| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): Given the Government's gradual realisation that we could be facing a potentially horrific health problem in future years, will they now abandon their policy on this issue of shooting the messenger, and take much more seriously the warnings that we have had for a long time from certain British scientists? Is it true that the Government knew three years ago of the strong possibility of a link with human health? It is absolutely essential that we send a message to the public and assure them that the Government take the issue seriously. People believe that the Government have disregarded the issue simply because they are more concerned with the interests of farmers and the meat trade than with the health of the nation.
Mr. Dorrell: I have just answered that question, in the sense that I made it clear that there is a legitimate interest on the part of those who work in those industries, but that the pre-eminent consideration, of course, must be human health and the health of those who consume British-produced food. There is no argument about that.I do not believe that the characterisation of the Government's record in this sphere as shooting the messenger is in any sense true.
We have set up a committee of leading experts. As I stressed, its members are not Government scientists and they are not placemen--they are distinguished practitioners in their fields. They have given us the benefit of their advice, and, right the way through, we have acted
on it. It is not entirely surprising that advice about a condition that is new has changed as understanding of the condition has developed. That is why I ended my statement by saying that if further advice and recommendations came from those scientifically qualified people, the Government would react to that and ensure that it was brought immediately to public attention.
Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must keep these matters in perspective? Will he confirm that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has even less chance of contracting CJD from eating beef than she has of being re-elected to the shadow Cabinet in the next election?Will he also confirm that we have not forgotten the lesson of the salmonella in eggs fiasco some years ago, when an incautious word from a Minister devastated an industry for no proven benefit to the health of the nation--a lesson that has obviously been lost on Labour Front Benchers? Although the Leader of the Opposition yesterday posed as the friend of small businesses, the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that depend on the sale of beef cattle will have been undermined by the hon. Lady's words today. Therefore, the true friend of farmers and small business men is the Conservative party.
Mr. Dorrell:
I have already said that, although it is tempting to speculate about the shadow Cabinet election chances of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), this is not the time or place for it. I agree about the importance of neither underreacting nor overreacting to the issue. We must listen calmly to the advice that we have been given and reach measured judgments on the basis of that advice. That is what the Government have done.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. If he had not come forward now, he would have been charged with covering up. As a grandparent, and with one daughter who is a doctor and another who is a science teacher, I know that we need a balanced diet. The CMO's advice is accurate in that context. However, I want to press the Secretary of State. In Northern Ireland, we have had several incidents of CJD, but there has been no evidence of the beef trade being affected, although there has been an impact in other areas. Does the available scientific evidence relate only to beef cattle, or is wider experimentation being undertaken to discover whether there are other sources of infection?
Mr. Dorrell:
I am not aware of further experimentation. The evidence is being assessed, especially in respect of the 10 cases to which I referred.I agree very much about the need to ensure that we maintain a measured response. It is clearly essential to good health to maintain a balanced diet. There are few human activities that are entirely free of risk. It is incumbent on policy makers to ensure that the risk associated with a wide range of activities, including eating, is kept to a reasonable minimum.
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South):
Is not it the case that most consumers will regard this not as a party political but as a scientific issue? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have at all times
Mr. Dorrell:
I have already told the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement in a few minutes that will deal with the specific measures that affect agriculture. I agree wholeheartedly that this is not a time for a lay Minister to offer an opinion. I offer no opinion about the science. [Interruption.] With great respect to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I do not believe that his constituents or mine are interested in his or my views about the science. We are interested in what scientific risk is associated with the products. We have sought expert advice on that and acted upon it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Does the Minister realise that he is a member of the Government? He is supposed to make a judgment. They all make judgments about something or other. The present Secretary of State for the Environment made a judgment a few years ago.I did not agree with him when he was stuffing hamburgers down that little kid's throat, but that was a judgment. The chief medical officer has made a judgment. He has said that he is prepared to die for his Government--the first civil servant ever to say that. What is the Secretary of State prepared to do? If they are prepared to make judgments, surely the Government should tell the British public the facts.
Mr. Dorrell:
I will tell the House the judgment that I make in this case. When I am asked whether a product is safe, I think that the answer to that question is scientific, not political. That is well beyond the scope of politics and I hope that the great majority of hon. Members, if not the hon. Gentleman, agree with that.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire):
In order that people should have confidence in the future, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether anyone at any time has seriously put into doubt the competence or expertise of SEAC? Has the Department of Health at any time received recommendations from SEAC that it has not acted upon? How quickly has the Department of Health acted on the recommendations that it has received from SEAC?
Mr. Dorrell:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those three questions. First, I am not aware of anyone having impugned the competence of the members of SEAC. Whenever I have been asked questions about SEAC,I have always said that if people have scientific evidence which they do not believe that SEAC has considered or to which they do not believe SEAC has attributed proper weight, they should take the matter up with SEAC.The chairman of SEAC has made it abundantly clear that he regards that as an important part of the functions ofhis job.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asks whether there are any recommendations, based on science, that SEAC has offered the Government, on which they have not acted. The answer to that question is no. Thirdly, my hon. Friend asks how quickly the Government have acted on SEAC's recommendations. I cannot offer an answer that covers every case, but I can tell the House that the most recent series of recommendations received from SEAC arrived at a meeting of the Cabinet at 10.30 this morning. I do not see how we could have acted any more quickly.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North):
Will the Secretary of State now tell us what was the most radical option to deal with the problem that SEAC considered?
Mr. Dorrell:
I have already told the House that SEAC had available to it any option that it chose to recommend--any option. It went through a series of options and it made recommendations. The recommendations are as I set out in my statement. SEAC has given its scientific opinion that, provided that the recommendations are carried through--the Government have undertaken that they will be--there is minimal risk associated with the continued consumption of beef products. That is the key recommendation for those who are interested in future food safety in Britain and in the future economic interests of the food industry in Britain.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will welcome the research that he has announced into the impact of the BSE problem on children? Has he any plans, however, to ask for research into the possible impact on older people?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |