HC Deb 19 December 1988 vol 144 cc167-83

2 am

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)

I welcome to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department with responsibility for the subject we are to discuss.

Contrary to some reports, I have at no time been lobbied by the National Farmers Union or by any producer organisations connected with the egg or poultry industries. I also want to make it plain that I have never sought, publicly or privately, the resignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), whose services to the Department of Health I much admired and supported.

I welcome the speedy reaction of Ministers and the open and responsible action they are seeking to take. Only a fortnight ago, I rolled out of bed at 7 am and groaned as I heard the radio report of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's remarks. I stopped an hour later in the Cotswolds for breakfast and appreciated the extent of the worry that had been caused to housewives. I realised what a problem we had on our hands. But no one could have foreseen the rapidity with which it developed or the size that it assumed.

The test of the measures announced by the Government is whether they will restore the housewife's confidence in eggs. Anything else that we do for producers is merely applying sticking plaster. The test must be whether we are doing enough to restore the confidence of the housewife. I wish to resolve the uncertainty in the shopper's mind.

The plain fact is that the housewife suspended her purchase of eggs. Institutional purchases subject to the Department of Health had already been suspended after letters from the regional health authorities to homes and hospitals. That could account for about 12 per cent. of egg consumption, and some people put it as high as 20 per cent. That was a serious blow. But this is a cyclical industry. There was a poor start to 1988, but matters improved in the middle of the summer, with a reduction in chick placings, and the industry was looking forward to 1989 following a successful Christmas season. It is ironic that the housewife suspended her purchases precisely in the week when normally most eggs are sold.

To give the House an idea of what is involved, I quote figures supplied by the central egg agency in my constituency. In the corresponding week in 1987, egg producers shipped more than 13,000 cases. This year, the figure was just under 6,900. In the following week in 1987, the figure was 9,100. This year it was 1,500. That is not a drop of one sixth, but one sixth of shipments. In the week just concluded, instead of 9,100 in 1987, the figure was 2,100. That is a serious decline by anyone's standards. I shall not bore the House with all the prices, but at 30 November the price for grade 2 eggs—that is what my wife buys—was 55.56p per dozen. The week before last, the price was 28p and last week it was 26p. It does not need much imagination to understand what has happened. If we compare those figures with the production cost, which should be put at about 45p per dozen, the consequences for the producer are all too clear.

One can understand the producers' feelings of anguish and anxiety, because the exact nature of that with which they have been charged has never been properly defined. Those who have carried out tests regularly have been tarred with the same brush of suspicion as the producers of contaminated eggs. They regard that as most unfair, quite apart from being most damaging to their reputation and business. It is worth bearing in mind that many of those businesses are family businesses which have been built up over the last 20 years and involve exactly those people whom it has been the Government's business, to encourage with such success.

My concern has been to identify, define and locate the risk so that we can deal with it. We have already dealt with similar problems in agricultural food production. Outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, swine vesicular disease or fowl pest are confined to the farms where they have been reported and no movement of animals or feed is allowed on or off such farms, while the rest of the industry can continue its work. The housewife's confidence, which is all-important, is not affected because she knows that the necessary measures have been taken to confine the trouble to where it has been identified and located.

I hope that we shall achieve this in the case of salmonella enteriditis which is prevalent in our laying flocks. I do not necessarily believe that it is prevalent in eggs. The extent of its prevalence must be put into context. I have had an answer today confirming that there have been 49 outbreaks affecting 1,000 people arising from the consumption, not the production, of eggs. That leaves wide open the question whether it is in the distribution chain, in the storage or in the kitchen or perhaps comes about through human infection.

The former Department of Health and Social Security's figures show that there were 450 outbreaks of salmonella in 1987 affecting 26,000 people, of which at least 20 per cent. were traced to people returning from holidays in one of our EEC partner countries which I had better not name here. That compares with 49 outbreaks affecting 1,000 people of which it is believed that 70 per cent. involved free range hens and eggs. Those people who seek to blame all this trouble on battery producers—we should remember that many producers have both battery and free range hens—have been wide of the mark.

Let me return to the uncertainty that surrounds the matter. Are the tests being carried out satisfactorily? Do they define whether the disease is present? Can anyone tell us what the risk and effect is? So far, we have heard of about 49 outbreaks in 1,000 people, but we have not been told whether they felt off colour for a day, whether they were seriously ill or whether they were mortally affected.

When this suspicion is about, the prudent housewife wonders whether she should buy eggs. The Government's advertisement does not help her make her decision. It says, in effect, "Buy eggs, but beware", but of what is she being asked to beware? Those 49 outbreaks must have been identified to be reported. I presume that they can be located from that identification. Action should be taken to confine the disease to the place where it has been located. I have learned from a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that under an order that some of us may have a little difficulty in pronouncing called the Zoonoses Order 1975, powers exist to restrict the movement of animals, birds or their products, including eggs, from any place where salmonella has been found present".

Mr. Tony Speller (Devon, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the problem is not movement, but that there is a perception among the public—rightly or wrongly—that the fowl that lay our eggs are fed a somewhat unsuitable diet? The perception has nothing to do with candour or movement. However, until the industry in which both my hon. Friend and I have a constituency interest, can say that our fowls' food is such and such, we will never get faith back in the chicken or egg markets.

Sir Hal Miller

My hon. Friend has a great deal more experience of these matters than me. I will consider feed in a moment, but if my hon. Friend will forgive me I want to finish the point that I was making about the need to explain to the people what the outbreaks are, where they took place and what action is being taken to contain them.

I referred to other agricultural products which could be confined to the affected farm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) will be aware, one must consider the feed that is given to pigs. One must consider its constituent parts and also its preparation on the farm.

The tests are very important for the responsible producers who undertake them. If 60 or 70 per cent. of the industry is undertaking the tests why should its products be tarred unfairly with the brush of suspicion if the tests are adequate? If they are not adequate, why can we not have a test that is adequate? As well as the producers carrying out tests, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also carrying out tests. The Ministry station in Wolverhampton responsible for the midlands has carried out tests on more than 100 farms, but it has not found one positive result. The producers in my constituency who have carried out tests have produced similar results.

I want to give priority to restoring the housewife's confidence. That must be the acid test. On that basis, I was a little disappointed that the health measures about the food and monitoring came at the end of today's statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am grateful to Ministers for introducing the voluntary codes with such speed. However, I had hoped that we could have heard that it was the Government's intention to proceed to a statutory code for better enforcement. The housewife wants to know that there is statutory protection available for food to allow her to feel confident when she buys food for her family.

The Minister's statement alludes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North about monitoring animal feed and strengthening controls relating to imported protein. There have been rumours that unsuitable elements have entered the food chain through feed preparation—even including offal and, some suggest, diseased offal or deceased birds. That aspect should be brought out more into the open, so that the public may be confident about what is going into the chicken, and therefore about what is unlikely to be contained in the egg.

The housewife is paramount in all of this, but I turn now to the producer. I ask my hon. Friend whether the balance between the two short-term measures announced today is fixed and final, or whether I can persuade him to give more attention to the desirability of culling more hens from the laying flock. My constituents strongly believe, as I do, that there will be a stepped decline in egg consumption and that the only way to restore market order in the medium to long term will be to reduce the flock.

As I said before, earlier this summer producers had already taken steps to reduce their laying flock. They now believe that more hens than the 4 million mentioned in this afternoon's statement should be taken out. If necessary, they might be prepared to accept a lower payment for them, provided that not just the hens are taken out but the associated equipment. In other words, they are asking for a lever scheme to reduce the size of the laying flock.

Over the past two weeks, I have tried to ensure that definite information will be made available about the nature of the risk, that it will be confined to the affected farms, or that, if it is not possible for it to be so confined, that a slaughter policy exists to ensure the removal of that risk. All those measures are designed to restore the confidence of the housewife, who alone can determine the producers' future.

2.22 am
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) to debate the important matter of the salmonella that has allegedly contaminated this country's egg production.

The egg producers whom I represent and I welcome the speed with which the Ministry acted to save the industry. It took only two weeks for a decision to be made, to devise a workable system for producing £17 million of aid, and to help the culling of 2 million birds and the purchase of 15 million eggs daily. Not only that, but my right hon. and hon. Friends have produced a seven-point hygiene plan for tackling the problems of salmonella.

If the matter could rest there we could say that the whole industry was safe and the problem was solved, but I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to pursue the policies that resulted in today's announcement. I do not feel that the public—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has said—are clear about the position. In my view, two aims should now be vigorously pursued: first, to inform the public that eggs are safe to consume, and, secondly, to take further measures to protect the industry.

Mr. Speller

I hope that my hon. Friend does not mean that it is more important to say that eggs are safe to eat and thus protect the industry than to remember those who consume the product. Does he agree that our hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) was perhaps a trifle defeatist? Our aim must surely be to get the egg industry up and running again and to give confidence to the housewife. We can do that only by starting at the root of the problem—the feed—and then making people confident enough to eat what has been fed on it.

Mr. Hind

I accept that. But the information available to us points overwhelmingly to the fact that eggs are safe for the public to eat, and that message must be put across clearly.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was asked on Friday afternoon, when he made a statement, whether he agreed with the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in a television interview that most egg production in the country was affected by salmonella. He made it clear that that was not correct. We have got to push that message, but so far the advertising campaign that has unfortunately become necessary to impress it on the public's mind has been surrounded by too many reservations. The fact is that 13 million eggs are consumed per day—or were; the figure is only half that now—and there have been only 1,500 cases of salmonella and about 50 outbreaks. We understand that the source is roughly 10 farms in the whole country. The message to the public is that they have a 200 million to one chance of catching salmonella from eggs, and that if they cook the eggs correctly they reduce that chance to virtually nothing.

The media do not seem to have got that message very clear. They are being extremely confused by the barrage of expert opinion that has suddenly come forward. Tonight on the 9 o'clock news we heard again from Professor Lacey of Leeds university, who repeated that salmonella had made egg consumption dangerous. But he does not seem to be producing any evidence.

The Department of Health laboratories have reported from their research on 40 cases that they have traced the cause back to eggs. I understand that a private health investigator called Mr. North, who was interviewed on television this evening, says that he is investigating those 40 cases afresh, and that in his view they have a common factor—poor handling of food, in this case eggs. He has drawn the conclusion that the salmonella cases investigated by the Department of Health have much more in common with the mishandling and poor storage of eggs than with their production.

Ministers in both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health, together with their research scientists, must consider that factor. A classic case of salmonella poisoning has been reported this week. Turkey, which had been frozen, was served at a dinner, but because it had not been properly cooked 40 of the guests suffered from salmonella poisoning. That proves the point that handling, storage and cooking have an important role to play.

The results of research into salmonella in eggs, where salmonella has been excluded, have not been published. The Department of Health is in possession of evidence that is based on research to which hon. Members have not had access. If the results of that research were to be published, it would help to reassure the public that eggs are safe to consume. Those who are connected with agriculture, health and hygiene could evalute the quality of the research and draw appropriate conclusions. At the moment, there is far too much confusion. Ministers could play a major role in helping to solve that problem by publishing the results of the research.

Ministers are also pursuing the aim of protecting the industry by making it ready for the day when the demand for eggs recover. I feel sure that that day is not far off. Britain's egg-producing industry is 99 per cent. efficient. We want it to remain just as efficient. Ministerial plans will help the industry to remain as productive and as able to meet demand as it was in the past.

We must also try to protect jobs. Twenty people in my constituency who were employed in the egg-producing industry have already lost their jobs. That is a disaster in an area where there is high unemployment. Eggs will be imported. If there is less control over the hygienic production of imported eggs, that will increase, not decrease, the chances of salmonella infection. Not the least important point is that the cost of eggs, an essential food, will rise.

Today some of my hon. Friends seemed almost to resent the rescue plans that Ministers have introduced to protect egg producers. My hon. Friends forget that Ministers are also protecting consumers. It is in the interests of consumers that the industry should be able to provide adequate, cheap and hygienic supplies of eggs when demand recovers. It is as much in the interests of consumers as it is in the interests of the industry that my hon. Friends should support the measures that Ministers have introduced. Probably the most important factor is that it is in all our interests that the British egg-producing industry should remain strong and able to provide this most important food.

I was sad about the hysterical reception of the statements about egg production. The industry is geared up to meet a high demand. The 50 per cent. drop in egg production in my constituency and in many other parts of the country was felt almost immediately. Chickens cost 50p a week to feed. Chicks are constantly being born to replace the egg-laying birds. It is a very intensive industry, with high overheads. The drop in demand has had a disastrous effect on producers. We have witnessed the immediate results.

We must not forget that the egg-producing industry needs cereals. There will be a knock-on effect. If egg production is reduced, the cereal mountain will grow larger. The effect will work its way through our agriculture industry.

I repeat, and I hope that the press will bear it in mind, that the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has recently carried out research across the country involving thousands of eggs from 106 different locations and did not find one case of salmonella. Samples of eggs have been taken from producers in my constituency and not one case of salmonella has been found. I understand that eggs with salmonella have been found in 10 farms in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is the case so that we can reassure the public that salmonella is limited to that number of outlets. At least that will give some reassurance.

Regrettably, we have lost a Minister because of this matter. It is quite clear that what was said by the Department of Health has led to the crisis in the egg-producing industry. We have lost an able Minister who has made a major contribution to the House, and politics will be poorer for not having her at the Dispatch Box. But there is one clear lesson. What we say as public figures will be taken notice of and we must be extremely careful in our statements. At this stage, we can be clear and careful in our statements and repeat the message that there is a 200 million to one chance of catching salmonella from eggs. That is less chance than I have of being killed on my way home, driving my car through the streets of London. I would be safer eating half a dozen eggs than driving three or four miles to my home. Every time we step off a pavement we are in more danger of being killed than we are of catching salmonella from eating an egg. Those are the statistics, yet people are not afraid of getting into their cars to go to work or of walking on a pavement.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and I will be saying to our constituents that on Christmas day, before our turkey and Christmas pudding, we shall enjoy a plateful of eggs florentine in the safe assumption that we will not catch salmonella. At the same time, we shall be helping and supporting the egg industry in Britain. I hope that the rest of the House will feel able to do the same.

2.38 am
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)

If I were the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), I would not bet on my chances of survival—especially if he is in front of me when I drive home at 4 o'clock this morning.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on his good fortune in winning a high place in the ballot, which allows us to debate this important subject at an early hour, and his wisdom in choosing a subject which is to the fore of public attention. I very much welcome the way in which he introduced the debate. It was measured and rational and made a pleasant change from some of the remarks that we have come to associate with those who have commented on the egg industry in recent weeks. I also extend my personal welcome to the Minister, who I understand has come hot-foot from Brussels. He has also brought back a cold. I am sure that he would have wished to have returned in different circumstances, but we welcome him nevertheless. He is doubly unfortunate in that he has a cold and he also has to answer for the actions of his ministerial colleagues. I suspect that his task will not be easy.

The subject for debate is the egg industry. I make no apology for turning my attention to this afternoon's statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That statement was welcomed by the hon. Members for Bromsgrove and for Lancashire, West but I suspect that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove queried the effectiveness of the statement and has looked more carefully at the details of the statement than he could have at 3.30 this afternoon. If he has, I suspect that he has reached the same conclusions as I have. The scheme announced by the Minister is deficient in each of its three components.

The three principal objectives of the scheme are to reduce the egg surplus, to reduce egg-laying capacity and to reassure the housewife about the safety and wholesomeness of eggs.

The Minister announced that the first measure will be to provide a payment to egg packers for the destruction of surplus eggs for a period of four weeks from 21 December. The payment will be at the rate of 30p per dozen eggs on up to 1.1 million cases. Optimistically, the Minister continued by saying that that will tackle the overhang of eggs in the system. As a result of the events of the past couple of weeks there are now more than 400 million surplus eggs, many of which have been in the hands of producers for several weeks.

If we compare the £17 million which has been made available with the Minister's first commitment to pay 30p per dozen up to 1.1 million cases, we get some idea of the magnitude of the problem. Thirty pence is the minimum amount necessary to produce a dozen eggs, taking into account food and limited packaging. The cost of 1.1 million cases would be £9.9 million but, 1.1 million cases covers fewer than the current surplus of 400 million eggs. Therefore, the first bite of that £17 million is £9.9 million to remove 1.1 million cases of eggs.

Since the statement, there has been further surplus egg production which will take another £150,000 out of the available money. That is the rate at which surplus eggs are being produced. By Boxing day, a week today, at the current rate of production, a further £2,720,000 will be needed to purchase surplus production. By new year's eve a further £1,875,000 will have been used to purchase surplus eggs. If we assume that the second measure—the culling of 4 million birds—will take £1 per head, by the end of next week the £17 million will have been used up and we shall still be producing 15 million surplus eggs a day.

If the Minister had come to the Dispatch Box with some humility and said that he was prepared to review the scheme at a later date in the light of take-up and so on, I would not be particularly concerned. However, he made it clear that £17 million is the maximum amount to be made available. In the coming weeks the small producers, those who have been hit hardest during the past two weeks, will be hit even harder.

I have already mentioned the second element of the scheme—the culling of part of the flock. I understand that the culling of 10 per cent. of the flock will be put in hand during the next four weeks. However, the British Poultry Federation and the National Farmers Union—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove alluded to his constituency experience—suggested that between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the flock will have to be culled if production is to be reduced to a level at which surplus eggs can be controlled by the money available. I suspect that the cull will be less than required, which is singularly unfortunate for the small producer. The large producer will be prepared to gamble over the next forthnight or three weeks in the hope that the price of eggs will stabilise and that moult will be induced, and will take other measures to control production, but the small producer will be faced with accepting the outgoers scheme or going bankrupt. Again the small producer will suffer.

There is much unfairness in the scheme announced today because the industry has already made considerable losses. I was speaking to a local egg producer last weekend, who told me that he has been incurring a loss of 10p or 15p on every dozen eggs that he sells. It has been reported that producers have had to slaughter tens of thousands of hens that were not in production. The statement offers them nothing, and if people were forced by economics to take action last week or the week before, no compensation will be available, which is unfair. I hope that when the Minister considers the details of the scheme he will take particular note of that.

The third element of the package was to restore the public's confidence—a point of which the hon. Members for Bromsgrove and Lancashire, West made much play. It is important to restore confidence in egg production, otherwise no amount of short-term measures will be successful and the industry will be decimated, which Labour Members do not want.

I suspect that there is such a deep and fundamental conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health that it is not possible to reconcile the two conflicting approaches, and for that fundamental reason the statement made by the Minister this afternoon was defective.

Despite all the opportunities that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had and all the questons that have been asked, a statement has not been made about the level of infection among home-produced eggs. I remind the hon. Member for Lancashire, West that we continually import eggs from Spain, Belgium and Denmark. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but we continually import eggs and should be concerned about the problems of salmonella not only in this country but western Europe.

This afternoon, significantly, the Minister said that all the evidence was that the incidence of salmonella enteritidis was very low in the laying flock. The Minister chose to say not that the incidence of salmonella in eggs was low but that all the evidence was that salmonella enteritidis was very low in the laying flock. If that is so, what is the Government's evidence and when will they make it publicly available?

I suspect that the truth is that MAFF has conducted no extensive survey among the laying flock and that it is relying on reports that it has received from environmental health departments of local authorities up and down the land. If that is the case, MAFF has a clear responsibility to publish the information that it has, and, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said, to identify those producers who currently have infected stock or are known to be placing salmonella-infected eggs on to the national market. That is a simple step. In view of the grave crisis that is now threatening the egg industry and the fact that it extends across all sectors, as has been rightly pointed out, whether or not they are guilty and whether or not they are producing clean products, there is a clear opportunity for the Ministry to take action to ensure that that information comes into the public domain.

However, there will still be a doubt remaining in the minds of the public about whether they are receiving honest treatment at the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Given the Ministry's actions over the past several years, that is not surprising. In 1981, the then newly elected Conservative Government deliberately decided to weaken the code that had been the subject of consultation with the industry until 1979. That showed one fundamental truth, and that is that the too-close relationship between MAFF and the National Farmers Union is not in the long-term interests of MAFF or of the National Farmers Union. It is certainly not in the long-term or short-term interests of the consumer, because the consumer is now suffering.

Mr. Hind

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Conservative Members are as concerned as he is about this matter? We have not been approached by the NFU. I have been approached by my own local consumers. The NFU has not spoken to me about it. That is the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller). There has been an awful lot of mischief-making in the press about the matter.

Mr. Ron Davies

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not talking about representations that he might or might not have received during the past couple of weeks or so, I am talking about the relationship which has historically existed between the Conservative party and the National Farmers Union. I am talking about a series of events that took place in 1981, which are the precise cause of the problems that we now have in the industry.

A report in today's edition of The Independent refers to the Government's decision to reduce funding for research into salmonella. It states: It stopped the research at a time of crisis in public confidence in the food and farming industries, but also in the face of increasing numbers of academic papers suggesting that it is the Ministry's own commitment to the poultry and feed industries which has slowed important reforms in the regulation of the poultry and egg business. In 1986, a vet employed by the Ministry of Agriculture published a paper which recorded the failure of regulations introduced in 1981. They had been framed to safeguard the public from salmonella, had been weakened after industry protests at their cost, and were finally brought into force in much weaker form than intended. The regulations have not worked. At least 10 per cent. of samples of the animal products produced in this country and fed to poultry is contaminated with salmonella; up to a third of samples of such products which are imported were infected in 1985.

That accusation was substantiated by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). Another article in The Independent states: The Tory MP for Boston with Holland, Sir Richard Body, a former chairman of the Commons Agriculture Committee and a farmer, fears that guidelines issued in 1981 were weakened after pressure from the feed processing industry. He said: 'I was told on very good authority that there was a much stronger order being drafted. The idea was that all poultry should be examined for salmonella, because those who had been carrying out an examination believed that the amount of salmonella in the birds was rather serious.' Those were the comments of an hon. Member who is respected on both sides of the House. Moreover, the vet is not an anonymous leaker of information; he is Dr. Matthews, who wrote in the State Veterinary Journal: There was considerable resistance to these proposals". John Field, the chairman of the United Kingdom Renderers Association said: The original proposals were very expensive, but there was a distinct change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing. Those comments appeared in yestereday's edition of The Observer.

In case there is any doubt about the veracity of those statements, let me refer the House to a draft document produced by the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That document, produced in April 1980 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, said: The earlier proposals were formulated on the basis that all domestic plants processing animal protein for inclusion in animal feed should be licensed. Licences would be issued only if the process itself was capable of killing salmonellae and other disease organisms and the layout, construction and operation of the processing plant were such that recontamination of the finished product was prevented. Similar standards were to be required of the imported product. The Departments wish to record their indebtedness and to express their thanks to the organisations for the response which was made in the ensuing correspondence and discussions on those proposals. That is what is supposed to have happened, but the report continues: The new proposals reflect the wish of Ministers that in the present economic climate the Industry should itself determine how best to produce a high-quality product, and that the role of Government should be restricted to prescribing a standard for the product and to enforcing observance of that standard. Ministers take the view that this simpler approach would have the incidental advantage of enabling the Industry to prepare for more stringent measures which might have to be taken at some future date. What happened to that enforcement? Inspections were carried out and it was recognised that salmonella was contaminating feed that was being fed to the British poultry flock. In a third of cases, infected feed was being distributed but in not one of the cases was a prosecution instigated by the Ministry. That is the Ministry's record in this matter.

It was little surprise when increasing evidence of salmonella emerged earlier in 1988. The statement in August this year by the Government's chief medical officer warned the public of the dangers of salmonella and—as successive Ministers have told us in parliamentary answers—the rise in salmonella reporting was constant during the summer months. But no urgent action was taken then. The Government's only response was to cut research. Today's edition of The Independent says: The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is directly responsible for blocking progress in the elimination of salmonella infection in the 35 million laying hens, and nearly 500 million table fowl slaughtered annually in this country. As the present scare was gaining momentum last month, the Ministry told food scientists in the government-sponsored Institute of Food Research, near Bristol, that it would no longer fund their research into providing birds with a natural protection from the salmonella bacteria. That is not much of a response. The Government recognised the increasing incidence of the disease, but the only action that they were prepared to take was to stop specific research designed to protect the laying flock from the problem of salmonella. They did not tighten the codes on rendering or on producing flocks. All that they did was to cut research. It was not until that slip by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, whether inadvertent or calculated, that we saw any action from MAFF. It was not until 5 December—several days after the hon. Lady made her statement—that the new code of practice was introduced by MAFF.

That new code still does not have statutory force or additional resources to ensure that it is properly followed. This week's edition of Farmers Weekly notes that we are due for yet another code—presumably a super-code. It states: Farmers cannot guarantee that their eggs and chickens are salmonella-free by testing, according to a veterinary spokesman. In an unattributable briefing, arranged by the Ministry of Agriculture, the spokesman told FARMERS WEEKLY that the guarantee could only be offered by testing every bird and egg to destruction. The only way to minimise the risk of infection was by following a new code of practice for commercial laying flocks, due to be published by the ministry next week. Will the Minister tell us what status that new super-code will have? Will it be mandatory? Will producers be required to state that they are complying with the code? Will the Ministry take it on itself to publish the list of those producers who comply with the code? If there is to be a prospect of restoring public confidence in the poultry industry, that is the course of action that must be taken.

I have plenty more arguments to deploy, if my hon. Friends wish me to entertain them for longer. Let us have a look at the dispute between MAFF and the Department of Health which led to the resignation of the Under-Secretary of State. There can be only one of two possibilities. Either she was wrong, and therefore properly resigned or she was right, and therefore improperly resigned.

If the Under-Secretary of State was wrong in her statement, why was that statement not immediately disowned by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries arid Food? Why did he not on the Monday make it abundantly clear that she was inaccurate in her statement? If he had done that, the industry would have been spared a fortnight of heartbreak and taxpayers would have been saved at least £18 million.

It may well have been that the hon. Lady was right. If she was, it merely demonstrates that, despite all the lessons of the past 12 months, there is still an air of complacency in the Department. It gives me no great pleasure to say that I fear that the measures introduced today will not restore confidence in the industry or reassure consumers, and that what is intended to be a short-term palliative and a bailing-out measure for the industry for this month will be the start of a much longer, sorrier saga.

3.3 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder)

We have had an interesting debate and I shall do my best in the remaining time to answer as many of the questions as I can.

I start by expressing my personal sorrow and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the news of the death of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). He was much respected on both sides of the House, not least for his knowledgeable contributions to agriculture debates. His death is a sad loss to the House and to his party. I should be grateful if our condolences could please be conveyed to his family.

This has been a well-informed and helpful debate. I must express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) for initialing it, and at the same time to express my recognition of his staunch advocacy on behalf of the egg industry during the past fortnight. He has not been alone in that and here tonight are other hon. Members whose interest has been apparent throughout that period. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who has spoken, and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench.

Perhaps, it would be helpful if I were to provide the House with some facts and figures about the significance of the egg industry to the economy of the United Kingdom. The output of the egg industry is worth about £500 million a year at the farm gate and perhaps twice that at retail level. There are about 35,000 farmers who depend in whole or in part on their earnings from eggs, and more than 3,000 egg packing stations provide employment for at least 15,000 people. Of course, a great many other people are engaged in distributing, marketing and selling eggs after they have been packed.

It is not a small, unimportant industry with which we are concerned. However, we all acknowledge that it is an industry with a problem. It is a fact that the number of outbreaks of food poisoning linked to eggs has increased this year, and that the number of people from whom the new salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 has been isolated has increased. Indeed, 51 outbreaks this year is 51 too many. My views on this were made quite clear to the industry very shortly after I became involved with the issues and before the events of the past fortnight caused a slide in the demand for eggs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have stressed that the problem must be kept in perspective. The number of reported cases of food poisoning from salmonella linked to eggs is very small by comparison with the 30 million eggs consumed a day and the 200 million consumed a week.

By the summer, it was clear that there was a new and growing problem from salmonella enteritidis phage 4 type linked to eggs. As a result of that information, the Government acted immediately to tackle the problem at every point in the production chain. Among other initiatives, that led to the publication of codes of practice to apply to commercial and breeding flocks. However, those two codes of practice are only the start and we have been preparing other steps, which will include—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced this afternoon while I was at an Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels—more stringent bacteriological monitoring of animal protein for animal feed, the registering of breeding flocks and hatcheries for hygiene control purposes and the strengthening of the licensing provision related to imported animal protein. Those steps are designed to tackle the problem of this particular strain of salmonella and to reduce infection of the egg-laying flock.

My Department has also been working closely with the chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, and officials of the Department of Health over the advice given to consumers. Some reports suggested that the advice of the chief medical officer has been questioned. I do not believe that to be so. Sir Donald Acheson is a most distinguished figure in the medical profession. His advice is excellent and it should be followed in full. I should also emphasise that, in the past two weeks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I worked together closely during the absence of my right hon. Friend on urgent Government business in Montreal and Brussels.

The uncertainty over the implications of salmonella enteritidis has caused a sharp decline in egg sales. There is no doubt that that has caused acute practical and financial difficulties for the egg industry. As my right hon. Friend told the House earlier today, the Government have decided, in these exceptional circumstances, to introduce two short-term measures. The first will provide a payment to egg packers for the destruction of surplus eggs at the rate of 30p a dozen eggs on up to 1.1 million cases over a four-week period. There are 360 eggs in a case. That represents nearly half the normal supply. The second measure will be introduced to help the industry to reduce the size of the egg-laying flock. It will provide for payment for a bird aged between 18 weeks and 30 weeks. The scheme will enable up to 4 million hens—roughly equivalent to 10 per cent. of the laying flock—to be slaughtered under the Ministry's supervision.

Those two short-term measures, taken together, are designed to assist the egg industry to adjust to new market conditions. I shall cover the details of the scheme later when I answer hon. Members' questions.

We hope that the actions that we have announced today, in conjunction with the advertising campaign that sets out the advice of the chief medical officer and presents the facts to consumers, will quickly help to restore order to the egg market in the interests of consumers and everyone working in that important sector of the food industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West highlighted the question of the poor handling of food and the effect that that has on hygiene. It is true that poor kitchen hygiene is an important factor in causing food poisoning—it always has been. A campaign for hygiene in the home will be launched in January in conjunction with the Department of Health. A leaflet will be made available nationally through supermarkets, doctors' surgeries, health visitors and libraries. Further initiatives are planned for schools and catering establishments. We must continue, however, to tackle the problem at every stage in the chain, and that is our intention.

I was asked about the tests on eggs carried out by producers and packers. The level of infection in flocks is very low. An enormous number of eggs would have to be tested to be able to say safely that the statistical probability was that a flock was salmonella-free. I was asked about the feed for chickens. The recycling of animal protein in processing plants, which has happened for many years, is covered by the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981. The rendering involved utilises high temperatures which should kill salmonella organisms.

I was asked where salmonellae have been found. Salmonella enteritidis has been isolated from the few layer-breeding flocks and commercial laying flocks. The organism may be found in the gut or in the ovary. The most effective means of detecting the organism in a flock is by taking samples from the environment in a poultry house. It has also been isolated from animal feed on rare occasions.

It was asked whether these tests were reliable. There are two sorts of test. The first is used to determine whether salmonella is prevalent in the environment—the one I am discussing now. The second is used to determine whether live chickens suffer from the strain of salmonella under scrutiny this morning. The environmental tests are reliable. I am told by the chief veterinary officer that the bacteriological isolation techniques are extremely sensitive and reliable. Use is made of a pre-enrichment technique to ensure that latent salmonellae present are encouraged to grow on the culture plate.

I have been asked whether there was a simple test to discover whether live chickens suffered from this strain of salmonella. Again, I am informed by the chief veterinary officer that no simple test has yet been devised anywhere to determine this. We must bear in mind—this has been well known for a long time—that there are about 1,800 different types of salmonella.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove suggested that we are not taking enough laying hens out of the laying flock. This is a matter of fine judgment. My hon. Friend will have noted that we are paying to take young birds at the beginning of their laying cycle out of the flock. To have paid for the culling of old hens would have run the risk of paying farmers to do something that they would have done anyway. We hope that taking out young birds will have the maximum effect on over-supply, and it means that the effects will last for about a year. If we take out too many young birds now, and the market recovers sufficiently in a year's time, we shall merely have opened the door to a flood of imports. Indeed, that fear was expressed in the debate.

I was also asked whether it was possible to use the zoonoses order to follow up cases that are reported to the state veterinary service. I am informed that the order is being used to pursue cases of reported salmonella poisoning, and that it will go on being used in that way.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked whether there were controls on the domestic production of processed animal protein. I have already covered that, but I emphasise that all protein processing plants are being inspected by my officials on a regular three-monthly basis, in addition to any monitoring carried out by the plants themselves. If salmonella contamination is found in any of the plants' production, a notice is served on the owners requiring them to ensure that all the product conforms with the required bacteriological standard—that is to say, there must be no salmonella—within a specific time, after which a re-inspection visit takes place.

One of my hon. Friends asked about the number of food poisoning cases during the past few years. The figure for 1987—I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mentioned this during his statement—is about 20,000 reported cases of food poisoning. In 1988, we would expect an increased proportion of cases to be caused by salmonella enteriditis and for the first 10 months of the year there have been 1,000 reported cases of that form of food poisoning in eggs.

As I promised, I shall deal with some of the details of the scheme and the questions that have arisen. There is some doubt about when the egg industry scheme comes into operation. It will come into operation on Wednesday 21 December. From that date, packers will be able to offer quantities of eggs equal to their weekly throughput. Many people have asked how they should apply. Packers in England should apply to their Ministry regional office; those in Wales should apply to the Welsh Office; and those in Scotland and Northern Ireland should apply to the respective Agriculture Departments.

It has been asked, although not during this debate, why only packers are involved in the scheme. Helping packers to take their surplus eggs off the market is the simplest and quickest way to help all producers. Once those eggs have been removed. the market will be strengthened and packers will be able to buy more eggs. But producers will benefit directly under the scheme for the slaughter of pullets. The scheme that was formulated during the week would normally have taken officials in the Ministry several weeks, if not months, to formulate properly. In this case, we decided to go through the packers.

There is anxiety about a public health risk from the eggs that will be destroyed. There should be no health risk because the eggs will be either buried or incinerated, under supervision, at approved sites.

I shall try to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Caerphilly about the slaughter of hens scheme. The immediate aim of the scheme is to assist egg producers to get rid of hens that they no longer require because of the fall in the egg market. More generally, the scheme aims to restore a better balance between supply and demand by removing up to 4 million hens. That will help all egg producers, including those who do not participate in the scheme. Egg producers will be invited to apply to the Ministry saying how many hens they wish to slaughter. There will be a minimum of 500. Some scaling-down of applications will be done if the total of applications exceeds the ceiling of 4 million for the United Kingdom, of which 3,456,000 is the figure for England and Wales. Depending on uptake, the scheme will cost up to £6.8 million in compensation, plus about £1.2 million for operational costs.

Some hon. Members asked today why the figure of 4 million has been chosen. It is because it represents 10 per cent. of the total laying flock and up to 45 per cent. of birds in that age group. It should be enough to allow the industry to adjust to reduced demand. We have chosen the age group from 18 to 30 weeks because we want to take out those birds in the early part of egg production and thereby produce the maximum possible effect on supply. Any owner of domestic fowls who wishes to slaughter 500 or more eligible birds can apply for the benefits of the scheme.

There is concern about how the carcases will be disposed of. That will depend on individual circumstances, but local authorities, including water authorities, will be consulted on the most appropriate means to do that.

Mr. Hind

Does my hon. Friend accept that egg producers are faced with the prospect of digging holes and disposing of the carcases, and that the scheme that he is proposing will greatly help them to dispose of the 2 million carcases?

Mr. Ryder

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I confirm that that is the case. All sorts of advice and assistance will be given by vets, local authorities and local MAFF regional offices which are receiving instructions from us.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised a number of further questions. I am trying to cover as many as possible and I apologise to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) for delaying his debate, but it is important, in view of the number of questions asked during the debate—

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

I can assure the Minister that my egg farmers will be interested in the debate.

Mr. Ryder

I am grateful to hear that. If it were another time of day, I should be just as interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's debate as he is to hear this debate.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked whether the schemes were deficient. I have tried to explain how the eggs will be destroyed. The process will last for not more than four weeks. In a brief meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Brussels earlier this evening, he asked me to emphasise the fact that it was a four-week period, that the final figures for the scheme had been announced and that there will be no change in Government policy. I know that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to know whether there were second thoughts on the Government's part, and I have it from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that that is not the case.

I hope that, in my speech, which has lasted for about 30 minutes, I have answered most of the questions. If I have overlooked any questions, I shall be more than happy to answer them as soon as possible, either by letter or by any other means because it is important that everything should be clarified so that we can continue to remove the uncertainty for the sake of consumers.

The advertisement that appeared for the first time last Friday and ran over the weekend was intended to do just that. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health are using every available means at their disposal to clarify the matter. It is a far more technical and complex matter than many people perhaps appreciate. In many ways, it is a technical problem because it is a relatively new strain of salmonella and scientisits have no sure way of finding out about the strain in live hens. However, we are continuing to take every possible step to ensure that we reduce the number of outbreaks of this strain of salmonella.

I agree wholeheartedly with the chief medical officer that, until the number of such outbreaks begins to decline, we shall not return to 100 per cent. confidence in the egg market. That is why I know that the industry itself is most anxious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, to tackle the problem as well. Doubtless we will have other opportunities to debate this matter in future. I hope that I have answered all the questions that were raised. I reiterate that if there are any outstanding matters that I have not covered I shall be more than pleased to try to clarify them tomorrow.