§ 1 pm
§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)I welcome the opportunity to initiate a debate on the European Union ban on beef exports. When I spoke in the two-day debate on 16 May, I said that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis was a disaster for the farming industry. That disaster continues for many farmers who are struggling to keep going and plan for the future. There is, however, rather more clarity than there was seven weeks ago. The cull of cattle over 30 months is now fully under way, and there is some light at the end of the tunnel in respect of the European Union ban on beef exports.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture knows that, on five separate occasions, I have voiced my deep objections to the European Union worldwide ban on British beef exports. The Government have made it clear that they consider the ban illegal. I have made the point that, if we regard the worldwide ban as illegal, we should behave accordingly. The most appropriate response would be actively to promote the sale of British beef to third countries. Although we have made progress as a result of the Florence summit, we should not entirely dismiss that option, in case the EU proves rather less co-operative post-Florence than we expect it to be.
I was encouraged by the fact that, last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to set out a fairly specific timetable for the lifting of the export ban. Clearly, progress has been made with our European partners, and I have no doubt that the Government's policy of non-co-operation contributed to that, as it helped to concentrate minds. Without it, I have little doubt that our European partners would have maintained a complete ban on the export of British beef, with no prospect of it being lifted, if only because it helps their home farming industries.
It is somewhat ironic that the beef industries in some countries on the continent have suffered even more than our own. The EU's hasty and ill-judged ban on British beef exports contributed to the sense of crisis that has so reduced consumer confidence on the continent. However, French and Irish exporters—and no doubt others, too—are now supplying beef to many of the lucrative markets that British beef exporters have had to forgo.
Of course, we in Britain have been deeply upset by the EU ban on the export of British beef, but what has truly outraged so many people is not so much that British beef has been banned from sale to other EU member states, as that the EU has banned the sale of British beef to every other country in the rest of the world. I find that totally unacceptable.
§ Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)It is obnoxious.
§ Mr. RiddickAs my hon. Friend says, it is obnoxious, and I am pleased that the Government are challenging that aspect of the ban in the European courts. I also welcome the declaration in the presidency conclusions that the European Commission will consider any third country request for the supply of British beef.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I put on record exactly what the Florence European Council said in its presidency conclusions: 935
The presidency declared that if, in the meantime, a third country requests a supply of British beef exclusively for its domestic market, the request will be examined by the Commission within the overall framework after consulting the appropriate scientific and veterinary committees.
§ Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)Does that not suggest that we should swiftly seek evidence of progress? Do we not expect a determination in our favour by the European Court in a matter of days, or possibly a few weeks? However, my hon. Friend will know that President Mandela of South Africa is coming here next week. His visit will provide us with an opportunity to make an agreement to export beef to South Africa, and we would not expect the European Community to obstruct such an agreement.
§ Mr. RiddickI am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has prepared the ground for what I shall say later in my speech.
I remind the House exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on 24 June after the Florence summit:
the Commission will consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. If such requests come forward soon, I hope that, either through Commission procedures or the European Court case, exports from Britain to third countries will begin to flow".—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 22]When I have suggested that the British Government should simply ignore the worldwide ban, the response has been that there is no demand from overseas for British beef, and no orders have been received. I am pleased to tell the House that I have here a copy of a very firm order that was received by a British firm called First City Trading from a South African company called Brito's in Cape Province for 360 tonnes of frozen beef flanks. We have great difficulty in finding markets for beef flanks. The order amounts to 120 tonnes a month for July, August and September. The total value of the order is almost £250,000.My hon. Friend might be interested to know that, at the end of the order, the buyer adds:
For your information there is now a lot of French flanks being offered to this market as well as the normal Irish offers".I know that First City Trading, which is based in London, has purchased some beef from traders in Yorkshire, so I hope that the order will be delivered by one of the Yorkshire meat traders.The delivery of the order depends on the ability of the South African company to get an import licence from the South African Government. When the South Africa Agriculture Minister recently visited the country, he said:
We would like to have British beef back on our markets—safe as prescribed by British standards and by our standards.South African vets have looked extremely closely at all the controls imposed on the beef industry, and found them extremely rigorous. They believe that British beef is safe. I am confident, therefore, that the South African Government will be prepared to grant an import licence, but it is essential that we allow the beef to be exported in the first place.Following a little prompting from me during the debate on 16 May, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said: 936
Although it has not happened yet. if someone comes knocking at my door to say that he has an order from a third market, of course we shall consider that."—[Official Report, 16 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 1092.]The EU communiqué said much the same thing.
The South Africans want our beef, and believe it to he safe to eat. It is therefore a major test of the good faith of the European Commission and our European partners. If they stand in the way of the execution of export orders, they will be acting in bad faith.
The EU ban has been justified on the grounds of preventing deflections of trade—in other words, to stop exports to third countries from being re-exported back to the EU. In my view, that is disingenuous. Because of the enormous subsidy to exporters to bring the export prices down from the inflated CAP prices to world prices, elaborate systems must be undergone. Importing countries sign import entry certificates confirming that the beef is for home consumption. Furthermore, levies on imports into the European Union are higher than export refunds that exporters receive. In practice, therefore, to re-export to the EU would be costly and pointless, especially from a country as far away as South Africa.
As far as I am aware, this order is the first firm and specific one received from outside the EU since the beef crisis began. I hope and believe that the European Commission will allow it to be delivered, and that it is the beginning of the resumption of export trade, at least with third countries outside the EU.
Mr. Martin Richardson, the managing director of First City Trading Ltd., tells me that he has other customers in South Africa who would like to place orders for British beef, and that he has no doubt that he could drum up business from other countries. It is time that some semblance of normality in the export business was restored, and that Mr. Richardson and his colleagues were allowed to get on with what they know best: helping to improve Britain's balance of trade.
There is, however, one problem. First City Trading and other companies involved in the export business have been in danger of going out of business. Since taking an interest in the export business, I have been struck by how enormously complicated it is. We cannot afford to lose the expertise of people such as Mr. Richardson. Such expertise has taken some years to develop. Beef exporters are still having to take receipt of beef which was turned back from third countries before the crisis blew up.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that beef exporters have requested that they be included in the compensation scheme, and the Government need to consider that request, for two reasons. First, we do not want expertise that has been built up and encouraged by Government policy, which has provided subsidies, to disappear, because it would take a long time to rebuild.
Secondly, if the beef exporters find that they are unable to pay their export refunds, their guarantors, which are mainly banks and insurance companies, will be approached. That could have a serious effect on the confidence of banks and insurance companies in providing guarantees for any other goods under the common agricultural policy. Will my hon. Friend address that point? The simplest solution could be for the Government to buy the beef that has been returned to this country.
Getting the export ban lifted is an important part of the process of restoring full consumer confidence in British beef. There has been an increase in the use of imported 937 beef in this country in recent months, especially in the catering trade. Some of the farmers in my constituency have asked me, "How do we know whether beef from Argentina, Australia or Botswana is as safe and as rigorously regulated as it is in this country?" The answer is that we probably do not know.
§ Mr. John Sykes (Scarborough)Are there not vast numbers of unreported cases of BSE-infected cattle in France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria? Does that not mean, therefore, that, not only is there probably as much danger in eating European beef, but it is much safer to eat British beef, especially from Yorkshire?
§ Mr. RiddickYes, especially from Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend, who is also from Yorkshire, says. He makes his own point. Many of us in the House have suspicions that the incidence of BSE is grossly unreported on the continent, but it is obviously difficult to make that stand up.
Bearing in mind that we want to regenerate trade in this country, there is an argument for refusing to import beef from EU countries that do not have the same specified bovine offal controls as us. Will the Minister consider that?
I would also have thought that there was a strong case for imposing a ban on the importation of any beef from cattle over 30 months old. I think that I am right in saying that, at the moment, some countries are exempt from the 30-month ban, and can export to this country. Most important, we want to stimulate sales of British beef in the home market, and in particular increase the throughput of below 30-month-old cattle. Such trade is still fairly sluggish, and farmers, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well, are receiving much lower prices at auction than they were before the crisis began.
When I met an auctioneer from Cornwall a few weeks ago, he impressed on me the need to introduce deficiency payments to encourage farmers to take their beasts to market and help to reduce prices—thereby stimulating sales of British beef. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has been arguing for something similar. Such a system would encourage people to eat more beef, and would lead to fewer beasts being kept until they were 30 months old, then needlessly destroyed and wasted. I do not know whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has considered that, but if it has not, along with the European Commission, it should do so in detail.
When I spoke in the debate in May, I urged the Government to take swift action to get exemptions for the slower maturing breeds, and I am dismayed that there appears to have been no progress on that front.
I am glad of this opportunity to raise some of the issues concerned with the EU's worldwide ban on British beef exports. I hope that the European Commission will respond positively to the order that I have announced. If it does not, the Government will have to consider what action they can take to resume exports. Unilateral action may be necessary, but hopefully, it will not come to that.
Members of Parliament, and all those who have the interests of British farming at heart, should take every opportunity to reiterate that British beef is safe to eat. The link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is not 938 proven. The incidence of CJD is no higher in this country than in any EU country. Indeed, it is lower than in many other countries.
The measures that the Government have progressively taken, especially the ban on specified bovine offal, mean that all offal that could harbour BSE is removed from cattle at slaughter. The latest move to ban the sale of meat from animals over 30 months old is a further precaution that should reassure consumers that British beef really is safe to eat. I know that many Opposition Members do not like to send that positive message to their constituents, but Conservative Members do, and I hope that this short debate will be seen as having made a positive contribution to the future fortunes of the British beef industry.
§ Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for allowing me to speak. I shall make four points as briefly as I can, without being discourteous to those on whose behalf I make the points.
A farmer of mine, like many farmers in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, is a rearer of stock, and is finding it very difficult to place stock for slaughter easily and quickly. His name is Andrew Naylor, and I shall write to my hon. Friend the Minister about his difficulties, because they are very complicated. We might be talking about a farmer having problems with only two, three, four or five animals, but the problem is widespread, and concerns many millions of animals across the country. It is very difficult for such farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned the South African veterinarians who have monitored BSE in this country, and found that everything we have done is satisfactory. I was distressed to see on the front page of yesterday's edition of The Times that, far from monitoring what we have done and disseminating information on the action taken on BSE in this country, the European Union seems to have deliberately—
§ Sir Donald ThompsonIt has not ignored that information, as my hon. Friend says, but has suppressed its dissemination not only to the Commission but to the European Parliament. It is therefore no wonder that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made his announcement, the European Parliament and the Commission considered it a bombshell. In fact, the introduction to the statement was careful and gentle, and full information had been given, which should have instilled confidence in the European Parliament and the Commission over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned exports. When we think of exports, we always think of prime steak and the roast beef of old England, but there are two very important exports on which thousands of jobs in Britain depend. One is pet food. I say "jobs in Britain", because pet food is manufactured all over the United Kingdom, and takes 60 to 80 per cent. of the European market. British pet food in cans—beef—is now prohibited, as are hamburgers and beefburgers.
939 For a number of technical reasons with which I shall not bore the House, it transpires that, partly because meat from young bulls is not used, British beef is the best for making hamburgers and beefburgers. As the Minister knows, hamburgers and beefburgers from reputable companies are made of top-quality meat—first-class forequarters from young animals.
That market has been strangled by the ban on exports to Europe and to the rest of the world. Like the markets that my hon. Friend mentioned, the hamburger and beefburger market is most important to all our farmers. The more quickly the illogical ban is lifted, the better.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on securing a debate on this important subject, and I have listened with great interest to the information that he has brought before the House.
The European Union ban introduced on 27 March on exports of all British beef and beef products, not only to other member states but to all third countries, was most unwelcome. More than that, it was completely unjustified—and in our view illegal, too. The ban affects a great many people in the United Kingdom. Beef farmers and many others in the industry, such as abattoir operators, transporters and meat exporters, have all found their trading opportunities greatly reduced. In many cases, that has had significant detrimental effects on their livelihoods.
In the United Kingdom, our highest priority with regard to BSE has always been the protection of public health, as my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley and for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) have both carefully explained. That is why we have had in place in the public domain for many years stringent controls, especially controls on specified bovine offals, to protect the public from any possible risk of BSE.
Only now have other member states with significant amounts of BSE in their herds started to introduce similar measures to protect their own public, and most other member states still have no similar measures in place. I do not take that situation lightly, and I am vigorously pursuing with the Commission the reality of the situation in all member states.
Of course, the rules that apply to the production of meat for the domestic market apply equally to the production of meat for export. We have in place measures to protect British consumers, which also protect consumers in our export markets. I remind the House what the chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has said as a result of the stringent controls that we have put in place:
In any common usage of the word, British beef is safe.I hope that that fulfils the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley that we should continue to say that, and to explain the situation at every opportunity.The chairman's view has been echoed by independent international bodies, including the World Health Organisation, the International Animal Health Organisation and the OIE—and, indeed, the Commission's own Standing Veterinary Committee.
940 Thus, the export ban imposed on Britain by the EU cannot be justified on public health grounds. We already have in place the measures thought by all the experts to be necessary to protect public health from the risk of BSE, both here and in our export markets.
The Government have taken vigorous action to get the export ban lifted. First, we have challenged the ban before the European Court of Justice. Our application for interim relief, for immediate suspension of the ban or elements of it, has already been heard, and our case was presented most forcefully by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. We expect to hear the results of the hearing shortly.
We have also taken a parallel approach, applying political and diplomatic pressure to have the ban lifted. In that complex technical area, it is most important that policy should go forward on an objective and scientifically justified basis. That is the basis for our domestic policy on BSE, and that is what we look for from the rest of Europe.
It was therefore most regrettable that, when the Commission put forward proposals to relax the ban on beef derivatives—proposals based clearly on advice from the Standing Veterinary Committee—they were rejected by some member states. That led to our reluctantly operating a policy of non co-operation until two specific objectives had been met—first, the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, and secondly, the agreeing of a clear framework for the lifting of the wider ban.
I was grateful to note that the policy of non-co-operation was welcomed by my hon. Friends, and that policy has proved successful. Within a month, having seen no movement whatever in the preceding two months, we have achieved our twin objectives,
Our first objective was achieved on 10 June, when the ban on beef derivatives was lifted. On 19 June, the Standing Veterinary Committee gave unanimous approval to our plan to hasten the eradication of BSE. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 24 June, the European summit at Florence, also unanimously, accepted the framework and procedures put forward by the Commission for lifting the ban, which in turn were based closely on our own proposals.
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)Will the Minister give way?
§ Mrs. BrowningI am sorry, but no.
One important element of the Florence agreement is that all parties agreed that, in future, steps towards lifting the ban would be taken
only and exclusively on the basis of the public health and objective scientific criteriaand of the judgment of the Commission. So we now have—
§ Mrs. BrowningNo, I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
So we now have a clear framework for lifting the ban. That is most welcome, and shows the way ahead to achieving the objective of lifting the ban, which I am sure is supported by everyone in the House. There are various 941 steps that we must achieve before the ban is removed, and we are working flat out to deliver them. Their successful operation will then be demonstrated to the Commission, which in turn will produce proposals to relax successive elements of the ban. We look to other member states then to fulfil their Florence commitments. I hope that that will meet with the approval of the House. It is important that other states keep their side of the bargain.
There are five main elements in the move towards lifting the ban. The first two constitute the removal of the ban on the export first of beef from certain certified herds, and secondly of calves born after a certain date. We regret that there has been a delay in introducing the certified herds and mature beef scheme, but I hope that we shall not have to wait much longer. SEAC has asked to consider certain aspects of the scheme, and we hope to hear the results before the week is out. When we get the green light from the committee, we shall be ready to go with the scheme as quickly as possible.
We hope to be in a position to tell the Commission that we have met the necessary conditions on those elements by October. We have completed public consultation on the beef assurance scheme, and we shall introduce it as soon as possible. We also need to clear the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter in the 30-months-plus scheme, and to start the accelerated slaughter of cattle especially at risk of developing BSE. We are well advanced with both. By the end of this week, more than 200,000 animals will have come through the 30-months-plus scheme, and we shall issue a paper today beginning a seven-day consultation on the accelerated slaughter scheme.
Removal of the ban in those first two areas would reopen an export market worth initially about £100 million a year, and the value should increase rapidly thereafter as the certified herd scheme gains momentum. Also by October, we look to the Commission to come forward with proposals for relaxing the ban on the export of embryos, subject to the advice of the Standing Veterinary Committee.
The fourth and most significant element is the removal of the ban on the export of meat from all animals under the age of 30 months. That is, of course, the beef that we 942 most readily and enjoyably eat here in Britain. We should be in a position to meet the necessary conditions to lift that element of the ban by November.
It is evident that there are many countries, not only in Europe but all over the world—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned South Africa—with which we have enjoyed good trading relationships and to which we have exported our excellent beef, sometimes in large amounts, in the past. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has brought to the House tangible evidence of other countries' determination to reinstate their imports of British beef.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister secured the agreement of the other Heads of Government that the Commission should be required to consider individual requests from third countries to buy British beef exclusively for their domestic markets. We know that not only South Africa but other countries want to do that. In particular, we have been discussing with the South African Government the conditions that would satisfy them so that they would allow British beef to be sold there.
I assure my hon. Friend that the order that he has brought to the attention of the House will immediately become part of the subject matter of those discussions. We shall not rest until we have given the South African Government all the further help they need to reassure them about any elements on which they require further information. I hope that this order will be one of many from countries seeking to re-establish their market with the United Kingdom.
Restoring the beef trade is extremely important, but I cannot give the House assurances about compensation for those people who have had stocks returned from abroad. They will know that Coopers and Lybrand's second report has been published. We are helping those concerned with the disposal of such stocks but, regrettably, I cannot offer compensation in terms of reimbursement.
It is important that we re-establish the sale of British beef, both domestically and abroad. We are doing well in the sale of hindquarters in the UK, and we are pressing on with policies to try to promote the sale of forequarters at home. Equally important is the issue of third-country exports, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for bringing this important information and order to the Floor of the House.