Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Hansard, 9 May 1996)

§ 5. Mr. Dowd
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met farmers' representatives to discuss bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [27459]

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
We meet frequently.

§ Mr. Dowd
In those frequent meetings—I do not know how recent they are—have the farmers' representatives given the Minister any idea that they are now satisfied that the confusion and chaos surrounding the introduction of the 30-month culling programme last week have been overcome? If not, can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the programme is now working as it was intended to work? On the broader question of the international ban on beef products, is it not the case that if the Government had acted with dispatch and urgency, when the ban was first imposed by countries such as the United States and Australia, much of the pain, grief and hardship of the past eight weeks could have been avoided?

§ Mr. Hogg
When I attend the Council, one of the problems I have to face is the fact that the remarks by some Opposition Members are always played back to me. We must not underestimate the ill effects of intemperate language by, for example, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). The hon. Gentleman asked about the 30-month slaughter policy. It is picking up and it is important that we get it running fully effectively. I hope that we shall shortly be able to slaughter at the rate of about 25,000 animals a week.

§ Sir John Cope
Will my right hon. and learned Friend help our farmers' representatives to get across to their continental counterparts the fact that continental Governments' actions and statements during this difficult period have damaged their domestic beef markets more than our Government's statements and actions have damaged the market here? It is important for continental farmers and continental Ministers to realise that fact, because once they do they will have a much greater incentive to lift the beef ban and to take different action. The damage to their markets has been much greater, whereas our Government's actions have helped to protect the domestic beef market here, despite the scaremongering to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.

§ Mr. Hogg
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that beef consumption has fallen further in some member states than here. It is in those member states' interests that the ban should be lifted. The discussion and the argument surrounding the ban, always public at the time of the Agriculture Council and continuously in the newspapers both here and abroad, are not only unjustified, but positively damaging to the interests of member states and their agriculture, so I share my right hon. Friend's views.

§ Mr. Salmond
What assessment does the Minister make of any Commission recommendation to lift the ban on beef by-products? Would he argue that that is an admission of the principle of the resumption of exports and could be the first step in leading all exports back on to European markets? If that is the position, is he prepared to argue the case for Scotland and Northern Ireland and our quality beef production, a case in which interest has been shown and for which sympathy has been expressed by many European farm Ministers?
Finally, on the subject of loose tongues, will the Minister remind his Back Benchers and those who have been speculating about trade wars that, although the United Kingdom as a whole has a substantial deficit 356 with the rest of Europe, Scotland has a substantial surplus, and that in Scotland—and, I believe, in Northern Ireland—we are more interested in getting our beef back on to European markets than in the internal politics of the Conservative party?

§ Mr. Hogg
The Commission proposals to relax the ban in relation to gelatine, tallow and semen, are justified by scientific evidence, and I hope that next week's standing veterinary committee meeting will endorse the Commission proposals. It is true that one could proceed step by step thereafter, leading, I hope, to a swift lifting of the ban entirely. In that context, we are considering the concept of establishing certification for mature herds, in terms both exempting them from the 30-month rule here and of constituting another step in the relaxation of the ban. Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland in particular would benefit from that latter approach, so the scheme would be of particular value both to Scotland and to Northern Ireland.

§ Sir Jim Spicer
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the farming community has welcomed the letter he sent it last weekend, but can he give us any indication of when farmers will know when their cattle due for slaughter will be called forward? We are having a late spring, food stocks are appallingly low and farmers are worried stiff that they will have to keep cattle probably for another five or six weeks without knowing what is happening.

§ Mr. Hogg
It is not within the capacity of MAFF to organise the prioritisation of cattle for slaughter. That can be done only between marts, abattoirs and farmers. The Ministry cannot determine a ranking system for that purpose. What is important, however, is to ensure that the rendering industry is capable of rendering to its maximum capacity as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently had encouraging discussions with the rendering industry, especially yesterday. It is also important that we should try to increase the throughput of the slaughterhouses by providing, for example, cold storage facilities so that carcases which cannot at present be rendered can be taken into cold storage.

§ Dr. Strang
Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's objective to eliminate BSE from our cattle? He has made it clear this afternoon that the Government still believe that the cause of that terrible disease is contaminated feed. Has he had an opportunity to consider my request for an investigation into the fact that two thirds of the new cases of BSE are in cattle born after the feed ban, which came into operation eight years ago? Surely there could be great benefit in tracing the cause of those cases. What have we got to lose by trying to find out precisely how those animals came to eat contaminated feed?

§ Mr. Hogg
I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has raised with me. I have today signed a letter to him setting out my considered conclusions. I am sorry that he has not yet received it. We are confident that the reason for the disease in calves born after the ban was contaminated feedstuffs. That is why in April we imposed a total prohibition on the incorporation of any mammalian 357 protein into food rations for any farm animals. By that step I think that we have removed the possibility of, in any sense, contaminated rations being fed to cattle. That is a step change which should lead to a steady eradication of the condition in the British herd.

§ Mr. John Townend
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the British public are rapidly losing patience with the Europeans? If they continue to procrastinate over lifting the ban, despite the fact that the Agriculture Commissioner has said that there is nothing wrong with British beef, is not the time rapidly approaching when we should take retaliatory action? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a bigger problem in cost and overall effect on this country than when Argentina occupied the Falklands? If we had dilly-dallied then as we are now, the Falklands would still be occupied.

§ Mr. Hogg
My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that public and political opinion are running out of patience with member states' refusal to lift the ban. That is entirely true. It is something that I impress on Agriculture Ministers whenever I meet them—for example, at the informal Council at the beginning of this week. When my hon. Friend talks about retaliation, I hope that he will ask himself whether whatever retaliation he has in mind would be more or less likely to advance our interests than the present policy of seeking to obtain by persuasion a relaxation of the ban. One should not do anything that would be positively injurious to our interests.