| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Indonesia
20. Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Indonesia with particular reference to East Timor. [9252]
Mr. Hanley: I refer the hon. Lady to my answer to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and add that we regularly discuss our concerns about East Timor with the Indonesian Government.
Mrs. Clwyd: Do not the Government realise that no Labour Member has any confidence in the Government's professed concern for human rights in Indonesia or East Timor? When the Minister talks about such things, it is nothing but meaningless platitudes, particularly in the light of the National Audit Office report on British aid to Indonesia and the police training programme, which was backed by the Government. Why was the Home Office so concerned about that programme's human rights implications that it pulled out and left it to the Foreign Office? Why was there no human rights component in that police training programme? Why did Colonel Hindarto, trained under the British aid programme, go on to commit human rights abuses, including torture, in Indonesia and East Timor?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady refers to the NAO report. I remember saying to her just a couple of months ago that I hoped that she would stand by it, as I would stand by it, and the Government do so. It must have disappointed her because it made it clear that the concerns about links between aid and arms sales were unfounded, that none of the projects examined included the procurement of military equipment, and that none of the contracts or memorandums of understanding was conditional on the purchase of British goods or services beyond those necessary for the project. Therefore, in referring to the report, the hon. Lady confirms merely that our policy has been above board.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 321
Successive Governments have believed that training with Indonesian personnel has been good for development in Indonesia and for the appreciation of human rights, but of course not every course contains a human rights element. Training of military personnel and police has helped to improve that appreciation through better management. Academic training continues as well. In the past five years, under the Chevening award scheme for police training, three students have followed courses in police studies, business administration, banking and finance. That is perfectly sensible.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he does not respond to the blandishments of Labour Members about unilateral arms sales bans? He may know of the possible order for Westland, which will affect the jobs of constituents in Yeovil and most of Dorset. It is surprising to hear that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is urging the Government to ban such arms sales to a nation that is friendly with the UK.
Mr. Hanley:
My hon. Friend is right. There is no European Union or United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia, nor would one be justified. All applications are tested by us personally. Every application is considered before it is approved. As I have mentioned, since 1993, we have refused at least 11 licences for Indonesia. Details are in the Library.
21. Mrs. Helen Jackson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British Government policy towards the United Nations. [9253]
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
We remain wholeheartedly committed to the UN's purposes and principles.
Mrs. Jackson:
Does the Minister agree that the UN peacekeeping force in Angola, including the British contingent, has been vital in maintaining peace in Angola, in clearing land mines and in improving the security of the people who live there? Is he happy with the UN proposal to pull out of Angola in one month's time? What is he doing to ensure that a peacekeeping operation continues, thus ensuring the viability of peace in Angola?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
I agree that the UN's role in Angola has been significant. It is important that its work
15 Jan 1997 : Column 322
Sir Jim Lester:
What is the new Secretary-General likely to seek to achieve in terms of reorganisation? How quickly could we get countries that have not paid their dues and demands to pay them to the UN, so that it no longer operates with a shortage of money, which has been its biggest problem in the past five years?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me a chance to say two things. First, I welcome the opportunity of congratulating Kofi Annan on his appointment: in the view of Her Majesty's Government, he is an excellent choice for the job, and we are confident that he will succeed in carrying through the reforms of the United Nations that we seek.
As for the financing of the United Nations, I am much encouraged by the United States Administration's statement of their intention to pay the arrears that they undoubtedly owe. I must add a word of caution: that is subject to ratification by Congress. Nevertheless, it is certainly a move in the right direction.
Mr. Tony Lloyd:
The Minister seems to be unaware that the United Nations peacekeeping force in Angola is to be removed simply because the money has run out. Is that not disgraceful? The removal of the force could return Angola to a state of civil war, just because of a lack of money. Will the Minister tell the House that he will get in touch with the United Nations, and ensure that the lack of money cannot be used as a reason for withdrawing a legitimate and workable peacekeeping operation?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
It is a marvellous feature of the Opposition that, although they always decry our colonial past, they are the first to try to persuade the Government that we can run the world single-handed. I am not in a position to tell the United Nations what it must do, but I will certainly do all that I can to ensure that the arrears owed to it are paid, and that it is reorganised so that it can become more efficient.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 3233.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the interim report from Professor Pennington's expert group, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. The whole House will wish to thank Professor Pennington and his colleagues for the speed with which they have reported. Quite properly, they wish to reflect further on some of the issues before finalising their report by the end of February.
Professor Pennington was asked to examine the circumstances that led to the outbreak, and to advise me on the implications for food safety and general lessons to be learned. He has focused on four key areas: research, surveillance, enforcement and the handling of an outbreak. This outbreak has raised some fundamental questions about current food safety procedures in relation to the threat posed by E. coli 0157. E. coli 0157 should be seen in its proper context: it is much more virulent than most other causes of food poisoning, and requires a smaller infective dose than other organisms such as salmonella.
On research, Professor Pennington recommends work in two main areas--knowledge of the prevalence in livestock of the particular type of E. coli that caused the recent outbreak, and more accurate methods of typing E. coli strains using DNA fingerprinting. I have given instructions that that work should be done as a matter of urgency in consultation with the relevant research bodies, including the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. We have a wealth of clinical information from the treatment of about 1,000 patients during the outbreak. I therefore propose to commission an analysis of that information, which will help to develop our knowledge of the natural history of the infection and assist the management of outbreaks. I am asking Professor Pennington to consider that in his final report.
To back up research and help the understanding and control of food poisoning outbreaks, good surveillance, data collection and disease analysis are clearly essential. Although the report does not indicate that the current mechanisms caused any difficulties in the present outbreak, it suggests that more systematic arrangements in Scotland would be helpful.
The report therefore recommends that urgent consideration be given to introducing improvements to surveillance and that proposals be worked up to permit electronic reporting and analysis of data. I fully support those recommendations, and my Department is already taking action to make more systematic the way in which food poisoning data are reported from laboratories in Scotland. I will make resources available for the establishment of an electronic reporting system.
Professor Pennington makes several recommendations on enforcement. Existing arrangements on food hygiene are based on European Union directives, brought into force by regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990. The codes of practice under the Act were widely consulted upon and, of course, they were laid before the House.
Professor Pennington recommends urgent consideration of the legislation and action, through licensing, to ensure that equivalent standards of hygiene apply to premises
15 Jan 1997 : Column 324
The recommendations have far-reaching implications. I have instructed my officials to examine the practical implications of the recommendations and, in doing so, to consult consumers, health professionals, environmental health officers, processors and retailers. It would be helpful to Professor Pennington to have more detailed information on the practical aspects. Therefore, with that in mind, I have asked the Meat and Livestock Commission--the Government's statutory advisers on the industry--to carry out an urgent study of the issues so that Professor Pennington can take them into account in his final report.
Professor Pennington made three recommendations on the codes of practice under the Food Safety Act 1990, all of which my colleagues and I accept. He recommends first a review of code of practice 16, which relates to the food hazard warning system. That system, operated by the Government, is to warn environmental health departments of possible or actual food hazards on the basis of information from other areas. Professor Pennington concludes that the difficulty for food authorities is setting the balance between dealing with routine matters at local level and advising central Government of emerging problems.
As code of practice 16 is currently written, the decision to notify central Government is a judgment made locally. Professor Pennington suggests that it may be better to define an "isolated incident" as one which is contained within the boundaries of the food authority. It should, however, be incumbent upon that authority to notify central Government the moment that it has evidence that food distribution is beyond the local authority boundary. It would also be essential to retain the "major local incident" provision so that central Government are informed immediately even if the problem is contained within the authority's area but involves a significant number of people, an organism such as E. coli 0157 or a problem such as botulism.
An allied recommendation is that the code should place greater emphasis on risk and assessment of all factors relevant to protection of the public. That key addition would cover such matters as the organism's virulence, the extent of the food's distribution, the consumer group's vulnerability and the confidence that could be attached to product recall. The revision would make it clear that careful assessment of the risk involved is fundamental to informing decisions.
Professor Pennington also recommends a review of code of practice 9, on food hygiene inspections, to ensure better targeting of resources on high-risk premises.
I accept all those recommendations. Good lines of communication from local to central Government and timely release by local outbreak control teams of information to the public are crucial, as the paramount consideration must always be the protection of public
15 Jan 1997 : Column 325
Professor Pennington makes observations on the potential for cross-contamination in slaughterhouses, focusing specifically on the slaughtering of cattle in a clean condition. My Department is pursuing this issue with the Meat Hygiene Service, which is well advanced in preparing practical guidance on the definition of acceptable standards of cleanliness in animals presented for slaughter.
Hazard analysis improves food safety by focusing on critical points in the preparation and handling of food. Professor Pennington therefore recommends that the implementation of these requirements be accelerated, particularly for high-risk premises which handle raw and cooked foods. I agree. My Department will urge environmental health departments to take early action on it, so that hazard analysis covers all high-risk premises in their area as soon as possible.
Finally, on enforcement, Professor Pennington recommends, in the longer term, a review of the health risk condition contained in the Food Safety Act 1990, which governs, among other matters, the actions taken by environmental health officers in emergencies. The key question is whether the present position unreasonably inhibits environmental health officers in, for example, taking decisions under the emergency prohibition provisions in section 12 of the Act to close premises merely on suspicion of connection with an outbreak. I have asked my officials to examine the practical operation of the emergency powers available to EHOs as a matter of urgency and in doing so to consult consumers, health professionals, environmental health officers, processors and retailers.
On handling an outbreak, Professor Pennington recommends that every health board and local authority should make sure that they have in place joint plans, as required by the existing Scottish Office guidance, setting out mechanisms and procedures for dealing with them when they occur.
Professor Pennington also emphasises the importance of having one person leading the team, which should be able to act and take decisions as it sees fit. I agree on the importance of clear leadership and with Professor Pennington's expectation that this would most likely come from the health board. I also agree that the local authorities and the health boards must delegate to the team maximum powers to take the necessary action.
I propose to invite health boards and local authorities in Scotland to review their procedures and let me have their response to Professor Pennington's interim recommendations by the time he produces his final report.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |