House of Commons
Thursday 13 April 2000
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 4 May.
Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Medway Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 May.
Oral Answers to Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
The Minister was asked--
BSE
1. Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): What has been the cost to the Exchequer of the BSE crisis. [117722]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): BSE has been a national tragedy. To date, 53 people have lost their lives to new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The Government have put in place powerful public protection measures, which have incurred costs on the livestock industry and on the Exchequer.
Total expenditure on the BSE crisis is estimated to be £4.2 billion to the end of the financial year 2001-02. Of that amount, the other European Union member states contribute about £487 million--11.6 per cent. of the total cost--when the Fontainebleau mechanism is taken into account. Therefore, the net cost of the crisis to the Exchequer to the end of the next financial year is about £3.7 billion.
Mr. Beard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the £4 billion, the 53 people who have died, the uncountable cost and the plight that the farming industry has been left in, are the dimensions of a major national disaster, which is an indictment of the Government who presided over it? Does he further agree that the best way to safeguard against such disasters is to have a constant science-based review of food standards? Is it not therefore amazing that, throughout the 1990s,
the research and development budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food declined by about 30 per cent? Can he give the House an assurance that the Ministry is better prepared for any such emergency?
Mr. Brown: The creation of the Food Standards Agency will go a long way towards providing the British public with the protection that they have a right to expect. It is right that public money be expended in that way to protect the public on the precautionary principle. Those measures are very expensive, but the tragedy against which we are protecting the public cannot be calculated in money alone. Our hearts go out to those people and their families--those who have lost their lives and the families that remain.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): I think that the Minister accepts that there has been a huge on-cost to the pig industry as a result of the BSE regulations. Why then do his Government refuse to compensate the industry for it? Does he appreciate how serious the position is? The industry has been losing money for two years. The help that, we understand, is available from the European Community has not been forthcoming because of Government inaction.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The constraints that were put on the use of meat and bonemeal in the pig industry were imposed in 1996 under the Government whom he supported. Had the Government then decided to approach the European Union with a view to covering some of those costs, the Commission may have been sympathetic, but we certainly could not make such an approach now because the Commission has said that economic considerations are the only reason offered for changing the position in the United Kingdom. When I had an exchange with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who speaks for the Opposition, he made it clear that the Opposition were seeking such a change for economic reasons, which is precisely why the Commission will not allow it.
The Commission is willing to explore with us a restructuring proposal, which costs public money. We are taking that forward following the Prime Minister's summit, so there is support for the industry, which was not available under the previous Government, but we must explore the matter with the Commission. I hope to have more to say in a matter of weeks.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Should not my right hon. Friend be much tougher in laying the blame where it belongs--on the former Government--for what has been one of the most appalling tragedies? There has been not only the £4 billion cost, but the great tragedy for the families involved as a result of the new variant CJD cases, and the tragic implications for farmers and those in the meat industry who have additional costs that cannot be fully estimated. Will he give a full assurance that the Government will always put public safety first? Is that not why we have created the Food Standards Agency, which will be vital in the years ahead?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the FSA. The Government's first priority is to protect the public. All other considerations, although
important, are secondary to that. As for where responsibility lies, I should like to withhold my judgment until we see the report of the BSE inquiry committee.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): How closely is the Minister keeping up with the research work by Professor Ebringer of London on that matter? Does he accept that, if Professor Ebringer's theories are right--he questions the prion theory--it would have had a significant impact on lowering the cost of handling the BSE crisis? Can he give any indication of how that research is going?
Mr. Brown: There are several alternative theories in the scientific community to the prion protein theory. I try to keep as close as I can to the scientific debate and to question the scientific advisers who make recommendations on Government policy. Although there is no absolute certainty in the matter--I guess that there never can be in matters of scientific debate--nevertheless, I find the prion protein theory pretty compelling.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it needs saying over and over again that that £4.2 billion and the loss of life involved is down to the previous Tory Government? It is a savage indictment of what they did. They ought to be made to pay--I do not know whether Lord Belize of Sleaze has any money. If they had been in local government, not only would they have been kicked out of office, they would have been made to find that money. Their silence explains everything.
Mr. Brown: I think that the Conservative party has a cheek offering advice to the Government on the issue given that it presided over the circumstances that brought about this national tragedy. However, I also think that we should wait until we see the report of the BSE inquiry before coming to a conclusion.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): Does the Minister recognise that Europe is threatened with a new BSE crisis that results directly from the refusal of the French Government to acknowledge the extent of under-reporting of BSE in France? In view of the growing evidence of that under-reporting, why are Labour Ministers so reluctant to protect British consumers against potentially dangerous imports from France, such as gelatine?
Mr. Brown: That is all complete nonsense. The fact is that we do not allow meat products over 30 months to be imported into this country. We parallel in our imports the powerful public protection measures that we have in place in the United Kingdom. Trying to get up a food scare against the French is no substitute for Conservative Front Benchers apologising for the food crisis over which they presided when they were the Government.
Pet Travel Scheme
2. Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): What action he has taken to ensure that pet owners are aware of the operation of the pet travel scheme. [117723]
5. Mr. David Crausby (Bolton, North-East): How many animals have entered the United Kingdom under the pet travel scheme. [117731]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Pet owners have been informed about the pet travel scheme--PETS--in a variety of ways, including advertisements in the daily press. Every veterinary practice has been sent information, including factsheets and posters. Information and advice are available also from the PETS helpline or by e-mail or fax, or from the PETS website which receives more than 500,000 hits each month. In the first six weeks of the pet travel scheme pilot, 857 dogs and cats have entered the UK without going into quarantine.
Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and assure her that many of my constituents who campaigned for sensible reform are delighted that it is now in operation. Could she say what action the Government are taking to ensure that publicity clearly informs pet owners of the requirement for pets to pass strict health standards to ensure that Britain remains free of rabies, and to avoid any disappointment and upset to pet owners?
Ms Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The purpose of the pet travel scheme is in no way to relax our controls on rabies or other diseases, but simply to reform so that the misery of quarantine is ended. I am glad that that objective has been widely recognised and approved. The publicity measures for the scheme seem to be working. Surveys that we have conducted show that there is both a high level of awareness of the scheme among pet owners, and the necessary level of awareness among veterinarians both in the United Kingdom and abroad.
Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Will she confirm that the pet travel scheme has been successfully established much earlier than anyone could possibly have hoped for, and that it has been a godsend to numerous pet owners who no longer need to quarantine their pets? Is she aware that the scheme will mean a great deal to hundreds, and eventually thousands, of people--especially those who serve in our armed forces--not to mention their pets?
Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right, and I am delighted that the Government have delivered on our commitment so early by introducing the pilot scheme. Obviously, it will be important to examine the effects of the scheme before we introduce the main scheme that will follow.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): As one who supports and has campaigned for such a scheme, I am aware that, when it was introduced, concern was expressed about the lack of information available to veterinary surgeons and particularly about information relating to veterinary services in France that would be required for people returning to the UK. Can the Minister satisfy the House that veterinary surgeons can provide advice to travellers so that, with the holiday season starting, the many people who wish to bring animals back to the UK do not find that they cannot obtain the veterinary services that they require? In addition, when will the British forces serving in the rabies-free island of Cyprus be included in the scheme?
Ms Quin: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general comments, and I know that he has been in contact with my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, who leads for the Ministry on the issue in another place. We are in touch with the French vets, whose organisation rejoices in the acronym of SNVEL. We are ensuring that they have the requisite information on necessary certification. We have been in contact--via the French authorities--with French local government, and I am glad that French town halls are making the information available. We hope that problems can be averted in time for the summer season.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): The Minister has rightly emphasised that this is only a pilot scheme. Will she confirm that the advance to a full-blown scheme is by no means inevitable, and that it would happen only if the Minister were absolutely satisfied that every condition of the pilot scheme had been fulfilled? Will she assure us that she and her officials will want to be satisfied that facilities overseas in all countries from which animals might be brought to this country fully comply with the requirements set out when the pilot scheme was set up?
Ms Quin: I sense that the right hon. Gentleman is less enthusiastic about the scheme than some of his Conservative colleagues. Not for the first time, he finds himself in an odd position regarding a policy issue. We believe that the scheme is worth while, and the early indications are that it is capable of working well and, as I said earlier, ending the misery of quarantine. However, I assure him that the scheme is being monitored carefully, and if we are to extend it to other countries, we must be sure that it works well.
In response to a point raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) which I did not answer, we are keen to ensure that other rabies-free areas, such as the island of Cyprus, can be included in the scheme. I cannot give a 100 per cent. guarantee today, but it is likely to be included in the main scheme.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): This is an excellent scheme but--to return to the question put by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)--will someone check during the monitoring process on what is happening in northern France in terms of the prices being charged by veterinaries to bring into order the documentation required for the return of animals to the UK, as there is a danger of exploitation in that market?
Ms Quin: I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my noble Friend Baroness Hayman. We will pursue the issues with the French veterinary authorities. We do not want any financial exploitation as a result of the scheme. However, he will be well aware that the costs of quarantine were enormous and that in addition to the benefits of the scheme generally, it helps to reduce costs considerably.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |