| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): May I take this opportunity to thank everyone who was involved in responding to the epidemic, including all the officials and especially the health workers who acted so magnificently? I welcome Professor Pennington's report and the comprehensive way in which he has addressed the issues. May I especially welcome his comments on the reappraisal and review of section 16 of the code of conduct, of the guidelines and of the emergency powers of prohibition in the hands of environmental health officers? All the existing codes of conduct, guidelines and powers enshrine the dilemma, which has to be worked out by officials, between protecting the public interest and protecting commercial interests.
Does the Secretary of State accept that although Parliament never intended that commercial interests should predominate when the matters are weighed in the balance, our experience of E. coli, BSE and other epidemics shows that when officials have to make a decision, commercial interests can on occasion predominate over public health? Will he give an assurance that if the review illustrates that that can happen, and to make sure that public health is always "paramount"--the word he used--consideration will be given to separating the public health issue through an independent food standards agency?
Mr. Forsyth:
I agreed with a large part of what the hon. Gentleman said until he got to the last bit, as there was a break in his logic. At the end of the day, an environmental health officer has to make a judgment and guidance is given as to how that judgment can be made. It is difficult to make that judgment, as it depends on the circumstances--none of us here knows all the circumstances in this case--and it may or may not be the judgment that other people with the same facts might make. I do not see how the existence of a food agency will affect whether or not people make the right or wrong judgment in particular circumstances.
Although Professor Pennington's report suggests that we should look at the wording of the code of practice--a matter underlined by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)--I do not see that it is possible to argue that the wording resulted in a particular judgment being made that reflected commercial interest. In Falkirk, a judgment was made to publish the information, but that judgment was not made in the case of North Lanarkshire. It is certainly true that there is scope for clarifying the wording, and that is what Professor Pennington has recommended. I will be consulting on that, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that recommendation and the Government's response. But it is wrong for people not to recognise how difficult these situations are, and it is wrong to believe that it is possible to write a set of rules that will guarantee that a particular course of action is taken on every occasion.
Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South):
Why have the Government recently cut £2 million from the budget of the Food Research Institute in Norwich, when that
15 Jan 1997 : Column 333
Mr. Forsyth:
I do not answer as the Minister responsible from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who would have taken that decision. I must put my hands up and say that when the Torry laboratory in Aberdeen was threatened with closure, I was among those who argued for the retention of research into not justE. coli but other food-related issues in Scotland. It may be that what happened in England had something to do with the reversal of the previous decision that was taken early last year, whereby we decided, as a result of proposals put forward by scientists in the north-east, to retain more of the research in Scotland. I am sure that I have the support of Opposition Members who represent Scottish constituencies in that respect.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West):
Bearing in mind the fact that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that public health should always takes precedence over private commercial considerations, is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that neither he nor any of his Ministers had any responsibility whatever for the delay in notifying the general public about the infected food outlets, including the outlets in my constituency? That delay led to the deaths of several people. How on earth can there be full confidence in Professor Pennington's inquiry when the inquiry team includes one of the Secretary of State's senior officials who was closely involved in handling the matter under investigation?
Mr. Forsyth:
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. That is precisely what I am telling him. His attack on the integrity of the Pennington group is unworthy. The group includes the chief medical officer and other professionals, and several people from outside who would not in any way be associated with any report or investigation that did not examine the facts and issue an objective and professional response. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will think that his question was unwise, to say the least.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
May I acknowledge that the Scottish Office and the Pennington committee followed up the plea that I made in Hamilton that they should consider the experience of the alleged--I choose that word carefully--Redhouse dairy outbreak in West Lothian and that they saw Mr. Alec Campbell and Mr. Crawford Morgan, representing the council, whohad experience of that agonising affair? Any outbreak ofE. coli is an agony.
Will the Secretary of State reflect on what several West Lothian councillors and officials have said: that they would have acted much more quickly and would have been able to do more had they not been inhibited by the actions and demands of the insurance companies? The insurance companies' wishes were an extremely serious matter, because the damages could have been enormous. In the course of the further inquiries, could the role and the requirements of the insurance companies be examined?
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That aspect has not been considered by Professor
15 Jan 1997 : Column 334
The hon. Member for Hamilton said earlier that he accepted that I had been informed about the matter on the Wednesday, when the information had not been made public, and that I had said that it should be. The publication of information that may or may not be right and that may cause damage to businesses is certainly a consideration, but my view at the time was that the public health interest must be paramount. It is, of course, easier for a Secretary of State to say that and to take responsibility than for officials operating where there are difficult judgments to be made.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will acknowledge, the provision in the code is often interpreted as meaning that the information has to be accurate because it might damage businesses; but it has to be accurate also because, if made public, it might have an important effect on public health. For example, if the wrong set of batch numbers were given to the public for tins of food infected by botulism, the result would be catastrophic. Professor Pennington points to the essential question of interpretation.
Hon. Members saw the code, it was consulted on, and everyone accepted it. Now that we have had the experience both in Lanarkshire and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we must learn the lessons and make a change. That is precisely what we intend to do.
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham):
Can the results of all that careful work be made available to seek to protect the health of people in England and Wales as well? In that connection, has my right hon. Friend had, or does he intend to have, discussions with English and Welsh Ministers?
Mr. Forsyth:
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health. They have worked speedily in the ad hoc group that was set up, involving other Ministers, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to ensure that we have a United Kingdom response to and awareness of the experience in Scotland. Work is already under way on a number of initiatives that will inform the actions of my right hon. Friends as we proceed and receive a response from the consumer and health interests that will want to take part in the discussions.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
May I put it to the Secretary of State that the job of Opposition Members is to ask key questions in the House on matters of public concern? It is his job to try to answer them, and not to complain about being asked a question every time it touches on the performance of Ministers or officials.
I welcome Professor Pennington's report, as I welcomed his appointment. The wide-ranging nature of his recommendations show the gaps and weaknesses in the current system.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 335
Concern has been expressed that a fatal accident inquiry will not necessarily examine the performance and policies of Ministers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, at some point during the fatal accident inquiry, he and his Ministers will face questions about when they had information and what action they took, and that they will do so even if they are no longer in office when it takes place?
It is clear from the Pennington report that Scotland has a particular problem with E. coli 0157. The problem existed well before the tragedy in Lanarkshire and Forth Valley--we had the outbreak in West Lothian and the cluster of cases in Grampian. In paragraph 2.2 of his report, Professor Pennington says:
"No information about the prevalence/incidence of the sub-clone in Scottish cattle or other animals"
is now available. Is not that statement a damning indictment, given the fact that the total funding of Scottish research into this particularly Scottish problem amounted to £500,000 during a six-year period?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |