| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nick Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for almost an hour. I will let him intervene, but I want to finish this important point.
The failure of Ministers to take action is disgraceful. It is made more so by the fact that the Prime Minister himself told my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 16 June:
The Minister's silence during those four months is also disgraceful because his official advisers have told him:
Mr. Yeo:
In a moment. I did not intervene once on the Minister and I should be allowed a few minutes to make a point.
Some, perhaps all, the British consumers who have bought and eaten illegally fed French meat in the past four months might have wished that the information that the
Minister received in June had been drawn to their attention. They might have wished it even more if they had known that Professor Hugh Pennington, appointed by the Labour Government to investigate the E. coli outbreak, believes:
Mr. Yeo:
In a moment. We are not going to leave this point. The Minister must not get too excited.
Despite that advice, the Minister did not think that it was necessary to issue any warning to consumers. Even when the scale of public concern became apparent in the past six days, he still did not feel it necessary to act. So unconcerned was he that he has not even spoken to his French counterpart during the crisis. When it was suggested to him yesterday that he might do so, he dismissed the idea as nonsensical.
Livestock farmers in Britain, almost crippled by regulatory burdens imposed on them by Brussels and Whitehall and almost driven out of business by unfair competition from abroad, might have hoped that, in the wake of the public exposure of illegal and disgusting French animal feeding practices, Britain's Minister of Agriculture would talk to the French Government.
Mr. Brown:
The truth is that we are working on this issue through the Commission. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it has come as a surprise to everyone, but it was commented on in the press over the summer. Had he felt so worried about it, he could have raised it on any of a number of occasions. He has not done so. He says that I should have warned the public. He partially quotes the full advice given to me by the Government's professional advisers. I have put it all in the public domain. It is available to everyone to read. He does not quote the conclusion, which is that there is no risk to human health. It would be on such a conclusion that the Government would act.
As there is no risk to health, the Government have not introduced a ban. The hon. Gentleman is trying to distort the evidence to justify a protectionist position. That is the difference between us. He wants to use any evidence that he can find against our partners in the EU because the Conservative party is opposed to the EU and our partners within it.
Mr. Yeo:
The Minister is saying that when he and his officials are warned that French meat is fed on human
The Minister stands condemned more out of his own mouth than by anything that I could say.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
Apropos the question that I put to the Minister earlier, is not the case for a meat and bonemeal ban across the EU now so formidable that even if the Government are not prepared to impose a unilateral ban, at the least they should ask the European Commission to impose one? If we have to have the ban, it must be because there is a risk of cross-contamination and a risk to human health. If the problem arises in Britain, it must surely arise on the continent, especially in France, where the number of BSE cases is rising. I put that point to the Prime Minister. It justifies action by the Commission.
Mr. Yeo:
My hon. Friend is right. We have clearer and clearer evidence daily that the most appalling double standards are being operated when it comes to food safety and hygiene in different countries in the EU. We know that the Government are washing their hands of any responsibility to deal with the problem. I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I believe that in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends, farmers and consumers will feel badly let down by the refusal of the Minister and the Government to act.
This scandal demands a proportionate and targeted response--a precautionary ban on the import of potentially contaminated French meat until the French Government explain what they are doing to end those illegal practices and to eliminate food produced by them from the food chain.
Miss McIntosh:
Will my hon. Friend help the Minister and me by confirming the fact that it is a principle of European law that, if an item has been produced by illegal means, it is illegal for that item to be available? It can thus be prohibited throughout the EU--not only in this country. Items produced by illegal means--such as produce from this disgusting sewage--should not be allowed anywhere in the EU.
Mr. Yeo:
My hon. Friend is right. She raises the important question of why no one is prosecuting those French plants which are using those illegal methods.
Mr. Todd:
As the hon. Gentleman has set out fully the selection of scientific advice that he received, will he also set out the legal advice that he has been given on the proposal that he has put before us?
Mr. Yeo:
If the hon. Gentleman underwrites my costs in consulting the lawyers, I shall be happy to obtain the most detailed legal advice. It is clear to me that these illegal practices should be stopped; if the Government will do nothing about them, it may be left to organisations such as the National Farmers Union to bring legal actions. I deplore the fact that Ministers are washing their hands of responsibility for taking any action at all.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister misled Parliament when he said that the ban that we called for would be illegal. Every EU country has the power to ban imports if human health is endangered. As I have already explained, many leading scientists believe that human health is endangered.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to say that the Prime Minister misled the House--as the hon. Gentleman has just done? I thought that such an expression was unparliamentary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member directly to accuse any other Member of misleading the House, but such remarks must be taken in the context of the cut and thrust of debate.
Mr. Yeo:
The precautionary ban--
Mr. Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For completeness--so that we can all understand the professional advice to the Government--I shall read it out. The advisory committee continues to advise on the basis set out--that is, the points to which the hon. Gentleman referred--that
"Of course we are trying to do something about it".--[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 392.]
Yesterday it became clear that the Prime Minister had done nothing about it.
"The practice of using sewage sludge is both unacceptable from the consumer's point of view and illegal under European law."
Mr. Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
"There is potentially grave danger in eating animals that have been fed on treated sewage".
They might have liked to know that Professor Mac Johnston, an adviser to the European Union scientific veterinary committee believes:
"If the French farmers are actually doing something that is illegal, then in my opinion that makes the food produced from these animals unfit for human consumption . . . I think here one has to adopt a precautionary principle, where the first thing is that you put a hold on it, you withdraw it from the food chain until you are satisfied that it is safe."
Professor Philip Thomas, the chairman of the Government's Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs, believes:
"It is potentially possible that there could be contamination into the food chain through these sources."
Mr. Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
"there is no immediate public health risk and therefore no basis for seeking a ban on French products at either a community level, or unilaterally."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |