HL Deb 16 February 1993 vol 542 cc990-1

3.1 p.m.

Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:

What was the cost to public funds, in the latest period for which figures are available, of the policy of slaughtering laying hens in an attempt to reduce salmonella food poisoning, and what was the incidence of egg-related salmonella food poisoning in the same period.

Earl Howe

My Lords, expenditure in 1992 on compensation to owners of laying flocks compulsorily slaughtered because of infection with salmonella enteritidis totalled £435,000. The number of human salmonella infections confirmed by the Public Health Laboratory Service in the calendar year 1992 was 31,352, of which 16,981 were salmonella enteritidis phage type 4. It is not possible to determine how many of these were related to the consumption of eggs or products containing eggs.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the total cost to public funds of the slaughter policy is in the order of £10 million—that is, £5 million in total to farmers, and another £5 million in the departmental and the local authority cost in laboratory testing, inspection and slaughtering? After the slaughter of three-and-a-quarter million hens, and a spend of between £5 million and £10 million of public money—and the relevant strain of salmonella food poisoning increasing in the same period by 82 per cent.—do the Government now wish that they had heeded the advice of the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place? The committee reported in January 1989 that: a policy of slaughtering flocks with the aim of eradicating salmonella would not have a realistic prospect of success".

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a number of questions. Let me make one thing clear. The measures that we took in 1989 were absolutely right and necessary. Those measures were considered vital to restore confidence in British eggs and to combat salmonella in eggs and poultry. As noble Lords will remember, the background was of sharp rises in the number of food poisoning incidents caused by salmonella enteritidis, linked epidemiologically with the consumption of eggs and egg products. Those measures were endorsed by the Agriculture Select Committee.

In the light of the knowledge we have gained in the intervening three years, and recognising all the recommendations contained in the report from the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food on salmonella in eggs, the Government are now proposing to end the controls on laying flocks, including compulsory slaughter. I see no reason for revising our view that what we did was right at the time.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government had to take some action at the time because of the pronouncements of one of their Ministers? I seem to remember that at the time there was no evidence that salmonella had been found inside fresh eggs. Can the Minister advise the House whether any incidence of salmonella has yet been found inside a fresh egg?

Earl Howe

My Lords, the short answer to that is yes. The ACMSF report acknowledges that eggs are an important source of human salmonella infection. But the contribution that they make to current levels of human salmonellosis cannot be quantified precisely. Studies have shown that the number of infected eggs produced by an infected flock and the level of infection in contaminated eggs are low. If such eggs are handled, stored and used properly, they need not constitute a significant health risk for the majority of individuals.

Lord Carter

My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the period of the Gulf War the incidence of salmonella food poisoning decreased? Does he agree that that was largely due to the reduction in tourism?

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. There has been a rise in the total cases of salmonella enteritidis, as the noble Lord indicated earlier, but I do not think that the figures that are sometimes quoted should be taken in isolation. The type of salmonella that causes most human infection—salmonella enteritidis—has increased by a much smaller proportion than the total of salmonella cases.

Forward to