BSE (Hansard, 21 January 1997)

§ Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3186), dated 18th December 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.

§ Madam Speaker
I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3184), dated 18th December 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.

§ Dr. Strang
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not be surprised to hear that the Opposition have tabled the prayer in order to debate this important subject, although we do not intend to vote against the selective slaughter programme.
The selective slaughter scheme that the House is debating tonight is part of the Florence agreement that the Prime Minister accepted in June. The House will recall that the Prime Minister said that the Florence agreement meant that all the conditions for lifting the beef export ban would be met by last October. However, today the beef ban is in place 100 per cent. and the Government have delayed progress for six months.
In September, the Government announced that they would not meet their side of the Florence agreement after all. Ministers gave various reasons for the delay, citing, first, the new scientific work available. However, as we pointed out at the time, any new scientific evidence simply meant that we could have a more effectively targeted selective slaughter scheme and certainly did not justify the Government's reneging on the Florence agreement.
The Minister also gave as an excuse the statement that the backlog in the Government's over-30-months scheme meant that there was not the abattoir capacity to begin a selective slaughter programme. I make the point that the enormous backlog—in October last year, it was estimated at 400,000 animals—was the Government's fault. They were responsible for the chaos. We appeal to the Government to ensure that the implementation of this slaughter scheme is operated considerably more efficiently and without all the problems that surrounded the OTMS.
Secondly, I do not accept that if the political will had been there, the Government could not have made some progress towards implementing the Florence agreement. The Minister admitted in December that no attempt had been made during the six-month delay even to identify the animals that were likely to be slaughtered under the selective slaughter programme. Valuable time was wasted.
The final reason that the Minister gave for the six months in limbo was that if we went ahead with our side of the Florence agreement, the European Union would not meet its side of the bargain and start to lift the beef ban. That is the most important question that the Minister must answer tonight. Now that the Government have done a U-turn on the Florence agreement, what hope can he offer 843 our beef industry, our farmers and our food industry that the European beef ban will be lifted? Does the Minister care to follow the Prime Minister's example of last June and give us a timetable for the lifting of the ban?
The Government have still not submitted the working paper to the European Commission regarding the lifting of the ban on certified herds. I trust that the Minister will enlighten us on that. Indeed, if Radio 4 was correct this morning, I trust that he will advise us that the formal submission will go ahead and that progress can be made so that we can at least achieve quickly the first step of allowing the export of beef from certified herds and then have the whole ban lifted.
It is a terrible day for our livestock industry when Parliament has to agree that thousands of productive animals are to be slaughtered. It is vital that the selective slaughter programme is carried out sensitively. Some farmers and herdsmen will deeply resent the fact that animals that have not reached the end of their working lives are to be compulsorily killed. The cattle, some of them high-value pedigree animals, will have been a source of great pride to the herdsmen and farmers involved.
The Ministry must adopt a flexible approach to minimise the damage to farm businesses, accommodating concerns such as the operation of the milk quota scheme, and seeking to ensure that any herd involved in the compulsory slaughter is treated in such a way that farm businesses do not lose out in terms of fulfilling the milk quota. There is also the quota for suckler cow herds. It would be wrong if businesses were penalised through a reduction in the suckler cow quota as a result of animals being slaughtered under the programme. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the flexibility will enable them to avoid not only a reduction in quota but losing out on any suckler cow premium payments as a result of the scheme.
The House will also be aware that there is concern about the definition that the Government are using to determine herd size. If more than 10 per cent. of the animals in a herd are to be slaughtered, the compensation is so much higher and a premium is payable. There is great concern, however, that on this occasion the Government have, unusually, chosen to include for the first time heifers in calf. That will reduce the number of herds that qualify, in terms of over 10 per cent. of the animals being taken.
The Minister will be aware of many of the concerns about which the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have written to us. I trust that he will address these in the course of the debate. I must also impress upon the Minister that the highest standards of animal welfare must be upheld during the implementation of the programme.
There is the issue of maternal transmission. The Minister will remember that the Oxford study paper, which was published by Roy Anderson and his colleagues, included an assumption of maternal transmission. Indeed, Roy Anderson and his colleagues advised that the most effective targeting scheme would make some allowance for such transmission, albeit on a small scale. Is it the Minister's intention that if there is no change in the present fairly inconclusive position, and bearing in mind the evidence that will become available in February or March, nothing will be built into the targeting to include maternal transmission? It would be 844 helpful if the Minister cast further light on the matter. As he knows, the Ministry has made it clear in its consultation document that a decision will be taken in February or March.
I know that many Members wish to speak in the debate. In conclusion, I remind the House that there can be no doubt that we would not be facing a crisis on such a scale had it not been for the fact that successive Conservative Governments throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s delayed in regulating to protect human and animal health. Above all, they failed abysmally to implement and enforce the regulations that they had put in place.
As I have said, it is a terrible day when the House has to agree to the slaughter of thousands of our cattle. However, the industry is facing a crisis on a huge scale.

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Dr. Strang
This is a short debate that will continue for only one and a half hours. To allow as many hon. Members to speak as possible, representing as they do the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and all political parties, I do not intend to give way.
This is a terrible day. I am sure that the House accepts, however, that we must sanction the slaughter of so many productive cattle. The industry is facing a crisis and the worldwide ban on the export of beef and beef imports is inflicting enormous damage and is costing thousands of jobs and damaging livelihoods. The only mechanism available to us to get the ban lifted is to implement the Florence agreement, and for that reason we believe that the Government are right to set about putting into effect the selective slaughter programme of that agreement.

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg)
The House has discussed the selective cull on a number of occasions and is well acquainted with the issues. Furthermore, the time allocated for debate is short. Therefore, my intention is to be brief.
There are two statutory instruments before the House. The first is the Selective Cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations 1996 and the second is the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996.
The House will be aware that there is another order, the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1996, which provides the powers to restrict and slaughter animals. That order is not subject to parliamentary procedure, but was made available in draft to hon. Members last summer when we discussed the cull before the summer recess.
The selective cull compensation regulations, if I might so describe them for brevity, make provision for the enforcement of certain requirements of the relevant Commission regulation, which itself provides for European Union co-financing of the compensation. The requirements relate to the slaughter, treatment and disposal of animals subject to the cull. They are identical to those for the over-30-months scheme. These regulations create offences and specify penalties.
The other order is the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1996, which revokes and replaces the 1994 order. It contains new 845 provisions that prescribe the amount of compensation payable for animals slaughtered under the selective cull. The compensation arrangements are based on the proposals that we discussed last summer with farming organisations and others. In drawing up those compensation proposals, we have tried to strike a balance between reflecting the cost to the farmer and avoiding overcompensation. Although it has been difficult to strike that balance, I believe that we have got it about right.

§ Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on pressing ahead with the selective cull. I hope that our partners in Europe will respond on their part of the deal. I put it to him that, until the tracing arrangements for the cull have been fully completed, we will not know what the impact will be on particular herds. On compensation, will he consider sympathetically any cases that may emerge of herds that turn out to be particularly badly affected?

§ Mr. Hogg
I am about to give details of the compensation. I suspect that my hon. Friend has in mind the problems that may be experienced by the closed herd and the suckler cow herd. I shall deal with that in the next few moments.
I shall briefly summarise the compensation provisions. For male animals, compensation will be at the market value. For female animals, it will be 90 per cent. of the replacement value or the market value, whichever is the higher. That is in recognition of the point put to us by farming organisations last year that replacements may cost more than the present value of the animal to be replaced.
In addition, a top-up payment will be available for herds that lose more than 10 per cent. of their productive animals. That is designed to meet the concerns of farming organisations, by recognising the dislocation to the business during the re-establishment of the herds. It will be available to suckler herds as well as to dairy herds. The top-up is subject to a ceiling of £250 per animal, which reflects a maximum deemed value for top-up purposes of £1,000.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this saga has caused enormous anxiety and concern among farmers, including many in my constituency? Will he explain why he has adopted such an arbitrary and artificial definition of a herd, and why the top-up calculations are so restrictive?

§ Mr. Hogg
We have to define a herd for the purposes of the regulations. In defining a herd, we have taken into account the productive animals. That seems sensible. I suspect that what is on my hon. Friend's mind is the inclusion in the definition of in-calf heifers. If we were not to include in-calf heifers in the definition of a herd, the compensation payable to a farmer would depend on the exact moment that the veterinary experts visited the farm. That would create a difference between a farm where the heifers had not calved and a farm where they had calved. That disparity would be impossible to justify.
As to the basis of the top-up, in the end we must make a judgment. There are two elements to the compensation that we will pay. First, there is the full value for the beast itself; and then there is the top-up in respect of the 846 dislocation. We must strike a balance. I believe that we have struck it fairly, but clearly it is a matter on which people have a variety of views. I am persuaded that the balance is a fair one.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend's explanation in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Surely the issue of in-calf heifers is just as complicated at one end of the scale as it is at the other. It is just as complicated for inspectors to adjudicate on whether the in-calf heifer is to be included as it is to decide whether the heifer has conceived or not. Does the Minister concede that it is most unusual—unprecedented, in fact—to include in-calf heifers in such an equation?

§ Mr. Hogg
There is much that is unprecedented in this matter, not least the slaughtering of healthy beasts, but we have done our best to be fair. My hon. Friend might consider this question: why should in-calf heifers not be included in the definition of a productive herd? I have had to consider the argument both ways, and I have concluded that it is fair to include in-calf heifers, for the reasons that I have given.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hogg
I am going to make a little progress; then I will give way.

§ Mr. Marlow
It is on that point—

§ Mr. Hogg
I am going to make a little more progress; then I will give way.
I have been talking about the valuation for individual beasts, but I also mentioned the question of the top-up. Closed herds will receive one and a half times the normal top-up payments, which is intended to reflect the greater difficulties that are likely to be experienced by owners of such herds in obtaining replacement animals, and hence a longer period of disruption.

§ Mr. Marlow
May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and ask how it is possible to know whether a heifer is in calf or is about to return to service? Must a pregnancy test be carried out, or what?
In the case of pedigree breeding stock of high value, in terms of thousands of pounds, will farmers be compensated to the extent of that value?

§ Mr. Hogg
A distinction needs to be made between the compensation paid in respect of top-up, and the compensation paid in respect of the individual beast. For top-up there is a ceiling value of £1,000, which means that each animal can attract a payment not exceeding £250. Compensation for the beast itself, however, will be at full value as at the date of valuation, in accordance with the formula that I have already outlined. As for whether or not a heifer is in calf, that will be a matter for determination during the visit to the farm by the veterinary expert, as a result of the consultation that will take place between the farmer and the expert.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Hogg
I will make a little more progress; then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
847 We fully appreciate that, despite these measures, the coming months will be difficult for many of the farmers affected by the cull; so we will try to be as sensitive and flexible as possible in the general conduct of that cull. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) asked about that. The operation of the cull will be explained to and discussed with farmers, and veterinary officers will endeavour to keep them fully informed about discussions affecting their businesses.
It is clearly in our interests, and those of the industry as a whole, to complete the cull as rapidly as we can. Our aim is to complete it within six months, but, within that overall aim—

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Hogg
I will finish this section of my speech, and then give way to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
Within that overall aim, where it is reasonably possible, we shall try to take farmers' wishes into account when timing the slaughter on individual farms. For example, when a cow is in calf we may discuss with the farmer the possibility of delaying slaughter until it has calved, and the calf can properly be separated from its dam. If a farmer is to lose a large proportion of his herd, we could consider slaughtering in two groups rather than slaughtering all the cattle together.

§ Mr. Hardy
I may be wrong, but I suspect that the deep anxieties of dairy farmers may be more nearly met by these various arrangements than those of the beef producers, particularly the small ones. The Minister was kind enough to give way and allow me to make a similar point some months ago. Does he not appreciate that the smaller beef producer facing the "upper millstone" of the economic effect of the BSE crisis and the "lower millstone" of the disintensification policy that the Ministry is pursuing could threaten the smaller farmer, and imperil entry into, and maintenance of interest in, farming among such people? That itself would appear to contradict Government policy. Will the Minister re-examine the position of those smaller beef producers, to ensure that they are not ruined by the performances of the past year or so?

§ Mr. Hogg
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. Leaving aside payments made under the 30-months scheme, which have gone a long way towards underpinning the market, we have made available about £265 million in direct support of beef producers. Markets have recovered somewhat over the past few months, although I accept that they are at a lower level than they were before the crisis.
Looking forward, it is clear that there will have to be a change in farming practice. The consumer is expecting a change from the past and I suspect that there is an imbalance between production and consumption that will have to be addressed. As I have said, I do not take the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
Over the holiday period, the Minister with responsibility for Scottish agriculture made an optimistic statement about 848 the prospects for the return of Scottish beef to European markets. He even estimated the percentage of the market that could perhaps be recaptured when that return was allowed. I have been trying to work out the basis for that optimism. Will the Minister give his estimate of the date on which that return might be realised, as the Prime Minister has done? Given the measures that have been put in place, on what date does the Minister expect Scottish beef to return to European markets?

§ Mr. Hogg
I shall shortly outline the steps that we intend to take with the European Commission to secure a relaxation of the ban. However, our optimism is based on the high quality of Scottish beef, a factor that is acknowledged throughout Europe.

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson
The Minister says that he expects the cull to be completed in approximately six months. Does he mean that in that time the cull and the disposal process of the slaughtered beasts will be completed, bearing it in mind that so far a mere 3.8 per cent. of those disposed of under the 30-months scheme have been finally incinerated?

§ Mr. Hogg
By the cull, I mean the slaughter. There are large quantities of beef, particularly as a result of the 30-months scheme, in cold storage and it will take a long time to dispose of that. When I mentioned six months, it was in relation to the slaughter programme and did not relate to the beef in cold storage plants.
I shall now deal with maternal transmission. What we are discussing does not include measures in relation to maternal transmission, if I may use the jargon. I hope that we shall have a clearer view in February or March about whether there is true maternal transmission. When we have that evidence, we will be better able to determine whether it would be right to seek to add to the numbers contemplated under the present arrangements to take account of potential maternal transmission. At this time I am unable to say whether we shall seek to extend the cull to reflect possible maternal transmission. That will depend on our assessment of the scientific evidence that I hope will be available in two or three months.

§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Hogg
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I should like to make some more progress.
Subject to the House agreeing the statutory instruments, I currently expect the first visits to farms in Great Britain to begin tracing cattle to take place in the next few days. The first visits will be to the natal herds—those in which BSE cattle were born. After that it will be a matter of tracing any animals that have moved from those herds. Our aim is to complete the process of tracing and culling the affected cohorts within six months. That is the matter on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) sought further clarification. The tracing of animals moved out of these cohorts might take a little longer.
As I have said, I recognise that the cull will create uncertainty and upheaval for many of those farmers affected, and that it represents an interference with their 849 private property. Nevertheless I commend it to the House because, without it, there is no prospect of any lifting of the export ban on United Kingdom beef. I am pleased to see that that point is now generally accepted by farming organisations and by my colleagues in the House, including the Opposition.
By implementing the cull, all five of the preconditions in the Florence agreement will be met and it will allow us to move to the second part of the agreement which sets out the procedures for a relaxation of the ban. We are ready with a proposal for a certified herds scheme to submit to the Commission. I anticipate submitting our proposals early next month. I must tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that it would be presumptuous of me to submit any proposals to the Commission before getting the clearance and approval of the House, which is what I am seeking and which I regard as a necessary precondition to the next step.
Our certified herds scheme would permit exports of meat and meat products from animals whose movements are fully documented and which could be certified as having no association with BSE. Once we have secured agreement on such exports, we shall aim to move on rapidly to other categories, such as animals born after a given date. In other words, we regard certified herds as being the first step in the relaxation of an unjustified ban on British beef and beef products.

§ Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)
In seeking the approval of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the cost of the scheme to the British taxpayer? Am I right in thinking that it is an entirely a United Kingdom cost and does not involve any refund from the Community? On the terms that have been set out, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me what the Government are putting forward as funds to meet the cost of the scheme?

§ Mr. Hogg
The net cost is about £120 million. My right hon. Friend is not entirely right to say that there is no co-financing. There is co-financing to about 70 per cent. of market value. That does not take account of all the elements of compensation encompassed within the compensation scheme. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that I talked about 70 per cent. of market value and he will recall what I said about top-up and about the fact that replacement value is one of the benchmarks for calculating compensation. The recovery is based on market value. As I have said, doing the best we can, the net cost will be about £120 million.

§ Mr. Welsh
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Hogg
No, because I have given way to the hon. Gentleman's party already.
On the basis of my comments, I commend the statutory instruments to the House.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
I believe that all hon. Members would prefer not to have to debate this issue, but here we are. Many of us have to take a serious and sober attitude towards this issue as we represent many livestock farmers.
850 A farmer in Cornwall wrote to me yesterday saying: It is a very dangerous precedent to kill healthy animals on this basis, a thing the United Kingdom has never done. I believe that that is the view of many hon. Members.
There are only two possible justifications for the action: first, that it will accelerate the eradication of BSE in the British beef herd and, secondly, that it will accelerate the reopening of the worldwide beef export opportunities. It must be on both counts that we test the statements made by the Minister today.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall the words of the Prime Minister on his return from Florence. He said: It is now up to us in this country—the farming and ancillary industries and the Government—to ensure that we meet them. The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands.—[Official Report, 24 June 1996; Vol. 280, c. 22.] When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be more specific about the timetable that he sees ahead of us as a result of the action that he is asking the House to take. To justify it, the Government have to believe that this scheme will accelerate both the eradication of BSE and the reopening of the export markets.
Some important questions were left unanswered. First, after Florence, why did Ministers not at least consult the industry so that they could move as quickly as possible as soon as the legislative process had been completed, so that we would not have these last-minute glitches? Six months have been lost during which such consultation could have taken place and uncertainty could have been removed. As it is, livestock farmers have found their business plans totally up in the air because they were not able to plan ahead.
Secondly, will the cull be managed in the same way as the over-30-months scheme? As yet, we have had no answer to that question. On 16 December, when the Minister made a statement on the subject, I asked him whether the accelerated cull would be by competitive tender, enabling the participation of all those slaughterhouses—they are represented by Members on both sides of the House—that have been squeezed out of the over-30-months cull and have lost out disastrously as a result. I was given no answer. When I raised that matter in the debate on the Christmas Adjournment on 18 December, the Leader of the House assured me that he would put that point to the Ministers responsible and get an answer, to ensure that there was no profiteering out of the new programme as there has been with the over-30-months scheme. I have had no answer as yet, nor have I heard one today.
Thirdly, what notice have Ministers taken of the response from the farming organisations to the Government's consultation document? The definitions in paragraph 11 are still incredibly vague, causing widespread concern. There is considerable concern at the apparent mismatch of cohort years with feeding groups. Do we yet know that the scheme is acceptable to the Commission, or are we passing something that is still a pig in a poke as far as acceptability in Brussels is concerned? Representations have been made to the Minister and copied to many other hon. Members from the Scottish National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the South-West National Farmers Union and individual livestock farmers, all of which have been constructive and positive—not negative 851 in the least, but they still have not had an adequate response in terms of the statutory instruments placed before us today.
On statutory instrument No. 3184, there has already been much discussion on both sides of the House about the definition of a herd. Clearly, the issue of in-calf heifers is incredibly important for closed herds. Since the Minister acknowledges that closed herds will have considerable difficulty in replacing without great cost, and that the dislocation to the management of those herds will make things extremely difficult, surely it must be important to establish what farmers and their representatives think is the best way to define a herd. As hon. Members have said, the new definition is totally unprecedented. There must be an extraordinary reason for including in-calf heifers in the way suggested. The Minister used the phrase "productive animals only". Why can we not stick with that definition? Similarly, in schedule 2, the way in which consequential loss is compensated is still causing considerable concern.
Suckler cow producers also have a major problem. We are receiving representations from all parts of the country. Surely it is essential for Ministers to allow producers to ghost those animals during the period when they are being retained for Buckler cow premium. Otherwise, it will cause a major problem for the cash flow of the enterprises concerned.
Similarly, flexibility is being quoted on all sides. The Minister says that he intends to be flexible, but there is nothing very flexible about the provisions of the two statutory instruments. It is difficult to foresee how the provisions can be extended to ensure that there is flexibility to assist farmers who have a particular difficulty.
We must consider, for example, the question of local milk supply, especially where there are producer-processors and producer-retailers, and most especially where there are speciality milks such as Channel Island or organic milk. There will be a major problem if that is not taken into account in compensation. There must be maximum flexibility in the timing of the way in which cattle are taken to cull.
Flexibility may be the Minister's watchword—I hope that it is—but there is no evidence so far, from our experience of the over-30-months cull or from what we have heard today, that flexibility will in fact be delivered. In its response to the consultation document, the National Farmers Union, summing up the position of most livestock farmers represented by hon. Members of all parties, said: The removal of healthy animals off farms will be traumatic. A sensitive approach will be needed throughout in order to secure the cooperation of producers, many of whom will be seeing a lifetime's breeding work disappear. Whilst the national benefits of the scheme are well understood, many producers are participating in the scheme with the utmost reluctance. We should all recognise that everyone who takes part in the scheme will do so with great reluctance. It is not a scheme in which anyone would want to participate. In those circumstances, the unwilling participants, who are the victims and not the authors of the situation, have every right to expect from the Government—from every Minister and official—the maximum flexibility, sensibility and sensitivity to their needs.

§ Mr. Paul Marland (West Gloucestershire)
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, this is an extremely disagreeable subject to have to debate, but if we do not debate it, the situation will go on for ever. The only reason for having the debate and for introducing a selective cull is to get the ban lifted. I should like a reassurance that the European Community will accept the method of selection that we use, and that it will not use it as an excuse and say that we should have a different method of selection.

§ Mr. Marlow
Moving the goalposts.

§ Mr. Marland
Exactly. We do not want the Community to move the goalposts. We want it to accept our method of selection and consider lifting the ban. There is no doubt that with the passage of time attitudes towards the selective cull have changed, and not only among farmers. The farmers of Gloucestershire—obviously the ones whom I know the best—were against the selective cull to start with, but now they are all in favour.
In the debate that we had in November on BSE, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave a cast-iron commitment that he would support a selective cull order of the type that we are debating today. To many of us, it does not come as much of a surprise that on this matter, as on so many others, the hon. Gentleman and the whole of his party have changed their minds. I well remember that when we discussed the export of live animals, the Labour party as a body came out against it; but when Labour was last in office, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was in favour. The Labour party does one thing when it faces in one direction, but something completely different when it faces in the other.
It is also worth remembering that already more than a million cattle have been slaughtered under the scheme to try to eradicate BSE in this country and that the forecast for the selective cull is about 100,000. The answer to the question whether the Government will cope competently and implement the measures well is that of course they will. The Government can be relied on to learn from and take advantage of past experience, so we shall have a totally worry-free operation as we carry out the cull. If we do not go ahead with the selective cull, the ban on the export of British beef will never be lifted.
I and farmers in Gloucestershire favour the selective cull because it will restore confidence. I do not know about other Members with rural constituencies, but confidence in British beef among the beef eaters of Gloucestershire never went down. The beef sales of an independent butcher in Newent in my constituency, Andy Crease, never fell off. The favourite Sunday lunch in the Forest of Dean is still British beef, as it always was.
I hope that the implementation of the selective cull will restore the confidence of institutions such as schools, too many of which have banned British beef. I hope that McDonald's, the brand leader in the fast food industry, will quickly reintroduce British beef to its restaurants. I salute, as will other Conservative Members, the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign to rebuild confidence in British beef mince.
We want worldwide sales of British beef to take off again because the markets are still there. Foreigners want to buy our beef. [Interruption.] Yes, foreigners want to 853 buy British beef. I say that again in case there was a misunderstanding and the Labour party changes its mind again and decides to back British beef instead of continually chipping away at it and at the British agriculture industry.
Many months ago, I told the House that I had discovered at Gloucester market that there were outbreaks of BSE in France. Few believed me or my source of information at the market, but it is now widely recognised that BSE is endemic in France, Belgium and Holland. I wonder whether hon. Members know that the Russians and Egyptians have banned the import of beef from southern Ireland because there have been 70 BSE cases there in the past year. If they are going to ban the import of beef from Ireland, what does the European Community propose to do about the export of Irish beef?

§ Mr. Gill
Is it not terribly unsatisfactory that Russia can ban the importation of beef from five Irish counties but that the same beef can be exported to the United Kingdom, to the detriment of British cattle producers?

§ Mr. Marland
My hon. Friend has pinched my next point. I understand that the price of British beef has fallen by 5 per cent.—it may be more; he can correct me if I am wrong—as a result of the import of Irish beef.
On the detail of the slaughter, I join other hon. Members in urging my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that his Department should be as flexible as possible in the execution of the policy so as to minimise the losses of income that farmers will sustain. It should be sensitive to farmers' replacement plans. That is especially important for farmers who are carrying extra in-calf heifers on their farms to replace the stock that will be taken out by the cull.
Compensation should help farmers, not penalise them. I believe that it is wrong to regard in-calf heifers as being involved in establishing the herd. That is a serious departure from normal measurement practice, as only productive cattle are included in Government schemes, legislation and for taxation purposes. Why change that? The inclusion of in-calf heifers penalises farmers who seek to help themselves with replacements, especially as some of them may be carrying extra cattle on their farms.
It would be sensible to reconsider top-up payments, which are not available until at least 10 per cent. of the herd has been slaughtered. With the extra heifers that farmers are carrying on their farms, that could seriously disadvantage the very people whom we are seeking to help. Perhaps the top-up scheme should be on a sliding scale so that it is not cut and dried at 10 per cent. and there is some give in the system.
The setting of a maximum value on the compensation payable for a beast could further disadvantage those valuable pedigree herds, which, as other hon. Members have already said, may have been built up over the lifetime not only of the current owner but of his father. I hope that that matter will be reconsidered.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
I do not like to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think that he may have made a mistake. There are two elements in the compensation—compensation for the individual beast and the top-up.
854 There is neither ceiling nor cap on the compensation for the individual beast—full value will be paid. The cap applies only to the top-up formula.

§ Mr. Marland
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for putting me right on that because that is a weight off my mind. If I made a mistake, I am quite happy to admit it. We want the farmers to co-operate with the scheme, some of which is voluntary. If we expect them to step forward and volunteer to participate in it, we must make the compensation scheme as fair as we possibly can.
As I said earlier, we want to get the ban lifted. To do that, we must know what the quid pro quo is from the European Union. Other hon. Members have mentioned the Florence agreement. It is true that before today's debate we had instigated five out of the six conditions that were laid down at Florence in order to get the ban lifted. As a result of today's measures, we shall instigate six out of six.
For a long time many of us have thought that the EU has had its own agenda: to inflict pain on UK farmers while letting others walk away without persuading them to take any steps to put the problem right. I have already cited the example of southern Ireland. I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take steps to ensure that there is no more duplicitous behaviour within the EU, and that the ban is lifted as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)
There is considerable interest in the debate because, although one understands that there is a political rather than a scientific imperative behind the need for the statutory instruments, it is generally accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the accelerated cull, regrettable though it is, must go ahead. That is why I believe that the House will not divide on the measures.
I shall briefly address the issues that are of most concern to the farming industry because I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak. The Minister will be aware of the considerable disquiet that has been expressed by many hon. Members about the definition of the herd. It is proposed to define it as including the replacement heifers in calf. That is contrary to accepted practice in all countries of the United Kingdom. Farmers believe that that has been done to reduce eligibility for the top-up payments. In view of the representations made tonight, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.
The industry has obviously welcomed the fact that the Government have accepted the case for replacement value to be the basis of compensation for the cattle. After all, we are dealing with some of the most productive of the dairy cows in our herds, and they will be slaughtered when they are at their most productive capacity. Considerable disappointment has been expressed, however, at the fact that that compensation has been limited to 90 per cent. of their replacement value. I am sure that the Minister will have noted all the representations on that.
The way in which dislocation costs are calculated is also a matter of concern. I am anxious particularly about small dairy farmers—they may lose only one or two cows, but that may not represent 10 per cent. of their herds. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider whether an element of flexibility should be included in the system 855 because, proportionately, the small producer will lose substantially more than the larger producer in terms of their herds' productive capacity?
It is important that compensation is paid promptly, particularly for productive cattle, which must be replaced quickly. Many farmers had to wait a considerable time before they received their compensation under the over-30-months scheme, which had a considerable impact on their cash flow problems. Will the Minister give an assurance that the compensation payments under this scheme will be paid promptly, so that farmers can ensure that they have the money in their bank early enough to pay for the replacement of their stock? Will he also ensure that the farmers are made fully aware at an early stage of when the payments will be made?
My final point relates to the raising of the beef ban. As the Minister is aware, many of us have been persuaded of the necessity of the accelerated cull because of the prospect of the ban being lifted as a result. I understand what the Minister has been saying tonight and his reluctance to give us a firm date for raising the ban, but the industry is waiting for his views and the Government's views on that subject. He will understand that it is because of that prospect that farmers support the regulations on accelerated culling. In his winding-up speech, or in some other form, will the Minister make it clear that the lifting of the ban forms the basis of the statutory instruments?

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
I am grateful for the chance to contribute briefly to the debate.
I do not believe that the dispute at the heart of the measures necessarily extends across the Floor of the House. All of us who represent fanning constituencies know only too well the unprecedented damage and turmoil that the beef industry has suffered over the past 10 months. Our dispute is with our European partners and, to a degree, with the European Commission.
I do not see myself as one of the most extreme Euro-sceptic Conservative Members. I have always tried to be measured in the comments that I make about Europe. The debate is the best opportunity that we have had for a long time to put on the record the fact that the farmers, the beef producers, of the United Kingdom—it is commendable that so many of our colleagues from Northern Ireland are present, and I shall be brief because I am sure that some of them want to contribute—have made great sacrifices over the BSE problem in the past 10 months, or even eight or nine years. It is high time that the rest of Europe recognised the sacrifice that has been made.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
And America.

§ Mr. Greenway
And America—the hon. Lady is right.
When the cull that we are debating tonight is completed, it will mean that 1.2 million animals will have been slaughtered. I cannot claim that there is a shred of scientific support for the slaughter of any one of them. They have all been slaughtered for political reasons because the European Union decided, in its infinite stupidity, to impose a ban on British beef as a result of the statements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
856 The European Union made a gross misjudgment. It judged that, because BSE might be seen as a problem confined to Britain, if British beef were banned, it would reassure consumers throughout the rest of continental Europe. Of course, the ban had the opposite effect. Every housewife or consumer, not just in Europe, but throughout the world, has concluded that if—it is still a big if—there is the prospect of humans contracting a brain disease as a result of eating beef, they should not buy it. All cases of Creuztfeldt-Jakob brain disease throughout the world cannot have occurred as a result of British beef. I do not believe that the link has been proved. The decision to ban British beef reinforced in the minds of consumers throughout Europe the idea that all beef may be harmful. For that reason, beef consumption throughout Europe has slumped. It is to the credit of our meat industry, our farmers and our consumers that consumption of beef in Britain has not fallen to the levels seen in other countries. That, combined with the massive financial support that the Government have given to the industry, means that we still have a beef industry for the future.
The European issue is exacerbated by an outrageously hypocritical draft report that was recently published by the European Parliament—the so-called Ortega report—and we need to examine carefully two issues relating to that. We understand that the report has been highly critical of the British Government's response to the BSE crisis and that there is also some criticism of the European Commission. In fairness to the Government—I remember many of the debates we had in the late 1980s, when I was first elected to Parliament—I must point out that they have been working one step at a time. Facts were not known and scientific advice emerged generally. We are now much clearer on what needs to be done to ensure that the beef on consumers' plates is safe.
With the benefit of all that hindsight, however, what has the European Parliament recommended should be done to protect consumers throughout mainland Europe? Precisely nothing—none of the measures that we have implemented to ensure that our beef is the safest in the world has been recommended by the Parliament for implementation in the rest of Europe. We are well on the way, not only to eradicating BSE from British herd, but to ensuring that, once eradicated, BSE does not return and that British beef on consumers' plates is the safest in the world, but I am gravely concerned about whether we can say the same about the rest of Europe.
It is acceptable to suggest that the incidence of BSE in Europe is not as high as it is in Britain, but I cannot understand why the rest of Europe continues to turn its back on the prudent measures that we have introduced in respect of specified bovine offals, meat and bonemeal. I am worried that, because of that, we shall see more evidence of BSE on the continent and that the worst of all worlds could befall our farmers—that we have the cull in order to get the European ban and the worldwide ban lifted, but that in two, three or four year's time, other countries will impose a ban on European beef because of the increase of the incidence of BSE in other member states.
I hope that I am wrong, but I want my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to take a message to the European Councils dealing with this matter: that we are prepared to ask our farmers to continue to make this sacrifice, but that we expect the other member states to deliver the goods—not only to lift the ban, but to 857 implement the necessary measures throughout Europe. It is no good saying that Britain will be free of BSE unless we can say that Europe is free of BSE.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)
Order. In the 20 minutes available for the remainder of the debate, four hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be successful.

§ Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)
In the light of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be as brief as is humanly possible.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) drew attention to the turmoil in the beef industry and on farms during the past year or so. We in this House would be remiss if we forgot all the other people who have lost their jobs or whose businesses have gone to the wall. We must not forget the tremendous misery that this whole affair has caused to the ordinary men and women who depended on a week's wages from the beef industry in one form or another. While I have every sympathy with the farmers, we should also remember the misery that has been suffered by others.
The statutory instruments deal with Great Britain, but the Minister will know that the corresponding orders affecting Northern Ireland passed into law about two weeks ago, even though they were laid on the same day, 18 December. I am curious to know why the orders for the whole of the United Kingdom were not dealt with on one day. Perhaps that has to do with our different legislation; but this is a UK-wide problem, so we should make every effort to deal with it uniformly.
Every farmer in the country will welcome this further step towards clearing up the BSE crisis in the UK, and will hope that the certified herds scheme will be acceptable to Europe. I trust that we will rapidly be able to clear up the remaining stock that may have come into contact with BSE. I am, however, still worried about the suckler herds. What protection will be offered to producers' claims for suckler cow premiums, for example? If those herds are decimated, the farmers concerned could lose out. Furthermore, could such producers be exempt from the quota usage rules for long enough to enable them to get back into full production? That may apply more to closed than to general herds, but the problem needs attention.
Has the problem of flagged holdings, as opposed to flagged animals, as yet been resolved? The matter urgently needs sorting out, but I am not sure that much progress has been made so far.
The Minister will understand that farmers' losses will be compounded by the changes in the green pound. I am told that another change in its value could be here in 50 days' time; it will cause more mayhem and another fall in the price of beef. If the price fell correspondingly in the butchers' shops and supermarkets, we might not mind so much.
858 Farmers are concerned when they hear advice to the effect that they must finish their animals a bit earlier. The plain truth is that Northern Ireland has long been engaged, with Government encouragement at every level, in producing large, heavy animals for the continental market. Any man who has ever reared cattle knows perfectly well that cattle first grow their bony frames and then put on the beef after that. It is impossible to finish a large-framed beast before it reaches a certain maturity. It is therefore ridiculous to believe that an animal bred to finish at 450 kg can be finished at 350 kg—it is nonsensical, but intervention weights keep dropping, and I should like to know what the Minister intends to do about that, to relieve the producers.

§ Sir Jim Spicer (West Dorset)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his team will know only too well that, over the past year, it has been Dorset in particular and the west country in general that have been hardest hit by BSE. I wonder whether, six months ago, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) would have liked to have been a Minister telling the farmers in north Cornwall or Dorset, "We have this enormous backlog of animals to deal with under the 30-months scheme, but of course I want to talk to you today about the continuing problem we will face once that is done."
In the past two debates in the House, I have quoted my county chairman, John Hoskin, who has been hit harder than almost anyone. Had the hon. Member for North Cornwall tried to approach John Hoskin not just in May, June or July but in August, September or October with such a farcical suggestion, I know exactly what the response would have been, and the hon. Gentleman would have caught the next train back to North Cornwall and probably moved on beyond there as well.
Over the past six months, my right hon. Friends have dealt with the most massive task that we have ever had. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made one point clear: this is the greatest crisis that we have faced since the last war, and we have dealt with it. People may criticise, but no one else could have done more than we have to deal with more than a million cattle in the time that we have done it. Let there be no more hypocrisy from the Opposition on that point.
We have lived up to our side of the bargain, and we are now doing what we ultimately promised, at the behest of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. They have all reluctantly come to accept that we must go that little extra mile. We are going that little extra mile; we shall complete our part of the Florence deal, and the ball will then be firmly in the court of our European partners.
There remains a big question. There was a time when I had stars in my eyes about the European Community and thought that, if it said that it would do something, it would do it. I am not so sure now. The ball is, however, in its court and, if it does not live up to the undertakings that it has given, we must face up to the fact that we must go it alone. We must make our own dispositions, not just for one or two years but up to 2001 and beyond.
When we debated the matter on 15 May with the hon. Member for North Cornwall and others, I said that, within those dispositions, if our European partners did not lift the 859 ban, we would have to consider taking action against them and say that, unless the beef that they produced was up to the standard and quality of ours and had the same safeguards, we would have to think about banning their beef and building up a fortress Britain in terms of beef. That is the last thing that we want, but the ball is in their court and they must play their part.
By 2001, BSE will be eradicated in this country, but will it be eradicated in Europe? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, we doubt that very much, so we must ensure that we have access to those world markets.
I thank my right hon. and Learned Friend the Minister and all those who played their part in bringing us to this point where we can do our final part. If the others do not live up to their side of the bargain, I simply say, "Let it be on their heads, not on ours."

§ Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)
In two short sentences, I should like to remind the House of the great calamity that BSE has been to the Northern Ireland farming community. Of a population of 1.5 million, 60,000 people representing 8 per cent. of the work force are engaged in the farming industry. Two thirds of the farms in Northern Ireland, small as they usually are, are involved in rearing cattle, and they produce a disproportionately high 12 per cent. of the entire UK herd. That is the enormity of the problem facing the Northern Ireland base industry—agriculture—which consists mainly of cattle rearing.
Those in the farming community generally welcomed the proposals for the selective cull and they want it implemented as quickly as possible so that they can re-enter the European market. Northern Ireland exports 75 per cent. of its meat, and 50 per cent. outside the United Kingdom.
I want to raise with the Minister one or two quick points for consideration, as they are causing concern to farmers in Northern Ireland. Although the farming industry in Northern Ireland accepts the reasoning behind the voluntary nature of the slaughter of the 1989–90 cohorts, and the fact that there is a problem given the traceability in Great Britain, nevertheless that traceability is total in Northern Ireland. Could not the slaughter of those 1989–90 cohorts be made compulsory in Northern Ireland? It could be carried out quickly and efficiently, thereby completing the five requirements of the Florence convention.
The other matter that farmers want the Government to address is the proposed method of counting herd size, which will be used to calculate the compensation top-up payments for the cull. We know that it differs from the method that is already in operation for the temporary reallocation of additional milk quota. The method used for calculating herd size for the temporary milk quota allocation should be used for the purpose of the cull as well.
The Ulster farmer is concerned that top-up payment is triggered only when the producer loses 10 per cent. of the herd. The Minister spoke about flexibility. It would be beneficial to the very small farmers, of whom Northern Ireland has a considerable number, if there was a tapering scale from 1 per cent. to 9 per cent. The flexibility offered by such a sliding scale would bring adequate and proportionate benefit to the very small farmer.
860 The certified herds scheme should recognise the part played by the selective cull as a step towards certification. To ensure that the scheme is of practical benefit, the farming community offers four proposals for consideration. First, as has been said, the flagging of herds should be introduced, instead of the flagging of farms. The flagging of herds occurs throughout Europe. The UK is the only country where farms are flagged. I understand that that is the result of an administrative slip-up at an earlier stage. It could be corrected virtually by the stroke of a pen, if that is done now.
Secondly, the certification of animals should replace the certification of herds. Thirdly, all animals born after 1 August 1996 should be eligible for the scheme, irrespective of the BSE status of the holding from which they originated. Fourthly, BSE-affected herds should be accepted into the certified herds scheme once they have completed an agreed restriction period of no more than six years.
In view of the time restrictions, I am grateful for the opportunity to make those points. I ask the Minister to consider them in the light of the flexibility that he said would be adopted. In recognition of the enormous problem that we have in Northern Ireland, where the industry is such a fundamental part of our economy, I ask him to address the issues sympathetically.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
I shall not repeat the matters raised by my two colleagues. They have underscored what is in the mind of the farming community in Northern Ireland. As a Member of the European Parliament, let me tell the House that there is no promise from Europe that, if we do what we are doing tonight, we will receive a firm assurance that the ban will be raised.
The damnable report due next month will raise the matter to new heights. It has been purposely planned so to do by the political managers in Europe. There will be an attack on British beef and wild accusations which will reverberate throughout Europe and build an almost impassable wall.
I regret that my proposal in a previous debate was not adopted. Because Northern Ireland has the traceability scheme, we should have proposed that as a pilot scheme, carried out the cull according to the Florence terms in that part of the UK and awaited Europe's reaction. If Europe had said no, the Government would have known that their actions tonight would not evoke the response necessary.
Baroness Denton, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for agriculture and the economy, announced recently that Northern Ireland had weathered the BSE storm. It has done nothing of the sort. A review of the economy, which will be released this week, states that not only the farmers but the food processors, road hauliers, feed merchants and renderers of Northern Ireland will go under. We are facing the biggest crisis since world war two. If we do not find a way out, the agricultural sector—the basis of the entire Northern Ireland economy—will go under. I must be a prophet of doom tonight—I cannot be anything else—because we would be foolish to believe that, by taking this action tonight, we shall see the ban lifted in Europe. That will not happen.

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
Having listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I am tempted to say that I agree with all that he said and to add nothing further. However, I must take this opportunity to proclaim my faith in British beef and in the British farming industry, particularly in so far as it affects my constituents.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider the question of compensation. I appreciate the fact that a huge amount of money has been spent supporting the beef and dairy industries in the past nine or 10 months, but will he ensure that payment is made under the scheme as speedily as possible? As other hon. Members have said, there is nothing worse than having to wait for one's money—especially in circumstances such as this.
I also draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the question of economic loss. I acknowledge that there will be almost 100 per cent. compensation for individual beasts, but I am concerned about the potential for tremendous economic loss with the top-up regime. For example, if 40 per cent. of a herd is culled, it will be almost impossible to return that herd to an economic basis—not least because the milking cows introduced into the herd will take some time to come on full stream and milk at the same rate as the cows they replaced. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that factor in mind.
I also ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep an eye on the nature of replacement beasts, especially if they come from abroad. We must be assured that the beasts that are introduced into the United Kingdom pass our stringent tests for quality. Can we be sure that they will not have been fed meat or bonemeal, which would cause a new schedule of disasters that we would face at our peril?
I hope that the brevity of my few short points will commend them to my right hon. and learned Friend.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
I preface my remarks with a tribute to the patience and tolerance displayed by the meat and livestock industry during the past 10 very difficult months. Those in the industry on either side of the farm gate—both those who have been compensated and those who have not—have adopted a most responsible view in a joint endeavour to see British beef once again assume the position that it rightfully deserves as the best in the world.
In July, I sponsored early-day motion 1180 which said, among other things, that there was no guarantee when the beef export ban would be lifted. I believe that those comments are equally true today. We are debating the issue tonight, not for scientific reasons or because of human or animal health considerations, but because of purely political considerations. Right hon. and hon. Members have already referred to that fact.
What I regret more than anything else in this whole sad business is that our Government, who up until 27 March last year steadfastly said that every action they took in respect of beef and the safety of food in the British Isles would be based on scientific evidence, have been driven because of force majeure from that position to the point 862 where today our every consideration, our every resolution, is dictated by the politics resulting from the fact that we are now subject to the vagaries of the European dimension. That is a matter of very great regret.
We will have needlessly slaughtered more than 1 million cattle to comply with this political imperative, in just the same way that, as I speak, fishermen at sea are dumping back into the sea thousands of fish that are perfectly saleable and could provide meals for housewives and their families; in the same way that, because of the failure of politicians to make the right decisions, 3,750,000 head of poultry have been killed to comply with the zoonoses orders when so many of us well know that the answer to that problem was to convince the British housewife, the cooks and the chefs in kitchens to cook their eggs and poultry correctly.
For how long can the animal kingdom tolerate this abuse, brought about by the failure of politicians to discharge their responsibilities properly and adequately rather than to blame the fowl of the air, the beast of the field and the fish in the sea for their own inadequacies?
Because of what we are doing tonight, which is serious and to a greater or lesser extent immoral, we must put the European Union on notice that, unless what we are doing tonight results in the ban being lifted, we can no longer tolerate this imposition.
Finally, I say one thing specifically to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. The inclusion of in-calf heifers in herds is unprecedented. It is without justification, and I do not think that the House has been convinced tonight by his explanation. I just hope that he will find some way in which to amend the statutory instrument to ensure that in-calf heifers are not included in the herds for compensation purposes.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
I am conscious that the debate concludes in five minutes, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I answer many of the points briefly—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Hogg
I should have said, "With the permission of the House". I am so sorry.
I entirely agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer). It was very important to complete the removal of the backlog under the over-30-months scheme before we embarked on the selective cull.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset, for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked whether there was a timetable for relaxing the ban. There is not. We will proceed as fast as we can, in stages, but I do not conceal from the House that this will be a difficult task and will take time. I do not wish to mislead anybody on that point.

§ Mr. Welsh
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Hogg
No, I have only three minutes.
Various important points were made about the suckler cow premium, for example, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I am aware of the point, which relates to the culling of cattle during the retention 863 period. We take the view that the culling of cattle during that period is covered by the force majeure principle. We have already approached the Commission on that point. We have not had a concluded answer yet, but our arguments are strong, and I hope that we shall get a sympathetic response.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland), and others, asked whether the Commission was happy with the eradication plan as is. The House will remember that the plan as it was submitted at the time of the Florence agreement, was approved by the Standing Veterinary Committee and received the endorsement of the Commission. That does not mean that we will not face suggestions that we should extend the scheme to a cull based on maternal transmission in certain circumstances that I outlined to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
There will be tendering for the period after 1 April. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) talked about prompt payments. Payments should be made within 21 days of slaughter or registration, whichever is the later. In reality, that will be 21 days from slaughter, and that is extremely important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale talked about the temporary committee of inquiry. There is only a draft at this stage. Lord Plumb said properly that it is based on prejudice, not on evidence. I take the view that Ministers who are accountable to the House should not be summoned by the European Parliament simply because it is seeking to exercise a supervisory role over nation states. I regret that the Liberal Democrats appear to take a different view.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised an important point about the green pound and revaluation. The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been many devaluations over the past few years. He knows also that as regards 60 per cent. of the direct payments there is a freezing at current rates, which is worth about £200 million.
We have been criticised for not listening to the farmers. I do not believe that that is true. We adopted replacement value as a consequence of what was said to us. The second consultation paper on cohorts reflected the points made to us by the farming industry, as did our proposals on consequential loss.
864 My hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale and for West Gloucestershire made an important point about the absence of a specified bovine material regime in Europe, and they were entirely right to do so. The absence of such a regime is lamentable. The matter was considered at the December Council and Agriculture Ministers decided not to accept the Commission's recommendation. I regard that as a serious omission.
I take no pleasure in the statutory instrument, for all the points and reasons that have been advanced by other hon. Members. If we do not agree to it, however, there is no prospect of securing any relaxation of the ban. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
Question put and negatived.