Egg Producers (Hansard, 16 February 1989)

§ 4. Mr. Adley
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individual applications he received for compensation from egg producers; and how many were accepted.

§ Mr. MacGregor
Of 48 applications confirmed by producers to cull hens under the slaughter of hens scheme, 44 were accepted. Under the egg industry scheme, initial applications were normally by telephone inquiry and were not logged, but a total of 1,434 applications were accepted as eligible. For both schemes, not all eligible applications were followed through.

§ Mr. Adley
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, following the retraction of devastating and inaccurate remarks about egg producers, and contrary to the opinions expressed in some quarters, most of those affected were small egg farmers who had put a lifetime's effort into their businesses—and who, if the Government had not acted quickly, would have found their businesses destroyed? Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks, on behalf of my constituents, for the speed with which his Department acted?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We must recall the exceptional circumstances in which we took action, when egg sales dropped by 30 per cent. in one week and by 50 per cent. in another. My hon. Friend is right to say that many of the country's 45,000 flocks are owned by very small producers with modest incomes. They faced a serious situation, and the scheme that we introduced was well designed and achieved its objective of restoring stability to the market in a thoroughly cost-effective way.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
I am very reassured to know that the Prime Minister is now in charge of the campaign about poisoning the nation—for which she certainly seems to he eminently well qualified. Is it not time for an independent food and health executive, so that the public will know that it is hearing the truth? Frankly, nobody really believes the Government any more. I fully expect to read in the newspapers soon that another Minister recommends that we start boiling our Easter eggs.

§ Mr. MacGregor
I have no idea what that has to do with the question on the Order Paper, which concerns individual applications for compensation to egg producers. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with complex matters. We make all the relevant information that is known to us available to the public, and we give advice whenever we think that that is necessary. It is important that, when comments are made, the public considers carefully what has been said. It is important also that advice is kept in perspective and does not get out of proportion.

§ Mr. Haselhurst
Is my right hon. Friend willing to consider compensation in cases where there is evidence that a farmer has suffered losses because of delays by departmental officials in handling samples that they have taken?

§ Mr. MacGregor
We have made clear what we are doing in respect of the compensation scheme, which was designed to put a floor in the market place. Payments made in response to applications went to egg packers, and in that way back to egg producers. I was not aware that applications were delayed. We certainly moved very speedily with the whole scheme.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister confirm that the compensation scheme is the subject of inquiries by the National Audit Office, which will report to the Public Accounts Committee? The Minister said that there has been no cover-up, but was there not a cover-up in respect of the names of the 21 protein processing plants that were responsible for the whole disaster? Why cannot the names of those 21 companies be given? If the Minister does not give that information to the House there will be a cover-up.

§ Mr. MacGregor
Not at all: there are perfectly good reasons for that and it has nothing to do with the egg compensation scheme. I am perfectly content for the egg compensation scheme to be thoroughly examined. The whole point and the key aspect of the scheme was the prices: 30p per dozen offered to take eggs off the market and the price set for culling young hens. In both cases the prices were low but they were there to give some stability and assistance to the market by lifting the prices from the rock bottom that they had reached. In both cases this objective was achieved. With spending of, it appears, just over £3 million on the two schemes, they have proved a very cost-effective measure.

§ Mr. Marland
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the totally unfounded remark by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) underlines the very scurrilous way in which the Opposition have been trying to flog this matter up? The general public is very concerned about infection in food. Does he agree with me that, for reasons of their own, the Opposition are seeking to create the maximum possible misunderstanding over the whole matter?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that in all these matters we retain a sense of perspective. It is difficult always to get the information through directly to the public, but it is important for everyone to take a responsible attitude. Regarding the egg position, we have taken, over a period, some 17 measures to ensure that at the production end and right the way through the food chain everything possible is done to deal with the salmonella risk that we face. Indeed, ours are among the most comprehensive measures taken by any country in the world.

§ Dr. David Clark
Does the Minister accept that the only long-term solution to the problem of salmonella in eggs is the elimination of salmonella enteritidis from the poultry flock? Why will he not institute a phased inspection of the whole of the 45,000-strong poultry flock in this country, 476 culling where necessary, instead of carrying out his half-hearted scheme, which he admitted in Monday's papers will apply to only four flocks?

§ Mr. MacGregor
The hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong; let me take him through it. First, it is not possible to find, and no country in the world has yet found, a way to eradicate salmonella. Salmonella is in the environment; it is carried by wild birds and rodents, and this includes salmonella enteritidis. We are taking every possible step to minimise the risk of salmonella, but it would be irresponsible to claim that we can eradicate it.
Secondly, we are introducing, as one of the 17 measures, a requirement for bacteriological monitoring. It is also necessary for producers and their vets who find traces of salmonella to report it to the Ministry under the zoonoses order. From those sources we are getting a clearer and more accurate picture of the exact state of infection.
Regarding the four flocks, the hon. Gentleman really must get this properly in context. These are the four flocks on which we currently have restriction notices as a result of monitoring and reporting. I have no doubt that there will be more, but four flocks out of 45,000 helps to put in perspective the extent of salmonella.