| Home Page |
Column 987
House of Commons
Thursday 25 February 1993
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Allied Irish Banks Bill
(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
British Waterways Bill
[Lords] (By Order)
Crossrail Bill
(By Order)
East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill
(By Order)
Greater Manchester (Light RapidTransit System) Bill
[Lords] (By Order)
Woodgrange Park Cemetary Bill
[Lords](By Order)
River Humber (Upper Burcom Cooling Works) Bill
[Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 March.
British Railways (No. 4) Bill
(By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question[8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 4 March.
Column 988
Questions for Oral Answer
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Set-aside
1. Mr. Milligan : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what opportunities are afforded by set-aside to enhance the countryside.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer) : Set-aside offers the opportunity to create and extend wildlife habitats and bring a wide range of benefits to the countryside.
Mr. Milligan : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is doing a research project into the effect of set-aside and has found that fallow land is extremely helpful for the development of birds such as the linnet, the sedge warbler and the yellow wagtail? What measures are the Government taking to ensure that long-term set-aside produces benefits for wildlife and the character of our countryside?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend is right. The RSPB has been supportive in this area. People should remember that, until relatively recently, fallowing was a natural part of the farming scene. I hope that we will be able to use long-term set-aside to have other environmental advantages on which the RSPB is working as well.
Mr. Bennett : What progress has the Minister made towards agreement with his EC colleagues that long-term set-aside can have broad-leaved trees planted on it?
Mr. Gummer : We are discussing that point at present. It has all- party support and I hope that we shall achieve it.
Mr. Colvin : In further enhancing wildlife, will my right hon. Friend consider including in the new set-aside proposals provisions for the planting of what is known as game mixture? That would not only add to wildlife and do nothing to increase agricultural production, but would benefit the environment and be very welcome.
Mr. Gummer : We are looking at a whole range of matters. I believe that the provision of countryside sports is an important part of the contribution to the economy of the countryside.
Mr. Tyler : In administering the set-aside proposals, will the Minister ensure that red tape and bureaucracy are kept to the absolute minimum? Following his speech yesterday, is he aware that his Department's manpower costs for the years 1990-95 are calculated to have increased by 42 per cent., even before the set-aside bureaucracy is in place? Does not it look as though the only growth sector in the industry over the next few years will be in Ministry snoopers?
Mr. Gummer : As the hon. Gentleman has been foremost among those who have asked for supply controls and is supported in that by a large number of farmers, he must expect that the only way to ensure that people are not defrauded is to ensure that those supply controls are met.
As I said in my speech yesterday, there are real problems with supply management. That is why the
Column 989
Government oppose it in principle. When we must carry it out, as we must do in the context of the common agricultural policy, we shall do so with the least red tape which is commensurate with ensuring that the public purse is protected.Poultry Industry
2. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the poultry industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames) : Competition has been fierce in the egg and poultrymeat sectors over recent years and margins have been tight. But British producers and processors are among the most efficient in the European Community and I expect that present output levels will at least be maintained.
Mrs. Gorman : I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Now that the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has ruled that the poultry industry has a clean bill of health, will he take this opportunity to congratulate small businesses on the excellence of their products, perhaps sparing a sympathy vote for the nuns of Daventry who, of course, were put out of business during those sad events? Is not he right to refuse to be railroaded by the Labour party into another food scare over apple juice which he is determined to prevent?
Mr. Soames : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is herself a jolly good egg. I know that she is aware that the Dick report acknowledges that eggs are an importatnt source of human salmonella infection, but that the contribution that they make to current levels of human salmonella infection cannot be quantified precisely. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the reaction to events of this type should be a proportionate response and we must ensure that the measures taken are coherent and sensible and can be pragmatically enforced.
Mr. Morley : Will the Minister confirm that since the regulations were introduced, £10 million of public funds have been wasted on the policy and 3.25 million hens have been slaughtered, while in the same period outbreaks of this strain of salmonella have increased by 82 per cent? Does the Minister agree that he did not listen to the advice of the Agriculture Select Committee, endorsed by the Opposition, when it told him that the policy would not work? What does he intend to do about the increasing level of salmonella food poisoning in Britain?
Mr. Soames : On this, as on many other matters, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The Select Committee wholly endorsed the action of my right hon. Friend the Minister. The relationship between cases of human food poisoning caused by salmonella and the incidence of infection in laying flocks is extremely complex. Several factors are involved, from production to the safe handling, storage and use of eggs, including by the consumer. The Government have acted on all the recommendations in the Dick report, not merely on the one that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Martyn Jones : The Government have agreed to use-by dates and to stop their slaughter policy. When the Select Committee visited the public health laboratory
Column 990
service, admittedly after reporting, on 7 February 1991, Professor Humphreys of the PHLS had evidence that stopping the slaughter policy and introducing use-by dates on eggs was the path to follow. Does the Minister agree that the policy has been an ineffective and monumental waste of time and that two years have been wasted in responding sensibly to the problem?Mr. Soames : No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's statement. The Government were obliged, following the events of those days, to take action that secured consumers' confidence in the product and protected the egg industry, which was in great difficulty because consumption of eggs had fallen by 80 per cent. after the egg scare. We have acted at all times following the best scientific advice offered to us. We have now acted following further evidence from Professor Heather Dick. I believe that the steps that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken are absolutely right.
Mr. Marland : Does my hon. Friend agree that in promoting further sales of British poultry the Strathclyde food initiative is an excellent undertaking? Large British companies such as Safeway, Allied-Lyons, Unigate, Rank Hovis and others have got together with producers and farmers to ensure that the right conditions prevail whereby they can sell more home -grown British food in British shops. Does my hon. Friend agree that the initiative should be widely endorsed?
Mr. Soames : My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Strathclyde food initiative is immensely valuable to the industry. It is a remarkable endeavour on the part of some major retailers and others. It will be and is of great benefit to the farming community. It is true that the farmers must pay more attention to marketing the goods that they produce. We must pay a great deal more attention to what we will do with the produce. To that end, the Strathclyde initiative is to be welcomed and I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Garnier : Does my hon. Friend accept that if there are to be further changes in the regulations on poultry welfare, they should be introduced on an EC-wide basis so that British poultry farmers are not placed at a disadvantage to their EC competitors?
Mr. Soames : My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are totally committed and will not introduce welfare amendments that are not practised throughout the Community and could thus disadvantage our people. My hon. Friend has my assurance and that of my right hon. Friend on the matter.
Potatoes
4. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department holds as to the contract price for potatoes in EC member states.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : We do not hold information on contract prices for potatoes outside the United Kingdom, but have analysed movements in average market prices.
Mr. Gerrard : Has not the price of potatoes collapsed in much of Europe during the past 12 months, forcing many
Column 991
producers into bankruptcy? Given that fact, why are the Government insisting on driving British producers into the same sort of market, rather than supporting the existing successful marketing scheme?Mr. Curry : If it were true that prices had collapsed throughout Europe, including Britain, by definition the British scheme would not be working. In the processed market--the part of the market that is expanding- -the United Kingdom is getting far too little of the investment and the continent far too much. We wish to ensure that we modify the present arrangements, to put British farmers on a level playing field and to ensure that we continue to dominate the European snacks and crisps market, which is at the leading edge of technology.
Mr. John Marshall : Will my hon. Friend confirm that, due to the operation of the potato marketing scheme, we are even importing frozen chips because it is too expensive to make them here? Can he tell the House whether any EC country has a quota scheme to restrict the output of potatoes?
Mr. Curry : Potatoes are the only part of Community agriculture which are not brought within the common agricultural policy regimes. There is a proposal to do so which would not permit the continuation of quotas. It is our view that the quota scheme, which has served its purpose--as it used to do with milk and the forgotten hop quotas--has probably been overtaken by events. We need to ensure a competitive and level playing field in Europe for our producers and for those who work in the processing industry.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Before forcing Britain's potato producers into the destructive conditions of the free market, and before any decision by the Community, or the United Kingdom unilaterally, would not it be wiser to press the European Commission to set up an investigation into the use of direct and indirect subsidies to European producers and processors? Could not such an investigation consider the subsidies in Holland, Jersey, France, Spain and Italy?
Mr. Curry : If it were true that the free market was destructive, one would expect there to be no healthy industry in France, Germany and Holland and one would expect consumers to be suffering from potato shortages--neither is true.
Abattoirs
5. Mr. Nigel Evans : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on new regulations relating to abattoirs.
Mr. Soames : We have received many representations and have been able to reassure a large proportion of them of the flexibility and care with which we will be implementing the regulations.
Mr. Evans : Is my hon. Friend aware that massive bills are landing on the floors of many of our small and medium-sized abattoirs? I have one here. It is going to cost a small abattoir more than £20,000 extra per year for a vet as well as a meat inspector. Can nothing be done about such massive veterinary charges, which seem to have no rhyme or reason but are acting like a tax on our abattoir owners? If something cannot be done about the charges,
Column 992
can anything be done about the directive? If we cannot amend it, perhaps we can interpret it as loosely as some of our European Community neighbours interpret other legislation.Mr. Soames : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who faithfully represents the great concern felt on both sides of the House about that serious matter. All other major meat-producing countries insist on veterinary supervision of meat production and a dual standard for slaughterhouses and meat hygiene is no longer acceptable. All those people who have come to see us agreed about the importance of hygiene standards. Their real concern is over the level of veterinary charges for inspection. My right hon. Friend and I are doing all that we can to bring some sense and order to that matter. There has been extensive consultation with the local authorities and we await the full detail of their response before we consider our next move. I assure my hon. Friend that we are entirely seized of the necessity to get the costs down and we shall continue to make the strongest possible representations to the veterinary profession about that.
Mr. Hain : I welcome the Minister's statement. I draw his attention to the case of Mayberrys abattoir in Pontardawe in my constituency, which has been charged £70,000 in vets' fees for no more than a few hours' work a day during the week. Will the Minister investigate that case as a matter of urgency and consider the extra costs that fall on abattoirs as a result of the wider impact of the directive, which is having a severe effect on employment opportunities at that important local employer?
Mr. Soames : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for presenting his case in a measured way. I cannot comment on an individual case, but if he would like to get in touch with me, I shall, of course, consider it closely.
Veterinary charges are causing the great difficulty in this matter and we continue to press the British Veterinary Association and the other professional organisations to come up with a proper and sustainable regime of charging. At the moment some of those charges are utterly unacceptable.
Mr. King : May I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said? There is no point in having achieved the exemption level, which we much appreciated, if that benefit is negated by high veterinary charges, which make it impossible for small slaughterhouses to continue. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to redouble their efforts to ensure that small
slaughterhouses are not genuinely disadvantaged in that way.
Mr. Soames : My right hon. Friend has been extremely vigorous in representing the case to me. He will know that not all closures are due to the new regulations. Our slaughtering sector has been rationalising for many years in response to market forces and there is still some overcapacity in the industry. My right hon. Friend will understand that we simply are not prepared to allow poor plants to survive at the expense of those that have been prepared to invest in order to meet modern standards. We have made enormous efforts to ensure that those good businesses that have been prepared to invest and go along with modern practice can and will survive.
Column 993
Mr. Enright : Have not some small and medium-sized abattoirs invested to bring themselves up to the standards that were locally recommended? It was only when the civil servants got hold of the directive and over-regulated that we started to have problems. Will the Minister rein in his civil servants and make them see sense?
Mr. Soames : On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman is, unusually, being thoroughly unfair. I am not in the business, normally, of defending vets, but we have made the most vigorous representations to them and we will see that their charges are kept to a proper limit. Throughout the exercise, officials have implemented the regulations in an extremely sensitive and pragmatic manner. I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that a great deal of work needs to be done in the sector. It is quite wrong that the British consumer should have to accept a dual standard of meat hygiene.
I know that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has the interests of the meat industry at heart and he will be aware of the great damage that bovine spongiform encephalopathy caused to domestic meat consumption. It is quite right that we should take every step to ensure that high standards in meat hygiene are available.
Food Safety Act 1990
6. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to review the working of the Food Safety Act 1990.
Mr. Soames : I keep the Act under constant review and, indeed, we are now looking at all the regulations that have been issued to ensure that they properly fulfil their purpose.
Mr. Riddick : Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of small bakers and grocers have had to spend thousands of pounds on new shelves and new fridges, depending on how their local authorities have interpreted the Act? Those small business men see that Act as a bureaucratic imposition rather than as a measure designed to improve food safety. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the proposed EC directive on dairies, which was brought to my attention this week by a local farmer, who tells me that it will cost him £25,000 and might even put him out of business, will not be an equal bureaucratic nonsense?
Mr. Soames : I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the 1990 Act has been bureaucractic nonsense. It has been broadly welcomed, by not only consumers but firms involved in food processing and manufacture. I agree with my hon. Friend that proper, honourable and accurate assessment of enforcement throughout the country is of extreme and critical importance. The problem that arises with the 1990 Act is that enforcement often appears not to be on a level playing field. We have taken a great deal of trouble with environmental health officers and local authorities and believe that we now have more satisfactory enforcement. As to my hon. Friend's specific point about the dairy trade, if he will give me more details of the farm to which he referred, I shall be happy to see him, with my right hon. Friend the Minister, and to look into the matter on his behalf.
Mr. Salmond : Does the Food Safety Act 1990 have any implications for the substantial quantities of cheap
Column 994
Russian, American and Canadian fish that were imported into the EC last October and November at below reference prices and which are now finding their way through the cold stores and are destabilising the fish market in the Community? If food safety regulations are not relevant, is there any other action that the Government will take to stop that market destabilisation?Mr. Soames : We all admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but there are no implications for the Food Safety Act 1990.
Mr. Hicks : Despite my hon. Friend's observations, is not it a fact that absurd cases have arisen--in part, as a consequence of differing interpretations by various statutory authorities--and should not the Government's deregulation unit undertake an investigation?
Mr. Soames : My hon. Friend is right. There have been some unfortunate incidents, but also many grossly over-exaggerated and inaccurate media reports. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has set in train a substantial deregulation programme. One aspect to which we are turning our attention is deregulation and the whole corpus of food law. My hon. Friend would not expect us to take any steps that could put the consumer at a disadvantage in respect of the high state of food protection that we currently have--but I take his point and will bear it in mind when we consider that issue.
Dr. Strang : Does the Minister accept that while the possibility of BSE being transmitted to humans seems remote, we cannot be absolutely certain of that for some years because the incubation period of the agent in human beings is likely to be very long? What is the Minister's response to the continuing rise, each month over the past year, in the number of cows reported to have BSE and to the likelihood that the total number of cows slaughtered because of BSE will break the 100,000 barrier this year?
Is the Minister still confident that BSE is caused by a single source-- cattle feed contaminated with ruminant protein? Is he satisfied that there is no vertical transmission from cow to calf and no horizontal transmission between cattle in the same herd? Can we still be confident that BSE will be completely eradicated by the year 2000, as predicted by the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are seized of the importance of the issue?
Mr. Soames : On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he knows perfectly well that the Government are very seized of the issue. It is one of the most critical facing us and naturally we spend a great deal of time on it. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that nothing in the evidence received since the Tyrrell committee reported has caused the Government's expert advisers to alter in any way their views on BSE and their belief that the disease will be eradicated eventually. I confirm that the source of the infection is undoubtedly, we believe, ruminant protein in feed and that, following the feedstuffs ban, we are beginning to see a considerable decrease in the numbers infected.
Let me make a further point about the increase in the figures. Because a certain period elapsed between the feed ban and the clearing of feed from the farms, the numbers are greater than we had at first thought. As for maternal and horizontal transmissions, even if they do occur--and
Column 995
there is no compelling evidence of that-- there is no reason why such transmissions should have any effect on the epidemic itself.Set-aside
7. Mr. Mans : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that set-aside is implemented on a comparable basis everywhere in the EC.
Mr. Gummer : Detailed Commission implementing rules provide a common basis for set-aside across all member states. We intend to hold the Commission to that, and to ensure that other member states follow the rules as we ourselves shall.
Mr. Mans : Has my right hon. Friend any plans to extend the scheme to the fishing industry, so that it can be implemented fairly? It should be borne in mind that the industry is currently in dire straits--particularly in my port of Fleetwood, where, as recently as this morning, a firm went into voluntary liquidation.
Mr. Gummer : The differences involved are considerable. In the agricultural sector, we are trying to reduce over-production, whereas in the fishing sector we are trying to reduce effort : there are fewer fish to be caught each year because of the over-use of effort. As my hon. Friend will know very well, a decommissioning scheme is now part of our fisheries package, and I very much hope that that will prove helpful.
Madam Speaker : Order. It would be helpful if the Minister addressed the microphone ; if he does not do so, it is difficult to hear what he is saying.
Mr. Skinner : Why does not the Minister reconsider the proposal by his hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) for set-aside schemes for fish farms? He might then qualify for such a scheme. He could turn his pond into a fish farm for which the taxpayer would have to foot the bill ; then he could have another set-aside scheme to pay for the fence. Some of us think that the Minister is building a farm down there--or perhaps it is a horse-racing stud : after all, it is close to Newmarket.
Mr. Gummer : The hon. Gentleman's question shows the seriousness with which he takes all our efforts. I doubt whether the House wants an answer to it-- [Interruption.] I doubt whether the House wants an answer different from the one that I have given. I thank him for bringing yet more levity to our proceedings.
Mr. Moss : No doubt my right hon. Friend is aware of the rumours that now abound that EC farmers, particularly in France, have yet again stolen a march on United Kingdom farmers in securing the right to grow oilseed rape on set-aside land as long as the oil is used for biofuel. Would he care to comment on that? Will he give the House an assurance that he will fight, on behalf of United Kingdom farmers, for our right to a share of the EC funds that have been earmarked for biofuel research?
Mr. Gummer : We already have that right. No march has been stolen on us. Anyone who can sign a contract that ensures that the product will have an end use in biofuels or the like will have that right in this country, just as they would have it in France or any other Community nation.
Column 996
Common Agricultural Policy (Fraud)
8. Mr. Booth : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to prevent fraud within the reformed CAP.
Mr. Gummer : I have sought on all occasions to insist that European Community agriculture schemes are designed to combat fraud and reduce wastage with the minimum of unnecessary burdens.
Mr. Booth : Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the widespread anxiety and anger felt by, in particular, taxpayers--in Finchley, for example--at the way in which EC farmers, especially on the continent, are defrauding the system of billions of pounds? I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, but will he tell us how the inspectors will produce enough information to deal with the problem? Will he also assure the House that the long-standing border dispute between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland in relation to fraud is being dealt with adequately?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend is entirely right : there is a great deal to be done. We shall ensure that, in so far as this country has experienced such problems, we cover them in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. At the same time, we are determined that the same should happen throughout the rest of Europe, which means insisting that anti-fraud measures are implemented everywhere, from Scotland to Sicily.
Mr. Cryer : Is not the truth that the common agricultural policy is so extensive, cumbersome and inefficient that all attempts to combat fraud have ended in failure? Is not it true that most of the £14 billion which the Tory Government paid to the common market between 1980 and 1990 went on the common agricultural policy, that many millions of that disappeared in fraud and that the only way we shall stop this fraudulent practice is by ending the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Gummer : I do not think that it is the policy of the hon. Gentlemen's party, as far as I understand it, to withdraw Britain from the European Community. Therefore, the concept of ending the common agricultural policy is not an issue which either party can entertain. What we have to do is reform it. We have gone a long way towards that reform. We shall get rid of that fraud and we are fighting hard against it. We are not helped by the hon. Gentleman who, instead of seeking to reform it, wants always to pull it down, but that is the attitude he has always had.
Sir Jerry Wiggin : Putting aside the criminal aspects of this matter, will my right hon. Friend accept that many farmers in this country believe that other member countries go in for a bit of fraud in the administration of the CAP itself? Will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to see that the rules are applied equally across the board, in many areas, as directed by the Commission?
Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that many feel that the systems that are obtaining in other countries, while they are not encouraging fraud, are not discouraging it adequately. We are seeking to ensure that the Commission, through its inspections and the like, puts an end to this practice. I am pleased to say that recently, for example, the Italian Government both
Column 997
detected fraud that has taken place in its own country, and reported that fraud to the Commission. That is a very welcome sign which we shall be supporting.Scotch Whisky
10. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will arrange to meet representatives of the Scotch whisky industry to discuss future prospects of the industry and those employed in it.
Mr. Curry : My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry.
Mr. Canavan : Is the Minister aware about 70,000 workers are employed directly and indirectly in the whisky industry and that last month, because of the difficulties that are facing the industry, United Distillers proposed 700 redundancies and eight plant closures, including the Rosebank distillery in my constituency? Will the Minister therefore arrange to meet United Distillers to see what can be done to avoid those closures and to save those jobs? Will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a fairer tax regime based on revenue per unit of alcohol? Is it not ridiculous that two thirds of the retail price of a bottle of whisky goes to the Treasury and that the taxation rate on whisky is almost double that on imported wines?
Mr. Curry : My right hon. Friend will, of course, hear what the hon. Member says as he prepares his Budget. It is true that in unit taxation, finding a better balance between wine, beer and spirits in the Community as a whole would be to the advantage of the United Kingdom, and we support that approach in the European Community. United Distillers, which is a Guinness company, is undergoing a restructuring caused by difficulties in the marketplace. We are always open to representations by that company and all companies involved in the drinks industry. I am arranging, in any case, for a meeting with that and other major drinks companies in Britain to discuss the whole question of their marketing and Britain's role in the marketplace.
Dr. Strang : I am sure that the Minister accepts that the loss of hundreds of jobs in this industry is a matter of grave concern and, in addition to taking up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), will he also make clear to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the minimum excise rates EC package, which came into operation at the beginning of this year, is quite unacceptable and that when it comes up for review next year it is essential that the Government secure the establishment of something like a level playing field?
Mr. Curry : The hon. Gentleman will know that the European Commission is investigating excise duties. The recent agreement at least achieved a standstill, which enables us to consider the matter objectively. I agree that Scotch is one of the United Kingdom's most important export industries. It has achieved substantial growth in export markets, so it is very much in our national interest that we ensure that the taxation regimes to which it is subject put it on a level playing field with other drinks, most of which are deeply inferior to it.
Column 998
Farm Products (Sales)
11. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Minister of AGriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take to increase sales of British meat and other British farm products.
Mr. Curry : I shall take every opportunity to encourage the farming and food industries to seize on market opportunities at home and abroad.
Mr. Pawsey : I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that the quality and variety of British food is among the best in the world, that it represents excellent value to the British housewife and that it creates and sustains thousands of British jobs? Will he redouble his efforts, therefore, to promote British food in the United Kingdom through not only the media, women's institutes and townswomen's guilds but through the education service, the thousands of schools and the national curriculum? I am sure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education would be only too pleased to assist.
| Next Section
| Home Page |