| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lunesdale): My right hon. and learned Friend has demonstrated that in scientific laboratory conditions BSE can be transmitted to sheep. What possible evidence is there that that happens in the field, particularly in relation to sheep that are younger than eight years old and have never been able to eat any bovine beef?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right--there is no evidence that BSE has been transmitted to sheep in field conditions. We are acting out of an abundance of caution in a wholly precautionary way. But my hon. Friend was right to make his point.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): We are grateful to the Minister for making an oral statement, particularly given the condition of his vocal cords. I think that he was originally intending to rely on a written answer and it is to the benefit of the House that he has made a statement and that we have had an opportunity to put questions to him.
The House will agree that there is an urgent need to clarify the position, so will the Minister tell us precisely what he has agreed to in relation to British lamb? Is it
not true that the precautionary measures are irrelevant to traditionally reared and traditionally butchered English--British--lamb? Is it not true that the English chop is safe in our time? Will he now give that assurance? Will he respond specifically to the point made by the British Veterinary Association, that the proposed regulations are ludicrous in relation to the British situation?
Mr. Hogg:
It is true that I was thinking of relying on a written answer; an Adjournment debate was also planned and I was contemplating informing the House about the issues during that debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked what I have agreed to. I have agreed to nothing. I am in the process of consulting, in the manner that I have described to the House. Clearly, if the European Union promulgates EU-wide directives that are legally binding, I anticipate implementing them in this country--as I imagine that he would wish me to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the English chop. I am bound to say that I am not quite as partial as he is to it, in the sense that I am also concerned about the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh chop. Speaking of the UK chop, I think that it is a splendid product. It can be eaten in complete safety, and I look forward to doing so for very many years to come.
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton):
Perhaps the House has listened to this statement in such a quiet manner because, rather than suffering from July madness, we are suffering from crisis fatigue. Will my right hon. and learned Friend recall and reflect on the question so ably asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), who got to the nub of the entire matter? Is it not a fact that we are leaving our common sense behind in responding to the Commission's proposals, which are totally unnecessary for our sheep industry?
Mr. Hogg:
I have already made the point that we are acting out of an abundance of caution. It is our view that UK lamb--in fact, European lamb--is wholly safe. We have received advice. The French committee has advised the French Government, and SEAC, our advisory committee, has advised the British Government. Therefore, on the basis of that considered opinion--which will be made available to all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend--it is right to proceed in the manner that I have outlined to the House.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
This is another fine mess that the Agriculture Minister has got himself into--or that he has got the industry into. Surely he is aware that consumers do not trust him. Furthermore, he must be aware that he is driving producers to despair, particularly those who have to sell their lamb flock at this time of year, when the lambs are ready for market. Given that he has not only lost his voice, but lost the place, has not the time come for him to hand over responsibility for these affairs to the Deputy Prime Minister--or, preferably, to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)--before any more damage is done to consumer confidence or to the rural economy?
Mr. Hogg:
I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood the position adopted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who was, quite rightly,
Mr. Paul Marland (West Gloucestershire):
May I be forgiven for wondering where all this will end? I saw that, in some quarters this morning, the judgment of the Agriculture Commissioner was being called into question, because these precautions are being taken on the flimsiest of evidence. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is good news that this is a European rather than a British initiative, so that the onus is no longer on the British Government? Will he confirm that already 99 per cent. of the sheep brains removed in this country are destroyed, and that these measures will have virtually no effect whatever on the British sheep industry? That is quite a contrast to what happens in France, where a large proportion of sheep's brains are used in regional dishes.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is any truth in the rumour that is today circulating round the House, that these measures are a dastardly plot by Euro-vegetarians, who are determined to put off everyone from eating meat and to promote nut cutlets?
Mr. Hogg:
I have no difficulty in forgiving my hon. Friend in this matter, or in almost any other matter in which he asks for forgiveness. I have not the faintest intention of embarking on a diet of nut cutlets, and certainly not if they were the only thing that I was permitted to eat.
It is entirely desirable that the policy should be deployed on an EU-wide basis. My hon. Friend is right about that. He is also entirely right about the impact on the United Kingdom, as almost without exception--I am talking about 99 per cent.--the brains from sheepmeat in the UK are destroyed.
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West):
Will the Minister confirm that virtually every species that has been challenged with BSE in the way that the French team challenged sheep has developed a BSE-like disease? Will he therefore explain what will be done with the sheep's heads that are not now going into the food chain? Will they be rendered down into meat and bonemeal, and will that meat and bonemeal still be going into animal pet food as well as being disposed of in landfill sites?
Mr. Hogg:
The hon. Gentleman will find that the latter point is dealt with at some length in the consultation document. It is perfectly true that BSE can be transmitted to many creatures. As for the brains, the head--leaving aside the tongue--will be removed and destroyed and will not go into pet food. It will be treated as the equivalent of specified bovine material.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
If we are to have these precautions, so be it--as my hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland) said, they will not make a scrap of difference to the preparation of lamb for British and European tables. What livestock farmers will find difficult to understand is that it appears that the Agriculture Commissioner says that if we remove the
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend makes a formidable debating point, which I shall not overlook.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
I have many sheep farmers in my constituency who are very dependent on the export trade to Europe. Is not it in their best interests if we comply fully with the new European requirements, because we do not want trouble again with Europe on these matters in future?
Mr. Hogg:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Colin Shepherd (Hereford):
Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when the European Standing Veterinary Committee considered beef, its decisions appeared not to be based purely on scientific evidence? Is he confident that when the committee meets again to consider these matters, it will consider them only on scientific and veterinary grounds?
Mr. Hogg:
It is very important that it should, but it is fair to say that in matters of this kind there is scope for more than one reasonable judgment. There is a difference, which I have already pointed out to the House, between the advice of SEAC, which confines the recommendation to brains from sheep of more than six months, and that of the French advisory committee, which talks of enlarging the prohibition to include the spinal cord and spleen, albeit only in respect of sheep over the age of 12 months. There is that perfectly understandable difference of opinion among scientists, which needs to be reconciled on objective scientific criteria within the EU's advisory committees.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |