---

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Hogg: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that everyone recognises the critical importance of his visit to Brussels and of securing agreement to the lifting of the ban in recognition of the measures that we are taking? That may take a little time; meanwhile, the urgency of the financial situation is manifest for businesses and farms. Will he lend his support to the loudest call possible to banks and other financial institutions to recognise the seriousness of the situation, which farmers and companies have not brought on themselves by their inadequacy, and exercise the maximum restraint?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has expressed the sense of the House very clearly and I endorse what he has said.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): I was going to ask exactly the same question. Will the Lord President of the Council's committee deal with that as a matter of urgency on behalf of the Government? After all, the banks have made reasonable profits in recent years and must exercise tolerance and restraint in the interest of the entire rural economy.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that earlier it was suggested that the next meeting of the vets would be in six weeks' time? That is an awfully long time. Could it not be brought forward to two weeks' time?

Mr. Hogg: It is a long time, but what I discuss, and what I may agree, with the Commissioner tomorrow may make it possible to have an earlier meeting. That is something to be explored when we see how the discussions are going.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have been trying for four days to get hold of copies of documents referred to by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on food processing and regulation. Is he aware that the documents to which she referred when she accused the Government of being deregulatory dealt not with the way in which food would be processed but only with testing for salmonella?

Even more serious, the document makes it clear that that proposal did not come from the Labour party in the first place but from the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). The Labour party took no action during the whole of its period in government to consider food processing, and it was left to this Government to bring it in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be short.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point and clearly has read, as other hon. Members may not

28 Mar 1996 : Column 1238

have, the report of Sir Richard Southwood, which was published in February 1989. In paragraph 4.28 on page 11, the House will find a careful analysis of the probable causes of the outbreak of BSE.

My hon. Friend is right to say that it had nothing to do with deregulation. The first regulation was imposed in 1981. There was no regulation in the 1970s: the Conservative Government were the first to impose one. There were draft proposals, but, as my hon. Friend said, they had to do with salmonella. In any event, the temperatures contemplated in the draft regulations were wholly irrelevant to BSE, because they would not have deactivated it.

Sir Roger Moate (Faversham): Before concluding, will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about his discussions in Brussels? It is obviously right and proper and necessary for him to discuss a number of measures with the European Commission, assuming that that will contribute to lifting the ban. Will he say whether the discussions that he will have about the intervention system and other measures that we intend to put in place will contribute to the lifting of the ban?If he does not secure agreement about the new intervention arrangements, will he confirm that we shall proceed regardless?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the House agrees that we have two principal objectives. The first, and most important, is the need to restore consumer confidence. If we can do that, the market will recover. Secondly, there is a clear relationship between consumer confidence, market confidence and lifting the ban. Tomorrow I shall explore with Commissioner Fischler the sorts of steps that we propose to take that would, in our opinion, help to restore consumer and market confidence and assist in lifting the ban.

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham): Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: I think that it will assist the House if I draw the themes together.

Hon. Members feel very deeply for those who have developed CJD, and for their families. The Government accept that the most likely explanation of CJD in the 10 cases that have been referred to is exposure to BSE before 1989. We are confident that, because of the controls that are now in place and because of our determination to see that they are implemented fully, the risk involved in eating British beef is extremely small: or, otherwise put, British beef is safe.

We now need to put in place a comprehensive programme to rebuild consumer confidence. That involves ensuring that controls are implemented fully. It may also involve taking measures beyond those that are strictly justified on scientific grounds. We are discussing with Brussels how best to reassure the market, and we shall discuss the same matter with representatives of British industry.

I have announced two specific measures to address immediate financial problems. If the market remains depressed, we would expect to see the support mechanisms provided under the common agricultural policy come into operation. We stand ready to make

28 Mar 1996 : Column 1239

further proposals to the House. Above all, the future of that essential part of British agriculture depends on the restoration of public confidence. Our solid and firmly founded conviction is that, for the reasons that I have already given to the House, British beef is safe and can be eaten with confidence. I believe that that opinion can be safely put to the British people.

7.3 pm

Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East): On Wednesday of last week, the Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee--SEAC--had advised the Government that bovine spongiform encephalopathy was the most likely explanation for an apparently new strain of Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease. We are all aware of the gravity of that announcement. The crisis that followed has affected confidence among consumers and within the European Union. It is a crisis over the safety of our beef and a crisis affecting thousands of jobs. The Government's task is to rebuild that confidence.

Clearly, the Government's first priority must be to keep the BSE agent out of our food. Only when consumers and our European counterparts are satisfied that the necessary measures are in place and are enforced properly will they be confident that British beef is as safe to eat as any other beef in Europe.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way: he has been much more responsible than many of his colleagues in responding to the problem.If the measures with regard to beef hygiene and the slaughterhouses are carried out and if the new recommendations in the orders put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend are implemented effectively, does he agree that--given that BSE is endemic and is under-reported in other European countries--British beef will be the safest, as well as the best, in Europe?

Dr. Strang: I agree--if the implication of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that our aim must be to make our beef the safest in Europe and among the safest in the world. There may have been some under-reporting of BSE cases in cattle in Europe--I cannot claim to be an authority on that subject. However, in my judgment and that of all the experts in the United Kingdom and in Europe, the incidence of BSE is a much bigger problem in the United Kingdom than in any other European Union member state.

I must advise the Minister that even the Government's most ardent supporters cannot claim that the Government's record will help them in their task of restoring confidence. The necessary measures were not put in place promptly in the past. BSE was first identified in November 1986. It was 20 months before the Government made farmers destroy all cattle showing the signs of BSE. It was not until June 1989--two and a half years after discovering BSE--that the Government announced that they planned to stop the parts of cattle that carried the most BSE agents from entering our foods. It was another five months before the ban was implemented in England and Wales and seven months before it was implemented in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.

28 Mar 1996 : Column 1240

Farmers did not receive full compensation for the slaughter of cattle suspected of carrying BSE until February 1990. The Government have now admitted that under-compensation during the previous 18 months must have deterred farmers from declaring suspect animals. That is the Government's record: a record of delay.

---