HL Deb 30 January 1990 vol 515 cc284-90

11.13 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order and the order relating to Wales have the effect of consolidating the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (England) (No. 4) Order 1989 and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) (No. 4) Order 1989. All earlier orders have been revoked by these principal orders.

It may assist if I briefly set out the circumstances leading up to the imposition of the restrictions in these orders. As my right honourable friend the Minister stated in another place, a consignment of rice bran was contaminated during its transport from Burma. On its arrival in Belgium the unfit cargo was not destroyed but sold on and reprocessed into animal feed in Holland. The Dutch Embassy informed the Ministry on Wednesday, 1st November that a consignment of this feeding stuff — specifically, maize gluten replacer pellets —believed to be contaminated by lead, had been delivered to two companies, one based in Teignmouth and the other in Liverpool.

The Ministry's own veterinary investigation service had by this time established from its own investigations a link between cattle deaths and lead-contaminated animal feed. Subsequent inquiries revealed that a total of some 2,085 tonnes of contaminated feed in four consignments reached the United Kingdom and was distributed to farms mainly in the Midlands and South-West of England and in Wales.

Against this background, the House will appreciate that the Government's immediate concern had to be to ensure consumer protection. The first step was to set in hand an urgent investigation of the records of feed suppliers, merchants and compounders to trace those farms which had or may have received consignments of contaminated feed. This was a colossal task, hampered in some cases by inadequate records and, in a few instances, by less than enthusiastic co-operation by the companies concerned.

As information began to emerge on the distribution of the contaminated feed, ministry officials contacted the farmers concerned to warn them that it would be necessary to place restrictions on their farms. At the same time, thousands of tonnes of the contaminated feed were traced and recalled. More than 2,000 farms in England and Wales were identified as being actually or potentially affected.

I should like next to turn to the statutory arrangements which the Government made to ensure food protection and which are the subject of today's debate. The immediate problem was to ensure that contaminated cattle, milk, beef and dairy products from affected farms were prevented from entering the food chain. Using powers under Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, my right honourable friend signed the first emergency order on Monday, 6th November. This came into force at one minute past midnight on Tuesday, 7th November. Similar arrangements were also made by the Secretary of State for Wales.

Since then, scrutiny of suppliers', merchants', and compounders' records has continued and as new recipients of contaminated feed have been identified they too have been brought within the control arrangements. In other cases, where it could be established that contaminated feed had not after all been delivered, farms were immediately released from restrictions and the orginal orders have therefore been updated as necessary.

I now turn to the detail of controls the Government have introduced. We had first to ensure that milk from affected farms was not distributed to the public while at the same time avoiding having to store or dispose of such milk on-farm where adequate facilities just do not exist. We also wanted to come up with a system which enabled farms to be cleared of milk restrictions as soon as we had evidence that it was safe to do so. In conjunction with the Milk Marketing Board, therefore, arrangements were made for the milk concerned to be separately collected and held in isolation from normal supplies. This milk was processed into milk powder and butter to facilitate storage until proper disposal could be arranged. Our tests have now shown that the lead levels in this butter and powder are below statutory limits and the Milk Marketing Board has therefore been allowed to release these products. I should like to pay tribute to the invaluable assistance which we received from the Milk Marketing Board in operating these arrangements.

We also had to make arrangements to have the specially collected milk individually sampled and analysed. Here again I should like to pay a warm tribute to the many officials and staff from various analytical facilities who worked around the clock on the collection and analysis of milk samples and the processing of results.

The second major element in our control arrangements involved control on the movement and slaughter of livestock, principally cattle, and the movement of meat products. My right honourable friend the Minister announced details of these control arrangements on 27th November 1989. These arrangements enabled cattle to be released under one of three schemes. Under scheme 1, farmers who were able to provide satisfactory evidence to the department that, while they received bagged contaminated feed, they did not use it and returned it intact to the suppliers were released from cattle restrictions. Twenty complete farms in England and Wales were released under scheme 1.

Scheme 2 was designed to cater for those farmers with a complete category of animals which received no contaminated feed. It applied, for example, if the contaminated feed was for calves and none was fed to beef animals on the farm. In those circumstances, and where blood or other tests provided satisfactory evidence that all was well, those groups of animals were eligible for release from restrictions. There was a time-limit of 15th December for taking blood samples under scheme 2. It was to safeguard against the possibility that, over time, blood lead levels would have fallen but lead in offal and bone would be high. More than 111,000 animals in England and Wales were cleared under scheme 2.

Finally, under scheme 3, we deal with the clearance for slaughter of individual cattle which have, or may have, been fed contaminated feed. Here, we are requiring blood samples and where lead levels are below 0.25 milligrammes per litre—that is, 250 parts per billion —the animal is permitted to be slaughtered and the meat supplied for human consumption, subject to a number of conditions designed to ensure that parts of the carcass which might be contaminated do not go for human consumption. More than 5,000 animals in England and Wales have to date been cleared under scheme 3.

Under these schemes more than 20,000 blood samples have been taken and analysed at 11 laboratories. I should like to thank all concerned for the major efforts they have made to enable this to happen, not least those private veterinary surgeons who have worked at great speed to ensure that blood samples were collected quickly.

In addition to these schemes we have been undertaking an extensive research programme which will continue as long as necessary to monitor the rate of decay of lead in animals. We are monitoring various groups of animals which are being slaughtered at regular intervals so that we can carry out detailed analysis of the presence of lead. We have also been doing extensive laboratory work in connection with lead levels in offal and bone with a view to reducing some of the constraints under scheme 3 if this proves possible without compromising food safety. I can assure noble Lords that we are giving priority to looking at ways of easing restrictions on farmers while, at the same time, ensuring that public health continues to be fully protected.

I hope that the explanations I have given will help noble Lords to appreciate the complexity of the task which has faced us in identifying the contaminated feed and recovering it where possible, in tracing recipient farms, in introducing measures to control contaminated livestock and dairy produce, and in operating control arrangements as sensitively as possible to avoid causing avoidable disruption to the farming community. However, while we will not retain controls any longer than is necessary, I make no apologies for saying that restrictions will remain in place for as long as is necessary to protect consumers from any threat from contaminated food and to preserve the good name of British agricultural produce. I beg to move.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he explained the orders. I appreciate the lateness of the hour but we must take just a little time to consider them because we are discussing a most important matter which has caused great economic loss to many farmers in the affected area. Moreover, I believe that this is the first time we have had the chance to discuss the problem in this House.

In my response to these orders I have been helped by a long letter which I received from West Midland Farmers Association Ltd. which is a farmers' co-operative in Gloucester, the heart of the affected area. Of course, as a co-operative the association has received a large number of claims from affected farmers. The worst problem would seem to be the damaging effect of the blanket restrictions which were placed upon farms with regard to milk and animals, regardless of whether any particular group of animals had received the contaminated feed. This has been described to me as a "slow and ponderous overkill" if that is possible. The other problem for the suppliers of the feed —that is, not the original suppliers but the users of the feed, the merchants and so on —is that they have been told by the Ministry that they should have insurance cover. In this connection the letter reads: With regard to our ability to recover losses, this is likewise full of complexity. Our Product Liability insurance will neither cover nor be sufficient for all situations. There are many areas which our insurers and legal advisers are considering but it is certain that there is no insured cover for many situations particularly with regard to milk losses when no contaminated feed was used. It has been widely reported that something in the order of 95 per cent. of the milk under restriction was within the laid down permitted legal limits. At the moment the farmer has received just 5p per litre against an average price of 19p per litre and there is no indication when the final payment will be made or how much it will be. It could lead to a massive level of claims on suppliers of feed.

I have some questions which I gave the Minister before the debate, as he is aware. Has the ministry been able to take into account the tests that have been carried out regarding the lead levels in the blood? My information is that in many cases the level is acceptable and will improve with time. Is account being taken of the amount of contaminated feed eaten by the animal? Is account being taken of the degree of contamination of the feed, which is variable? What further scientific information is coming forward to relieve the situation, and is account being taken of how much of the contaminated raw material was used in the final product? Although there were a few cases in the South West where the raw material was used indiluted, in most cases it was combined with other ingredients at a maximum level of 10 per cent.

On the subject of testing for the lead level in blood, I was struck by a letter published this week in the Veterinary Record from a veterinary surgeon in Devon, who wrote: A client, who keeps a few cattle on a part-time basis, had his cattle's blood lead levels tested…All had a low blood lead level (less than 50 ppb) except for one cow which had a very high level (over 250 ppb). As it was difficult to explain such a difference, the cow was retested one month later. At the time of the second sampling, the farmer asked if two samples could be taken and sent to different laboratories as he had heard that different results were being obtained from different laboratories …Again, one result showed a very high lead level (over 350 ppb) but the other sample taken from the same cow at the same time but tested at a different, private, laboratory, gave a very different result —'no detectable lead'. When he telephoned the Ministry of Agriculture laboratory concerned, they were at a loss to explain this result. It was decided that if any of the blood was still available it should be retested. This gave a result of just over 50 ppb. So, according to which result one believes, this cow can be regarded as: (i) Very highly contaminated with lead, having sufficient blood lead to exceed the levels set in scheme 2 and 3, (ii) having a blood level allowing it to pass schemes 2 and 3, or (iii) completely lead freed.. Surely, if the accuracy of the testing cannot be relied upon, it puts into question the whole of the testing procedure and the credibility of the ministry schemes. That letter was from a vet in Devon, which is in the heart of the affected area.

We feel that there must be some way of obtaining compensation from the ministry when restrictions are imposed upon farmers who have not received contaminated feed or if farmers are affected by the way the restrictions are imposed. We have tabled some amendments to the Food Safety Bill to deal with that point. Many healthy animals have been retained on farms for a long time, with all the pressures that one would expect on winter housing and forage supplies. Pages and pages of farmers' names are attached to the orders. They represent a major economic problem or disaster for the farmer concerned. We must find a better, swifter way to deal with similar situations in the future.

11.29 p.m.

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity which this short debate has afforded me to explain the Government's position on this vexed issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has asked a number of interesting questions and I shall try to respond to them.

The noble Lord's first point related to the need for blanket restrictions even where some animals received no contaminated feed. Information on the amount of contaminated feed sent to Britain and the pattern of distribution was extremely sketchy. We could establish which farms had that feed only by physically examining the records of feed suppliers, merchants and compounders, some of which have since proved to be far from accurate.

Against that background, it was necessary to draw the net of our restrictions widely to ensure that consumers were duly protected. Where we were able to establish that particular farmers received or fed no contaminated feed, all restrictions were quickly lifted. Where farmers received contaminated feed but were able to show that particular groups of animals received none of it, and where blood or milk analysis corroborated that, the "clean" animals were released from restrictions. As I said earlier, more than 111,000 animals have been cleared on the basis of this criterion.

The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was on blood levels. Blood testing was used to corroborate claims that particular groups of animals received no contaminated feed and were thus eligible for release under scheme 2. The level of lead in blood remains the determining factor for eligibility for release under scheme 3. However, there is no known test which could be carried out on farms and which would enable animals to be cleared for release.

The noble Lord also asked me to clarify whether account is being taken of the amount of contaminated feed eaten or the degree of contamination of feed. This is not easy because of the variability of feed contamination and difficulties in establishing amounts fed to animals. We are actively considering whether a systematic scheme could be devised to allow restrictions to be eased without compromising food safety.

On the subject of further scientific information, we are in close contact with the Department of Health over the results of extensive laboratory analysis of lead levels in tissues, offals and bones with a view to easing some of the constraints under scheme 3. We hope on the basis of this work to be able to announce a further relaxation of restrictions shortly. We are also monitoring groups of animals which we are slaughtering at regular intervals, in order to monitor the distribution and levels of lead over time.

Another point concerned the audit of feed merchants' records. To ensure that information received from feed suppliers, merchants and compounders is reliable, MAFF staff have been carrying out their own detailed audits of stocks of contaminated material received and have been checking back on the ultimate destination and disposal of feed. A recent audit at a compounder in Torrington, D. J. Cobbledick Ltd, revealed that contaminated feed was used in the preparation of a number of products which were not previously thought to be involved. The most important of these products was a dairy feed known as "Parlour Pride" which was distributed to over 500 customers. While many of these farms were already under restriction, there were 165 which had never been under restriction and which it was necessary to restrict immediately. This was done issuing formal directions on 17th January.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a point on compensation. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, under which restrictions were imposed, does not contain provisions for statutory compensation. The Act is designed to ensure consumer protection against any hazard arising from the human consumption of contaminated food. Claims for compensation are a matter for farmers to pursue with suppliers of contaminated animal feed, through the courts if necessary. I understand that the National Farmers' Union is advising its members on this question.

Finally, let me repeat that the Government's principal concern throughout this incident has been to protect consumers from any hazard to health arising from the consumption of contaminated food. That has to remain our first priority. Nevertheless, we shall continue to do everything possible to reduce both the extent and the duration of controls and to ease the burden on farmers by lifting restrictions just as fast as we possibly can, consistent with the overriding need to ensure the continuing safety of the food chain. I commend these orders to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.