those preparations, such as the random sampling of live animals on farms and in abattoirs and the sampling of carcases and meat at all stages of manufacture and transport from abattoir to consumer. Meat products are, of course, included.

The United Kingdom can obviously agree with the proposal that products based on the three natural active ingredients should be authorised for use, but some member states cannot apparently do so. That raises two important issues. First, their attitude means that the advice of the Commission's scientific working group is being disregarded. Secondly, if some member states use the preparations and others disallow them, the latter may try to block the imports of meat from the former. Trade upsets within the EC could be significant. The same problem would arise for third country supplies. We believe that scientific advice should be followed here and that there can be no justification for disregarding it.

The proposed ban on trenbolone and zeranol would have repercussions on our beef producers, as they would have to switch to alternative products, but we believe that the information submitted will clear trenbolone, and it: is a matter for regret that the Commission has been so slow to examine it. Zeranol is used in many countries and has been cleared by many regulatory authorities, including our own. The trade consequences of a ban on zeranol must be serious for the EC, and it is to be hoped that this proposal will be reconsidered on the basis of scientific knowledge.

It has been the United Kingdom's policy all along, and will remain so, that the controls to be applied to the use of hormone growth promoters should be based on a strict scientific assessment of the facts.

There can be no quarrel with the idea that proper controls must be exercised over the use of hormone growth promoters, and there can be no objection in principle to the extension of detailed controls proposed in the draft directive, but we must take every care that we endorse only practical propositions. For example, it is unrealistic to propose that every implant must be done by a vet. I do not believe that it would be operated in practice in any member state. Similarly, although checks on live animals, meat and meat products may be desirable, we must recall that the work and tests involved are costly. We need to test at no higher level than statistics show will reveal whether there is abuse of the preparations. We must approach with caution the proposition that tests must automatically be carried out where there is no suspicion that an offence has been committed. Although random testing is accepted elsewhere in British law, we must be careful that it goes no further than is justified in protecting consumer safety.

I hope that I have explained the documents, and I shall listen with care to the views of hon. Members.

10.39 pm
Mr. Mark Hughes (City of Durham)

I shall deal first with the poultry meat regulations. The motion shows that the Government's aim is to reduce distortions in trade. That section does not have the support of the British Poultry Federation, which objects to it. I quote from a letter dated today and sent to me by hand, which says: The motion under discussion, so far as it relates to poultrymeat hygiene inspection, seeks support for the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions in trade. It is tabled in the teeth of the opposition of the poultrymeat industry, not only in the United Kingdom but also throughout the EEC. Charges are the symptom, but not the root cause of distortions of competition arising from poultrymeat hygiene inspection. The basic problem is a widely differing interpretation of the same European legislation as to what staffing levels and hygiene procedures are appropriate to ensure that birds are fit for human consumption. At the root of the objections of the British Poultry Federation and other bodies to the proposed regulations is their belief, with which I agree, that what is being asked for is approval for a set of regulations made without deciding what are the predeterminates on which one should regulate. If one wants regulations, one should know what one is going to regulate. So far, the EEC has not determined that.

The letter continues: In the United Kingdom our standards of inspection are acknowledged to be more onerous than in other countries; consequently the number of birds that can be sold at top quality prices is less, and the costs of staffing and administration arc greater, than for our competitors. The motion will do nothing to eliminate distortions of competition as to the grading of birds". Without equality of grading of birds, there can be no effective control over how one discriminates and how one works the regulations. There is no EEC-wide agreement on the grade or quality that the poultry industry has to meet. As long as that is missing, there will be distortion of trade both internationally and nationally.

It is no good saying that this order will lead to harmonisation if we do not know what a grade one poultry bird is from one country to another, or one part of this country to another. The Opposition may want a common, harmonised procedure to inhibit distortion of trade, but I cannot believe that these proposals aid that. In fact, I fear the reverse.

There is also the problem of costs. As the Minister knows, there are three proposals. There is that of the European Parliament, Assembly— call it what one wishes—which suggests that all costs should be borne by the Community. There is that from the Commission, that all costs should be borne equally across all countries, between producer and member Government.

Then we have these proposals, to which Her Majesty's Government appear to agree. The cost of the inspection will be borne wholly, solely and completely by the producer, who will have to pass it on to the consumer. I must advise the Minister that that introduces distortion. If French, Belgian or Dutch poultry producers have inspection costs carried by their Governments whereas ours have to be borne by our producers, our producers will carry a distorted penalty into the market place which they cannot reasonably be expected to bear.

However much I would like competition on poultry meat hygiene inspection to be uniform and fair throughout the Community, I do not accept that the proposals before us achieve that end.

I turn to the difficult problem of trenbolone, zeranol and other such products. There is clearly a major difficulty, because we cannot ascertain whether they are in the carcase. That is true of a number of these products. The naturally occurring ones are excluded because it cannot be ascertained from examining the carcase whether they have been used. However, they palpably aid growth and they are growth promoters. I ask the Minister to tell us the procedure that will be adopted to enable trenbolone to come back into use. Will there have to be a unanimous verdict or will there be a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers? Is the House to have the power in future—it has always had it in the past—to permit the use of hormone additives? I have a suspicion that the proposals imply that a majority decision in the Council of Ministers would allow that which we have hitherto prohibited to be available in Britain as a growth promoter. I would be unhappy at that.

We have major objections to the poultrymeat proposals, but we accept that there are detailed difficulties on the use of hormome additives, future adaptation, scientific advance and the introduction to the market of new products. Will it be in the power of the House to inhibit their use in Britain for the safeguarding of our consumers, or will that issue be transferred to a majority decision of the Council of Ministers? I should be extremely unhappy if consideration of new products of the trenbolone type, or whatever they might be, are transferred away from the House and the scrutiny of the Chamber to another body.

10.48 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the poultry industry. I do not intend to detain the House for long. To a certain extent, I welcome the paper that has been put before us by the European Community for the equalisation of payments for the examination of poultry costs. However, there is a major factor, which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), that causes our poultry farmers dissatisfaction. There is such a dichotomy in the payment of veterinary costs for the examination of poultry throughout the EEC that much depends on the country from which the system is operated as to the cost of the meat when it is sold. In some respects, it can be regarded as a hidden surplus, especially in turkeymeat. In speaking on behalf of the turkey farmers of Lancashire, I can say with firmness and sincerity that they are greatly worried about the pricing between France and Britain. One turkey farmer informed me that he was paying 9p per turkey in veterinary examination charges. That amounted to £22,000 per year, which is a great overhead in the production of turkeys.

The producers are greatly concerned that there is no unity of standard for examination of poultry within the Community. Higher standards exist in Britain than anywhere else in the Community. As a consequence, Britain rejects or downgrades birds that other parts of the Community allow through the examination net as grade A birds. They then command a higher price and are imported into Britain on that basis. Those birds, if tested in Britain, would not meet our high standards.

Before we consider any further step towards the equalisation of payments, we must put before all else the equalisation of standards. That is looked for by the poultry producers as a major step towards protecting their markets from unfair competition from the Community. It will also ensure that we can compete economically in the export of turkey and poultrymeat of various sorts.

I welcome the comment from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we are fighting hard as a Government to ensure that equal standards will be adopted in the Community in the near future. I wish the Government all power to their elbow. Before they sign any agreement binding Britain to an equalisation of cost policy, I urge them to keep in the back of their mind and in the forefront of any negotiations the equalisation of examination standards.

10.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

The hour is late, and brevity would be commendable, not least because several of my hon. Friends hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I want briefly to consider certain features of the draft instruments pertaining to health aspects of red meat and poultrymeat and the draft instrument on the implantation of hormones in animals.

I have three brief observations to make on the draft instruments on red meat and poultrymeat, following the cue given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of taking them together. The objective and the goal must be the seeking of harmonisation of health inspection between member states. I do not think that there is any need to stress or to detail the arguments for that, other than to say that, unless harmonisation prevails, certain individual member states will be disadvantaged. I therefore welcome the principle of seeking to obtain greater harmonisation embraced by the two draft instruments.

But, secondly, having made that point, I give warning that I am unhappy about certain aspects of the draft instruments, because I do not think that they will necessarily achieve their objective in this very respect. I understand why some people find it attractive for the cost of health inspection to be borne by the public authorities but reimbursed by a minimum charge to the slaughterer or importer. However, that will not do much to iron out the current discrepancies, differences and variations. Indeed, it might increase them. It could create fresh scope for national protection.

Different member states have different slaughter procedures and different administrative systems for inspection. They have different abattoir overheads and different standards of inspection. Much else also differs. This creates obstacles to harmonisation both in the degree and cost of inspection. Moreover, whatever formula the Council determines, it will surely be open to various interpretations, according to the sympathies of each member state.

I do not believe that harmonisation in health inspection can be achieved significantly or satisfactorily unless the cost of that inspection is funded by the taxpayer. There are one, two or possibly more routes by which the money can go from the taxpayer to cover the cost of health inspection, but the underlying principle is the same. Inspection takes place for the benefit of the taxpayer or consumer, so it is right that the cost of it should fall on the taxpayer's shoulders. More importantly, this is the only way that we can get round the potential and real disadvantages of continuing the lack of harmonisation. It is better to achieve harmonisation in effect, by removing all costs of inspection from the producer or slaughterer, rather than to fail to achieve it despite direct intentions so to do, as in the regulations. So much for the first two regulations.

I shall deal with more brevity with the third draft instrument, dealing with hormone implants for cattle and the recommendations found in article 5. I welcome the authorisation of the natural hormone substances oestradial, progesterone and testosterone. There is no room for debate on that. These substances and their derivitives have been appraised on a scientific basis. Their use in farm animals does not present a hazard, either to animal or consumer. However, that is not the only point to be made.

If such substances are authorised by the EC, they must be authorised by and in each member state. For that which is authorised in the directive to be banned in certain member states is unacceptable. In its own small way that would undermine the concept of a common market. It would be a thinly disguised ploy by some member states to protect their domestic producers. I urge my hon. Friend to bear that in mind.

Article 5.2 causes me anxiety. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister said tonight. It states the aforementioned substances"—— —the natural hormones to which I referred—are to be administered by a veterinarian. As the Minister said, this must not be. There is no earthly reason why a farmer should not administer such substances. Farmers are skilled to do that. If a person is not so skilled, he should not be a farmer. It makes no sense to deny farmers the authority to administer the substances. Then there is the cost argument.

Such a measure would significantly increase the producer's costs.

I have been told that an experienced team of administrators can take up to four hours to implant 200 steers in ideal conditions. The thought of the cost of that operation expressed in vet bills is alarming.

Nor should we overlook the possibility that such a measure might lead less scrupulous producers either to administer products illegally or to administer cheaper, proscribed products.

Mr. Mark Hughes

I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but did he say proscribed products?

Mr. Hunter

Yes, I did.

The last observation which I wish to make concerns article 5.5. With regard to the synthetic compounds zeranol and trenbolone, I was somewhat reassured by the Minister's remarks. I understand that technical and scientific studies called for by the EEC Commission are still uncompleted, despite the fact that manufacturers' evidence of safety was submitted some months ago. Until these reports are available, we can only reserve judgment on the products. It therefore follows that it is quite absurd for these draft regulations to propose to ban these substances after 1 July. That is premature and unfounded. The decision should be made only in the light of scientific evidence and when that scientific evidence is available.

I want to avoid the sin of repeating my arguments, but I confess that there is cause for concern in these draft regulations, laudable though their overall objective undoubtedly is.

11.2 pm

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Not much has been said—indeed, nothing at all—about the categories in this country which will benefit or suffer from the proposed regulations. First, there is the consumer. She would be buying a class A bird if it were inspected in Britain, but if she buys an imported one she might well be cheated, simply because the enforcement standards, quite apart from the classifications, are not common throughout the whole of the EEC.

For example, the regulations about the amount of water permitted in a frozen bird are simply not adhered to in France, and those who buy poultry imported from France could find that they are buying a load of French water and, consequently, are paying more per lb than they thought.

That is why I ask: who bears the cost of the inspection at the ports? If this falls on the local ratepayers, there is an incentive to let the produce through uninspected. On the other hand, it is not the local ratepayers primarily who will suffer if substandard poultry products are imported through their port. In addition, there will be a greater incentive for EEC exporters to channel their exports through those ports where it is known that the inspection is most lax. Therefore, the consumer is the first person put at risk by failure to have common standards, commonly enforced.

In this context, it is interesting to note that during this debate not a single Liberal or SDP Member has been present, so little is their interest in the consumer.

The interests of the producers does not mean just those who rear poultry, but the many thousands of people whose livelihood lies in processing poultry. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that the local authority and not central Government can bear part of the cost above the minimum charge, but the ratepayer is already tortured and severely constrained by the increasing proportion of expenditure that falls on the rates rather than on central Government. In many cases, the amount that local authorities can spend is up against the limits imposed by central Government, so it is no real reply to say that they can bear part of the burden instead of placing it all on the processors. It is beyond dispute that the standards to which we religiously adhere but which our continental competitors do not even pretend to observe mean that the cost of inspection in this country can make our product apparently uncompetitive, although it would not be uncompetitive if the same standards were applied on the continent.

What is to be done about this? My hon. Friend the Minister will be relieved to hear that I did not argue on the order relating to summer time that the solution was for the Commission to ensure that the sun rose and set at the same time in all EEC countries, because that would not have been a practical solution to the problem, although it would have been a reasonable ground for harmonising summer time. In this context, however, there is no such fatuous situation. It lies within the power of those who control the destinies of the EEC to ensure common standards of meat and poultry inspection throughout the Community: and as an incentive, to make the free movement of such products contingent on the establishment of common standards of inspection and enforcement. The whole concept of the EEC depends inherently on that, even if it is not explicitly stated. It is the lack of common standards that causes the distortions that we are considering today.

Therefore, I exhort my hon. Friend the Minister to put the horse before the cart and to tell the EEC, which wants common charges, that we will not agree to those common charges, which we also want, until common standards are established. Until both those objectives are achieved we should pursue the course very sensibly prescribed by the European Assembly— so often misdescribed as the European Parliament— that the differential cost of enforcing differential standards should fall on the central Governments concerned and not on the producers, who are not themselves responsible for those differential standards and who have no means of remedying the situation except through their national Parliaments and Governments.

It is for that redress that producers in the United Kingdom look to my hon. Friend the Minister today, and so do I.

11.9 pm

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

I have only a few quick, brief points to make, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I shall be much more brief than document 7948/84 which has been circulated to hon. Members. I hope that I shall be slightly more intelligible than that document.

When I tried to read Mr. Giolitti's letter to Mr. Claude Cheysson, I was glad that it was translated from Italian. I wish, however, that the translation had gone much further.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

And been legible.

Mr. Maclean

And been legible. I had to give up when I reached page nine, when I read: Genotoxicity was examined by mutagenicity tests and by the capacity for DNA binding, Neither beta-Trenbolone nor alpha-Trenbolone showed any mutagenic activity in prokaryotic systems nor in any in vivo test for bone marrow and germ cell cytogenetics. However, the House will be pleased to hear that, Clastogenic activity in vitro against human lumphocytes in culture were negative".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I hope that all those words are in order.

Mr. Maclean

I do not think that those words are in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can reconcile myself to the fact that I might not know much about chemistry, but I have never before come across "lumphocytes". I presume that the document refers to lymphocytes, unless in the past few days some EEC boffin has discovered a new substance called "lumphocytes". Ignoring this document would be the best thing to do. Common sense should prevail.

These documents have gone a little overboard when dealing with trenbolone and zeranol. I do not believe that we should make them subject to full Council agreement when all other products can be approved by the Standing Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, it is premature to go for a ban on those products when we have no positive evidence that they can be harmful. Zeranol is used in 40 other countries, and it is used extensively in the United States. We all know how rigorously the United States enforces medicine safety. I believe that we are being a little excessive in going for a ban on trenbolone and zeranol, because we have no firm evidence that they can be harmful.

I am pleased that Oestradiol 17 beta, Testosterone and Progesterone have been given a clean bill of health. The only question that remains is whether they should be prescribed by veterinary surgeons or whether it should be left to the farmers to administer them. I do not think that a case has been made for the administration of those drugs to be the exclusive province of veterinary surgeons. The vast majority of farmers can do the job properly and well. However, if in future years we detect that there have been cases of abuse, where farmers have not followed the recommended guidelines and have injected the products shortly before the animals were sent for slaughter, we should look at this matter again. There would then be a case——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

And prosecutions.

Mr. Maclean

In addition to the prosecution of those concerned. Of course, there would then be a case for looking at these drugs and perhaps giving veterinary surgeons the power to administer them. That case has not been made, and that action would be premature.

Unless farmers administer these products carefully there will be increasing consumer resistence. One of the greatest threats faced by agriculture in daily fanning comes not so much from quotas or anything that the EEC may do but from the fact that consumers are worried about the amount of fat in milk and butter. There is some resistance to buying those products. Similarly, there is a certain amount of concern that too much of the meat arriving on our shelves may have too many hormones in it. Certainly there is a demand for healthier and hormone-free food. The Ministry should make it clear to farmers that this trend exists and that they must watch what the consumers want.

I do not believe that at present we need to ban these products, but we should give a clear warning to fanners that in future years product sales will be affected not by a ban but by consumer resistance—the housewife will not buy. Time is needed, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give our fanners time to switch over in future years to using fewer hormones in beef production, because that is what the consumer wants.

11.13 pm
Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)

The motion provides that any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry. I regard that with a great deal of trepidation, because I believe that we should consider only the interests of the consumers. Livestock producers and the meat trade will go on producing meat and the pharmaceutical industry will go on producing Pharmaceuticals. The consumers have to eat the products, and it is up to us to see that those products are as safe as they can be.

We are discussing scientific assessments. I have the gravest fears about the present results of scientific assessments. Additives to meats and other foods should be studied with the greatest care. I am not complacent about the way we handle foods and the additives we use in foods and meats.

I spent about an hour and a half last Monday with someone who is eminent in this sphere. He explained to me at great lengths the time bomb we are storing by allowing hormones to be used as growth additives. The effects of hormones in our foods will not be fully known for 20 or 30 years. It sometimes takes three generations before their full effects become known and it takes three more generations to get rid of the effects.

It may not be known to many hon. Members that in Brazil, for example, there are children of seven who are conceiving. They have been eating chickens which have had growth promoters added. They have had grave effects on the children who have had all the signs of physical maturity without emotional maturity. Doctors are finding that the age of puberty is becoming lower and lower.

A long-term study is needed. Some people are blind to the problem because they want to be blind, but many of the wiser counsels and scientists attribute that early puberty to the use of growth promoters in meat and food.

I consider this directive with the greatest trepidation. I am not complacent. Synthetic hormone growth promoters are undoubtedly bad and should not be used in any foods.

I have the gravest doubts also about natural growth promoters. We are talking about a time bomb which will explode in about 20 or 30 years.

11.19 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)

The good news about the debate is that the House is showing a characteristically lively interest in EC matters. That is right and proper, and long may it be so.

I have enjoyed the privilege of serving in the European Parliament—I use the word "Parliament" in spite of the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about that term—and I have become well aware of the meaninglessness of the wording of much of that emanates from the EC.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary interpret the words in the motion for me? They are obscure, to say the least. European Community experts often seek to seduce us down the path of wording that tries to mean all things to all men, but ends up meaning nothing. The motion invites us to take full account of the interest of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry. One could almost add "Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all".

How can we take account of all those interests? In the good old days when the common agricultural policy was first revised, we were given a similar form of words which invited us to support the CAP because it would simultaneously serve the interests of the consumer and the producer, give fair prices and adequate supplies and do nearly everything else. Regrettably, the CAP has not fulfilled all those objectives; it cannot.

In the same way, it would be extremely diffiult, if not impossible, simultaneously to serve the interests of consumers and producers and the interests of the meat trade and the pharmaceutical, industry. We are constantly invited to subscribe to such formulae from the EC. At best, they are meaningless and, at worst, they are positively dangerous.

It is time that the Government stopped adhering to such formulae and started asking what we really mean. I should be happier if we came clean and said that we will serve the interests of either the consumers or the producers. It is rare that we can serve both at the same time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton mentioned implementation and policing. There is a danger that we shall be invited to implement a series of recommendation throughout the EC, but that they will eventually be implemented by only a few of the member states. We shall certainly implement them, the Dutch will almost certainly implement them, we can expect the Germans to implement them and the Danes will probably implement them. After that, one would have to draw a veil over most of the other member states. Yet again, we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage. As ever, we shall adhere to the strictest standards of control, inspection, quality and hygiene, but our competitors in the EC will probably not do the same.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House a guarantee that we shall not subscribe to the suggested new standards and regulations unless we are certain that the mechanisms exist to ensure that all other member states will simultaneously apply the standards at all times? If we can be given that assurance, we can support the motion. Otherwise, we should not support it.

11.23 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)

As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has hit the nail on the head. It is well known that I have not been a starry-eyed admirer of the way in which the Community has developed over the past 10 years, but almost everybody, however starry-eyed he might have been at the beginning, is seeing the Community in a different light.

The sort of standards that we have voluntarily accepted aver the years are not always accepted in other parts of the Community, especially when they impose a cost on the producer. We have seen hidden subsidies and state aids for producers in agriculture and horticulture. Milk quotas are not adhered to in France, and Italy has done almost nothing towards introducing a system of control. Similarly in poultry production, we shall continue to have high standards but will not be able to do much to extend them through out the Community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said in a cogent speech, we are putting our producers at a significant disadvantage. This is an opportunity to use our voice in the Council to assist our producers or at least to prevent them from being disadvantaged by unfair competion in the Community.

I should like to consider charging for health inspectors in the poultry industry. Under Community law, member states are not allowed to make a profit out of the levying of charges for health inspections. If that is so, the minimum and maximum charges must be according to the lowest common denominator. If that is so, as Britain has more expensive health checks, we must incur greater costs. If those costs fall on producers they will inevitably be put at a disadvantage. I cannot see why we should sanction that disparity for the indefinite future. Athough it would be open to the Council to decide rates of charge, which might vary, the history of the Community shows that, once an arrangement is institutionalised, it is the devil's own job to change it. If we now accept that there is to be a disparity of costs between this and other countries, it will be difficult to change that.

We must get the matter right at the beginning. If we cannot get it right now, we cannot depend on the good will of other Community members, which might not be as fussy as us about health standards. I implore the Government not to harmonise for the sake of harmonisation without getting it right at the start. As will have been seen from the interest in this debate, especially in Conservative Benches, there is grave disquiet among hon. Members whose constituents include poultry producers. They are looking to the Government to stand up for the British poultry producer and not to harmonise for the sake of it.

11.27 pm
Mrs. Fenner

The House has shown that it intends to give the Government its views on these matters before we make decisions on this package of proposals.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) referred to pay in Belgium and other countries and the differences between payments in various countries. That is the whole point of the directive—it does not do all of the things that we want it to, but at least it does something to ensure that a minimum charge is made throughout the Community.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned trenbolone and zeranol. The draft directive provides for approval of new active ingredients and products based on them. Approval of active ingredients will depend upon a qualified majority in the Council, but the United Kingdom will play a full part in the discussions leading up to such a decision and this is our opportunity to safeguard the interests of consumers and farmers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is concerned that the present costs of inspection of imported meat are met by the port health authorities, which find the cost from rates raised by local authorities. I promised my hon. Friend an authoritative answer. The proposal is to set a charge to meet the costs which will be paid by the meat importer. I reiterate that we are fighting for common standards, commonly enforced, and common pricing of a minimum charge is only the first step. But it is a first step. That covers the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham about the problem of different systems within countries.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton misunderstood me. Originally it was proposed that local authorities would have to cover any extra cost, but when the matter was rediscussed a proposal emerged which ensures that the local authorities can continue to obtain reimbursement for their costs as they do now. The Scrutiny Committee was very worried about that problem.

The hon. Member for City of Durham and my hon. Friends have properly pointed out the concern of the British Poultry Federation in this matter and we understand it well. As I said in a letter to the federation: When the subject was discussed at the Council this month, John MacGregor spoke strongly on both points, and we have maintained our reservation that standards should be harmonised before charges. As a result of our efforts, there is to be a discussion in the Standing Veterinary Committee later this month on the merits of the Commission's ideas on modified poultrymeat inspection. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends.

We are taking steps in the right direction. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has had to go, but I am sure that he will read my answer to his comment in Hansard. I fully understand the views of the British Poultry Federation. It believes that to resist the proposal now would provide a lever for obtaining harmonised inspection standards. We sympathise with that aim, and we are pressing for action in Brussels on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that he did not believe that charges should be made, but local authorities have had powers to charge for meat inspection in Britain for 20 years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments. Nothing is different.

I agree that we should obtain the best scientific evidence on hormone growth promoters and not disregard it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is anxious about the effects of hormone growth promoters. The motion puts consumers first. All additives to foods should be scrutinised with the greatest care, and hormones are a potential threat for two or three generations if they are abused. The United Kingdom Government make them available and avail themselves of the best scientific opinion before allowing the use of growth promoters. Moreover, the conditions of use are carefully limited by means of product licence conditions. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that ascribes the earlier age of adolescence to the use of growth promoters.

Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has had the privilege of serving in the European Assembly or Parliament—call it what my hon. Friends will. I went to the European Assembly specifically in order to serve consumers' interests, and as a nominated member to a producer-oriented system. Thus, I am well aware of the terms of the treaty of Rome, which mentions consumers. As a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I cannot possibly accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the interests of consumers, producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry are in some way incompatible. Every day I ensure compatibility of fairness as between traders, consumers and all the interests represented in my very diverse Ministry. I assure him that I do not find those interests incompatible, and I cannot agree with him about that.

I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that since 1981 we have been trying to secure just that prevention of distortion about which he spoke so forcefully. The level of the minimum charge is not in any way disadvantageous to us, because countries which have a lower level will not be paying the same. The point is that they will have to pay the same minimum charge. Community lawyers do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is no way in which this can be done because member states are not allowed to make a profit. They will have to comply with that minimum charge and our producers will not be placed at a disadvantage.

I do not know that I have succeeded, but I have tried to cover all the points that were made. The debate has certainly commanded great interest. The Government will carefully consider the arguments put today when the proposal comes before the Council. However, as I said when opening the debate, the setting of a minimum charge applicable throughout the Community might reasonably be seen as a positive first step towards promoting fairer competition between member states of the Community. I have emphasised that the Government support the argument that effective action must be taken to harmonise the standards of enforcement of the poultrymeat directive, and are pressing for urgent action by the Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7685/84, 76E6/84 and 7948/84; and]n respect of 7685/84 and 7686/84 supports the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions to trade; and in respect of 7948/84, supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure i:hat the provisions of any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.

    c1204
  1. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 24 words