| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): I should like to pursue the question raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), about the status of bone within the food chain. My right hon. Friend has said that it will not be classified as a specified risk material in the future, so that leaves the status of the material in limbo and the arrangements governing its storage and disposal slightly in doubt. What arrangements has his Department made for the large amounts of material that will require disposal in the future?
Dr. Cunningham: As I made clear to the hon. Lady, bone will not be designated as a specified risk material. There is no question of a large amount of additional material being disposed of, because, as I pointed out and as my hon. Friend will recall, 95 per cent. of beef is already sold off the bone. Only a small amount of additional material is involved, and none of it will be allowed to be put to any use in the human food chain. Bone will be disposed of as it has been disposed of in the past when it has not been used in any manufacturing process.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I recognise the difficulties confronting the right hon. Gentleman, but does he recognise the sense of desperation that will be felt by the farmers I met in Wincanton on Monday?
Will the right hon. Gentleman look very carefully again, at his leisure, at the scientific basis for the decision that he has taken, particularly the rather curious distinction that is made between dorsal root ganglia and the neural material in the surrounding tissue? Will he hold hard to his decision to refuse the importation of substandard meat into this country, as from three weeks' time? Will he look again, as the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) has requested, at the behaviour of the large supermarkets and at the differential between the price of meat for sale in those shops and that on offer in markets? Will he also look again at compensation and perhaps consider using the contingency funds available to the Government, because our agricultural industry is facing a crisis?
Dr. Cunningham:
As I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise, I did not come to the House without giving very careful consideration to the advice that I have received. I have not come to a hasty decision, taken without proper contemplation of all the consequences. Of course I shall be consulting, but I believe that it is quite clear that action is necessary.
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the guarantee that he has sought in respect of imported meat. I have no intention of backing down on the issue. I made a concession when I accepted a delay in implementation from 1 October to 1 January, but I am not prepared to make any more concessions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I therefore expect that decision to be implemented.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to ensure that I reconsider supermarket practices. I hope in the course of this evening, if these matters allow, to have consultations and discussion with a number of leaders of the food industry in this country. I have no doubt that they are listening to what is being said in the House about the matter.
As for the support for hill farmers in general and beef producers in particular--I understand why the hon. Gentleman has legitimately raised that matter--let me say again that the Government are providing in this financial year, for all the relevant measures, about £1.5 billion in total. That is substantial support, by any test; he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have spent that contingency reserve 10 times over on their various requests.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay):
While supporting the right hon. Gentleman's concern about public health and expressing the sympathy of everyone in the House for the victims of CJD and their families, may I particularly welcome his statement that all scientific evidence must be followed up? He must be aware that SEAC has pointed out that the evidence linking the cattle feed to new-variant CJD sufferers is tenuous.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to investigate the fact that a large historical collection, known as the Corsellis collection, of CJD material--9,000 specimens of brain tissue--taken from people who died from the disease in the 1950s and until recent times, before the current outbreak could possibly be attributed to their deaths, is held at Runwell hospital in my constituency? It remains to be investigated why those people died of that disease. Is the Minister aware that a scientist at Charing Cross hospital, Dr. Claire Royston, is unable to proceed with that investigation for want of resources?
That research could be extremely significant in either confirming or refuting the current thesis as to the cause of the CJD deaths.
Dr. Cunningham:
We are pretty clear that there is a connection between BSE and new-variant CJD. The burden of scientific evidence leads to that conclusion. As for the doctor to whom the hon. Lady referred and the history of CJD, I am happy to receive advice and to look at evidence and scientific research, from whatever quarter it may come.
The Ministry is sponsoring a considerable amount of research into those matters, and we shall continue to do so. I am in no doubt about the connection between BSE and new-variant CJD.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden):
The Minister is obviously reluctant to compensate the industry for the new costs imposed by the extra ban. Would it not have been possible to make a contingency payment for the evolving science of BSE from the £400 million underspend on agriculture, rather than letting the Chancellor have that money for use on another pledge in his green Budget?
Dr. Cunningham:
I am not aware of any £400 million underspend in my budget. If the hon. Lady is referring to the recurring nonsense uttered by the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), let me tell her for the removal of any doubt that there was not a word of truth in what he said. Such an underspend just does not exist.
Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire):
Why cannot the rules that affect the export of British beef to the continent of Europe be applied immediately to imports of beef from the continent of Europe? Why do we have to wait for 1 January? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his comment to the effect that that delay is some kind of a disappointment to the industry is the understatement of the year? The industry is now on its knees and surely he should do something about it immediately.
Dr. Cunningham:
The hon. Gentleman has not taken much notice of what has been going on. If we are to get a European Union-wide agreement--
Sir Michael Spicer:
Why do we have to have such an agreement?
Dr. Cunningham:
Because there is a single market for beef in Europe, and that is the best way forward. In order to reach a European Union-wide agreement, it was necessary to agree on an implementation date of 1 January. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the previous Government had every opportunity to take my approach to beef imports, but they signally failed to do so.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale):
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is considerable sympathy and understanding for the difficulties in which he has been placed because of constantly changing scientific advice? That sympathy might be greater if he recognised that his need to follow such advice of the day was matched by his predecessors, who also followed it.
If we are to avoid the situation in which the Minister and his successors have to come to the House every six months from now until eternity to announce yet another new scientific development, will he look again at the scientific budget of his Department, which represents a small proportion of the £1.5 billion that he mentioned? He should think about expanding research so that he might get some final, consistent answers and so that policy could be consistent. Then, scientists would not keep on changing their minds and forcing him, as they did his predecessors, to change his mind.
Dr. Cunningham:
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the scientific advice is constantly changing. The science and understanding of these terrible problems is evolving and developing; it is not changing. Scientists are becoming more and more systematic in their examination of the possible location of infection. I welcome that research programme. The way to resolve the problems is not to call for more expenditure, but to work deliberately, consistently and ruthlessly to eradicate BSE completely from the national herd. When we do that, the problems will have been resolved.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |