§ 3.35 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement about measures to assist the egg industry being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place. The Statement reads:
"As I explained to the House on Friday, the Department of Health drew attention this summer to a new and growing problem from salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 linked to eggs, and since August the Chief Medical Officer has been issuing advice to the public. As a result of the Department 1137 of Health's information, agricultural departments acted immediately with them and the industry to tackle the problem at every point in the production chain. This led, amongst other initiatives, to the publication of codes of practice to apply to commercial and breeding flocks.
"The uncertainty over the implications of salmonella enteritidis has recently caused a sharp decline in egg sales. The Government have decided, in these wholly exceptional circumstances, to introduce the following two short-term measures.
"The first measure will provide a payment to egg packers for the destruction of surplus eggs for a period of four weeks from 21st December. The payment will be at the rate of 30 pence per dozen eggs on up to 1.1 million cases. This will tackle the overhang of eggs in the system.
"A second measure will be introduced to help the industry to reduce the size of the egg laying flock. This will provide for a payment for a bird in the age range 18 to 30 weeks. The scheme will enable up to 4 million hens—roughly equivalent to 10 per cent. of the laying flock—to be called under the supervision of the agricultural departments.
"Taken together, these two short-term measures are designed to assist the egg industry to adjust to the market situation now confronting it. The estimated cost of these two schemes is at maximum £17 million in payments to the industry. There will also be payments which are estimated at £2 million to contractors and local authorities.
"I have been in touch with the European Commission to inform them of the actions we are taking.
"Parliamentary approval for these new measures will be sought in supplementary supply estimates for the agricultural support votes of the agricultural departments, and authority for the payments will rest upon the estimates and the Appropriation Act. Pending that approval, expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Similar arrangements will be made for expenditure in Northern Ireland. These costs will be found from the reserve, so that there will be no addition to the planned total of public expenditure.
"The Government have been formulating detailed plans for tackling this problem since the new information became available. The two codes of practice were only the start. As I indicated to the House on 1st December and again on Friday, we have been preparing a number of other steps. These will include more stringent bacteriological monitoring of animal protein for animal feed; the registration of breeding flocks and hatcheries for hygiene control purposes; and strengthening the controls relating to imported animal protein.
"I hope that the actions I have announced today, taken with the advertising campaign setting out the advice of the Chief Medical Officer and presenting the facts to consumers, will help quickly to restore order to the egg market in the interests of consumers and everyone working in that important sector of the food industry."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ Lord GallacherMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. I agree with her that the hope must now be that the measures she has announced will result for both producers and consumers in the restoration of confidence in the egg industry, and that the unhappy events of the past two weeks or more will soon be behind us. That, as we see it, is as important for consumers as for producers of eggs and those who are working in the industry, for whom the prospects without a restoration of confidence are exceedingly bleak.
On the details of the Statement itself, will the cost to the taxpayer, which the noble Lord Baroness has announced as £18 million, plus £2 million to be paid—
§ Lord GallacherMy Lords, the Statement says the figure is "around £18 million".
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I am extremely sorry. The Statement that the noble Lord has received is incorrect.
§ Lord GallacherMy Lords, with that correction, is the estimated cost to the taxpayer of around £17 million, plus £2 million to contractors and local authorities, a complete statement in the sense that it includes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England? Is it to be regarded as a finite sum of money? Further, is it finite in terms of time? The essence of this problem is that within the timescale allowed by the Government, the problem should have solved itself.
The noble Baroness made reference to two codes of hygiene for the industry which have been announced and which are on a voluntary basis. In the light of the decision to put this money into the industry, is it still proposed to continue with the voluntary code, or is it intended that at no great distance of time the voluntary code shall become a statutory one?
Turning to the question of public confidence, does not the noble Baroness agree that public confidence in the industry would be restored to some extent if the Government would reconsider their decision to abandon the Institute of Food Research project which has been concerned with just this question—that is, the infection of eggs and poultry by salmonella? I ask the Minister directly whether it is intended to revive this research by way of restoring confidence among the public, or are we to regard it as still being cancelled?
I return again to the point made at Question Time the other day on this matter—namely, the issue of joint statements. We all- accept that where the safety of food is concerned, there is a division of responsibility between the Department of Health and the Ministry of the noble Baroness. We on this side, however, feel that, in the exercise of that responsibility in a very important area where public confidence is of the essence, statements should be of a joint character and we should not be listening to 1139 statements from one department, which may or may not be wholly acceptable to another department. In a somewhat long career in the food industry, I have had personal experience of going to the Department of Health to hear warnings about the safety of food. Although the trade was represented to a man, the Ministry of Agriculture representatives were conspicuous by their absence. On inquiring why they were absent, we were told blandly that there was not one available given the short notice for calling the meeting. That personal experience illustrates clearly what I regard as the essence of this problem—namely, that public dangers or public warnings should be given jointly so long as the responsibility for food safety is shared.
Can the noble Baroness tell me who is speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture these days when her right honourable friend the Minister is himself not available to speak? It was perhaps one of the least fortunate aspects of this problem that during the vital two weeks in question the Minister was, quite properly, engaged in Montreal in the GATT negotiations. As there is no Minister of State listed at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will the Minister tell me with whom responsibility rests in the absence of the Minister?
§ Baroness SeearMy Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. However, we wish to ask her a number of questions. According to the press, discussions have been going on between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture for a number of years—long before this particular incident arose—about the whole question of salmonella and health. We are given to believe—the noble Baroness may be able to contradict this—that there have been interdepartmental conflicts on this matter from which the general public is now apparently suffering severely. Can the noble Baroness tell us when the discussions first started to take place, because that must mean that there were people in authority who, long before these recent incidents, were already anxious about the whole question of salmonella?
When did the discussions start? What action was taken as a result of them? If no action was taken, why was no action taken? I support the points already made from the Labour Front Bench. I, too, wish to know the reasons given for cutting back on research in this matter. Will the noble Baroness give us an undertaking that the moneys in question will be restored? Having regard to the £20 million, or £19 million—we understand that the Statement is incorrect and that the figure is £19 million and not £20 million—that is to be spent in compensation, does not the noble Baroness agree that that sum would have been a great deal better used had it been invested in research earlier with the result that these very unfortunate events might never have occurred? Finally, is not this document a quite remarkable example of Civil Service-ese at its most distinguished? What on earth is meant by:
The scheme will enable up to 4 million hens … to be called under the supervision of the agricultural departments"?
§ Baroness SeearMy Lords, "called" is what I have in my document. I cannot imagine a more entertaining sight that 4 million hens called,
under the supervision of the agricultural departments.Can the noble Baroness please explain that?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, concerning consumers and those in the industry. I wish to inform him that the money includes Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as I said, and is finite. We are actively considering making some parts of the code compulsory.
This Statement has already made reference to the Chief Medical Officer of Health. I wish to inform the noble Lord that we are working very closely with the Department of Health. During the absence of my right honourable friend, he charged my honourable friend the Member for, I believe, Central Norfolk with the responsibility for eggs and chickens. I was nominated by my right honourable friend as his deputy. However, as the matter fell directly under the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, and he was dealing handsomely with the matter, it occurred to me that it was best to leave the expert to do the work.
On the question of the registration of poultry breeders, that matter will be statutory. With regard to the situation in Bristol and the work being done there, it has been decided that work on the manipulation of microbial flora of the gut of young chicks should be ceased from April 1989 as the work was at a stage where it was ready for the industry to develop. In other words, the R&D side of the work was over. A small number of companies have participated in collaborative tests with the Institute of Food Research in Bristol. One company is now considering applying this technique commercially. Government financial support for this work will not be lost; it will be diverted to other important microbiological research. The redeployment of the staff involved is being considered by their employer, the AFRC.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me when interdepartmental discussions began and what action had been taken. Continuous discussions between MAFF and the Department of Health have been taking place but the specific problem of salmonella in eggs was first raised in June this year.
As regards research into the problem, MAFF commissions around £1 million of research each year into the microbiological safety of food, including salmonella. Studies have been carried out by the public health laboratories and veterinary investigation centres of flocks contaminated by salmonella enteriditis. MAFF, the Department of Health and PHLS have been examining the development of antigens for serological detection of infection in live birds and the effects of different cooking regimes on infected eggs on the basis of scientific information currently available. A working party comprising veterinary surgeons and scientists from MAFF, the PHLS and the industry has been urgently considering what further research might be 1141 helpful to overcome the problem. Its report is expected soon.
§ Baroness SeearMy Lords, is the noble Baroness really telling me that there was no discussion and no anxiety about salmonella until this summer? That is not what is alleged in the press. Is she refuting all those press statements?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I hardly ever believe anything I see in the press. Salmonella in poultry has been an on-going problem for a very long time. We are not alone in this country in suffering that problem. Salmonella in eggs is a new problem.
The noble Baroness also asked me what the Government and industry are doing to stop the spread of the disease. Under the zoonoses order salmonella isolates have to be reported to the state veterinary service, which is doing excellent service in investigating every salmonella enteriditis incident and advising the producer concerned how he can best deal with the incident on his farm. We have produced codes of practice for the control of salmonella by poultry breeders and hatcheries and by commercial egg producers. Guidelines for feeding stuff manufacturers are being issued and will be followed by a full code of practice.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, can my noble friend say—
§ Lord WalstonMy Lords—
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, I think it is the turn of this side.
§ Lord BelsteadWe take questions from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. After that it is a question of whether somebody on my noble friend's side of the House or the side of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, speaks. I think that on this occasion it is the turn of the Conservative Benches and then the SDP.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, in the light of the substantial payment to help the industry in its difficulties and the fact that the problem has been known for some time, can my noble friend say whether or not the industry itself has taken initiatives to deal with the dangerous defects in its product, some of which your Lordships will rather painfully remember arose last May?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, the industry has been collaborating with MAFF every step of the way.
§ Lord WalstonMy Lords, I apologise if I was out of order in my intervention, but it was my understanding that after the two main opposition parties had spoken the spokesman of the other opposition party, the SDP, was entitled to speak. However, I bow to the ruling of the Leader of the House. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness one or two questions with particular reference to research. 1142 But before I come to that point I should like to ask whether she can give us any further information other than that which is contained in the large and somewhat expensive advertisements as to just how safe eggs are, and what is the risk for an ordinary person eating an egg cooked in a normal way? Is it something to be very nervous about, to ignore entirely, or to be careful about?
Secondly, can the noble Baroness tell the House how much research is being carried out, and where, into the spread of salmonella in poultry flocks, the method by which it is transmitted from the hen to the egg, forms of protection for the hen and how to prevent the transmission of infection into the egg? How easy is it to find out whether or not an egg is infected without breaking it open?
Finally, can the Minister tell us what expenditure there has been over the past few years—five years, three years—on research into poultry diseases in general and salmonella in particular? Can she also tell us whether research has been increased, particularly since the events of last June to which she referred, or diminished, and if so by how much?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, if the noble Lord had seen our advertisement in the newspapers he would have the whole picture regarding the safety of eggs. For the average person the risk is very small indeed, particularly when one considers that 30 million eggs are eaten—
§ Baroness TrumpingtonQuite right, were eaten, every day, totalling 9 billion per year. If you are very old, very feeble, a small child or not well, more care should be taken: the cooking of eggs should be thorough and raw eggs should be avoided. In the event, the eating of eggs by the general public will, I hope, continue as it has in the past.
Investigations carried out recently have shown that enteriditis has the potential for trans-ovarian transmission. I have already spoken at length about what we are doing in terms of research and the fact that £1 million a year is spent on microbiological research, which includes work on eggs and poultry. I also said that discussions were taking place between various bodies at the moment to see what further research could usefully be done. It would be premature for me to announce anything while discussions are continuing.
§ Lord ReaMy Lords, does the noble Baroness remember that we held a debate in this House in January 1984, nearly five years ago, in which the subject of salmonellosis in man and animals was discussed. Her noble friend the Leader of the House will doubtless remember rather better than she does, since he answered in the debate. In that debate a number of us suggested that controls for protein feedstuffs—one of the main problems in salmonellosis in poultry—should be tightened up.
Do the Government not feel that a lot of money might have been saved, quite apart from the unpleasant illnesses throughout the country and in your Lordships' House which might have been 1143 avoided, if the Government had heeded the advice of some of those experts who spoke in that debate? This House contains a number of people who are eminent in their field, and I believe that the government of the day ignore their advice at their peril.
§ 4 p.m.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, it is possible that home produced or imported feedstuffs can be contaminated with salmonella. Producers should demand that feedstuffs be prepared in a way that minimises the risk of salmonella contamination. The Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) orders and the Importation of Processed Animal Protein orders require that protein derived from animals and intended for inclusion in feedstuffs be free of salmonella. Discussions are taking place between the MAFF and feed manufacturers, integrated poultry producers and the rendering and feed supply industries with a view to agreeing and implementing a code of practice aimed at reducing the risk of contamination of final feedstuffs by salmonella. Preliminary guidelines will be put out shortly and a full code of practice will follow.
I do not wish to comment on what happened five years ago. I prefer to answer about what is happening now.
§ Lord Nugent of GuildfordMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for the announcement of the measure of compensation that has been offered to the poultry industry. However, is she aware that a cull of 10 per cent. of the existing laying flock is unlikely to be sufficient to bring supply and demand into balance? It is much more likely that a cull of 30 per cent. will be needed. Will she be good enough to take back to her right honourable friend the Minister the view that greater compensation will be needed than that which she is proposing on the cull of the flock if the poultry industry is to be saved from disaster?
With regard to the action that it is proposed to take, is the noble Baroness aware that it must start with the grandparent stock? Most of the laying birds in this country come from hybrid crosses, which are mainly from American hatches, and the grandparent stock is quite a small base. Blood testing of all that stock is needed so that it can be discovered which birds are genetically affected with salmonella. Is that possible? Is she satisfied that the blood test that can be done for salmonella is satisfactory? Can that measure be put in hand? If so, it would quickly eliminate the main source of the salmonella, which is obviously genetic, and would put us well on the road to recovery.
With regard to the animal feeding stuffs, does she agree that it is now essential to prohibit the use of poultry offal and poultry deep litter in feeding stuffs, as clearly that is one of the main sources of continuing infection in the laying flock? Can she tell the House whether she has put measures in hand to ensure that that happens?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, of course I shall report to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's 1144 remarks concerning the 10 per cent. I am well aware of his expert knowledge in this matter. We very much hope that the demand for eggs will rise quickly.
With regard to the blood test, I shall report the noble Lord's remarks. Tests, however, take time and while they may be very admirable, we are trying to do something urgently. As my noble friend is probably aware, there is no simple and sensitive blood test for enteriditis in individual birds. The test would only be of value on a flock basis.
As for the prohibition on poultry to which the noble Lord referred, I am not sure that it is practicable. It is used in feedstuffs of varying kinds and protein processing kills all salmonella.
§ Lord HyltonMy Lords, the noble Baroness referred several times to continuing research in microbiology. Will that include research into the incorporation of antibiotics not only into poultry feed but also into the feeding stuffs of other livestock? I believe that it is essential for that kind of research to be independent and therefore presumably government-funded. It should not be dependent on the vested interests of either chemical and antibiotic producers or farmers.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I have already mentioned the group that is now looking into the varying ways in which it believes that research can be helpfully used. I point out to the noble Lord that we have a statutory duty to undertake basic and strategic research and work of a public good which includes the health of people as well as of animals.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, if I understood the Minister aright, the object of the exercise is to rescue the poultry industry from the jam which it has got us into. Why do we have to be so gentle about it? We should not be the broad givers; we are the injured party. We find that the eggs which were sold to us were poisoned eggs. That has been going on for a long time. What is going to be done about us?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, the transmission of salmonella to eggs is relatively new in poultry. In duck eggs it has been an established fact for a long time. However, the egg industry has suffered a loss of half of its market in a matter of days. Producer-prices to packers have dropped in a fortnight by 20p per dozen to 17p per dozen this morning. That is an unprecedented collapse of the market which the industry cannot be expected to weather without assistance. It does no good for us to destroy an industry.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, like every other noble Lord who has taken part in this exchange, I welcome the steps taken by the noble Baroness's department. However, it seems that a very large area of uncertainty remains. Can the noble Baroness give the House a percentage figure for the poultry stock of the United Kingdom that is thought to be infected at the present time? She is uncertain about the eggs that may be eaten at the moment and has given a very stern warning that raw eggs must 1145 not be consumed. Am I right, therefore, in assuming that her department believes that the major percentage of the stock is contaminated at the present time?
Finally, in view of the uncertainty and the urgency of the matter—and because this situation affects a large number of people, both producers and consumers—can she say when the Government will be in a position to make a clearer Statement than has been made today by her right honourable friend? It should be a Statement which will clarify the position and therefore bring back confidence to the general public and consumers in particular.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I regret that I am not able to tell the noble Lord the percentage of poultry stock that is infected. It is not known. As I said before, there is no test for live birds.
As regards making a clearer Statement, it is extremely difficult to clarify the matter. I understand what may perhaps be the noble Lord's bewilderment when so many speculative numbers have been given from so many different sources. We are sure that there have been 51 outbreaks affecting about 1,000 persons. Other figures are purely speculative. They cover all the salmonella poisoning of people. It may not have come from poultry or eggs; It may indeed have been brought back by people returning from holiday abroad.
It is extremely difficult to put things down in a totally definitive way. No doubt more information will become available and when it does my right honourable friend will immediately make it available for Parliament if so required.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, is the noble Baroness in a position at least to tell the House that her department, with the full understanding of the Department of Health, is at present conducting a detailed inquiry, and very strong research and study which will in due course produce a report that will clarify the positon? If that study is taking place, when does she think a report will be forthcoming? Will it be in three months, in six months or after what period?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, as the various professionals are engaged in trying to decide which is the best method to pursue, with quick results, I am unable to tell your Lordships when a report will come out. I can only assure your Lordships that both my Ministry and the Department of Health are working very closely together and are making every effort they possibly can to make sure that the safety of the future is as best guarded as it possibly can be and that we have undertaken the necessary research.
§ Lord Jenkins of HillheadMy Lords, while awaiting the results of this research, am I right in recollecting that earlier in her replies, the noble Baroness attempted to restore confidence in the industry by saying that nine eggs in 10 were probably safe? Did she really mean to say that there was one chance in 10 of catching salmonella poisoning from eating an egg? If that is not the case, would she like to correct it before it causes further difficulty?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. I use the strangest English. Of course it is not one out of 10. I hope that that will suffice. I apologise most profusely.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, might it help to allay anxiety and recreate demand, even in a small way, if I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that I was one of the sufferers from salmonella in your Lordships' House last summer; that being an octogenarian I am technically elderly; and that I have eaten eggs every single day since I recovered without any further ill effects? Has there not been gross overreaction in this matter?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, even with my peculiar English, I should like to say to my noble friend how delighted we all are to see him in such blooming good health.
§ Baroness SeearMy Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Renton, consider himself safe against salmonella? I think the people who have had it are the only ones who are safe to eat eggs.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I hope that that applies if the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, ever becomes infected by salmonella; I would not wish it on her. But suppose she alone were to be infected as opposed to the outbreak which took place in your Lordships' House, would she have informed the public health service that she had had a very unhappy illness? There are so many people who may have had salmonella. That is why I say that all these figures are speculative, but the risk is very small compared with the number of eggs eaten.
§ Baroness SeearMy Lords, if the answer to the question which the noble Baroness put to me is, "No, I would not have informed the public health service", what she is telling us is that the position is very much worse than we thought.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I am trying to tell the noble Baroness that the figures which have been given are speculative.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, the noble Baroness has told the House of her hopes that the demand for eggs will very soon increase again. I am sure that the House shares that hope.
Is it not the case that the demand will increase when the problem has been dealt with? The noble Baroness has announced many measures and research plans. She has not announced a plan for dealing with the problem. We must assume that the Government have a plan. If so, what is its time-scale and when does she hope that it will be possible for the chief medical officer to withdraw his warning about the dangers of eating eggs? That is the point, is it not?
Secondly, while we may welcome this new and beneficent policy of subsidies for industries in difficulties, how long will it be before the Government have to pay compensation to motor manufacturers when they are forced to recall a production run of cars which have been found to be dangerous?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, this scheme is simply designed to help the industry in what are totally exceptional circumstances. It does not constitute a precedent of any kind. Nor does it imply acceptance of any form of liability by the Government for the current difficulties in the egg market.
§ Lady Saltoun of AbernethyMy Lords, is there any possibility of pasteurised egg also becoming available to the general public as well as to the catering industry, as I understand is the case at present?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, that is a question which can be answered only by food retailers.
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)My Lords, we have had a good go round this course. I beg to move that we now again resolve ourselves into a Committee on the Children Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.