| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Poultry Plants
3. Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): What representations he has received about the level of regulation on low throughput poultry plants. [83848]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have received representations from Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, industry organisations and poultry plant operators, about the impact of proposals to increase the level of veterinary supervision in meat plants and to increase Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges. We have had just over 40 representations altogether.
Mr. Whittingdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of full-time veterinary supervision for low throughput producers has already driven four firms out of business and caused another four to deregulate to the exempt sector? Will he accept that that level of supervision is unnecessary for high-quality, free-range producers such as Kelly Turkeys in my constituency?
Will he seek to establish from the Commission, as a matter of urgency, exactly what is the legal position on this matter?
Mr. Rooker: We are seeking to establish with the Commission the issue of derogation in the poultry meat directive. Our legal understanding has always been that it applies only to the structural improvements, but we are checking on that and seeking clarification. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but every day in this country we slaughter 2 million chickens for us to eat. I am not prepared to put at risk the hygiene checks on the industry that are necessary for public protection.
Farm Incomes
4. Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): If he will make a statement on the outcome of the May Agriculture Council concerning the recent agreement on common agricultural policy reform in relation to farm incomes. [83850]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The reform will increase the market orientation of European agriculture and assist producers in their efforts to improve the competitive position of their businesses. In the short term, before the adjustments take place, there may be a small negative impact on aggregate incomes, but the hard-pressed beef sector is fully protected.
Mr. Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the possibility for modulation according to national priorities could be a great opportunity to make the common agricultural policy more acceptable to Britain? Does he expect to be able to use the system to provide more assistance to small family farms and possibly to new entrants into farming?
Mr. Brown: I am not an advocate of modulation, but it is permitted by horizontal measure 4 of the agreement. We consulted on the issue in principle in January, before the final phase of the negotiations, and the majority of farmers liked the idea in principle and responded positively. We are consulting further and we shall be consulting the Agriculture Ministers of the devolved authorities.
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset): Two years ago farmers were told that things can only get better under Labour. Since then, farm incomes have collapsed. Will the so-called reform of the common agricultural policy give farmers any long-term hope? It appears that the reform is totally incompatible with the next world trade round and takes no account of the cost of EU enlargement. Can the Minister reassure farmers?
Mr. Brown: I want to make it absolutely clear that I would have liked to have seen the reform agenda advocated by the United Kingdom and others go further and be introduced more quickly than it was in the negotiations that were concluded in Berlin. The common agricultural policy is undoubtedly moving in the right direction and there are substantial benefits in it for British agriculture. The task for Ministers and, dare I say it, for Parliament is to ensure that we make use of all the
measures now open to us, including the rural development measures, to ensure that small, medium and large farms come through the present downturn in the agricultural cycle to profitability, a decent return on the work that farmers are doing, on the capital they have invested and on the investment in their livestock and crops.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): My right hon. Friend will know that the Conservatives are always telling us that they want to keep the veto. Is the retention of that veto helpful in renegotiating the CAP?
Mr. Brown: It is important that the Government have been able to get our country back to the heart of the negotiations with our partners in the European Union. We have been able to make substantial progress on our reform agenda in each and every area of the CAP and stabilise the budget in a way that the previous Government failed to do.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): Given that the Minister has correctly acknowledged, today and previously, that the interim CAP reform will have to be revisited--for the very correct reasons referred to by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter)--will he confirm that the British Government's efforts in the matter will be concentrated on making the case, with renewed vigour, for shifting more funds, and fresh funds into wider rural development? We have to do that if we are to maintain the viability of our agricultural sector, particularly in the United Kingdom's less viable parts in terms of incomes.
In answering the initial question, the Minister mentioned the emerging devolved structure in the United Kingdom. Will he amplify a little more on how he sees the agricultural representatives in Edinburgh and in Cardiff contributing under that structure, and does he welcome the fact that part of the coalition deal between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland--[Hon. Members: "Sell out."] I am interested to hear Conservative Members use that phrase. I should have thought that they would welcome the fact that we shall see the introduction of an independent arbitration service for agriculture, for which we have long been calling. Now that one is being established in Scotland, when will similar services be established across the United Kingdom?
Mr. Brown:
I welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I set big store by the rural development measures. I am looking forward to working closely with the Agriculture Ministers from the devolved authorities--the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The House will want to know that the mechanisms that I propose to use for consultations with the other Ministers are exactly the same as ones now operating within the Government, except that meetings of officials before the Council of Ministers will--I hope; it is subject to agreement with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly--be supplemented by ministerial meetings between me and the other Agriculture Ministers.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I am examining whether it would be possible to introduce such arrangements into England. However, I do urge people not to place too much hope in such a mechanism, as all
that it could do would be to confirm that the regulations--which are very rigidly drawn--are being properly operated. The scope for altering decisions that have been made is very tightly circumscribed, and there is not as much discretion in the matter as would perhaps be normal in United Kingdom law.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy):
Will the Minister confirm that, prior to the previous general election, the Labour party was in favour of modulation in support payments? May I, please, impress on him the need for a really serious look at modulation--which would assist upland farmers, who are most under strain in the current economic climate?
Mr. Brown:
I am taking a hard look at it, and the consultation is a serious one. I have been struck by the response to my January consultation from farmers across a range of agricultural sectors. They were in favour of it, at least in principle, and wanted the idea to be explored further. Modulation is, of course, divisive in the agricultural sector, as those who believe that they could be beneficiaries of it are advocates, whereas those who believe that they could lose out by it are sceptical of it. We therefore have to proceed carefully.
5. Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone):
What assessment he has made of the implications for the beef industry of a lifting of the ban on the sale of beef on the bone in one part of the United Kingdom only. [83851]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown):
The Government have made clear our wish to revoke the beef bones controls as soon as the scientific and medical evidence indicate that it is prudent to do so. Until then, we believe that United Kingdom- wide application of the controls will best protect public health and maintain confidence in beef and beef products.
Mr. Thompson:
Given the fact that the ban was imposed to safeguard the health of everyone in the United Kingdom, would it not be ludicrous if the ban were lifted in Scotland and in Wales but not in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if it is lifted in Scotland and in Wales, it will be lifted also in Northern Ireland--which, currently, is the only part of the United Kingdom that is able to export beef?
Mr. Brown:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have had this discussion before. Confidence in the industry is important, but the need to protect the health of the public is of overriding importance. The Government's recommendation was based on the advice of the chief medical officer--not just the chief medical officer for England, who advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me, but the separate officers who advise my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. The Government decision was unanimous. It is difficult for Ministers to set to one side the clearly stated advice of the senior professional whose duty it is to advise them.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside):
I support my right hon. Friend and urge him to take no criticism
Mr. Brown:
I am an enthusiastic supporter of the British meat industry and an enthusiastic consumer of its products. At events organised by the Meat and Livestock Commission and others, I am pleased to be joined by hon. Members from both sides, sharing that appreciation of the best of Britain.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
Why is the Minister so hostile to the poor old British beef farmer? [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers seem to find that extraordinarily funny. They obviously have not talked to any beef farmers recently. The Minister wants to allow imports of US beef fed on hormones that are banned in this country. He boasted last November about the end of the export ban, then waited five months before inviting European Commission officials to carry out that decision. He is destroying confidence in beef by keeping the absurd ban on beef on the bone when even the Government's chief scientist has said that it is not scientifically justified. Is it not time that Britain had a Minister of Agriculture who wanted a fair deal for Britain's beef farmers?
Mr. Brown:
We agree on that, then. This country has a Minister of Agriculture who wants a fair deal for British beef farmers. It has a Minister of Agriculture who got the beef ban lifted. It has a Minister of Agriculture who ensured that the beef sector was fully compensated for the price adjustments in the CAP round. It has a Minister of Agriculture who supports the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission and is able to maintain public confidence in beef products. A political lifting of a ban imposed for health reasons would do nothing for public confidence in the industry. On hormone-treated beef from the United States I am continuing the policy of the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member and a supporter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |