Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this rather deplorable Statement. The questions already asked from the Labour Front Bench go to the heart of the matter. I wish to add one
or two more. The answer to whether Professor Pennington and his team were told is no, because I think he has already said that he was not told. Why was he not told is the pertinent question to ask?Is it true that the first reaction of the Meat Hygiene Service in Scotland, for instance, to these kind of recommendations was a 10 per cent. cut in the number of its inspectors in Scotland from 125 to 112? If we follow the pattern of the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to a Question asked five minutes ago in your Lordships' House we shall no doubt be told that it is no business of the Government how the Meat Hygiene Service organises itself as long as it produces the results. However, it did not produce the results, did it? What control is there over this alarming cut in the number of inspectors? The abattoir groups made vast profits out of the BSE cull last year. Why was it not insisted that some of that be ploughed back into hygiene improvements? Mr. Swann says that the full recommendations have yet to be implemented. Why is that? Is that not just another example of the long line of government secrecy in a Government which we are always told are committed to full exposure?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I rather resent the attitude taken by both Opposition spokesmen on this matter because they have known for a long time exactly what the state of our abattoir industry was. They have known it because my noble friend Lord Howe referred to it explicitly and in detail in the debate on the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service. It may help noble Lords if I repeat what my noble friend said:
That is the situation as portrayed by my noble friend in April 1995. All this report that is being referred to today does is detail the situation as we knew it to be so that, based on that detail, the industry could begin to reform itself.
The Meat Hygiene Service was established with the mandate to improve the way slaughterhouses were run and to work with the industry in doing that. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, or the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, would have wished us to take precipitate action. To my mind that would have been entirely inappropriate. If one has a school system--as one does--which is operating below one's best hopes, one does not just go around closing the schools which
are performing badly. One puts a lot of effort into working with them to make things right. Here we had a situation where there was contamination of food. It was not something new; it had been going on for a long time, if not for ever. It is something we are determined to improve. We have set up the organisation to make it improve but the right way to make it improve is to work with the industry, to speak with a soft voice but carry a heavy stick. First of all, we must speak with a soft voice to see if we can get things done by agreement. That is what the Meat Hygiene Service has been doing, and it has been doing so with great success.Noble Lords opposite have supported that policy. They will remember the discussions we had on the temporary derogations from the new regulations. That was a policy which noble Lords opposite supported, and quite rightly too, so that small slaughterhouses should have time to bring their premises up to the required standard. The report itself was prepared for communication to the industry. It was known that the report would be produced--as I said in the Statement--because this was one of the things that the Meat Hygiene Service had to do. When the service had done so, it took up a page of its annual report saying that it had been done. It was part of a process, dealing with a known problem in a known way. It was not distributed to Ministers let alone to anyone else. It was an internal working document.
Reference has been made to the comments that Professor Pennington made this morning. At the outset of Professor Pennington's inquiry, MAFF offered him all evidence and support that he might wish. Professor Pennington has yet to take up that offer. I hope that he will do so. I cannot understand the remarks he made this morning. He has never asked for, so he has never been refused, any information. We have just made an offer, and have yet to be taken up on that offer. When he asks, he will presumably not wish to see merely a condensed, summarised version which is prepared for a general discussion with the industry. He will want to see a great deal more detail and that will be available to him down to individual reports on individual slaughter houses.
As was outlined in the Statement, the Meat Hygiene Service has been addressing the dangers and difficulties identified by the survey in the slaughterhouse industry. There has been a great deal of improvement. Targets have been set for those improvements. Processes are being undertaken to document and deal with the problem of dirty cattle coming into the slaughterhouse system. If slaughterhouses do not respond to kindness and encouragement they will be closed; and that process is within a few months of completion with some slaughterhouses. It is not an empty threat to slaughterhouses. If they do not work with the Meat Hygiene Service, if they do not continue to improve their standards, their licence to operate will be withdrawn.
In its brief life, the Meat Hygiene Service has been a great success story. It is one which we look forward to continuing. I am saddened that the Financial Times should descend to tabloid standards of journalism in promoting this story. It bounced MAFF with it at five o'clock last night. It gave us no opportunity to provide
the evidence which would have enabled the newspaper to present the truth rather than the story. If it had had the full truth it might not have considered publishing because it was so obvious and so well known.The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me a couple of questions which I have not covered. He asked when the report would be made fully public. It has been placed in the Library of the House and we shall certainly copy it to anyone who is interested in it.
As regards the relationship with BSE, that has been in the public domain for a long time. If the noble Lord cares to read the BSE enforcement bulletin, which is published regularly, he will see that that aspect of slaughterhouses--it is treated with immense seriousness--is dealt with in great detail. Any delays in finalising the report about which we are talking today have been due to the fact that the Meat Hygiene Service has been devoting a great deal of energy to dealing with BSE, and that has been given priority, and quite rightly so.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked a question about the inspectorate. I do not have an answer at the moment. I shall write to the noble Lord. It is not a statistic that I know; nor do I know the basis for it.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will forgive me for a somewhat fierce rebuttal of allegations that have been made today. But what has been said in newspapers today is a slur on the Meat Hygiene Service which is both undeserved and destructive.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, has the Minister read in the newspapers the criticism of the conduct of my right honourable friend Douglas Hogg? If he has, can he fairly and squarely confirm that that criticism is wholly without justification and utterly misconceived?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, indeed. I certainly confirm that. Indeed, in present company I doubt that I would dare do otherwise.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, from these Back Benches I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I think that I voice the concern of the House if I suggest that when people can die as a result of contracting E. coli it is rather different from seeking improvements in the educational standards of our school children.
We note that the Government effectively nationalised the Meat Hygiene Service a couple of years ago. While in principle a number of us will appreciate that nationalisation can be beneficial, we have grave doubts about any nationalised concern under the control of this Government.
The Minister suggests that the Meat Hygiene Service is a success story. Given the reports that have emerged recently, and the outbreaks of E. coli which have hit not just Scotland but other parts of the United Kingdom, I am not sure whether many members of the general public would think of the Meat Hygiene Service as a success story. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one
specific question. How many people died as a result of E. coli and other related factors in the two years prior to the nationalisation of the Meat Hygiene Service, and how many since?
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |