|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the opinion of the European Union Scientific Veterinary Committee on the
"On 25th February, the previous UK Government submitted their proposals for a certified herds scheme to the Commission, which passed them to the Scientific Veterinary Committee for an opinion. The committee delivered its opinion yesterday and expressed concern on five points relating to the identification of animals, the tracing of the animals on farms and of their meat through the slaughterhouse and the degree of veterinary supervision. The committee suggested that changes needed to be made to the UK proposals before they would be acceptable.
"It is disappointing that the Scientific Veterinary Committee has asked for further clarification when it did not take up our offer to send an expert to explain our proposals at an earlier stage. We are not surprised that it has some criticisms. We are already considering carefully the points made and will give a detailed technical response very quickly. Officials are in Brussels today and discussions will continue over the next few days. We recognise that all consumers will be anxious to have full assurances in line with sound scientific assessments of risk. At the same time we will press for the removal of the ban where those assurances can be given. I will keep the House fully informed on developments."
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his colleague in another place. Consumers, producers and processors must be very disappointed. We had been told that soft words would turn away anger and would probably lift the ban as opposed to the tremendous support which the previous Government gave to the industry. But today's news leaves us in a very unsatisfactory position.
Why is it said that insufficient information was taken forward? If there is a desire for an identification system, what is wrong with the system in operation in Northern Ireland? The Commissioner has said already that he is happy with that. The EU vets have crawled over that system. If that is an issue, why did the Minister not press for those animals to be allowed back into the market place?
Will the Minister tell the House when it is proposed to establish a computerised system in England? When will the tracing take the form not of planned visits but planned inspections? What is the timetable that he foresees for those inspections?
The Statement does not help us as regards any new ideas or new approaches which are to be brought to this matter. In the past, we have given information to that committee. It was assumed that all the necessary information had been given. What is now different from the requirements that were imposed before Christmas?
As regards the identification of cohorts to meet the selective slaughter, will MAFF make arrangements to ensure that the selective slaughter in Northern Ireland, which is well under way, can be completed? Will it have priority?
What are the noble Lord's views on a ban not only in Europe but in the rest of the world? The South Africans are prepared and happy to take beef from Northern Ireland. What right does the European Union have to stop that? Is it based on the assumption that re-imports into the Union cannot be controlled? If so, that is not a problem for farmers in the United Kingdom.
The Minister may need to reply to my next question in writing. What are the Government doing about the fact that the French continue to refuse imports of meat that is processed in the United Kingdom but which comes from other countries which may have BSE? That meat can go back into Europe but has been stopped by the French. If the Minister looks at that issue, he will find a thick folder on it. I hope that that is a matter which the Government have taken on board.
One anxiety which is not touched on in the Statement relates to compensation for farmers in the future. I understand that there is to be no additional compensation. But if, as it appears, we are working towards settling the issue by allowing into the market place only those animals born after August 1996, that would involve heavy costs. The previous Government never walked away from supporting the producers and processors.
The main issue about which I wish to ask the Minister is whether he believes that there is now no safer beef anywhere in the world than that from Northern Ireland. That is well identified and well measured. It is hoped that Scotland and England will come up to that standard. Can the Minister give me some indication of the timetable that we can look forward to?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering the Question and making the Statement. Because it is a PNQ rather than a Statement as such, we did not have copies of it in advance. I draw that to the attention of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, who is here. I am sure that he is here in two capacities, as he will be interested in the subject as well as our procedures. This is not like an ordinary Question at Question Time when the questioner should not be told what is the Answer before he produces his supplementary questions. The procedure which we are following is very much the same as that for a Statement when, because the subject is complex, the details are provided in advance. But that is by the way.
The noble Baroness asked why the committee felt that there was insufficient information. It set that out in its document. We do not necessarily accept that but it has put forward its reasons. We shall examine them and do our best to provide further information.
As regards Northern Ireland, which was the subject of about six of the noble Baroness's questions, our view is that we must achieve a lifting of the ban for the whole of the United Kingdom. We accept that in many ways the situation is better in Northern Ireland. When we achieve acceptance of certain solutions that we are trying to put forward, then it is quite clear that Northern Ireland will be a beneficiary because, in many ways, its herds are in a better state. The traceability is certainly better. Northern Ireland will benefit and we very much want that to happen and we bear very much in mind the situation in Northern Ireland because of its greater dependence on agriculture.
The noble Baroness asked when the computerised system would be set up. The previous Government were responsible for the handling of that. My understanding is that that is now under way in Great Britain and by the beginning of next year we are looking to have a reasonable, although not a full, establishment.
On compensation, we are subject to strict budgetary restraints. We shall look at the matter and try to protect the British farming and meat industry as far as we possibly can. But I am bound to say that we act in a budgetary situation in which the previous Administration bequeathed us insufficient provision even to meet the present needs.
On the need for harmonisation, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that we wholly agree with it; indeed, we have put that view fully to the Commission, and that is also its view. However, the Commission has its problems in the Council, as we do. As regards any further questions to which I have not responded, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that I think his description of the decision of the veterinary committee is disappointing? Indeed, that is probably a grave understatement; I believe that it is catastrophic. Can he confirm a report which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 8th June that Professor John Pattison has now conceded that the
If that is so, is it not a fact that the professor and other scientists got it grievously wrong and that the then government were grievously at fault in too easily accepting the doomwatch scenario painted by the scientists which resulted in the futile killing of a million animals over 30 months of age and cost the taxpayer £3.5 billion in compensation--that is, £134 for every single household? If that is the case, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we have in fact been faced with enormous expense and enormous damage to our farming industry for no reason at all? Further, will he now take a far more robust attitude with our European partners than was taken by the previous government?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page