HL Deb 08 September 2004 vol 664 cc668-80

9.17 p.m.

Baroness Byford rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 18 June, be annulled (S.I. 2004/1518) [15th Report from the Merits Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the regulations will have a great impact on farmers who breed sheep or keep goats. Concerns have been expressed to me over the scientific certainty, or lack of it, on which the regulations are based.

In its response to Defra's consultation on the implementation of the new EU-wide controls on scrapie-affected farms, the National Sheep Association has stated: The National Sheep Association welcomes the opportunity to respond to the [Defra] consultation on the implementation of EU-wide controls on scrapie-affected farms".

The NSA is the leading specialist representative organisation for the United Kingdom sheep sector. Its members come from those involved with every pedigree sheep bred in this country; indeed, from all the sheep breed societies. As the pedigree sector has been the one most affected by the various regulations concerned with the eradication of scrapie so far, we feel that this makes the NSA response particularly significant in the development of the resulting policy. This is in addition to a majority of members of the commercial sheep sector. We can therefore say with confidence that our views are truly representative of the entire UK sheep sector. I am sure that the Minister will wish to congratulate the NSA on the work it has done to date in the eradication of scrapie.

The NSA appreciates the fact that Defra is consulting on how best to implement the new EU regulation and not the regulation itself. However, it feels that it is important to reiterate that it has grave concerns over the EU regulation that Defra is being obliged to implement. The NSA feels that it is an ill-conceived regulation, in general, with measures and provisions that are draconian in nature and totally disproportionate to the scale of the issue to be dealt with.

Indeed, the regulation is best described by the commonly used phrase "bad law" and, as such, it runs the risk of being regarded as a step too far by the many sectors of the sheep industry that may be affected by its introduction, as outlined in the consultation. The National Sheep Association feels particularly strongly about the measures proposed under the restrictions section. The proposals as outlined are very severe and, for some businesses which are reliant on the sale of store and breeding sheep, it may be that their imposition will result in the collapse of such businesses. In addition, the proposals could seriously affect the asset value of a farm should the farmer wish to sell his property while under restriction.

However, as previously stated, the National Sheep Association appreciates that Defra is obliged to implement the regulation given that it has been agreed within the EU and, as such, cannot legally be ignored. On this point, the NSA will be constructive in its response, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that it has been in the past. But this is set against the backdrop of its concerns over the regulation itself.

With this in mind, it is worth mentioning that it is not strictly correct for Defra to say—as it does in the letter sent out with the consultation document—that key industry representatives are content with the proposals. As the NSA, for one, most definitely is not, I ask the Minister to comment on who Defra is referring to as "key industry representatives" if they do not include the National Sheep Association.

When the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee looked at the regulations it raised two specific points, on which it wrote to Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Under the heading "Adequacy of measures proposed", paragraph 2 of the letter states: While the committee accepted the need to ensure implementation of European requirements, we were concerned to establish whether the Regulations and the controls introduced by them are an adequate response to the scale of the problem, given that scrapie has occurred for so many years and so widely in sheep in this country. We would be grateful if you could comment on your assessment of the scale of the occurrence of scrapie in sheep in this country, and on how quickly and effectively the approach being followed in the Regulations will succeed in eliminating the risks posed by scrapie".

The letter then goes on to refer to one or two other matters that I should like to highlight. It pointed out that the RIA of 17 June stated that 20 responses were received to Defra's consultation on the partial RIA and that, most thought that Option 2 as set out in the RIA was the best approach; and that a number of concerns were raised about the EU regulation which DEFRA continued to pursue with the European Commission".

The letter continues: In addition, your Department provided us with a copy of DEFRA's summary of responses to the consultation exercise. We were struck by the difference in tone, if not the substance, of that summary from the statement in the RIA". The summary referred to a universal feeling that the regulation is draconian and disproportionate in its effect compared with the risk with which it deals. It acknowledges that the science on which it is based is questioned. It states that, the introduction of the compulsory [scheme] is resented The chairman of the committee said that it felt that the RIA statement on the consultation responses appeared to understate significantly the strength of concern among respondents.

I shall not read the rest of the letter, but it is important that your Lordships are aware of the serious concerns felt in the farming community.

In her response, Margaret Beckett stated that they realised that most scrapie cases are not reported so that the scale of the problem is significantly larger than the 230 cases confirmed in sheep in England in 2003. If this is the case, how many flocks does the department estimate to be infected, or is this still a totally unknown number?

In 1999, SEAC recommended the introduction of a breeding programme to eradicate scrapie from the sheep population in view of the theoretical possibility that sheep could have contracted BSE which was being masked by scrapie. How many projects have begun since 1999 to prove this theoretical possibility, how much has that cost to date and, more importantly, has any evidence been established to confirm this possible theory?

Will the Minister accept that the longer this theoretical possibility continues to be unproven, it is reasonable to conclude that a link is not established. In that case, should we really be approving a regulation which has measures and provisions that are draconian in nature and disproportionate?

This morning the Prime Minister again reinforced his Government's commitment to legislating on the basis of scientific proof. But these regulations are based on scientific uncertainty. Can the Minister explain the discrepancy? Furthermore, when the regulations were considered at drafting stage, were these issues raised, and did Her Majesty's Government agree with the drafting?

I understand that over the past few years, Defra has carried out a large survey of sheep testing. This year, for the first time, the number of animals tested has decreased from 60,000 a year to 10,000. Can the Minister tell me why?

Does the Minister recognise the success of the voluntary scheme established under the voluntary scrapie flocks scheme, which has more than 100 applications already? Does she care that these restrictive regulations may well result in a fall in the number of scrapie cases reported? I understand that the Government will monitor the situation closely and if they find that reporting decreases significantly, they will take it up with the European Commission. Over what time period will that monitoring take place? What response do the Government expect from the commission?

I raise these concerns because this will be very costly for the Government. I noticed that in yesterday's Hansard, a Written Answer in response to my noble friend Lord Marlesford showed that bovine TB has cost the taxpayer some £38 million this year alone. These are huge figures and we need to be very sure of our ground when we are committing ourselves to additional costs. At the moment, we have no idea what the costs might be. What is the estimated cost of slaughter and how much will the implementation, controls and monitoring cost? Is the true cost proportional to the risk when one considers that the Government refuse to ban smoking? That is not a light, throwaway question. It puts into context the whole question of this regulation. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 18 June, be annulled (S.I. 2004/1518) [15th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Byford.)

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not able to be with us tonight and I hope that we shall soon hear him in good voice before the House. I am sure that I carry the wishes of other noble Lords when I say that.

I am sure that the Minister and other noble Lords taking part in this debate will recall my objections to the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, which we debated in May 2002. They will not be surprised that I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for allowing me to return to the fray this evening. I declare my interest as the wife of a sheep and goat farmer. As well as being a goat cheesemaker, I take an active part in our livestock management.

I was astonished to read in the regulations that goats are to be dealt with far more harshly than sheep. In the Explanatory Memorandum is the statement: Goats are also susceptible to scrapie and scientific advice is that goat herds would also pose a public health risk if BSE were to be found in sheep".

May I ask the Minister exactly what is the scientific evidence upon which this scientific advice is based? Who is providing the scientific advice upon which these statements are made? Poor old goats—with no specific genotypes and little information available, it seems easier to kill them all. What an odd approach. Was it dreamt up because scrapie is so much rarer in goats than sheep, so slaughter should eliminate the disease, or was it that, because it is so rare, the possibility that a whole herd would have to be despatched is remote? I would hope that it is the latter.

It has already been noted that the incidence of scrapie in the sheep flock is probably under-reported. I suspect that this is simply because it is accepted that sheep out on the moors and hills die from a number of causes. Their carcasses are often eaten by foxes and other scavengers before the shepherd finds them. It is the nature of modern shepherding that the flocks are not constantly watched over. Such is the relationship of most of the goat keepers that I know with their animals that a vet would be called to attend any really sick animal. Three reported cases in eight years is likely to be an accurate reflection of the incidence in the national goat herd. It would also appear to indicate that the goat to goat transmission rate is low. If this is the case, what on earth would be achieved by slaughtering the whole herd?

Although I recognise that the Minister will say that this amendment to the 2002 regulations is to provide, powers for the enforcement of EU legislation introducing controls on farms that have had a confirmed case of scrapie", it still seems extraordinary that all the plans and regulations relating to TSEs and particularly to scrapie are based upon an hypothesis that has become an assumption that it is a rogue isoform of PrP that causes TSEs.

Humans have lived with scrapie for at least 250 years and there has been no evidence that scrapie has ever been transmitted to humans, although I accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The conclusion that a single strain of the agent which causes BSE is more easily transmissible between species than previously known strains and may therefore be present in sheep still remains unsupported by critical scientific evidence.

I will repeat my concerns that, by requiring the slaughter of sheep of particular genotypes we will be depleting the gene pool in our sheep flock. We may well be laying the animals open to epidemics of TSEs other than those of which we have current knowledge, or, worse still, to some other highly infectious diseases to which the national flock is at present resistant. Why are not the sensible measures already in force sufficient? We are already required to minimise the routine spread of these not particularly infectious agents.

I note that the Explanatory Memorandum to this regulation frequently uses the terms "TSE resistant" and "resistant genotypes". Unless and until there is an adequately comprehensive list of the TSE strains tested and it can be shown that they can survive passage between animals, these terms are not appropriate. When the real molecular nature of the agent that causes TSEs is known, it may be possible to employ these terms.

Should we not be dealing with facts rather than the assumptions? I may be criticised for suggesting that we fly in the face of the precautionary principle in this instance, when I have fought long and hard for it to be exercised in the case of exposure of humans to toxic chemicals. I would respond by saying that there is a clear correlation between, for example, organophosphate exposure and ill health, while there is not one between naturally occurring BSE in sheep and goats and variant CJD in humans. I would argue that there is a place for proportionality.

The statement that TSEs are caused by a so-called "rogue protein"—a misshapen version of a host protein known as PrP—has never been proven. The infective PrP has never been synthesised de novo. There is, I understand, substantial evidence to show that this protein becomes misshapen by infection, rather than that it is the cause of the infection, with the causal molecule not proven. That means that the majority of the current laboratory work is uncertain in its direct relevance to the infective nature of TSEs.

There has been very little research to establish the reason why BSE was able to infect some humans across the species barrier from cattle. We need to know whether the pressure was exerted by the massive scale of the human exposure to infected beef products during the BSE epidemic or whether the cattle strain of BSE, dose for dose, is more easily transmitted to humans than current strains of scrapie or other TSEs. If the former is the case, the risk is well controlled. It is only if the latter is correct that the rigorous precautionary principles now being implemented are needed, as there is a much more serious risk when there is no species barrier, such as in human blood transfusion. May I ask the Minister whether it is the Government's intention that such research should be conducted? if she says no, then I would suggest that we should leave our sheep and goats to get on with their lives and save the taxpayer a small fortune.

I note that the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1915/2003 requires thorough cleaning and disinfection of all animal housing on the premises following destocking and before restocking. In view of the fact that we know that total destruction of the infected material in a hospital setting is almost impossible, will the Minister please tell the House how effective disinfection of rambling farm buildings will be achieved? What about grazing land upon which infected animals may have defecated or left foetal remains? What advice has she received on these matters?

It really is time that we seriously questioned the quality of scientific advice that Ministers are receiving. I have said this from time to time over a great many years. We are repeatedly told that the scientific committees are independent. Experience has taught me that it might be true that they are independent of government but, I would suggest, they are not independent of Whitehall or some of the other organisations with whom the mandarins have close association. Too often, busy experts from fields unconnected with the subject under consideration have been expected to make recommendations which are outside their competence. It is not their fault; they do their best within their limitations. Unfortunately, I believe that this system has led to an intellectual corruption of science.

TSE, and particularly BSE, research has been corrupted by the publicity that has been generated, first by those dreadful pictures of Daisy the cow, and then the discovery that humans could suffer from a similar awful disease. Instead of going to the centres of existing knowledge—to the people who had some understanding of the subject after working for years on scrapie—the MAFF and Defra career civil servants, through the funding agencies and the advisory committees, diverted research funding to organisations that subsequently proved their incompetence very publicly.

Progress has consistently been hindered by what I can only describe as wild goose chases. Government departments should not control basic scientific research, especially when it is in the vanguard of scientific progress. Perhaps it would be better if they were to admit that they did not know the answers and make a point of finding a scientist who does, or at least has the expertise to do so.

Will the Minister kindly tell the House what means are used to test the competence of the expert advice that Ministers receive? May I suggest, as it seems unlikely that anyone in government will take an executive decision to review the quality of scientific advice offered to all Ministers, that there should be a committee set up to discuss the matter? Defra is very good at setting up committees and discussing matters. It does not get anywhere but it does discuss them.

At the risk of being boringly repetitive the facts are that there is no historical evidence of BSE in sheep. There is no current evidence of BSE in sheep. If sheep ever were infected from eating feed contaminated by BSE-infected meat and bone meal taken out of the food chain before any current commercial sheep were born, the possibility of ever finding BSE in sheep must surely be diminishing rather than increasing. What are we doing implementing this regulation?

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. I was brought up on a farm with a decent sized sheep flock and I had a sheep flock of my own at one stage. Therefore, I know quite a bit about the subject.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly drew the House's attention to the views of the National Sheep Association. Therefore, I shall not squander parliamentary time by repeating what has been said regarding the views of the NSA. However, I should like to mention a few issues which I consider should be drawn to the attention of the House. The deep knowledge of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on the subject must be respected.

The first page of the statutory instrument makes very clear that it incorporates the protection of public health. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, at the present time there is no proven scientific link between TSE and scrapie on the one hand and BSE on the other. The spectre of the debate, if you like, which is unproven scientifically, is a link to human health.

I refer also to the whole issue of animal health. It is important to define the two matters as the regulations will have an impact on animal health. Indeed, in that respect the science is proven as regards scrapie. Indeed, farmers are co-operating with the Government to eliminate scrapie in the United Kingdom. That is quite right as the disease must be eliminated. That is a highly desirable thing to do.

On the other hand, as the NSA has pointed out, there are huge practical difficulties with the regulations. The problem as I see it is that the objective of protecting human health should not obscure the other of improving animal health and eliminating scrapie. That is where the complication arises.

I am pleased to see that the Government have taken on board the principle of appeals which has been incorporated in the regulations. I tabled an amendment to the Prayer to annul the 2002 regulations moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which made three specific points. The first was, to give an undertaking that the period of time in which a veterinary inspector issuing a notice of intended slaughter shall permit representations to the Secretary of State shall be no less than seven days". That particular aspect of my amendment was not accepted but amended by the Government and included in a measure that incorporated the rest of my amendment, which was, to consider bringing in further regulations setting up an independent appeals adjudicator nominated by the British Veterinary Association". Will that occur? There appear to be some doubts within the farming community that the matter will be unilaterally decided by state vets, and not decided by independently nominated vets. I would like some assurance on that matter.

My amendment asked, thirdly, to keep the regulations under review in the light of scientific and technological developments relating to TSE". We have had plenty of those so far, such as the genotyping of rams in particular in the national flock, and the impact of that on pedigree flocks.

I want to refer to the problems of the hill areas. The regulations deal with England, and there are many hefted hill flocks dependent on the drafting out of ewes in the autumn, as well as the drafting out of store lambs. If there is one case identified in a flock, that could prevent the marketing of store stock and, indeed, cull ewes as well. That would have an enormously serious impact on the economics of hill farming in the north of England and the south-west, to name but two areas. I would like to know the Minister's thoughts on that.

One other problem is the genotyping of rams. We are all aiming for ARR/ARR genotypes, which are the top range and will ensure that scrapie is not spread. In some breeds and places, those rams are in short supply, and simple supply-and-demand economics dictate that the price of the rams is sometimes extremely high. What is the Government's view on assisting the industry to ensure that that does not excessively penalise small producers, who really cannot afford to purchase some of those rams at present?

Of course, derogation is accepted in principle by many members of the farming community. Compensation is still questioned very much by the sheep industry, and the independent valuation of sheep raises a question on commercial flocks of whether the market value is the appropriate one. Professional expertise ought to be brought in to adjudicate. Those are a few of the points that I would like to draw to the attention of the House.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I am sure that everyone who has taken part will want to join the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in hoping that my noble friend Lord Whitty is well, in good voice, and able to join us very soon indeed.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for raising the issue. We recognise that there are concerns about the TSE (England)(Amendment) Regulations, as expressed in today's debate. We need to remember that the regulations only provide powers for us to enforce the EU measures. All noble Lords with an interest in the area have recognised that. The EU law is directly applicable and already forms part of our law, and we are required by that EU law to provide proper enforcement of EU measures. If the regulations were to be annulled, we would be in an uncertain situation, in that the EU legislation would not be fully workable or enforceable.

As all noble Lords have recognised, scrapie is a very serious disease. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, drew attention not only to the human health issues but to the importance of eradicating the disease on grounds of animal welfare and to prevent animal suffering. It is important that we have the powers to take action in flocks where the disease is confirmed. That way we can eradicate scrapie and prevent its spread to other farms and its introduction from infected farms.

I note the point that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised about disinfection following an outbreak and we will be issuing guidance to farmers on how to do that. I have no doubt that she will wish to offer views in advance of that. Taking action in this way, as the noble Countess recognised, is in line with advice from the European Commission's scientific experts. The Scientific Steering Committee, now the European Food Standards Agency, and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) have expressed support. The action is also supported by the Food Standards Agency—as both the noble Countess and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, recognised.

All of us, including the Government, recognise that there is a theoretical risk that BSE is present in the national sheep flock and is masked by scrapie, so we need to take action on public health grounds. Noble Lords have raised questions regarding whether that is a wise course of action. I believe that it will have public support, particularly when we remember that there were examples of sheep being fed the very feedstuffs that led to problems regarding BSE in cattle.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. Does she recall the beef on the bone regulations and how seriously the public took those?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I recollect all the issues in relation to BSE. I also recollect that there were examples where the Government were challenged for going too far in protecting the public. I also recognise that major concerns remain that the Government of the day did not go far enough quickly enough. The Government have to take action on the best advice from the Food Standards Agency.

We share the concerns of noble Lords regarding the impact of some of the more onerous aspects of the EU measures, particularly on the reporting of scrapie. We have raised our concerns about the movement restrictions with the Commission. It has proposed some limited amendments which have now been agreed but the Commission has been reluctant to go further. Regarding the sales of semi-resistant breeding rams, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in a slightly different context, the Commission believes that these genotypes might have clinical scrapie and should not be sold from scrapie- affected flocks to other flocks, which would contribute to the shortage to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred. We believe that the risk of spreading disease from semi-resistant animals is very small and that it is more important to maintain the reporting of disease.

However, I can assure noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that officials will keep a close eye on the impact of the regulations. If we find that they lead to a decline in the reporting of scrapie we will take the matter up with the European Commission and seek further amendments to the EU legislation.

I also assure noble Lords that we plan to operate the measures in a sensible and proportionate way and we recognise that the measures will be difficult in a number of respects. Derogations from certain provisions are available as allowed under the EU regulations for rare breeds or other breeds with low levels of resistance. Flocks that will have particular difficulty in finding replacement animals may apply for a time-limited derogation to bring on unknown genotypes until 1 January 2006. If there are further points that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, wishes to raise in that context, I shall write to him if there is further information. Farmers will be compensated for animals which have to be killed and destroyed and cannot go into the food chain.

The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked about compensation rates. The regulations set out the rates and provide for compensation based on an independent valuation if the farmer wishes to arrange this. It has to be recognised that taking action in scrapie-affected flocks alone will not eradicate scrapie. I accept the point which noble Lords have made in this respect.

Our policy involves a wider approach to deal with scrapie involving measures to increase the level of genetic resistance to it in the sheep flock by breeding resistance under the national scrapie plan. Noble Lords had generally welcomed that, although I recognise that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised concerns. A number of schemes have been introduced under the national scrapie plan, on which we are now consulting. It is supported by the organisations representative of the sheep industry and that plan is a good example of the benefits of partnership working.

I am pleased about the high level of uptake under the national scrapie plan, with more than 1 million sheep now genotyped. I am pleased that the plan is having a positive impact in increasing the resistant genotypes and reducing susceptible genotypes in member flocks. This is spreading resistance throughout the national flock.

In response to points raised by noble Lords, we will do all we can to ensure that we implement these measures as flexibly as possible, taking the action necessary to eradicate the disease in herds and flocks. We are working on the appeals procedure which will involve the appointment of an independent person, possibly an industry representative. We are currently looking at that.

I have dealt with the issue of cleansing. The time period is a factor in that. I understand the most risky time is when the ewes are lambing. It is then most likely to be passed to other members of the flock. We will work with the farming community to ensure that in the cleansing we do all we can to have regard to that aspect. I will write to noble Lords with details of research that is being planned in this area.

The noble Countess raised the issue of goats. We hope to meet goat industry representatives soon to consider whether there are any practical management arrangements on the farm which can be applied to lessen the risk of goats coming into contact with sheep. We are still faced with the differences between goats and sheep.

We are funding a four-year, £1.6 million research project to investigate the potential impact of breeding for resistance on economically important production traits. There are a number of anecdotal reports suggesting that there is a link. As the noble Baroness said, there has never been a detailed scientific study. The researchers are currently collecting data from a number of research flocks on depletion of the gene pool. Major breeds, as well as rare and traditional breeds, will be included. The cost is estimated at £8 million in the first year of the compulsory scheme and I have referred to the scientific advice.

I note that in this and a number of other areas the noble Countess is not satisfied that the government advice gives the answer it should give on all occasions. We are grateful for the NSA's constructive comments and we work closely with it to implement that national scrapie plan. We will continue to do so. The reference to key industry representatives was not meant to imply that the NSA was content.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I raised that issue, not the noble Countess, Lady Mar, although I am not trying to point-score. My question was: if the reference was not to the National Sheep Association, which is the key player in the industry, who did it refer to?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, obviously a variety of organisations are involved and we were referring to the whole area of work on the National Scrapie Plan, including that of the NSA. We accept that people in the industry have expressed very strong concerns.

I was asked about the approach of the Government. We supported the underlying principle of the EU regulations. Obviously, as I said, we expressed concern about some of the details of implementation of the policy and we have sought and obtained a degree of derogation.

The final question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was how many flocks are estimated to be affected. The Government estimate that the prevalence of infection in Great Britain as a whole is about 0.3 per cent.

I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as well as I am able. I shall read through all the detailed questions that I have been asked tonight and shall write with answers to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her prayer against the regulations.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister and join all Members in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, a speedy recovery because we miss him. We are pleased to see the noble Baroness in her place but we do miss the noble Lord.

I find these occasions slightly difficult because there are obviously questions that the Minister cannot answer. I know that there is a convention that one should not keep asking the same questions but we have to clarify some of these matters. So far as I am concerned, the most crucial point that the Minister has not answered is how many research programmes carried out since 1999 have been totally ignored and whether any of them has found even one connection between scrapie and BSE. My answer to that—the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is shaking her head; I am sure that she is right—is none. If the answer is "none", the Government should at least be honest.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I apologise. I thought I had made it clear that it remains a theoretical risk. In answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I made it plain that the Food Standards Agency believes that the theoretical risk is strong enough for the Government not only to take it seriously but to act on it.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Indeed, they are right to take it seriously, but 1999 was some five years ago and I ask how long one can keep working on a theoretical risk. Earlier, I was trying to say that the longer a theoretical risk keeps going and no evidence is found, ultimately, surely one has to question whether there is a risk at all.

We have covered many points tonight. I do not wish to detain the House further but I think that there is unfinished business. I know that the Minister is always very courteous and perhaps she would be kind enough to look carefully at the comments made by noble Lords from all sides of the House. There are real areas of concern and also some practical issues. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.