---

Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am interested in what he says about Ellesmere Port and its vistas of petrochemical plants. Does he agree that the main criterion for financial assistance should not be the degree of ruralness, if there is such a word, but the degree of the impact of foot and mouth?

Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend is correct. The Minister's letter also said that 151 English rural borough councils had been provided with financial support, but there is no distinction between those which have been hit by foot and mouth and those which have not, and those parts of the country where there was no outbreak and those were there were heavy outbreaks. That is illogical. If my hon. Friend has not been to Ellesmere Port, I am happy for him to visit my constituency, from where we can get in the car and drive to Ellesmere Port to see that it is not a rural area. It could not possibly be a rural area as there are no green fields. It has a good shopping centre and many petrochemical works.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will he emphasise to the Minister that his constituency and part of the borough of Macclesfield make up the most heavily livestocked area in Cheshire? It is extraordinary that an area that is overwhelmingly rural and agricultural should not qualify for business assistance under rate relief, whereas, as my hon. Friend said, huge urban areas such as Chester and Ellesmere Port do. That is nonsense, but the Minister was not prepared to do anything about it.

Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember that we both sought, but were unable to secure, meetings with the Minister and the chief executive of Macclesfield borough council to put our case. The situation is crazy, and it confirms the worst suspicions of many of those who live in my borough council area that some people in Whitehall have never left the M25 area and know about no other part of the country than that just a few hundred metres from this place.

I commend Macclesfield borough council for the sterling job that it has done in providing emergency rate relief for hard-hit rural businesses out of its own pocket. However, with the proper Government support that it deserves, it could be doing even more, and that is a great tragedy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to reconsider the council's status under Special Grant Report (No. 86) because it just does not make sense.

The fourth and final issue, and perhaps the most important and pressing, arises from the impact of foot and mouth disease on livestock markets. Again, I shall illustrate my point with an example from Tatton. Chelford, in the south of the constituency, is one of the largest livestock markets in the country. The last sale of real livestock to be held at Chelford took place on 22 February, nine months ago. Since then the auctioneers have lost, at the very least, more than £500,000 in lost commission on sales. Five full-time people have been made redundant, and 19 part-time people, almost all from low-income families, have also lost their jobs. Many other small businesses, which relied on the market trade for their income, have closed, including the country clothing stall, the fencing supplier, the hedging man and the small Land Rover dealer. I am not overstating the case when I

28 Nov 2001 : Column 1070

say that the closure of the livestock auction at Chelford has torn the heart out of the rural community in that part of Cheshire.

We all understand why markets in England had to be closed immediately the disease was discovered. Indeed, as I have already argued, they should have been closed a couple of days earlier. We understand also why they had to remain closed while the epidemic raged, but no one can understand why English and Welsh livestock markets are still closed today, two months after the last confirmed foot and mouth case in the whole country and long after similar livestock markets in Scotland and Northern Ireland have reopened.

As Mr. Rodney Bacon of the north-west NFU said in a letter to me last week:

"Cheshire farmers retained their stock and have gone through a lengthy period of restrictions on stock movements . . . The key must be the re-opening of livestock markets. They are an essential element of the chain, especially for farm to farm movements."

Alan Gardiner, the chairman of the Cheshire county NFU, phoned me today because he knew that I was leading this debate and emphasised that the reopening of the livestock markets is now the most important issue facing local farmers.

To an extent, Chelford market has taken matters into its own hands. Last month it began holding digital auctions in which sellers could look at digital photographs of the stock. I am happy to pay tribute to the fact that one of the Government's rural recovery schemes even contributed a couple of hundred pounds to provide the digital camera. I am glad to say that the auctions have been a moderate success, but I have to tell the Minister that they may pose a much greater risk to biosecurity than live auctions.

According to farmers to whom I have spoken in preparation for this debate, buyers do not, of course, rely on the digital photograph but go from farm to farm to check out the stock. That poses enormous risks of cross-farm contamination. If everyone went to Chelford market, they would be registered and disinfected together and be able to be traced if there were ever a problem. None of those measures applies to a digital auction.

Despite the overwhelming case for reopening livestock markets such as Chelford, they are still closed. What is more, they have been given no idea from the Government about when they might open. As Gwyn Williams, partner of Chelford market, said in a letter to me last week:

"A great many farmers in your constituency will, in normal times, market their livestock through our auction sales at Chelford Agricultural Centre."

He then says, as I have pointed out, that the market has not been held since February. He continues:

"Despite regular meetings being held with DEFRA, we are now no nearer finding out when we will be able to reopen livestock markets nationally, or, indeed, under what conditions we will be expected to operate.


All businesses have to plan for the future and we are no different. We need to investigate possible further investment, decide upon employment issues including staff requirements and possibly reorganise the way in which we run some of our non agricultural auction sales . . . To date, despite a multitude of proposals having been put to DEFRA by our National Livestock Auctioneers' Association and despite several promises having been received from DEFRA, we have received no draft conditions for the reopening of markets post FMD, nor have we received any clear signal as to when, provided there are no further cases, we will be able to reopen."

28 Nov 2001 : Column 1071

With the indulgence of the House, I should like to read more of the letter. It is extremely well written and makes the points more elegantly than I could. It continues:

"All this is extremely frustrating. Very few businesses can survive for this period of time when approximately 70 per cent. of their turnover has been removed. As you may be aware, we have made several redundancies and laid off quite a number of full time and part time staff, a situation which is common to most livestock markets throughout the UK.


The auctioneering industry is under greater pressure now than ever, not only for economic reasons, but also, it would appear, from several vociferous pressure groups who are against the reopening of livestock auctions."

Mr. Williams makes a good point; there is a strong rumour afoot in the farming community that not reopening livestock auctions is part of a secret DEFRA plan to restructure the industry. The Minister might use this opportunity to quash such stories, which I am sure are untrue.

Mr. Williams goes on:

"I would be grateful if you could take up the cudgels upon our behalf. There appears to be a concerted move within government and DEFRA to pass the blame for the foot and mouth disease epidemic onto the farming and livestock market industry. Every utterance about livestock markets concerns some reference to the part which they played in the spread of the disease.


It would be helpful if it could be pointed out quite clearly to all those in authority that neither the farming industry nor the livestock market industry played any part whatsoever in the introduction of foot and mouth disease into the UK."

Mr. Williams is of course referring to an entirely separate debate about food import controls. Many people in this country do not understand why the Government do not introduce them.

The letter ends:

"As you can tell from the tone of this letter, I, along with other livestock auctioneers throughout England and Wales, am becoming increasingly frustrated at what appear to be delaying tactics by DEFRA concerning the reopening of markets, for whatever motives they may have. Markets are already up and running in Scotland and in Northern Ireland and obviously the longer we are shut, the more difficult it will be for us to regain levels of trade previously enjoyed.


In the interests of promoting and protecting the whole rural business community, it is essential that livestock auctions are reopened as soon as possible and, through our National Livestock Auctioneers' Association, we are attempting to garner support from all the major farming organisations.


I would be grateful if you could do what you can in order to assist in putting pressure upon Ministers and DEFRA to make some positive contribution to promoting the reopening of markets."

I read that letter at length because it raises such important points. I should be very grateful if the Minister responded to Mr. Gwyn Williams' points.

---