HC Deb 28 October 1998 vol 318 cc310-9 1.25 pm
Mr. David Prior (North Norfolk)

I am pleased to have secured this debate. I was born and brought up on a farm—my brother now runs the family farm—and farming is very much in my bones. I am lucky to represent a constituency with such an important agricultural industry.

Farmers and agriculture are in a dreadful state. The small family farm and the livestock and poultry industry are particularly vulnerable. Pigs are being destroyed, poultry farmers are losing money, the ban on beef on the bone remains and sheep are nearly worthless. Figures produced by the National Farmers Union show that, in the past two years, the price to the farmer of pigmeat has fallen by about 57 per cent., of lamb by 40 per cent., of feed wheat by 31 per cent., and of milk by 22 per cent. Many farmers and processors face bankruptcy. The implications will be felt throughout the countryside. Rural unemployment will rise and mixed farming with extensive grass will be particularly vulnerable, with all the resultant environmental effects.

The Government do not seem to care about that. They seem to have washed their hands of the farming industry—perhaps there are simply not enough votes in farming. They are guilty of utter complacency. Farmers and processors deserve, and need, a level playing field and that is why I have chosen to focus on regulation. Over-regulation is playing straight into the hands of imports, undermining our exports and threatening the viability of much of our industry. We all know that some regulations are necessary, but they should be proportionate, sensibly and consistently applied and they should not discriminate against British producers. I shall take each of those four principles in turn.

On the first—that regulation should be proportionate—it is perhaps understandable in the aftermath of E. coli, salmonella and BSE that we should err on the side of caution, but the ban on beef on the bone is, as the Selkirk sheriff court put it, a "manifest absurdity", which is out of all proportion to the risk involved. It is a triumph of emotional over rational argument. Indeed, the on-going ban may damage the potential for exporting British beef—a classic case of the law of unintended consequences at work. A continuing ban sets just the wrong context for the proposed Food Standards Agency. Of course, consumer safety is paramount, but let us keep some sense of proportion. By all means disclose the facts to consumers, but let them, and not the nanny state, decide.

The second principle is that regulation should be applied sensibly. In the past 18 months, my dislike of the officious bureaucrat has increased daily. These days, it is almost as though officials were trying to catch out farmers and food processors. I shall give three examples. The first relates to the integrated control and administration system forms. I have heard from numerous farmers who have been massively penalised for making tiny and obviously innocent mistakes in filling in their IACS forms. Is there any discretion at MAFF? Apparently not. Is there any question of turning a blind eye? Again, apparently not. Simple mistakes happen and British farmers are penalised, but it is hard to imagine that happening in the olive groves of Spain, Italy or France.

The second example—I have written to the Minister about it—concerns a small, family-owned abattoir in my constituency. It operates for only 12 hours a week—on two separate days—dealing with small farms and supplying small butchers. It is a traditional business in a traditional Norfolk market town. I have been around the abattoir. The inspection regime since the implementation of the 1998 EU meat hygiene and inspection regulation means that, on occasions, there are four supervisors in charge of two slaughtermen. My constituent says: The supervisors fall over each other to find work to do which is not available, so more expense is incurred through constant tea making. More seriously, such high and absurd levels of inspection will lead to the demise of small abattoirs and food processors, and will do nothing for public safety or animal welfare. The knock-on effect on small farms and retailers will play straight into the hands of large producers and supermarkets, for which regulation is a positive competitive benefit. British meat will be replaced by imports that are not subject to our high standards of welfare and hygiene, and British farmers and animals will be the losers.

I give one more example of a crazy application of an EC directive, about which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is also deeply concerned. In its wisdom, the EC introduced the fresh red meat directive, which provided for increased veterinary supervision in red meat abattoirs. What do the Government do? They voluntarily decide—I quote the words of chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service in a letter dated September 1998—that supervision levels should also be increased in poultry slaughterhouses to the same standard. That is the kind of gratuitous nonsense that infuriates British producers and undermines their competitiveness. The extra cost of compliance is estimated at 3p per bird—often the difference between making a profit and making a loss—and the quality, variability and cost of the official veterinary surgeons service are deeply resented.

The third principle is that regulation should be consistently applied—there should be one standard for British farmers and processors, and that standard should be applied consistently to imports. I was struck by a report in the Financial Times of 26 October that claimed that EU vets had found Australian slaughterhouses and cold stores "generally weak". They witnessed "cruel treatment of animals" and they found that vermin proofing was inadequate, maintenance and cleanliness was neglected", all of which had consequences for public health. Australia had been given a six-month ultimatum, which one might think fair enough until one realised that that was at the end of a six-year dispute.

In East Anglia, we have a big poultry industry. One of my constituents showed me a box of imported whole frozen turkeys from Italy. The birds had clearly been thrown—unwrapped except for some newspaper—into a cardboard box, which breaks all known hygiene regulations, specifically the one that states that birds should be enclosed in a sealed protective covering". Regulations are not properly enforced in much of Europe. Most of us have seen at first hand the way in which in European countries, cheese and meats are kept without refrigeration. I have seen cheese kneaded by sweaty, hairy-chested, bare-headed Italians—very good it was too—when such methods would be totally disallowed in this country. There is no consistency, and we are allowing our farmers and processors to be unfairly penalised.

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Is not another example of the hon. Gentleman's point the fact that pig farming is much more stringently regulated in the UK than among our European competitors? The abolition in the UK of stalls and tethers, for example, amounts to an attack on pig farming here.

Mr. Prior

I fully agree with that point, with which I shall deal in a minute.

The fourth principle is that regulation should not be discriminatory against British products. In a press release issued earlier this year, the Minister called for higher welfare standards across Europe—I agree with that whole-heartedly, as I believe that welfare standards should be constantly improved. He said that there were no common EU rules on the treatment of animals on farms. For example, the Conservative Government banned pig stalls and tethers in this country, but in the rest of the EU the restrictions are fewer and will not be phased in until 2006. Why should we continue to import pigmeat that has been produced in conditions that we have rightly banned in this country? I could make the same point about the production of veal in veal crates, which were properly banned by the previous Government.

In this country, meat and bonemeal have been banned from the feed ration. Why should we import poultry and meat products from other animals that are fed with animal protein? We are even exporting bones to France to be rendered down into bonemeal, so that the French can feed it to poultry and export the product to us, giving them approximately a 3p per pound cost advantage. That is crazy, but the same applies to antibiotic residue testing, which should be applied to all imports.

Our farmers and processors need a level playing field. Imports should match our high standards and regulation should be consistently and sensibly applied rather than disproportionate to the risk involved. At the very least, imports should be properly labelled, so that consumers know what they are buying. The label should state where the meat is produced and not only where it is packaged, which can be misleading—often deliberately so.

Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned risk analysis. How would he assess the risk analysis of some of those products, and in whose interests would he do it—those of the consumer, the European hairy-chested Italian, about whom he racistly talks, or his farming friends?

Mr. Prior

I dislike the hon. Gentleman's pejorative use of the words "his farming friends". Frankly, the farmers should be the friends of all hon. Members. There must be a balance and some common sense. Of course the consumer must be properly protected, but not disproportionately so. I accept that risk assessment is extremely difficult, but it cannot be left only to scientific experts—common-sense judgments must be applied.

There must be full disclosure, so that consumers can make up their own minds about what they are eating. Labels should clearly state the health, hygiene, feed and welfare standards to which the product conforms. Let the consumer then decide. However, in a written parliamentary answer, the Minister of State said that he had no intention of requiring imported meat to be labelled to show whether it had been fed on animal proteins. He went out of his way to say: There are no proposals to extend labelling requirements to cover compliance with national animal health and welfare standards."—[Official Report, 29 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 106.] That is disgraceful. Many consumers will be horrified to know that they are eating imported food products produced in welfare conditions that have rightly been banned for years in this country.

We all want the British farmer and food processor to produce safe, high-quality and tasty products, and of course regulation is necessary to achieve that and to give the consumer sensible protection. However, we are running the risk of regulating ourselves out of the market. If we are not careful, it will not be economically possible to produce poultry, pig, lamb and beef products in this country. Instead, we shall end up importing products from countries where welfare standards are much lower than ours and where quality and food safety are less reliable.

1.38 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on raising serious concerns about the impact of regulation on British agriculture. I agree that excessive and unnecessary regulation must be avoided, but it is difficult to avoid a certain amount of regulation, for all sorts of reasons.

As a Government, we recognise the difficulties facing many sections of agriculture, especially in relation to prices. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, in what was generally a reasonable and well-argued speech, came out with the nonsense that the Government do not care about what is happening to agriculture. That is most certainly not true. Farmers and rural organisations know very well that we care and that we are giving all the support that we can, including the extra £78 million for the beef and sheep sector last winter and a range of other support.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the ban on beef on the bone. The risk of BSE getting into the food chain is not theoretical: so far, 30 people have died from new-variant CJD and others are suspected to be suffering from it. It would be ridiculous for any Government—let alone a Government who have made it clear that we intend to put consumer safety before all other considerations—to allow material that was known to carry a risk of infection to go into the food chain; to have done so, we would have had to put a warning on beef on the supermarket shelves saying that there was a risk to consumers, and we are not prepared to do that.

All beef that is on sale in this country—and that which, I am glad to say, is now being exported from Northern Ireland—is absolutely safe; we are absolutely confident about that. It is not good enough to say that we should take risks. It is difficult to give people choices when beef on the bone could be used in stocks and gravies and consumers in catering establishments would not know what was in their food. We have to ensure that consumers are protected. I am hopeful that the ban will be a temporary measure. We shall certainly review it again under the date-based scheme, following appropriate advice from our expert scientific committees.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

If that is the case, why are the bones that are removed from the meat not classified as specified material? Why, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said, can they be exported, turned into bonemeal and fed to animals the products of which can come back into this country? Either the bones are dangerous, or they are not.

Mr. Morley

It is not my understanding that that happens. There is a restriction on what can be used in meat and bonemeal. Bones from the pig industry, for example, are allowed to be exported if they are from dedicated plants.

I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for North Norfolk made about welfare standards. We have been pressing for improved welfare standards throughout the European Union, and we want to achieve common standards on, for example, battery cages.

We support better labelling, as we want consumers to have as much information as possible. Part of that has to be negotiated through the European Union, as we need common agreement, which can sometimes be difficult. Retailers have the freedom to label, and many already have detailed labelling linked to quality assurance schemes, and we very much welcome and support that, because it gives our producers, such as those in the pig industry, who have the highest welfare and quality standards in Europe, a marketing advantage, in that they can meet the quality assurance criteria that the retailers set.

I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about turning a blind eye to regulations. I am sure that he did not mean that quite as it sounded. We cannot turn a blind eye to regulations, and especially not those that are designed to protect consumer safety or to ensure that taxpayers' money is used appropriately in the various support schemes. The schemes must be monitored, run and audited properly.

Whenever I hear it said that regulations are not enforced in Europe, I say let us see the evidence. Where there is evidence that other European Union member states are not enforcing the rules, we will take action.

Mr. Prior

Part of the evidence is the massive fraud that goes on in the common agricultural policy. Is that not some evidence that the rules are not being applied on the continent?

Mr. Morley

There is certainly fraud in the CAP; indeed, there have been irregularities in CAP payments in our own country, which have quite properly been pursued. The fact that the fraud is identified demonstrates the fact that the European system works. The European Court of Auditors is becoming increasingly successful in tracking down fraud, and quite rightly so.

I repeat that, where there is evidence of other countries not complying with regulations, we will not hesitate to raise the matter with the European Commission and, if necessary, take it to the European Court—we have made that clear time and time again—but the idea that only the UK enforces the rules does not stand up to critical examination. Indeed, the previous Government were in breach of European regulations by not applying the directive on slaughterhouses. The hon. Gentleman spoke about veterinary inspections, but the relevant directive was not applied by the previous Administration. We have been warned by the Commission that it will take action against us if we do not comply as other member states do.

European Union and domestic support measures put £3 billion a year into agriculture, leaving aside the special sums for BSE-related measures, which alone amounted to £800 million in 1997–98. Those are large sums, and we need regulations to ensure that the money goes to those who are eligible and that the benefits are properly verified.

We need regulations to safeguard public health. I accept that they have become more complicated with the changes in food preparation and production methods, and there has to be a balance between proper enforcement and targeting risk areas to avoid the exploitation of loopholes by the unscrupulous.

We are prepared to review the controls at regular intervals so that they can be modified to achieve what they are designed for. Specified risk materials regulations are a case in point. We have amended the regulations on removal of the spinal cord to allow the trade in unsplit carcases to be resumed. That has been warmly welcomed by the sheep industry. We can still meet the regulations, so the spinal column can be removed but the carcase can be sent directly to French cutting plants.

We want to protect consumers and producers by ensuring that there is public confidence. Without that confidence, markets will fall. We have witnessed that with BSE, which has been a catastrophe for the livestock industry, devastating the beef industry and having knock-on effects on the sheep sector. We have been struggling to get to grips with the BSE problem and bring it to an end, and we are confident that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Last April, we needed to implement new specified risk material controls. That would have cost the industry £35 million, but, recognising the pressures on the livestock sector, the Government have absorbed those costs and not passed on that £35 million to the livestock industry.

The Government want to ensure that we sustain a good environment to maintain biodiversity. As agriculture covers some 75 per cent. of our land, it has a key role in that. In 1997–98, payments of £14.7 million were made under the countryside stewardship scheme alone, and we support agriculture in its efforts in 22 designated environmentally sensitive areas. However, sometimes, genuine mistakes are made in all sorts of forms, be it special premium or IACS forms. The Government understand that. However, the regulations are laid down. These are European Union payments through CAP. The regulations come from the EU and we have little room for manoeuvre in relation to them.

Many IACS forms are being sent in and the applicants are receiving in return many thousands of pounds in relation to arable area payments; in many cases, large payments are made. If farmers are not confident about avoiding mistakes, professional advisers and consultants will do that for them. Obviously, there is a charge, but, when dealing with thousands of pounds of money, that is something that some farmers could and, indeed, do consider.

Mr. Öpik

On that point, sometimes the payments are delayed through no fault of the farmer—in other words, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to bring those payments up a bit. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider investigating the possibility of interest payments on lost earnings as a result of the delay of the payment to the farmer?

Mr. Morley

I accept that there have been cases of slow payments. Particularly in present financial circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture Food has made it clear that we shall consider trying to speed up payments, so that money gets to farmers as quickly as possible. That is being done at present. All our regional service centres are aware of the Government's desire to ensure that the money gets into farmers' hands as quickly as possible and that we do not have undue delay, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with that point.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned his concerns about the abattoir sector. It is true that regulation has been changed to increase veterinary supervision of such premises. That does have an effect, particularly on small slaughterhouses; the Government understand that. We share many of those concerns, but I emphasise that the Government do not advocate regulation simply for the sake of it; simply because we want more of it. We support requirements on meat hygiene that can be justified on public health grounds.

The safety of food is one of the Government's priorities. We believe that meat should be produced to the highest standards in this country. I remind the hon. Member for North Norfolk that one of the reasons why BSE went on for as long as it did and at the level that it did, is that, even when controls were introduced by the previous Administration, in many cases, they were not being properly applied in slaughterhouses or meat plants. Those are important issues, and they have to be dealt with properly.

We did not lightly take the decision to increase veterinary supervision but, as I have mentioned, it was necessary to implement the previous Government's under-implementation of the harmonised EU meat hygiene rules. The European Commission has initiated legal proceedings against the UK for its failure to implement fully the specific veterinary supervision requirements that are laid down in the fresh meat directive.

That relates to poultry as well as to red meat. It is not a question of the Government saying, "Wouldn't it be a good idea if we applied that to poultry as well?" It is laid down by EU directive and we have to comply with that.

We have taken steps to raise supervision levels towards those required and believe that those steps are essential to improve control over meat-licensed premises, to avoid a European court case, as well as to support our efforts to have the beef export ban lifted for the whole of the UK. Hon. Members can appreciate that we are in the final stages of getting the ban lifted. We are very confident that we have made significant progress on that. It is our objective to get that ban lifted before the end of the year.

If we were not implementing EU directives on slaughterhouses, there is no possibility that we could get that ban lifted. We can go to the EU and make it clear to it that we are complying with all EU directives, as well as the tight regulations that we have to protect the consumer.

The regulations come from the EU. They set out in great detail what is required of member states and are tightly drawn. I accept that the regulations are sometimes complex, but controls are necessary to protect EU and Exchequer funds from fraud.

I have mentioned the fact that we do not have much discretion over how those rules are implemented. We are exploring the scope to cut bureaucracy whenever we can. An example is that we are consulting with the industry on a proposal for producers no longer to have to apply for a separate document to accompany beef special premium scheme claims. Under that proposal, producers will be able to apply for premium using existing cattle passport documents, which we have recently introduced.

As to the future reform of livestock schemes under Agenda 2000 proposals, one of our objectives in negotiation is to look, wherever possible, for simplification of current arrangements. That may be difficult to achieve. Indeed, as long as we have subsidies, we have to have some regulation to control them. That goes with the CAP and it goes with subsidies.

We have a range of priorities in negotiations, such as the need to ensure that Agenda 2000 addresses restructuring of the sector. Current Agenda 2000 proposals do not look promising in terms of simplifying regulations, but we shall continue to push for that wherever possible.

We want to look at cases where farmers feel aggrieved. We do that when farmers make appeals, through regional service centres, that they have been unfairly treated.

I have spoken about why we need to have regulation, but we recognise the impact that it can have. For that reason, we have sought to ensure that many of the recommendations on regulation are included in the Department's efficiency scrutiny study to reduce the burden of paperwork on farmers. Although, in many cases, it has been difficult—because of the overriding need to get consumers and EU confidence back into our beef production—we have made considerable progress in simplifying regulation. So far, about £5.4 million worth of farmers' time should have been saved through changes to procedures and an additional £1.1 million should be realised next year when new simplification comes through.

When introducing new schemes or revising existing ones, we consult the industry. We keep careful control on forms. We check that every question is essential and that the forms are clear. We trial them wherever possible and aim to keep the burden of time spent on filling them in proportion to the benefits to be gained.

We are increasingly using modern electronic technology to save farmers time. Many forms are now sent out to producers with basic information, such as names, addresses and holding numbers, pre-printed on the form. For the suckler cow scheme, we also pre-print figures on the number of animals notified for the preceding years' scheme. In that way, farmers need notify us only of changes, instead of going through the whole procedure. We have a system in place so that all forms that we use in the Ministry are reviewed for need and content at least once every three years, to ensure that there is still a role for them and that they are not just a waste of time for farmers.

A further consideration is that most regulations in the UK are an integral part of the CAP or the EU's single market. EU schemes have to take account of operating systems in all member countries to ensure as far as possible an even playing field and consistent enforcement. That can also affect the complexity of regulations.

We consult with those involved when we bring in regulations. We seek to adjust regulations after criticisms or suggestions. For example, we recently conducted a survey of the beef suckler cow premium scheme form. Much of it was found to be reasonable, but we are considering a few troublesome points to find out what changes we can make. We consulted on the SRM regulations, which allow exports of unsplit sheep carcases.

All the inspectorates and enforcement agencies that come under MAFF are reviewing their standards of practice to ensure the full spirit of the Government's enforcement concordat initiative. That concordat will, I hope, be adopted by local authorities and, to the extent that their activities impinge on agriculture, the benefits of better enforcement will also be felt there.

The regulation issue is important. An element of regulation is unavoidable to help to protect public health and safety, to ensure proper controls of animal and plant diseases and to safeguard taxpayers' money, as well as to boost the economic health of our industry through providing confidence to consumers and a fair framework. We do not introduce regulations lightly. We shall review them, but we believe that what we have at the moment is fair and balanced.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.