HC Deb 06 November 1997 vol 300 cc387-9
9. Mr. Pickthall

If he will make a statement about the level of confidence of the British public in British beef. [12618]

10. Mr. O'Hara

What steps he is taking to improve confidence in British beef. [12619]

13. Mr. Beith

If he will make a statement about the current state of the beef sector. [12622]

Dr. John Cunningham

Numerous Government initiatives have helped to secure significant improvements in the beef consumption level, indicating a return of consumer confidence. However, the European beef sector remains in long-term structural surplus. The Government are pressing for fundamental reform of the EU beef regime through negotiations on the Commission's agenda 2000 proposals.

Mr. Pickthall

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he go on to tell us whether he detects greater confidence in British beef among our European partners, and how that confidence might be manifested in policy or regulation changes?

Dr. Cunningham

We have been working hard to re-establish confidence not only in British beef but in the British Government's contribution to open and constructive dialogue in the affairs of the European Union, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. Two of our proposals are now under consideration in Brussels to lift partially the ban on British beef. The first is the certified herd scheme, and the second is the date-based scheme. It will be for the various committees of the Brussels Commission to make decisions on those schemes. I keep urging them to press ahead, without further delay.

Mr. O'Hara

The over-30-months scheme is one of the measures that has contributed greatly to raising confidence in British beef, but it has many faults. Will the Minister conduct an investigation into the scheme's workings, with particular reference to geographical distribution of abattoirs in the scheme? Apart from the commercial implications of uneven and inequitable distribution of abattoirs, there is an animal welfare consideration. Cattle—particularly casualty cattle—are having to travel unnecessarily long distances to slaughter.

Dr. Cunningham

Administration of the scheme is dealt with by the Intervention Board executive agency. However, abattoirs have been chosen on the basis of competitive tender, hygiene performance and geographical location. I realise that the over-30-months scheme is not universally popular and that there are some problems with it—not least that it is one of the single most expensive schemes in which we are engaged in dealing with the BSE crisis. I will reflect on what my hon. Friends have to say. As I have made clear to the House, however, detailed administration of the scheme is a matter not for me but for the Intervention Board.

Mr. Beith

Does the Minister realise that beef farmers in Northumberland have had animals transported from Northumberland to Cornwall for slaughter under the scheme and also face those transport costs? Does he realise that those beef farmers are also facing continued competition from imported beef, which still does not have to meet the standards that we set for our own beef product? Today, he has already admitted that hill beef farmers are facing particular difficulties. Does he realise that those difficulties are relevant to his decisions about hill livestock compensatory allowances?

Dr. Cunningham

Yes, I recognise the first problem mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, because he wrote to me about it. I said that I thought that that type of situation was clearly unsatisfactory, and that it should also be unnecessary.

As for beef imports, the House will recall that I made it clear both in the Chamber and in Brussels that, if the European Union Council of Ministers did not act to apply a uniform policy on removal of specified risk materials in beef across the entire European Union, I would act unilaterally to prevent imports from the European Union that had not been so treated into the United Kingdom. We were successful in winning on that issue in the negotiation by a single vote.

In July, however, I made it clear that it would be necessary for me to make a concession to win that vote. The concession was that implementation would take effect not on 1 October 1997—as it would have done had I acted unilaterally—but from 1 January 1998. That concession was necessary to win the argument in the Council by eight votes to seven.

I know that, for a very long time, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has represented hundreds, if not thousands, of hill beef farmers. I have represented many such farmers, although for a slightly longer time. We both know the problems very well. I say again that, this year, there will be £450 million-worth of direct support for farmers in the beef sector, and that we are spending colossal sums in trying to resolve the problems that they face, particularly from BSE. The solution to the problem is not more subsidy, as Conservative Members seem to think, but to solve the problems that are of their creation—first, BSE—and of over-capacity in Europe's beef sector.

Mrs. Spelman

Given that red meat consumption has fallen by 25 per cent. in the past 20 years and yet, in the same period, the incidence of colon cancer has increased by 20 per cent., will the Minister explain why he has given his full support to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report which recommends a further reduction in red meat consumption? Is not that one more nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom's red meat industry, which is already in crisis?

Dr. Cunningham

The COMA report has not been published in full, so I advise the hon. Lady to wait and see what it says. If the Government appoint independent scientific committees—the previous Government did the same—to assess risk to people in respect of health and other matters, those committees sometimes reach uncomfortable conclusions. There is no point in our wishing away those conclusions because that simply destroys the integrity and independence of such committees.

Mr. Nicholls

It is not going to be possible to restore confidence in British beef if there are no British beef producers left. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his failure to match the previous Government's commitment to make a payment of £60 million—indeed, he intends to reduce it—has caused real fear and terror among hill farmers? Does he not understand that to sneer that hill farmers are one of the less efficient sectors of the British industry, as he did earlier in these exchanges, means that he is devastating a vital part of our agricultural community and, at the same time, making it abundantly clear that he has no idea of the role that hill farmers play, not only in British beef production as a whole but environmentally? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman's deeds matched his rhetoric?

Dr. Cunningham

One abiding reason that the House can rarely, if ever, take the hon. Gentleman seriously is that he has only one mode, and that is always over the top. Given the location of his constituency and mine, I suspect that I have far more regular contact, and on a much wider basis, with hill farmers than he ever does. He asked why I have not matched in the coming year the previous Government's commitment to support for HLCAs—the answer is that I have. We are working on the same proposals as the previous Government.