BSE (Hansard, 13 April 2000)

§ 1. Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford)
What has been the cost to the Exchequer of the BSE crisis. [117722]

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown)
BSE has been a national tragedy. To date, 53 people have lost their lives to new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The Government have put in place powerful public protection measures, which have incurred costs on the livestock industry and on the Exchequer.
Total expenditure on the BSE crisis is estimated to be £4.2 billion to the end of the financial year 2001–02. Of that amount, the other European Union member states contribute about £487 million—11.6 per cent. of the total cost—when the Fontainebleau mechanism is taken into account. Therefore, the net cost of the crisis to the Exchequer to the end of the next financial year is about £3.7 billion.

§ Mr. Beard
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the £4 billion, the 53 people who have died, the uncountable cost and the plight that the farming industry has been left in, are the dimensions of a major national disaster, which is an indictment of the Government who presided over it? Does he further agree that the best way to safeguard against such disasters is to have a constant science-based review of food standards? Is it not therefore amazing that, throughout the 1990s, 484 the research and development budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food declined by about 30 per cent? Can he give the House an assurance that the Ministry is better prepared for any such emergency?

§ Mr. Brown
The creation of the Food Standards Agency will go a long way towards providing the British public with the protection that they have a right to expect. It is right that public money be expended in that way to protect the public on the precautionary principle. Those measures are very expensive, but the tragedy against which we are protecting the public cannot be calculated in money alone. Our hearts go out to those people and their families—those who have lost their lives and the families that remain.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
I think that the Minister accepts that there has been a huge on-cost to the pig industry as a result of the BSE regulations. Why then do his Government refuse to compensate the industry for it? Does he appreciate how serious the position is? The industry has been losing money for two years. The help that, we understand, is available from the European Community has not been forthcoming because of Government inaction.

§ Mr. Brown
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The constraints that were put on the use of meat and bonemeal in the pig industry were imposed in 1996 under the Government whom he supported. Had the Government then decided to approach the European Union with a view to covering some of those costs, the Commission may have been sympathetic, but we certainly could not make such an approach now because the Commission has said that economic considerations are the only reason offered for changing the position in the United Kingdom. When I had an exchange with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who speaks for the Opposition, he made it clear that the Opposition were seeking such a change for economic reasons, which is precisely why the Commission will not allow it.
The Commission is willing to explore with us a restructuring proposal, which costs public money. We are taking that forward following the Prime Minister's summit, so there is support for the industry, which was not available under the previous Government, but we must explore the matter with the Commission. I hope to have more to say in a matter of weeks.

§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)
Should not my right hon. Friend be much tougher in laying the blame where it belongs—on the former Government—for what has been one of the most appalling tragedies? There has been not only the £4 billion cost, but the great tragedy for the families involved as a result of the new variant CJD cases, and the tragic implications for farmers and those in the meat industry who have additional costs that cannot be fully estimated. Will he give a full assurance that the Government will always put public safety first? Is that not why we have created the Food Standards Agency, which will be vital in the years ahead?

§ Mr. Brown
My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the FSA. The Government's first priority is to protect the public. All other considerations, although 485 important, are secondary to that. As for where responsibility lies, I should like to withhold my judgment until we see the report of the BSE inquiry committee.

§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)
How closely is the Minister keeping up with the research work by Professor Ebringer of London on that matter? Does he accept that, if Professor Ebringer's theories are right—he questions the prion theory—it would have had a significant impact on lowering the cost of handling the BSE crisis? Can he give any indication of how that research is going?

§ Mr. Brown
There are several alternative theories in the scientific community to the prion protein theory. I try to keep as close as I can to the scientific debate and to question the scientific advisers who make recommendations on Government policy. Although there is no absolute certainty in the matter—I guess that there never can be in matters of scientific debate—nevertheless, I find the prion protein theory pretty compelling.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it needs saying over and over again that that £4.2 billion and the loss of life involved is down to the previous Tory Government? It is a savage indictment of what they did. They ought to be made to pay—I do not know whether Lord Belize of Sleaze has any money. If they had been in local government, not only would they have been kicked out of office, they would have been made to find that money. Their silence explains everything.

§ Mr. Brown
I think that the Conservative party has a cheek offering advice to the Government on the issue given that it presided over the circumstances that brought about this national tragedy. However, I also think that we should wait until we see the report of the BSE inquiry before coming to a conclusion.

§ Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk)
Does the Minister recognise that Europe is threatened with a new BSE crisis that results directly from the refusal of the French Government to acknowledge the extent of under-reporting of BSE in France? In view of the growing evidence of that under-reporting, why are Labour Ministers so reluctant to protect British consumers against potentially dangerous imports from France, such as gelatine?

§ Mr. Brown
That is all complete nonsense. The fact is that we do not allow meat products over 30 months to be imported into this country. We parallel in our imports the powerful public protection measures that we have in place in the United Kingdom. Trying to get up a food scare against the French is no substitute for Conservative Front Benchers apologising for the food crisis over which they presided when they were the Government.