| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton): I thank the Secretary of State for that statement and pay tribute to Professor Pennington and his expert team for the speed with which they have prepared the report for us. Given that it is, however, an interim report, we shall look forward to reading the full one in the next couple of months and to seeing the considered conclusions on what is, by any standards, a very grave issue.
Let me say at the outset that I welcome many of Professor Pennington's recommendations, in particular those on licensing procedures, emergency planning and the aspects of food regulations that he considered. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted so many of those recommendations.
We of course welcome the extra money promised for research, but will the Secretary of State confirm that Professor Pennington asked the Government for research funding as far back as last November but was denied it? Why is it only now, after 16 people have died and more than 400 have been affected by this most horrifying of illnesses, that the funds are being made available and the research is being belatedly done? Is it not a classic example of the way in which the Government have treated every food crisis that they have faced--ignoring medical advice, reacting to events rather than shaping them, and always too little, too late?
On a specific but central issue, will the review of the food safety guidelines examine our concerns that the present guidelines, particularly on the publishing of information on outlets that might be affected, are skewed towards the commercial interest at the expense of that of the consumer? Professor Pennington's report--the public will appreciate that we have had only a few minutes to consider it--says clearly in paragraph 4.2.13:
Does the Secretary of State accept that Professor Pennington's inquiry cannot address the role of the Scottish Office and, more importantly for avoiding a repetition of such an emergency, the role of Scottish Office Ministers in the handling of this tragedy? The public expect those issues to be dealt with by the fatal accident inquiry, but does the Secretary of State accept that that public inquiry is unlikely to begin its work for some months--not until after the general election? That delay does not mean that Ministers should not give us a full and frank account now of their role in this affair.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 327
Above all, will the Secretary of State answer the central question, to which he has signally failed to give a credible answer so far: what advice, if any, did his Minister responsible for health--the Minister of State, Scottish Office--give on the publication of the list of outlets? To be fair, the Secretary of State told the House in his first statement on the issue that, once he became aware of the problem with the list of outlets, his advice was to publish it. However, by then the decision to publish had already been taken by Lanarkshire health board. Given that the Minister responsible for health must have been aware of that list and the controversy surrounding it long before then, what was his advice to the local authorities? Why were the public of North Lanarkshire and central Scotland kept in the dark for so long? By the first weekend, the bacteria had spread beyond North Lanarkshire and Forth Valley health board had been involved. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Scottish Office did not instruct the local agencies to issue the information to the public? Is not it true that his Department's official, with the support of the acquiescence of the Scottish Office Minister responsible for health, told local agencies that the guidelines prohibited publication?
Let me say, in all seriousness, that the reason why we continue to ask questions has nothing to do with partisan advantage; it is that Ministers keep dodging our questions and refusing to answer them. Is it not time that the Secretary of State finally stopped passing the buck and gave us a full and frank account of his Minister's role in the crisis and gave the public the answers that they deserve?
Finally, is not the more general lesson to be learnt from this whole tragedy that in matters of food safety the interests of the consumer must always take precedence over profit? Why will Ministers not establish the food standards agency that we and so many others have proposed to ensure that food safety has the priority that the public expect?
Mr. Forsyth:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks and his thanks to Professor Pennington. I also thank him for his welcome for the interim recommendations in that report and the Government's response to them.
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest possible way that this really is not the territory for party political point scoring.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Of course it is.
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course it is." The report deals with a complex and difficult situation in which a number of people have died. It raises complicated issues of food safety and regulation and it is important that it is examined carefully.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points in respect of research funding. He asked me whether the Scottish Office had refused to fund the proposals that we have said today that we will support. We did not. However, Professor Pennington was asked to reformulate one proposal that he put to the Scottish Office. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we do not fund research simply because of the nature of the subject--E. coli 0157. The nature of the research and what it intends to achieve has to be considered and the Government act on the basis
15 Jan 1997 : Column 328
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the research is simply reacting to events is correct in so far as it arises from recent experience and will help us, but he was incorrect to suggest that we have not been prepared to support research that is soundly based and has been commended to the Government by their advisers.
In regard to publishing information, the hon. Gentleman described the code of practice as being "skewed towards the commercial interest". The code of practice was laid before the House. The Food Safety Act 1990 was subject to considerable debate and there was a consensus across the Floor of the House about the value of that regulation. I do not believe that hon. Members would not have objected to a code of practice that was "skewed towards the commercial interest".
I gave the hon. Gentleman advance notice of the report in which Professor Pennington deals with that point and demonstrates that it is possible to interpret the guidance in respect of publication in a way that might result in people not making information available because of concern about damaging commercial interests.
North Lanarkshire local authority decided not to publish information on the basis of the code of practice, but Forth Valley health board and Falkirk local authority decided to publish the information on the basis of the same code of practice. So there is an issue of interpretation. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether that would be addressed. As I said in my statement, we shall accept Professor Pennington's recommendations in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman said that the report could not address the role of the Scottish Office. It does so. Just for the sake of clarity, in respect of the conduct of the Scottish Office and the local authority, Professor Pennington concludes that overall the procedures worked well. The outbreak was a major one, concerning a particularly virulent organism, and there are of course lessons to be learned. Professor Pennington commends the procedure that was established under the chief medical officer in the Scottish Office for dealing with the outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman says that the fatal accident inquiry will not be available for some months. He knows that that is because there are criminal proceedings and the matter is sub judice, which makes it even more difficult for me to go into some of the detail on which he seeks to press me. The fatal accident inquiry cannot take place until such time as the criminal proceedings have been followed, and he knows that.
"There is a risk that in certain circumstances the existing guidance might restrict the dissemination of information to the public."
It goes on to say:
"It is clear that any advice in the Code should indicate that where Risk Assessment suggests a risk to public health exists then disclosure of information is relevant."
He clearly implies that the current guidelines are restricting information to the public. Will that lead to an immediate review of the guidelines? Will those commercially biased guidelines, which led to consumers still buying contaminated foodstuffs long after the outbreak had been detected, stay in place in the interim? That would be intolerable, given what we know and what Professor Pennington has said.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |