| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride): As a Lanarkshire Member, I have listened carefully to what the Secretary
28 Nov 1996 : Column 476
of State has said. In some of his answers, it became clear that he was trying to absolve himself of partial blame in the matter. Will he confirm that the food hazard warning was not issued until 27 November, five days after the incident had been identified as a major problem, and that his officials were working with the local control team? I must ask him when he first became involved. What was he doing on a day-by-day basis? Why did he not act much earlier on such a major problem?
Mr. Forsyth: I think that I have already answered all those questions, but I am happy to do so again. On the publication of the list, I was informed about the situation at 7 o'clock last night. On the overall position, it is true that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, in whose constituency the outbreak occurred, contacted my office and I wrote to him outlining all the action that was being taken.
The hon. Gentleman criticised apparent delays, but all the information that I have been given shows that those involved acted as speedily as possible. On the question of blame, he might think about paying some respect to the officials in the local authority, the Scottish Office and the CMO, who have worked extremely hard to allay public fears and to carry the matter forward. Not every issue should be turned into a reason for political point scoring across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
I thank the Secretary of State for the quality of the very full replies that he has given to me over the past six weeks about the effects of bacteria. His replies were far superior to those that I received from the Secretaries of State for the other countries. Nevertheless, those replies present an alarming picture. Sadly, bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. We do not know how many deaths are occurring because of that, but we know that the number of patients affected by the hospital bug methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus has increased by 800 per cent. during the past four years. Tragically, one of the victims was the wife of Lord Fitt, who has described the details of her death in very moving terms.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is that we should be wise before the event. Is there a case for examining the increasingly resistant strains of bacteria that result in, for example, tuberculosis, meningitis and many other common diseases?
Mr. Forsyth:
I know that the hon. Gentleman has made a careful study of those matters, which are of great interest to him. I should be happy to draw his remarks to the attention of Professor Pennington and of our chief medical officer in Scotland and, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, to ask for further advice. I cannot respond more directly than that because I have to confess that I do not have the same knowledge as him in the matter.
Mr. George Robertson:
May I ask a couple of brief questions that arise from the exchanges? First, the Secretary of State was at the Dispatch Box for 45 minutes before he volunteered the information that E. coli bacteria might have been in the gravy in a pie. Why did it take so long for that critical information to be given?
28 Nov 1996 : Column 477
Secondly, the Secretary of State tried keenly to avoid any connection between his Department and the decision to delay publication of the outlets that might have had the contaminated product, but even his statement says:
Mr. Forsyth:
As to the point about the gravy in the pie and why it was not in the statement, the chief medical officer informed me about that just after 3 o'clock and I informed the House of it because I was asked a specific question about it. At the beginning of the statement, the hon. Gentleman was complaining that he had not had the information--[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is asking me a question and I am trying to answer it--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have had enough of seated interventions.
Mr. Forsyth:
The comments of a Front Bencher on this matter should not create excitement on the Bench behind.
The chief medical officer has told me that the first tests have shown that E. coli bacteria might have been in the gravy in the pie. I made the point in the context of the fact that the food that had been collected from the other outlets had not yet been tested, so we are not in a position to say whether the E. coli could be identified.
On why the Scottish Office was involved, I explained that earlier. It became involved when it became apparent that the outbreak went beyond the boundaries of the local authority and of the health board concerned. It is true that the chief medical officer said that the information would not be published. That was on the advice of the local authority, which had gathered the information and knew the circumstances surrounding it. I have explained the sort of consideration that would apply in deciding whether to publish it and I have said that we might need to consider that matter with a view to future guidance.
I have spent quite a lot of time talking to the people involved. Nothing that I have heard suggests to me that those involved in dealing with the epidemic have done anything other than act as speedily and as effectively as possible, and with the full public interest at the forefront of their minds. We must now get on and ensure that the necessary processes are completed. The inquiry will be conducted by Professor Pennington. We shall publish his report. If there have been shortcomings, they will be there for all to see, and the House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter and to consider the facts in the cool light of day.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week:
Monday 2 December--Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 3 December--Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
Wednesday 4 December--Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
Thursday 5 December--Motion on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Fees) (No.1) Order.
Motion on the Port of Tyne Authority (Transfer of Undertaking) Order.
Motion relating to the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations.
Friday 6 December--Debate on trade and inward investment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Madam Speaker, the House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 4 December, there will be a debate on air carrier liability in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on protection against third country legislation in European Standing Committee B. As usual, details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The business for the following week will be as follows:
Monday 9 December--Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill.
I am not yet able to be precise about the following three days, but I should make it quite clear to the House that I intend to make provision for a two-day debate on European affairs in advance of the European Council in Dublin on a motion for the Adjournment. The House would also like to know that I expect that both my right hon. and learned Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary will take part in that debate. On Friday 13 December, the House will consider private Member's Bills.
The House will also wish to know that, in that week, it will be proposed that, on Wednesday 11 December, there should be a debate on Community railway policy in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on development of the social dialogue in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 4 December:
European Standing Committee A--Relevant European Community Document: 5231/96, Air Carrier Liability. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-ii (1996-97).
European Standing Committee B--Relevant European Community Document: 9573/96, Protection against Third Country Legislation. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xxix (1995-96).
28 Nov 1996 : Column 479
Wednesday 11 December:
European Standing Committee A--Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 10003/95, Community Railway Policy; (b) 9654/96, The Community's Railways. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-i (1995-96); (b) HC 51-xxix (1995-96).
European Standing Committee B--Relevant European Community Document: 10305/95, Development of the Social Dialogue. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-ii (1996-97).]
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr):
I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. On his proposal for a two-day debate on a motion for the Adjournment in advance of the European Council, how does he propose to dispose of the recent difficulties that have arisen after the reports from the Select Committee on European Legislation and the impasse on legislation in Standing Committee B? Although there is a technical reason to have a debate on a motion for the Adjournment, the House will only look stupid to the public if there appears to be an issue that we are not facing up to. That matter must be dealt with.
Although we accept--everyone does--that the channel tunnel is a private company and a private operation, ultimately the British and French public expect their Governments and Parliaments to look after safety. As the story appears to change daily, will the Leader arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House about agreed security arrangements before passengers start using the one remaining tunnel?
On a related matter, the 3 o'clock tapes said that the French blockade of British lorries would be ending so that lorries could be blocked again over the weekend. We appreciate the limitations on the Government in this situation, which have been made clear in two answers from Ministers at the Dispatch Box this week. Nevertheless, the continuing threat to the livelihoods of hundreds of British drivers is outrageous. The matter is not a "shining beacon" to anyone, irrespective of what has been said. The conduct of industrial relations in France is disgraceful, and it is putting at risk hundreds--if not thousands--of British jobs.
If the matter is not settled by the weekend, it would behove the Leader to arrange for a statement to be made in the House. It is all very well sending diplomatic notes to other Governments, but the situation cannot be allowed to continue. As an aside, one might say that the millionaire grocer Sir James Goldsmith, who has made a lot of money out of food, could use his role as a French Member of the European Parliament to help get the British lorry drivers back home.
"Following detailed consultations late on 26 November"--
Tuesday this week--
"between Scottish Office officials and the local control team"
certain decisions were made about the food hazard warning. That was 24 hours before the announcement of the full list of outlets and the critically important information. I am aware that responsibility may lie at local level, but why was his Department involved at that stage and what advice was it giving?
4.28 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |