HC Deb 19 February 1998 vol 306 cc1175-7
12. Mr. Loughton

How many prosecutions have taken place with regard to the sale of beef on the bone to the final consumer. [28756]

Mr. Rooker

None so far, but we are aware that two are pending, and that warnings about non-compliance have been given by local authorities.

Mr. Loughton

I am sure that the House is glad that the Minister has dragged himself away from the health hazards of the Smoking Room to reply to questions.

The Minister will know as well as me that beef on the bone is still widely available in this country, given the right nudge or wink. Does he agree that the complete absence of any prosecutions to date demonstrates that the ban is unmanageable, unfair and unenforceable?

Mr. Rooker

The issue of prosecution is a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. As hon. Members will have read in today's Evening Standard, someone is to be summoned before the magistrates in Rother, whose district council is run by a coalition between Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Mr. Martyn Jones

Is it not the case that there would be no need for prosecutions, or for the regulations banning beef on the bone, if the Tories had acted quickly when in government to quell the BSE crisis instead of dragging their feet?

Mr. Rooker

Yes. It is a matter of public health and of taking precautions. We can say as a Government that we are not allowing BSE infectivity into the food chain, and we will maintain that position.

Mr. Charles Kennedy

Will the Minister acknowledge that, in a democratic society, prosecution is always more difficult when there is no basic public consent to enthusiasm for or acceptance of the law itself? In that context, did he see the Teletext poll last weekend, when 94 per cent. of respondents expressed no confidence in or support for the Government's measures?

If the course of prosecution is so clear, why is it that the first test case in Scotland, in Selkirk sheriff court next month, concerns a beef-on-the-bone case where there was no commercial transaction, the one to which he has just referred concerns a case where there was a commercial transaction, and his recent written answer said that there could be no prosecution against a farmer who slaughters beef on his farm and consumes it? If the element in the ban is risk, surely the ban should be comprehensive and there should not be three different categories in three different parts of the country.

Mr. Rooker

As most hon. Members appreciate, different rules apply to private kills, but the administration of justice in this country is not conducted by opinion polls.

Mr. Corbett

May I tell the Minister that I have not had a single complaint about the temporary non-availability of T-bone steaks and oxtails in my constituency, I suspect because of their relatively high price? Does he agree that it is offensive for Opposition Members whose hands are dirty from BSE and CJD to take risks with public health over this temporary ban?

Mr. Rooker

I agree entirely with the honest, fair and robust way in which my hon. Friend has put his point.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan

How many prosecutions have taken place or are pending in relation to breaches of the import regulations that were introduced on 1 January?

Mr. Rooker

I am not able to answer that now without notice.

Mr. Alan W. Williams

Did the Minister hear the item on this morning's "Today" programme, where a butcher who had been selling beef on the bone, when tipped off by the environmental health department that it was about to call on him, and when warned that there could be a fine of anything up to £20,000, decided immediately to stop selling beef on the bone? He was willing to be interviewed to that effect on that programme. Is that not what our local authorities throughout the country should be doing, so that we can guarantee all consumers that all possible steps have been taken to ensure that our beef is the safest in the world?

Mr. Rooker

My hon. Friend is right, but I am not surprised that the butcher concerned was willing to be interviewed on the "Today" programme: it is clear that he is a publicity seeker.

13. Mr. Gibb

If he will issue guidance to individuals who have beef on the bone in their freezers, bought for their own consumption, before 16 December 1997. [28757]

Mr. Rooker

Such guidance was included in the question-and-answer material provided on the MAFF internet BSE site immediately after the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee advice on dorsal root ganglia on 3 December 1997.

Mr. Gibb

Which advice is correct? Is it the advice on the internet that it is up to the consumer to decide whether to consume beef in deep freeze, or is it the advice given on television on Sunday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that such consumption would represent an unnecessary risk?

Mr. Rooker

People who already had frozen T-bones or ribs of beef in their freezers at home should, frankly, be treated as adults. [Interruption.] Those citizens owned that beef; it was in their home. We gave them the advice. They already owned that beef. It was not a question of making a commercial transaction—that had already been done.

Mr. Dawson

Has the Minister ever pondered whether the Opposition parties are really serious about getting the beef ban lifted, as they are obviously not willing to take the vital steps that are necessary to assure the world of the safety and quality of British beef?

Mr. Rooker

The plain fact is that the Opposition are asking us knowingly to allow, for the first time, BSE infectivity into the food chain. We will not do it now, and we will not do it in future.