| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir John Cope (Northavon): Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is quite right to publish the scientific advice that he has received and to act exactly on that advice, as the Government have always done? But can he also confirm, as I think he said in his statement, that the10 new cases that have caused the immediate concern are all thought to have been infected before the 1989 precautions involving offal, and so on, were taken? That should be a considerable reassurance to the public, in avoiding the sort of overreaction about which we are concerned.
Mr. Dorrell: Yes, my right hon. Friend is right. I am grateful to him for his support on our approach. In terms of the likely pathological background to the 10 cases that are the basis of the revised advice, it would be a mistake for me to paraphrase the experts' advice. It is, as I quoted it in my statement, that the most likely explanation is that the cases may be linked to exposure before the specified bovine offal ban in 1989. But the statement and the chief medical officer make it clear that there is no scientific proof of that connection.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): In welcoming the Secretary of State's presence in the House and that of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in welcoming the measures that he has announced, may I tell him of the distressing case of Victoria Rimmer, now aged 18, who has lain seriously ill in Deeside community hospital for some three years? May I also tell him of the superb nursing skills practised in that hospital and the
splendid work of the team led by Mrs. Megan Jolly?The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that Victoria's former schoolfriends continue to come to the hospital, as do members of staff.
In an answer on this matter dated 3 February 1994, the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), said:
Does that advice still stand?
Mr. Dorrell:
I, and I am sure the whole House, join the hon. Gentleman in expressing sympathy to Victoria in her condition and in expressing our admiration both for the care that she has received from NHS staff and for the support that she will have received from the people in her own community. There is no doubt that the condition that we are talking about is extremely distressing and it is therefore essential that proper steps are taken to ensure that the risk of it being incurred is minimised.
In terms of advice as to how people should act, I give the hon. Gentleman the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)--the science does not justify a change in current practice. That is the advice that I have been given. I am not a scientist. It would be a great mistake for me or any other non-scientist to seek to second-guess the scientific advice that has been given to the Government and--this is the important point--through the Government to the nation.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the political courage to come to the House and make this statement this afternoon as soon as the new evidence was available. I also applaud him on behalf of all on the Conservative Benches for having the moral courage to stick to his last in saying that the Government will always support the latest scientific evidence available. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House that the risks of contracting CJD from whatever source are infinitesimal?
Mr. Dorrell:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He is of course right to say that the risks associated with this condition are extremely low, which is made clear in the scientific advice that I have received and have made available this afternoon.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate):
Was not the previous scientific advice categorical that there was no possibility of BSE entering the human food chain?In the light of the possibility that the disease takes10 years to incubate, should not stronger advice be given--certainly to schools and parents--on the possible effects and dangers of feeding beef to small children?
Mr. Dorrell:
The hon. Lady raises two questions. The answer to her first question, on whether the previous advice was specific that it was inconceivable that there would be a link between BSE and the condition being transmissible to humans, is no. The advice that we have received all the way through has been that there is no proof, no evidence, of a link. But it was precisely to safeguard against the possibility that there might be a link that the various controls were introduced, the most recent
It has always been recognised that there was a possibility of a link and, in the past few weeks, the committee has been considering new evidence around the existence of that possibility. It has considered that evidence and, on the basis of scientific expertise, has drawn conclusions on the controls that are necessary to provide proper safeguards to both animal and human health.
It is precisely because I understand the sensitivity of the advice that SEAC gives specifically on children, and by extension to schools--I am a parent of two young children--that I have sought specific advice. It will be available this weekend.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight):
Will my right hon. Friend tell me why the impression is continually given that the problem seems to affect only British beef?In many conversations that I have had with people in the agricultural industry, I have been told that they regularly see symptoms of the disease in herds in France and other countries. Why does Britain always play by the rules?Just what are other EC countries doing to take products off the market if there is a problem? Such action certainly does not seem to be taking place in other meat industries throughout the EC to the extent that it is in Britain.
Mr. Dorrell:
I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that we recognise the condition in its wider international context. We must take proper account of the incidence of various different diseases and their possible interrelationships in other countries. One of the benefits of publishing the advice, as I have done this afternoon, is that it will invite evidence from overseas and allow a better understanding of the scientific evidence with which we are dealing. I believe that this is a British House of Commons and that it is responsible to the British electorate for the safety of what goes on in Britain. I do not therefore think that it is sensible for us to try to look for elaborate linkages. We have received urgent advice and we are acting urgently in what we believe to be the British national interest.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon):
The Secretary of State will be aware of the sad case of my constituent, the late Mr. Neville Price, who died a few months ago of CJD. He was a farmer, but I understand that there was no proven link to BSE. Against that background, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that all the scientific research being undertaken has been taken into account in the report that he published today, particularly that conducted on trans-species barriers in mice, which was being investigated and appeared to be showing a way forward? Will he also give an assurance that if the research undertaken requires much greater resources to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, the Government will make them immediately available?
Mr. Dorrell:
The answer to the second question is yes. It is an urgent issue. I have already given the House the information on the further resources available in my departmental budget. We are acting urgently to ensure that the other agencies that are responsible for developing research act promptly. I can tell the House that a meeting has been fixed for April, to consider proposals on how
I can confirm that SEAC reached its recommendations by analysing the science from all the different spheres, and that that science will be brought together in a published paper, to allow others from the scientific community to see the evidence on which SEAC reached its conclusions and to form their own judgments about SEAC's conclusions.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
May I thank my right hon. Friend for the measured way in which he delivered his statement and for having immediately brought this urgent advice to the House's attention? The advice is manifestly of importance to every family in the land, so I welcome the further action on children. It is also of crucial importance to the entire agricultural industry. Beef is a very important industry in every village and rural area in the land, and it is most important that no one should stir up unnecessary panic where panic is not required.
Mr. Dorrell:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. I cannot stress too strongly to the House my view that the right way in which to deal with the issue is to ask where the scientific evidence lies and then to act on that evidence. My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right to say that there are major and legitimate economic interests--which, if I may de-jargonise it, means jobs--associated with those industries. It is obviously essential that those interests are taken into account in our consideration of the issues. Having said that, I believe that the pre-eminent consideration must be our responsibility for human health, and that order of priorities has been reflected in the advisory committee and in the Government's position.
"Beef can be safely eaten by anyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital."--[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 867.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |