| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Does the Minister recall agreeing with me on 30 January that the public no longer believe his assurances? He said:
- "it would be idle and foolish for me not to accept that the public do not have the degree of confidence that I would like them to have and which I believe would be justified, when Ministers and officials associated with Departments talk about food safety."--[Official Report, 30 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 526.]
Does he further accept that the view of Professor Pennington, whom his Government appointed to look into the E. coli outbreak, is that the culture of secrecy in his Ministry and in Whitehall has severely damaged the credibility of the entire exercise? Does he accept the view of Professor Pennington that, had he seen the original Swann report on the failures of the hygiene standards of abattoirs--during the regime of the MHS, not relating to the previous regime--it would have been extremely useful to the professor's inquiry?
In view of the remarks that the Minister has just made about the general election, does he accept that the public will have no confidence in an internal Government inquiry into their own inadequacy in the context of a general election campaign? Will he now accept that the only solution to regain public confidence and restore confidence in the beef industry is to institute a full public inquiry?
Mr. Hogg:
In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I look forward very much to his supporting the Government's proposals for a food safety council and a food safety adviser. I do, of course, recall what I said in the House before, and I accept--while very much regretting--that, over a long period, people have become sceptical about assurances that they have received from Ministers and others.
That scepticism is not justified, but it is a fact, and it needs to be recognised and acknowledged. I recognise and acknowledge it. That is why I decided that it would be sensible to introduce a food safety council and a food safety adviser to provide a stream of independent, authoritative advice that could be made public and, if that was necessary and justified, could be contrary to the position adopted by Ministers.
If the hon. Gentleman really wants to be constructive--which I doubt--I advise him to support us.
Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark):
Is it not the case that, whether or not there was a report that my right hon. and learned Friend saw, if the Government had not set up the Meat Hygiene Service in the first place--against the wishes of the Opposition--we should not have had the report at all? Should not all parties now start
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The problem that existed before April 1995, when the Meat Hygiene Service was set up, was that the implementation and enforcement of all the rules and practices was in the hands of local authorities--some 300 of them. Because of that, it was not possible to gain an overall view of what was happening in abattoirs, let alone enforce a proper national standard. The creation of the Meat Hygiene Service has enabled us, for the first time, to get a grip on standards and drive them up. It is lamentable that the Opposition parties did not support us, and it is lamentable that they are now disparaging the efforts of those who are engaged in that task.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South):
Does the Minister not realise that it is a valid criticism of the way in which he set up the Meat Hygiene Service that he must come to the House today with a further eight-point plan to improve abattoir and food safety, and that he has announced to the House that up to a third of abattoirs do not reach 65 out of 100 on his scale of proper standards? Is it not a disgrace that the public must put up with so many abattoirs not meeting the standards that they should have met? No wonder there has been criticism of the Minister's running of the Meat Hygiene Service.
Mr. Hogg:
I think that I am being charitable, but the hon. Gentleman is simply missing the point. Others might suggest that he is deliberately evading it, but I will be kind and say that he is deliberately missing it.
We are engaged in a continuing process. Before 1995, there was no effective scoring, and no possible overview of what was going on. We have created a system that enables us to improve standards, which the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats voted against. In the first two years, we set targets for the improvement of standards, and those standards were met. We are setting yet tighter targets in the coming, third year. As I have said, it is a continuing process--that is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has had some 22 meetings relevant to the issue over 14 months--and we are driving up standards incrementally. That is how it is done.
I really think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) should try to grasp the basic point. Every red meat carcase must be certified fit for human consumption by the meat hygiene inspector.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire):
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of letters that I have written to the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), about abattoirs in my constituency that have almost gone out of business because of the stringent controls exercised by his Department? Indeed, is he aware that there are abattoirs in the west midlands that have gone out of business because of those controls? Given the electioneering of the Labour party, who are playing on the natural fears of people outside this place, what impact does he think that the news generated by the Labour party over the past few days will have on lifting the European ban on the export of British beef?
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend makes at least two important points, the first of which is that a number of
On the second point, my hon. Friend makes a very sound observation. He is effectively saying that the irresponsible scaremongering will damage not only the meat industry in Britain but our standing in Europe. He is quite right. The fact that it is hysterical, irresponsible and ill-informed will not be understood in Europe: they will simply take it at face value. Those of us who know the quality of the observations from the Opposition Benches know that it is irresponsible, ill-informed and ill-intentioned, but unfortunately not everybody else will.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
If the Minister wants to drive up standards, I suggest that he starts on the Treasury Bench. I put it to him that his responsibility is not just to react to crises, but to try to ensure that such fundamental problems do not start in the first place. Will he take it from me, not only as a Member of Parliament but as a member of the National Farmers Union for Scotland, that he has become a very serious liability to the industry and to consumer confidence in food produced in Britain? In view of those circumstances, will he do the honourable thing and resign--or will we have to wait until he is pushed?
Mr. Hogg:
The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to what I said, or if he was, he steadfastly ignored it. The plain truth spelled out by the facts that I have given the House and the scoring to which I have referred is that there has been a substantial improvement in the past two years. Those are the facts. I do not particularly take credit for that--[Interruption.] No; I accept that that is a matter for the Meat Hygiene Service, the State Veterinary Service and the operators of the plants, but to say that I am to be criticised for presiding over a period when we have driven up standards is patently absurd.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
This afternoon's performance from the Labour party will have done nothing whatever to increase its stock among the farming community in my constituency.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me how our present meat hygiene regime compares with that currently in force in the rest of the European Union and elsewhere on mainland Europe?
Mr. Hogg:
We have just had a very interesting report from the European Commission about BSE and related matters in European countries other than Portugal and the United Kingdom. My hon. and learned Friend would find it deeply worrying.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
The people who died in Scotland were not scared to death: they were poisoned. In his statement, the Minister mentioned excluding dirty animals. It is almost impossible to exclude faecal contamination from slaughterhouses, because the
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |