| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we on these Benches are relieved that he, at least, knows the difference between a cow and a sheep? Is any additional work now being carried out to make up for the research effectively lost through the invalidation of the earlier work?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend recognises my vastly improving agricultural knowledge in this job. The experiment was a small part of a major programme. It has therefore not been necessary to replace that work. The total programme consists of £17 million of research by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, another £3 million of research by the Food Standards Agency and more research financed by the research councils.
A substantial amount of effort is under way to establish the truth about BSE in sheep and other species. That particular experiment, based on out-of-date material collected for an entirely different purpose, was only a minor part of the programme. The rest of the programme is beginning to yield results, although some of the experiments are inevitably long term.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that cutting corners by commissioning research on the cheap on samples that were, as he said, collected
for other purposes and with a real risk of contamination from the beginning, was, at the least, foolhardy? Was that the best way to protect the national sheep flock or, more importantly, to safeguard public health?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the initial experiment was one of many commissioned. It was an experiment that required an assay in mice that runs for a long time. The intention was to use the brain material originally collected for a rendering experiment. It was originally intended to establish whether BSE was in scrapie-infested sheep in the early 1990s, when there was clearly a problem with BSE in cattle. It was therefore related to an historic situation, not the current one.
The only material available was that collected at the time for different purposes. There was therefore not much option but to use old material. Regrettably, at some point between the early 1990s and 1997, when the experiment began, there now appears from our audits to have been serious mislabelling. However, when the experiment was changed to consider the possibility of BSE being in those scrapie-infected sheep, there was no alternative.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what is the Minister's position on what I can only describe as pseudo-science—the "what if?" syndrome? On "Farming Today" this morning, there was a discussion about what if sheep had BSE and how much of such sheep we would be able to eat. As a consumer, I would be extremely confused about whether I should eat lamb and how much, and what parts of the lamb I should eat. The same thing happened with the microbacterium avium para tuberculosis in milk. Should I drink milk? Should I drink pasteurised milk? Should I drink milk that is ultra-heat treated or what? Could the Minister play a part in ensuring that proper science is given to the public and not the "what if?" science?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Countess raised two separate issues which she calls "pseudo science". I am sure that it is not correct to call them "pseudo science", although they are based on a hypothesis. The person she heard this morning on "Farming Today" was the chair of SEAC and he was addressing the question: if there were BSE or any TSE in sheep, what parts of the sheep would be affected? That is solid science, but, as we have indicated, there is no proof that there is BSE in sheep. He made it clear, as has the Food Standards Agency, that there is no change in advice to consumers on eating lamb. Indeed, perhaps I may put in a plug and say that British lamb is well worth eating and I advise your Lordships to do so.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, has the Minister noted that the UCAS report on the work of the Institute of Animal Health which went wrong in the experiment was carried out using a standard called ISO 17025? That is a standard for the accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories. If the standard is to be used for all laboratories, it will place an
enormous burden on ordinary research laboratories. Do the Government have plans to come forward with another standard for research laboratories?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the review identified systems which might be appropriate but there has been no decision that they should be applied in bodies which the Government fund. The Institute of Animal Health is looking to its own procedures to meet an output equivalent to that standard, but there is no adoption of that standard as such.
Blood Substitutes
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest having had my life saved by a blood transfusion.
-
To ask her Majesty's Government whether sufficient use is being made of artificial blood substitutes and alternative treatments for anaemia in cancer patients to help combat any shortage in blood supplies.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that next year or the year after a test may be available for CJD, in which case there may be a serious shortage of blood as donors may be worried about coming forward because of the effect on life insurance and mortgages?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, we are indebted to the 1.9 people million who come forward every year to give blood. Currently blood stocks are in a healthy state. The noble Baroness is right because potentially there is the introduction of a test perhaps within the next three to five years for vCJD. The National Blood Service has carried out a scenario of testing to examine the impact of that test in reducing the number of blood donors. What was quoted in the media was the worst-case scenario when there might be a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of donors. That is very much a worse-case scenario.
The chief medical officers of the UK held a Better Blood Transfusion Conference which led to the establishment of a national transfusion committee to examine these matters. In particular, it will examine alternatives to blood supplies and whether they are feasible.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that his first reply sounded as though
everything was fine? However, does he further agree that, because it is impossible to guarantee the adequacy of future blood supplies and because we tend to identify viruses such as CJD, AIDS and Hepatitis C too late for some people, in the interests of security and safety it is imperative that we intensify our search for non-blood products and that this is an area in which cost-cutting will be indefensible?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. It is correct to say that the National Blood Service, with the help of many members of the public, has put to right previous problems in relation to the holding of adequate blood supplies. In the past three to four years a tremendous amount of work has been undertaken.
I agree with my noble friend about the urgency of investigating the appropriate use of alternatives. The National Blood Service set up an appropriate use of blood working group which is looking at ways of minimising exposure to the unknown risk of transmission of vCJD by transfusing blood only when absolutely necessary. It is also—and this is very important—ensuring the most effective and efficient use of blood as an increasingly scarce resource. That group is also examining alternatives to blood transfusion. In addition, the National Blood Service is undertaking another campaign to encourage more people to give blood in the current circumstances.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that continental countries widely use the alternatives to blood products in cancer treatment? Is it not time that we were ahead of continental countries both in terms of patient outcomes and treatments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are many ways in which the National Health Service can be proud of its achievements. There are many examples of innovative services and high quality teaching and research. We can be pleased with the way in which the National Blood Service responded to a very big problem in blood supplies some years ago. Of course we need to examine alternatives and we will look at the experience of countries abroad. That is why the chief medical officers of the UK held a conference; why a working group has been set up; and why the National Blood Service will be taking that work forward.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I, too, declare a non-financial interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is my noble friend aware that there is concern among clinicians about the availability for patient care of funds earmarked for cancer treatments under the national cancer plan? Furthermore, can he assure the House that the Government will monitor rigorously and transparently those fund allocations and their use?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page