<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<opml version='2.0'>
  <head>
    <title>Sitting of 6 March 1997</title>
    <dateCreated>Thu, 06 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000</dateCreated>
    <ownerName>UK Parliament</ownerName>
    <ownerEmail>mail@robertbrook.com</ownerEmail>
    <ownerId>http://www.parliament.uk</ownerId>
    <docs>http://www.opml.org/spec2</docs>
  </head>
  <body>
    <outline id='3119684' text="&lt;i&gt;The House met at half-past &lt;/i&gt;Two o'clock" title='Preamble' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/preamble'></outline>
    <outline id='3119686' text='[MADAM SPEAKER &lt;i&gt;in the Chair]&lt;/i&gt;' title='PRAYERS' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/prayers'></outline>
    <outline id='3119686' text='PRAYERS'>
      <outline id='3119688' text='SOUTHAMPTON INTERNATIONAL BOAT SHOW BILL&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Read the Third time, and passed. &lt;/i&gt;' title='PRIVATE BUSINESS' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/private-business'></outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3119736' text='Oral Answers to Questions'>
      <outline id='3119745' text='AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD'>
        <outline id='3119748' text='Mr. Rendel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of cattle to be slaughtered in Berkshire during the selective cull.&lt;br/&gt;The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): It is not possible to give an estimate of the number of cattle to be culled on a county-by-county basis.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware that because of the indecision and dithering over the cull, some farmers are now likely to go over quota this year, because they simply do not yet know how many of their cattle are likely to be culled&amp;#x2014;and even when the numbers are known, the valuations have not yet been done? Will the Minister provide compensation for those who go over quota?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: I find that a surprising question, because when the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association asked us to get on with the selective cull, they knew full well the situation as regards milk quota. Farmers have managed to organise milk quota year on year for many years, and if anything, quite recently we tended to be under quota. Of all the many questions that arise from the selective cull, that is not one that I see as a real issue.&lt;br/&gt;Sir John Cope: Does my hon. Friend agree that the total number of cattle to be slaughtered under the cull has been vastly exaggerated, especially by Liberal Democrat spokesmen, and is unlikely to rise above 100,000?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: One of the characteristics of the whole bovine spongiform encephalopathy debacle has been a gross over-dramatisation of the situation by all the Opposition parties, not least the Liberal Democrats. In fact, less than 5 per cent. of the national dairy herd is likely to be affected by the selective cull&amp;#x2014;a maximum of 100,000&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1006&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;animals. Even that estimate makes assumptions about all the animals that are traceable, and about a full uptake of animals born in the voluntary year. Some of the suggestions that we have heard&amp;#x2014;from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for example&amp;#x2014;to the effect that one third of the dairy herd will be affected by the cull, are simply ludicrous.' title='Cattle Cull' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/cattle-cull'></outline>
        <outline id='3119749' text='Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of United Kingdom fishing relative to current multi-annual guidance programme targets; and what proposals he has to achieve those targets.[17546]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: Definitive figures for United Kingdom performance are under discussion with the Commission. Once the Commission agrees figures for the United Kingdom performance, I expect us to be within a handful of points of our targets for the end of December 1996.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for that totally obscure reply. Will the Minister undertake to argue that the level of cuts likely to be demanded of the British fleet is totally unacceptable? Will he undertake to build a blocking minority against MAGP No. 4, which should not be considered until Europe has accepted our proposals to do something about the quota hoppers who now make up about one fifth of the British fleet? Will he further undertake to reject the Commission&apos;s latest proposals, which are dominated by Dutch self-interest in an unacceptable way, especially in the light of the huge Dutch fishing overshoot? Will he undertake to ensure that something is done about industrial fishing, and oppose the proposed days-at-sea limit and the proposed 30 per cent. cut to be imposed on us?&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Godman: Good speech.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: It was a good speech&amp;#x2014;and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is even wearing a sober tie.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I do not think that there is much difference between the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and me on the issue. We have made it clear that we will not contemplate any further reduction in the United Kingdom fishing fleet until the issue of quota hoppers is dealt with. What the hon. Gentleman described as my opaque answer meant that we are almost up to our target for MAGP No. 3&amp;#x2014;we are practically where we should be on that&amp;#x2014;and we are saying that the United Kingdom does not intend to move forward on No. 4 or to do anything else with it, until the issue of quota hopping is resolved. As the Prime Minister has made clear on several occasions, that is a priority that we seek to achieve at the intergovernmental conference. I hope that everyone on the Opposition Benches will also signal that it is the clear intention of the whole House to ensure that Britain achieves a result on quota hopping at the IGC.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Greenway: Do the guidance targets contain anything about the size of lobsters landed off the north-east Yorkshire coast? Is my hon. Friend aware of a proposal to increase the minimum size landed at Filey&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0511"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1007&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;from 85 mm to 87 mm? That does not sound much, but it would decimate what little fishing there is left in Filey. Will my hon. Friend promise to look into that?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: That is a bit broad for a question on decommissioning, but I shall certainly look into the issue of lobsters in Filey and, if necessary, I would more than welcome a visit to my hon. Friend&apos;s constituency.' title='Fishing' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/fishing'></outline>
        <outline id='3119751' text='Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to ensure that food labelling is comprehensible to the public.[17547]&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The law requires that mandatory information on food labels should be easy to understand and that all other information should be true and not misleading. We regularly consult consumer and other organisations and we commission surveys to identify where label information could be improved.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hughes: I accept what the Minister says about consulting regularly. Will she look at the report produced last week by the National Consumer Council, which agrees with my view that most food labelling is twaddle, merely giving a list of chemicals, or Latin, or words that nobody understands? There is regulation for descriptions of nutrition&amp;#x2014;a claim that a food is low fat, for example, has to be regulated&amp;#x2014;but anybody can put "gives you a healthy diet" on a product, because health matters are not regulated. Can we start again and produce food labels that ordinary people such as me can understand when we go to Tesco?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall study the report with great care. The Food Advisory Committee is also looking at nutritional and health claims, particularly the latter. The issue can be confusing. The Ministry produces some literature to guide people through it. I agree that labelling must be clear and accurate.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Cranley Onslow: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that everything possible is being done at national and European level to provide adequate warning for those susceptible to allergies, such as that caused by peanuts, that can have fatal consequences?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: I assure my hon. Friend that we have pressed the European Commission to propose changes to labelling to help those who suffer from peanut allergies and similar conditions. I am also working on a programme for this year to put more information into the public domain, particularly for food processors. Many people find that there is more labelling for products that obviously contain nuts, but the processed nut is often not immediately obvious. That is the potential danger for people with such allergies.' title='Food Labelling' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/food-labelling'></outline>
        <outline id='3119754' text='Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department is doing to encourage the production and marketing of organic products.&lt;br/&gt;The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): As well as aid for conversion to organic production, we provide free advisory services and fund the United Kingdom register of organic food standards, together with substantial organic research and development programmes and around &amp;#x00A3;1 million of marketing grants to date to a range of organic interests.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Banks: The Minister&apos;s reply is complacent. Instead of allowing people to be poisoned with stinking meat and pesticides, why do we not do more to encourage the growth of organic products? Is the Minister aware that 70 per cent. of the organic food eaten in this country is imported? We are at the bottom of the European Union league on the organic aid scheme, spending less than half the European Union average. What do the Government have against organic food? Why are they so prejudiced against it? Are they prepared to let people be poisoned by rotten stinking food when they could have healthy organic food?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Boswell: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman spoils a good case with which I have some sympathy with hyperbole with which I have no sympathy. He cannot rightly assert that the food offered in this country, organic or otherwise, is rotten and stinking. If it were, it would not be permitted. The Government wish to encourage the production, the marketing and the consumption of organic food for those who want it. To that end, in addition to the measures that I referred to a moment ago, I have participated in a seminar held by our market task force on encouraging greater awareness of the market possibilities&amp;#x2014;an important incentive for the organic sector.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the marketing of British produce, organic and otherwise, that is extremely important and which the Ministry does support and should support? On organic produce, does he also agree that it is up to consumers to decide what they want to buy and eat?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Boswell: I could not agree more. I can tell my hon. Friend that within the sector challenge scheme, which has been set up recently, two of the strong contenders going forward for final consideration are for organic marketing aid improvement schemes.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister recall that for at least the first half of this century most food was produced with a low level of artificial fertilisers and practically no sprays and that the farming community, encouraged by Governments of all shades, went over to high production through the use of modern fertilisers? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if we are to move back to organic food production, not only profit levels but food production levels will be maintained in this nation?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman makes some fair points. I just about remember the first half of this century&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0512"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1009&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;when I was a lad, when there was a much lower level of inputs in farm production. The use of science to continue to produce safe food but to a greater intensity has expanded production. More extensive use of the organic sector would curtail production and we need to have all those factors in mind. The relevant points are to offer consumers choice and opportunity so that they can decide what they wish to consume, and ideally, that the British farmer should be able to produce it for them.' title='Organic Products' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/organic-products'></outline>
        <outline id='3119757' text="Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has made to the European Commission on the reform of the common agricultural policy to accommodate the agricultural interests of those countries which have applied to join the EU.[17549]&lt;br/&gt;The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have regular and frequent contacts with the European Commission and other member states on reforming the common agricultural policy. We have consistently argued that early decisions leading to a more market-oriented CAP are essential to facilitate EU enlargement.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend should represent urgently to Commissioner Fischler for the completion by July of the agricultural review of the common agricultural policy which the Commission is undertaking. It is essential that we move to a system of national support and away from European Union-wide support since the CAP is costing the average family in this country &amp;#x00A3;26 per week in additional taxes and food costs. To do so would be compatible with the entry of the applicant countries to the EU. To maintain EU-wide support in the event of their entry would cost an inordinately large amount.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: That is an important point. I am not in favour of the repatriation of the common agricultural policy, but I agree that there is scope for much more subsidiarity than there is now. I also agree with the point underlining my hon. Friend's question, which is that the European Union really has to address the question of reform speedily and preferably before the negotiations on enlargement begin&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Golding: What proposals is the Minister making to reduce the burden on the British people caused by the unfairness of the common agricultural policy? Does he realise that the reason why his Government have made so little progress is that they are as unpopular and distrusted abroad as they are at home?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady misunderstands the position. Within the Agriculture Council there is no enthusiasm for reform of the CAP. In truth, I think only Sweden, the Danes, to some extent the Dutch, ourselves and the Commissioner are in favour of fundamental reform, otherwise there is substantial opposition. It is because of that substantial opposition that we are not making more rapid movement towards reform.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why the common agricultural&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1010&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;policy is somewhat distrusted is that there is no faith in the inspections that are carried out nationally, and that as part of the reform of the CAP it would be a good idea for international teams of inspectors to go up farm paths and ensure that the rules are being observed as scrupulously in one country as in another?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, in the sense that there is no doubt that the United Kingdom generally enforces European law, regulations and directives more robustly than many other countries. There is certainly scope for trying, through the Commission and its inspection agencies, to tighten the workings of the common agricultural policy. We, in the context of BSE, for example, have been pleased to welcome many inspection visits from the European Commission and member states." title='Common Agricultural Policy' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/common-agricultural-policy'></outline>
        <outline id='3119760' text='Mr. Cousins: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now forecasts, on the basis of existing policies, the last new case of BSE in Britain to occur.[17550]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Douglas Hogg: In August, an independent team lead by Professor Roy Anderson confirmed that BSE was in sharp decline and would virtually die out in the United Kingdom around 2001 as a result of measures already in force. It is not, however, possible to predict precisely when the BSE epidemic will be over.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that that prediction was made on the basis of applying to BSE in cows a statistical model derived from the spread of AIDS in humans, and that it must in any event be subject to an extremely wide margin of error? Would not he be wise to add those cautions every time that the prediction is mentioned, to avoid damaging yet further Britain&apos;s agricultural industry?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that all predictions are somewhat uncertain. He will find that in my various statements I have tended to use the phrase, "in 2001 or thereabouts", because it is perfectly true that there is likely to be a tail beyond 2001 and we do not know how thick that tail will be. The disease is declining by 40 per cent. year on year and we expect that in all substantial respects it will die out around 2001 or thereabouts, but of course I agree that there must be caveats and provisos.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on a statement that I received today from Mr. Douglas Gascoine of Newark livestock market, of which I hope that I just succeeded in giving him notice, to the effect that, while the European Union has banned our meat, Germany is exporting to us meat from cows more than 30 months old, with the cord attached and including the specified offal? Given the fact that our meat is banned on health grounds, what action can the Ministry take to ensure that those countries that ban our meat do not export to us the very agents that caused BSE in the first place?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving me&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0513"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1011&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;prior notice of what he wanted to ask. He has identified a serious matter. I have frequently said in the House that British beef is the safest and best in Europe, and I believe that to be true; one of the reasons for that is that we have in place a range of measures&amp;#x2014;abattoir control measures, controls on feedstuffs and the over-30-months rule&amp;#x2014;that are not to be found universally in the European Union.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We want the European Union to accept, for example, the abattoir controls on specified offal that we have in place. That would meet my hon. Friend&apos;s point, and I regret that the Council did not accept it in December. I very much hope that the Commissioner will make such proposals again in a month or so; if so, we shall support them.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Strang: May I remind the Minister that measures to keep the BSE agent out of our cattle feed were put in place in 1988? Is he aware that the head of his Ministry&apos;s beef and sheep division stated that because of the lax controls it was not until August 1996 that we could be certain that contaminated feed was no longer reaching our cattle? Does he agree that as a result of the Government&apos;s failure to enforce the measures many more cattle will die of BSE, the dreadful epidemic will last longer and the taxpayer will have to pay a beef tax of &amp;#x00A3;3.5 billion?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: Professor Anderson&apos;s report, of which the hon. Gentleman knows, identified 1994 as the date when, in all probability, contaminated feedstuffs were no longer available in substantial quantities to cattle. It is true that from August last year, we made it a criminal offence to possess meat and bone meal on farms. Looking back with hindsight, there are probably a number of things that we could have done between 1988 and 1995 that we did not do, but at all times we acted in accordance with the best advice and tried to make judgments that were both reasonable and proportionate on the basis of the information then available. I do not accept the criticism, but I accept the facts to which I referred.' title='Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy'></outline>
        <outline id='3119764' text="Dr. Godman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Fisheries Ministers from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to the reform of the common fisheries policy.[17551]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: At the December Fisheries Council, we discussed a number of matters relating to the reform of the common fisheries policy.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Godman: The severe restriction of industrial fishing is a long-overdue reform. An outright ban is perhaps impossible. In any case, we can continue fishing grenadier and blue whiting. Does the Minister agree that pout and sprat fishing should be banned completely? When he goes to Bergen, will he argue for a restricted total allowable catch of sand eels in grounds such as the Wee Bankie and Buckie Man's bank?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: I have made my views on industrial fishing known in the House on many occasions. We have had many discussions with the fishing industry and I am pleased that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and others recognise that we need to move beyond a&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1012&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;precautionary quota for sand eels to an actual quota in areas such as Wee Bankie. Ministers will certainly propose that at the forthcoming Bergen conference. The evidence of the impact of industrial fishing is such that we need to ensure that it is not destroying the fish chain upon which so many fishermen, both north and south of the border, depend.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend knows that much of the pressure on the common fisheries policy results from people's worries about cheating on quotas. What have Ministers been able to do to secure enforcement of quotas by other countries? Has he anything to say about British fishermen cheating on quotas?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: It is unacceptable if other member states do not apply the rules as rigorously as we do. At our behest, the Commission has been very active in ensuring that we have a Community inspectorate of member states' fisheries that seeks to ensure that the rules are applied as rigorously by other member states as they are by us. We will continue to seek to ensure that the Commission enforces those regulations throughout the European Community; otherwise, a mockery is made of having a common fisheries policy.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Morley: On reform of the CFP, I want to return to quota hopping. The Minister said that it will be pursued vigorously at the intergovernmental conference and we support that approach. However, many quota hoppers have legally bought their licences from UK fishermen as part of the free market approach that the Government have supported. Will the Minister support attaching conditions to licences? That might make things more difficult for overseas buyers and make it more attractive to maintain licences in regional fisheries.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Our difficulty is that the European Court of Justice has deemed that under the treaty and present law, we cannot do that. &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; No, we cannot do it. The European Court paid far too much attention to the idea of a single market and freedom of association, and failed to take sufficient account of national fishing quotas. That is why we must ensure that there are treaty changes. I welcome the cross-party support for securing that at the IGC. That is the only way that we can be confident of eliminating quota hoppers once and for all." title='Common Fisheries Policy' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/common-fisheries-policy'></outline>
        <outline id='3119768' text='Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to bring about the lifting of the EU ban on British beef.[17552]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards the lifting of the beef exporting ban.[17554]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jessel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the ban by European member states on British beef.[17557]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Douglas Hogg: On 25 February I wrote to Commissioners Fischler and Bonino explaining how the&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0514"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1013&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;United Kingdom has fulfilled the preconditions laid down under the Florence agreement and I submitted our proposals for a United Kingdom export certified herds scheme, together with a paper setting out its scientific basis. The scheme would be the first step in lifting the export ban. I pressed for urgent and constructive discussion of our proposals at the relevant committees.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the beef rearing industries in Latin America have relied for many decades on obtaining the best breeding stock in the world from Britain. As they have had to rely all this time on second best, and as we have complied with the five principal conditions of Florence, is it not high time that this disgraceful and unfair ban was lifted?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. There are perhaps two points worth making. Of course we are against the generality of the ban, for all the reasons that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed from the Dispatch Box, but there is a particular wrongness about exports to third countries. That is what my hon. Friend is highlighting. I could not agree more.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jessel: Is it not ridiculous for the European Commission in Brussels to imply that British beef is safe for British people, but dangerous for people in every other country in the world? The ban upsets the livelihood of our farmers and is costing our taxpayers &amp;#x00A3;3 billion. As the policy was welcomed by the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), is not the moral that we should have as little to do with either the hon. Gentleman or the European Commission in Brussels?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I would want to be quite so unkind as my hon. Friend, but there is a lot of substance in what he says. He makes two important points. One is the enormous cost of this business&amp;#x2014;&amp;#x00A3;3.5 billion committed over three years, which is powerful testimony to the importance that a Conservative Government attach to British agriculture. When we debated the matter some 10 days ago, it was plain that the Labour party would never have invested that amount of money in support of British agriculture.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, no matter how much faith British housewives have in British produce, if there is even the slightest suggestion that his Ministry is continuing to obscure basic reports that affect the hygiene of British products, far from protecting our farming community or anyone else, he will constantly undermine the quality of our exports anywhere in the world?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady would be right if what she said was true. There will be a statement after questions, with your permission, Madam Speaker. I shall deal more specifically with the point that the hon. Lady has raised. Our policy throughout the BSE crisis, both before and after 20 March last year, has been to be wholly open and candid with the public and the House, for the kind of reason that the hon. Lady has just identified.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Pike: As the Minister is in a conciliatory mood today, does he accept that it is not the National Farmers&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1014&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Union&apos;s change of policy but the Government&apos;s delay in implementing what they agreed at Florence that has meant that an end to the beef ban is still not in sight?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I have never blamed the NFU for changing its position. There is no doubt that the selective cull is a serious interference with other people&apos;s property or that the cull is extraordinarily difficult to justify in any scientific or objective way. Its only justification is, that if we do not do it, we will not get any progress in lifting the ban. The NFU did not want a selective cull. I understand that. I do not criticise it for that. That was its position for much of the summer. It was only well into the autumn that the NFU came to adopt the position that it now does. I am not critical of it; I am merely describing the facts.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am proud to be wearing my NFU tie at questions today? It was presented to me by farmers on Friday night after a very good beef dinner in my constituency. Does he accept that they told me that they want the European ban lifted as quickly as possible and that they see it as nothing more than politics? They also want to see some fast food joints&amp;#x2014;if I can use that description&amp;#x2014;lift the British beef ban. They believe that fast food stores such as McDonald&apos;s could show a clear lead if they started selling British beef again.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is a splendid example of how good British beef can be for one. He has a serious point: it is extremely regrettable that a number of major restaurant chains and also public authorities, for a variety of reasons&amp;#x2014;none of them good in science&amp;#x2014;have been reluctant to sell British beef. That is nonsense because all beef products of every kind that are sold in the United Kingdom from British beef must satisfy the most stringent tests. In terms of quality or safety, there is no distinction of any kind to be drawn between a British beefburger and a British steak. Both are of the highest quality and of total safety.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Strang: May I remind the Minister that it was the Prime Minister who told the House of Commons that all the conditions would be met for the beef ban to be lifted by November last year, and that the lifting of that ban was in the Government&apos;s hands? May I remind him that no part of that ban has been lifted and that the Government dithered and delayed over the implementation of the Florence agreement? Is it not clear that the Government must accept responsibility for the delay in lifting the beef ban?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: We have complied with the five preconditions set out in the Florence agreement. We have discharged our part of the bargain and we have every reason to expect the Europeans to discharge theirs. They now have an opportunity to do so because they are in possession of our export-certified herd scheme proposals.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when farmers in Teignbridge try to make up their minds whether the Labour party has anything to offer them in terms of farming policy, they would do well to remember that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) approved the imposition of the ban in the first place? Can my right hon. and learned Friend also tell&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0515"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1015&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;me what I should say to farmers in Teignbridge when they witness how their businesses have been devastated by the imposition of the ban, while we are still apparently either unwilling or unable to stop the importation of foreign meat products which have not been produced to the same safety standards as our own?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). There is no doubt that we need to get in Europe a comprehensive regime to govern cattle feed rations and the removal of offal; we should also introduce a 30-month rule.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On the first part of my hon. Friend&apos;s question, he is right that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)&amp;#x2014;not just once, but on at least two separate occasions and possibly more&amp;#x2014;defended the imposition of the ban and expressed the hope that we would have done the same had we been in the position of the French. Should the hon. Gentleman ever be in a position to try to ask for the ban to be lifted, he will be in some difficulty because the French will merely quote his words back to him.' title='Beef Ban' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/beef-ban'></outline>
        <outline id='3119772' text="Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has recently held with his counterparts in Europe to discuss quota hopping; and what recommendations he will make to the Amsterdam EU summit.[17555]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: We have tabled a proposal in the intergovernmental conference to tackle quota hopping. We take every opportunity to make clear to fellow European Community Ministers the need to find an effective and permanent solution to quota hopping. We shall, of course, do so again at the Amsterdam summit.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister understand that there is a desperate need to have collective discussions within the Fisheries Council, because he earlier mentioned the possibility of treaty changes? Is he actually saying that amendments will be made to the treaty as a result of any representations made by the Government? Will he assure us that there will be a meeting between the United Kingdom Government, the Dutch presidency and the Spaniards to resolve the issue so that we can reach an IGC conclusion?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: I think that we have kept the House fairly well informed on what we are doing. Some time ago, we tabled an amended protocol to the treaty. Those treaty changes will be part of the IGC negotiations; they are not something that is necessarily within the competence of the Fisheries Council. It is something to be determined within the IGC. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that one of our clear negotiating objectives at the IGC is to achieve the elimination of quota hoppers once and for all.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gallie: Difficult though discussions on fishing are in Europe, have there not been some successes for British fishermen, and would not Britain's strong voice on these issues diminish to a Scottish whimper if the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and her colleagues got their way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Baldry: It is a self-evident truth on this issue, as on practically everything else, that we are stronger as&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1016&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;a United Kingdom than we would be if we were sundered and severed into various parts. There have been successes for the UK fishing industry and we achieved a number of successes at the December Fisheries Council. Only recently, the Commission announced that it had agreed to our proposals for regional committees to investigate fishing and the first of these will be set up in relation to the North sea. For the first time, that will give real fishermen a voice in what happens in the common fisheries policy and it is this Government who have achieved that for fishermen, not only in the UK, but throughout the whole of Europe." title='Quota Hopping' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/quota-hopping'></outline>
        <outline id='3119775' text='Mr. Cox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to the United Kingdom to date of the European beef ban on United Kingdom exports; and if he will make a statement.[17556]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: The UK beef market has been affected by the European Union ban on exports of beef, together with a fall in beef consumption. Since 1 April 1996 the overall cost of the BSE eradication and compensation schemes amounts to &amp;#x00A3;949 million. Forecast expenditure on BSE-related measures in 1997&amp;#x2013;98 and 1998&amp;#x2013;99 is &amp;#x00A3;1,010 million and &amp;#x00A3;580 million respectively.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Cox: Is the hon. Lady aware that the figures that she has given are for ever on the increase? That is a clear indication of the total incompetence with which the Government have handled this issue. We have suffered the loss of the European beef market and the cost of the slaughter of cattle; yet despite all the promises and all the talk, there is&amp;#x2014;as we heard in earlier exchanges&amp;#x2014;no prospect of the beef ban being lifted. Where do the British agriculture industry and beef industry go from here? What further costs are we to bear?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly: &amp;#x00A3;580 million is clearly less, not more, than &amp;#x00A3;1,010 million and therefore the figures are on a declining scale, year on year. There is a commitment to the industry and to the related parts of the industry chain that we will ensure their future by putting public money behind them. It is a matter of regret that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not consider the industry important enough to support its future in that way.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think that the beef crisis was helped or exacerbated by the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), asking whether it was true that members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee were not feeding British beef to their children and grandchildren?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and his colleague the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) played an important role at the beginning of the crisis. However, their attempts to thwart the beef industry have not succeeded and I am pleased to say that many retailers are reporting that domestic beef sales are higher than they were before March last year, despite the actions of the Opposition.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have a straight answer, without the usual ministerial wriggles? Is it not true that,&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0516"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1017&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;if Labour&apos;s policy in 1990 of an animal identification system had been in place, there would have been no cull, the taxpayer in this country would have been millions of pounds better off and the BSE crisis would have already ended?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: No&amp;#x2014;the hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history, as is his custom. Of course we want to have traceability and animal identification&amp;#x2014;that is an important part of transparency in the industry&amp;#x2014;but to suggest that those methods could have rewritten history in respect of contaminated feed is wrong.' title='Beef Ban' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/beef-ban-1'></outline>
        <outline id='3119778' text='Sir Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the trend of reported BSE cases in the last three years.[17558]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: The number of suspects being reported reached a peak of more than 1,000 cases a week in 1993, fell to about 800 in 1994 and is now about 120 a week and still falling.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Colin Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging report to the House. Is it not precisely because of the robust and tough action taken by the Government that outbreaks of BSE in this country, measured in terms of the number of reported cases, are decreasing&amp;#x2014;not increasing, as they are in the remainder of the European Union? While my hon. Friend is considering that, will she reflect on the fact that throughout the entire BSE crisis the Labour party has not made a single constructive proposal?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear from the way in which the figures are coming down&amp;#x2014;a 40 per cent. reduction year on year&amp;#x2014;that the Government&apos;s policy of dealing with contaminated feed and dealing with this disease has been absolutely right. Of course there is more to be done, but there are encouraging signs that the disease is now on the wane.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jamieson: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Secretary of State for Defence stated in a written answer to me recently that Her Majesty&apos;s armed forces eat mainly foreign beef and not British beef?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Browning: The armed forces do eat a good proportion of British beef. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has given me a great deal of information to enable me to take out to the British suppliers the figures on which the armed forces buy their beef to discover whether those figures can be matched competitively, and I regret to say that they cannot. &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; The hon. Gentleman says, "Ah!" so presumably competitive tendering is not part of the Labour party&apos;s policy any more: old Labour, new Labour&amp;#x2014;they still believe in centralisation.' title='Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-1'></outline>
      </outline>
      <outline id='3119791' text='PRIME MINISTER'>
        <outline id='3119798' text='Ql. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17575]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the "basic pensions plus" proposals announced yesterday not only guarantee the value of the state pension, but offer the prospect of a much improved pension with a valid&amp; of as much as &amp;#x00A3;175 per week to a person on average earnings? Does that not contrast starkly with the Labour party&apos;s plan to cut the value of the state pension by &amp;#x00A3;20 per week?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the impact of the proposals that I announced with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security yesterday. Those proposals will guarantee that everyone, whether in the new scheme or out of it, will continue to receive at least the basic state pension, increasing in line with inflation. I think that the response that we have heard from some quarters&amp;#x2014;including some, although not all, Labour Members&amp;#x2014;shows that those people do not understand what is proposed. &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; A moment ago, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) asked, "What is this point about &amp;#x00A3;20 being cut off the state pension under Labour&apos;s plans?" Perhaps she should consult the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that she anticipated a lower level of basic state pension, to compensate for reducing the retirement age to 60. That cut, unless there is more expenditure&amp;#x2014;which the shadow Chancellor says that he would not allow&amp;#x2014;would be the equivalent of &amp;#x00A3;20 per week.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Golding&lt;i&gt;indicated dissent.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: There is no point in the hon. Lady shaking her head. That is what her hon. Friend has in mind.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: May I put to the Prime Minister two specific questions arising from the report by Mr. Bill Swann on hygiene in abattoirs? First, why was that report not published on 31 March 1996, as Mr. Swann was told that it would be? Secondly, why did Ministers not see the report and act on it?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman&apos;s questions, as he will discover when he hears the statement a little later, are based&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I am assuming that, in view of the right hon. Gentleman&apos;s interest, he will be here for the statement; I am making an assumption. The right hon. Gentleman&apos;s questions are based on what he supposes is in a report which, I believe, he has not read.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;There is no suggestion of the report being suppressed. It was produced by officials. It was drawn up by the Meat Hygiene Service. It was very widely circulated. It was circulated around the trade and elsewhere. &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I am sorry that somebody did not receive it. Ministers did not receive it&amp;#x2014;that is true. It was a working document. &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; This is exactly the point. The report was drawn up for the Meat Hygiene Service as part of its&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0517"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1019&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;work to ensure the highest standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses. It is a routine report, of which there are many, not normally shown to Ministers and not shown to Ministers on this occasion, but circulated to the people who had an operational need to know about it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: That is the most extraordinary explanation. This is Mr. Swann&apos;s report. I have read it. It is 54 pages long and contains 81 recommendations. May I point out to the Prime Minister that on page 19 the report states that there is a serious concern about contamination, that the contamination may lead to the spread of the E. coli organism and that action should be taken immediately? If the Prime Minister says that the report was not shown to Ministers, I ask him why not. With 54 pages and 81 recommendations, it was sufficiently serious, was it not? Does he not think in retrospect that, given the seriousness of the report, it would have been better if it had been shown to Ministers so that it could have been acted on in the interests of the public?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: The point that the Labour leader perhaps genuinely does not understand&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt;&#x000A;I have got beyond page 81&amp;#x2014;a very quick read this morning. I think that the right hon. Gentleman may genuinely not understand, so I shall make the point again. The report was a working document, drawn up for the Meat Hygiene Service and circulated to its staff. The Meat Hygiene Service is implementing the recommendations in the report, as the right hon. Gentleman noted.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This is the way in which such matters have been handled for a very long time&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are huge numbers of such working documents every year. If they all came to Ministers for Ministers to read every one, nothing else would be done. The right hon. Gentleman has been in opposition so long that he does not understand that. The report was circulated to the people who needed to take action and I am advised by those people that they have implemented the action.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: Whether the report should be shown to Ministers must depend on its seriousness. If it is serious, it should be shown to Ministers. May I point out to the Prime Minister that Mr. Swann was told that it would be published precisely because it dealt with serious issues?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Prime Minister&apos;s latest explanation is that the recommendations have been implemented. May I quote to him what Mr. Swann said this morning on the radio? He was asked whether everything that he had recommended had been carried out: answer&amp;#x2014;no. He was then asked whether some of the recommendations that had not been carried out were important for hygiene and safety: answer&amp;#x2014;yes.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This is a serious report which reveals serious problems of contamination. We know about the problems with E. coli, but the report was not even shown to Professor Pennington, who is in charge of the E. coli administration. When will someone in the Government take responsibility for the proper and competent administration of our affairs?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he behaves in this fashion, what he does&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I am sorry to say&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1020&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;that it is true: he exaggerates problems that exist before he has heard the statement, irrespective of the interests of the meat industry, in exactly the way in which the Opposition have behaved on previous occasions. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that, in advance of the statement, is the height of irresponsibility.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I repeat for the right hon. Gentleman that the report was provided for the Meat Hygiene Service, which was established to improve safety for the consumer and opposed by the Labour party when we established it. Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to stir up public concerns that are being dealt with by a public watchdog which he and his colleagues opposed when it was established. His party has stood in the way of every change made to improve hygiene standards. That is absolutely true. If the Opposition had had their way, responsibility for slaughterhouse hygiene would still be in the hands of 300 local councils applying the rules in 300 different ways. The hygiene service is raising standards, and the right hon. Gentleman is raising scares.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17576]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the knowledgeable speech given in the House of Lords yesterday in which it was said that our economy is doing rather well, particularly in comparison to the last 18 years&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;and even more so in comparison to the economies of Europe? That speech was by the noble Lord Barnett, the last Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a Labour Government. Did my right hon. Friend note that Lord Barnett said quite clearly that taxes may be increased without increasing the rates? What is more, he said that he expected any future Labour Government to do just that.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: The noble Lord Barnett, being a life peer and therefore not threatened by the plans of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party, has clearly let the cat out of the bag as to what he thinks about Labour&apos;s spending plans. As a former Chief Secretary, he knows that they do not add up and that there is a &amp;#x00A3;12 billion black hole in the middle of Labour&apos;s plans. He knows that the Labour party cannot sign up to Budget book figures and then disown the policies that would achieve those figures unless it plans to put up taxes, cut expenditure or find some other way of dealing with the great black hole in its plans. It is not, as the shadow Chancellor likes to imply, a Tory scare: we now know the truth as a result of what the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17577]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the crisis in the hospitals in the north area of Manchester since&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0518"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1021&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;four out of five hospitals were closed by the Government? Is he aware that since Christmas the North Manchester General hospital has accepted only accident and emergency cases, and that two weeks ago eight people remained on trolleys for 23 hours because there were no beds available for them in that hospital or in any other hospital in the region? Is that not a national disgrace and a scandal, and what does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: One thing that I am doing to improve the quality of the health service is promising to provide extra resources for each year of the next Parliament, as we have done for the past 18 years. I notice that there is no comparable pledge from the Labour party. Year after year, we have dramatically increased the resources made available to the health service. We operate policies such as compulsory tendering, which brings more money into the health service, and we have abolished a whole tier of regional government in order to provide extra money for the health service. All those policies were opposed by the Labour party, which will not provide extra resources for the health service.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Currie: Did the Prime Minister see today the launch of Europe 97 by the all-party European Movement? Will he join me in welcoming this important effort&amp;#x2014;which has the backing of the unions, major industries, the Confederation of British Industry and the European Commission&amp;#x2014;to put the facts about Europe and the benefit of our membership of the European Union to the people of this country rather than the fictions about its dangers?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the document to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will certainly obtain a copy and look forward to reading it. It is important that the important debate on Europe is conducted on the basis of facts, not fiction, and that people fully understand precisely the implications of policies followed across Europe in each individual country and by the Commission and, of course, in our own country.' title='Engagements' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/engagements'></outline>
        <outline id='3119809' text='Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the relevance to the Lockerbie inquiry of the publication of the report by the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1022&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;United States Inspector General into laboratory practices and alleged misconduct in explosives-related and other cases.[17578]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I understand that the report has not been published. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made clear on 28 February, we understand that there is nothing to suggest that the report will reflect in any way on the Lockerbie case, but if anything relevant emerged froth it, the Government would evaluate the implications carefully.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dalyell: Against the background set out in that Adjournment debate, have the Government asked the Americans how it is that their forensic expert, James Thurman, has been found to have fabricated forensic evidence? If the Prime Minister asked the Americans, what did they say?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: Yes, we have made inquiries about that, as the hon. Gentleman may have anticipated. The United States authorities have confirmed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has transferred Mr. Thurman to other duties while the activities of the FBI laboratories are investigated. However, we are further advised that the case against the two Libyans does not depend in any respect on any evidence that Mr. Thurman may give.' title='Lockerbie' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/lockerbie'></outline>
        <outline id='3119814' text='Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.[17579]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the highest number of home owners in the country, at a fraction under 90 per cent.? As we now have low inflation, low interest rates and very attractive mortgage rates, what advice would he give&amp;#x2014;as we approach a general election&amp;#x2014;to my constituents and to home owners throughout the country?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, we have stable prices, low mortgage rates and a rapidly improving economic situation that is unmatched anywhere in Europe. The advice that my hon. Friend should give to his constituents is to stick to the policies that have created that and not put it at risk by following policies adopted on the continent which have led to a quite different outcome.' title='Engagements' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/engagements-1'></outline>
      </outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3119820' text='3.32 Pm&lt;br/&gt;The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg)&lt;i&gt;rose&amp;#x2014;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly? We have business to conduct here. Minister, when you are ready.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: It may be helpful if I make a statement about the report by the Meat Hygiene Service on the state of hygiene in slaughterhouses, which has been the subject of much comment in the press this morning.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The facts are as follows. The Meat Hygiene Service came into existence on 1 April 1995 as a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agency, and took over responsibility for enforcement of hygiene rules in slaughterhouses that had previously rested with local authorities.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;One of the targets for the agency, approved by Ministers and announced to Parliament, was to carry out a review of the state of hygiene in each individual slaughterhouse in Great Britain. It was required to complete that assessment by the end of March 1996. The purposes were threefold: first, to create a comprehensive benchmarking of standards and practices within the British fresh meat industry; secondly, to allocate resources to a function previously performed by local authorities; and, thirdly, to drive up standards across the board and in individual plants.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Meat Hygiene Service conducted its review by appointing hygiene advice teams to visit each slaughterhouse in the country to assess its score and make recommendations for improvements: a mark was given to each slaughterhouse to serve as a benchmark against future progress.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The final outcome was a comprehensive assessment of the state of hygiene that had been found and a long list of recommendations for future action. The report in its final form was always intended as an internal working document, to be used by the enforcement authorities, so it was not formally published. However, it was presented to the Meat Industry Forum&amp;#x2014;the leading representatives of meat industry organisations, with whom the Meat Hygiene Service holds regular discussions&amp;#x2014;and was the subject of frequent discussions with the industry and others. The fact of the review was also explicitly referred to on page 18 of the annual report on the Meat Hygiene Service&apos;s first year of operations, which was presented to Parliament on 17 July 1996, and placed in the Library of the House.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I will deal with some specific criticisms which have been made. Was the report turned down? The facts are as follows. Hygiene assessment teams of MHS staff prepared reports on individual plants. An editorial board, chaired by the MHS head of operations, and made up of professional staff who had all been part of advisory teams, asked Mr. Swann to compile a report on red meat.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Mr. Swann&apos;s first draft was regarded as rather unsatisfactory and not fully reflecting the views of others who had taken part in the review. Mr. Swann was asked to recast his contribution, but was not willing to do so. The editorial board then asked another senior member of&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1024&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Staff to redraft the section on red meat. The revised and condensed version covering both red meat and poultry was put to the industry representatives last year. The final report reflected the majority judgment of the professional veterinary staff who carried out the review.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is said that important recommendations were not acted on, but that is untrue. Individual reports were made on specific plants and were discussed with individual operators.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Meat Hygiene Service staff are present in every slaughterhouse. In their continuing discussions, they are in a position to ensure that necessary improvements are carried out. All their work is carried out under the over-arching supervision of the State Veterinary Service.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;One specific point of concern is in relation to E. colinamely that cattle should not be delivered to slaughterhouses in a dirty condition. It is quite clear that concerted action is needed by the enforcement authorities, by slaughterhouse management and by farmers, to ensure that cattle are presented for slaughter in the cleanest possible condition. The MHS has taken action. For example, ante-mortem checks are carried out on all cattle and are being tightened up. Further action is in hand. The MHS is preparing clear visual operational guidance on the standards expected and how to achieve them. It will be issued this month.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our purpose in creating the MHS&amp;#x2014;a policy that was bitterly opposed by Opposition parties&amp;#x2014;was to drive up standards within abattoirs and the slaughtering industry. The preparation of the report and its follow-up is part of that process. Standards are constantly improving, and they are substantially better now than they were when the service was provided, to varying standards, by more than 300 local authorities. That is a tribute to the MHS, and to the Government for insisting on its creation.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Gavin Strang: Does the Minister accept that, for many years, we have realised how vital it is to have high standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses, and that, following the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, it was even more important to achieve those standards because of a possible link with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Does the Minister agree that the report produces alarming evidence showing just how badly the Government enforced the controls in our abattoirs to keep BSE, E. coli and other diseases out of our food? Spinal cords were not being removed, bovine specified offal bins were unmarked, and there was a major problem of faecal contamination, which could infect carcases with E. coli, salmonella and other organisms. The report also draws attention to important worries about animal welfare.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Can the Minister confirm that the report is thorough and substantial, and, indeed, that it cost some &amp;#x00A3;1 million to produce? Can he confirm that it makes 81 major recommendations on abattoir practices? Can he confirm that all those recommendations are now being implemented? Can he assure us that the problems identified by the hygiene advice teams are being addressed? Does he agree with the report about the need for a proper national strategy in relation to contamination in abattoirs? When will that strategy be implemented?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;May I point out to the Minister that this final report is dated December 1995? He needs no reminding that it was in March 1996&amp;#x2014;March last year&amp;#x2014;that Ministers were&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0520"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1025&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;advised of the probability that the new variant of CJD was linked with BSE. Surely, against that background, we had a right to expect that Ministers were leaving no stone unturned to ensure that the highest standards were being implemented in our abattoirs. Surely Ministers had a responsibility to examine the situation assiduously, to ensure that all the regulations were being properly enforced&amp;#x2014;and it should be remembered that the BSE regulations were introduced as long ago as 1989.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;If Ministers were carrying out that proper examination, how could they be unaware of this major report? It is not a routine report; it is not a casual document containing a few minor criticisms. It is a devastating critique of practices in our abattoirs. How was it that Professor Pennington, who has been conducting the inquiry into the tragic outbreak of E. coli in central Scotland, was unaware of the report? Why was it never shown to him? How was it that Richard Cawthorne, a United Kingdom abattoir monitor and owner, and president of the European Meat Association&amp;#x2014;he was on the radio this morning&amp;#x2014;did not see the report?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We are advised that the report was due for publication in March 1996, but it was never made public. It really is not good enough for the Minister to say in his statement that there was a reference to this major report, which was completed in March 1995, in a document that came from the Meat Hygiene Service to the House of Commons, and was placed in the Library just as the House rose for the summer recess. He has not answered the question&amp;#x2014;and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not answered the question&amp;#x2014;why on earth was the report not made public and put in the public domain? How can we be confident that Ministers are acting on these matters if they do not make such reports public?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Why cannot the Government understand that, on food safety matters, we have to be open and up front on everything? Is this matter not further evidence of the need for an independent food standards agency, with food safety as its No. 1 priority? Secrecy only undermines consumer confidence in the safety of our food. Yet again, another episode is leading the public to lose even more confidence in the Government on the subject of the safety of our food.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman did not make the slightest effort to listen to what I said. I shall deal with his general points first, and then his particular points. He said that it is vital that we have proper controls in abattoirs. I entirely agree, and that is why we introduced the Meat Hygiene Service. It is true that, when practices were controlled by local authorities, they were not as good as we would wish. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman voted against the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service, because it is the instrument for a national approach to the problems.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On many occasions, the hon. Gentleman referred to the document prepared by Mr. Swann in December 1995 as the final document. It was not a final report: it was not a report at all. It was a first draft requested by the editorial board, which comprised people who were all&amp;#x2014;I think&amp;#x2014;engaged in the assessment that was being carried out.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;When the first draft was presented to the editorial board, the members&amp;#x2014;the professional peers of Mr. Swann&amp;#x2014;decided that the report was not satisfactory, for the reasons that they advanced, because they had&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1026&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;carried out the assessment. They asked him to redraft it. He decided not to do so. I do not blame him, and I am not trying to be critical of any individuals. His peers asked him to revise it, and they thought it needed changing because it was not satisfactory. That he declined to do.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The editorial board then asked another expert, who had already prepared one of the chapters, to do the chapter on red meat. The chapter on red meat represented the considered view of the majority of the veterinary experts engaged in the assessment. That report was extensively circulated around the members of the industry to whom the matter was relevant, because they sat on the Meat Industry Forum. They had copies of the report, and discussed it on many occasions. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary discussed it and related matters on 22 occasions in 14 months.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), if he had wanted to, could have asked for a copy of the report, because it was explicitly referred to on page 18 of the annual report, which he clearly has not read. Before he speaks again on such issues, I suggest that he seriously considers what is said in advance, especially given that he had a copy of my statement in advance.&lt;br/&gt;Sir John Cope: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that all the criticisms of hygiene and practices in abattoirs disclosed in the report are, in so far as they are the responsibility of regulators, the responsibility of local authorities, which were the regulators until shortly before the report was compiled? The creation of the Meat Hygiene Service brought the practices under the purview of the national Government, and enabled all the recommendations that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned to be put into practice to improve the abattoirs, compared to their standards when they were run by the local authorities.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is wholly right about that. There is no doubt that the control of abattoirs and slaughterhouses, when it was conducted by local authorities, was not as uniform in its application as one would have wished. The desire for national, uniform standards was the reason why the Government introduced the Meat Hygiene Service, which was wrongly opposed by the Opposition parties. The final condensed report that was given to the industry was part of the process whereby the Meat Hygiene Service assessed the nature of the problem with a view to driving up standards. That is exactly what is happening. That is a positive tribute to the Meat Hygiene Service and to the Government who set it up, and a positive condemnation of those who opposed its setting up.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Paul Tyler: First, I sincerely commiserate with the Minister on his injury. Would he like to take this opportunity to dispel the wicked media rumour that he shot himself in the foot?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Does the Minister agree that the central issue is not whether the report was published in full, but whether its trenchant recommendations have been implemented in full? May I refer him to the particular replies given by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago? He said that the recommendations were drawn to the attention of all those who had an "operational need" to be aware of them. He then went on to say that they were drawn to the attention of all those who "needed to take action".&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0521"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1027&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Why, in those circumstances, did Professor Pennington tell us this morning in terms that he was not aware of the report or its recommendations, and that he had no knowledge that there were any recommendations at all which were relevant to his inquiry into the E. coli outbreak?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: Professor Pennington has indeed said that he himself did not see the final report. It is, however, clear from our inquiries that the group was aware of the exercise being undertaken by the Meat Hygiene Service.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;With regard to the implementation of the recommendations, a number of activities have gone on in parallel. Perhaps the most important is that, when the meat hygiene advice teams visited each plant, they prepared a plant report which was additional to and different from the other documentation that we have been discussing. Each plant report was discussed, where discussion was necessary, with the plant operators, so it formed the basis of an operation plan within that particular plant. A copy was also sent to the regional managers of the Meat Hygiene Service. Therefore, specific plants were dealt with on a plant-by-plant basis as a result of the assessment.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;More general lessons were also learned, and discussed with the industry through the forum, which had the final report in front of it and discussed it on many occasions. Hon. Members have been asking for a national policy to ensure that clean livestock enters abattoirs. That is why we set up the Meat Hygiene Service. It has insisted on that policy through its in-plant controls. This general document, which will be attached to the operators&apos; manual, will be published shortly, and will add to the documentation available.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Has my right hon. and learned Friend thought about the policy of transporting animals substantial distances to the larger abattoirs, which means that they often arrive much dirtier than when they went to the little local abattoir, when the farmer had already hosed them down? Will he consider the policy of closing all our small abattoirs, because at least outbreaks there do not travel over such a wide geographical area?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend, because part of the policy of driving up standards in this area has been to ensure that abattoirs and slaughterhouses comply with the rules, and a number of those to which my hon. Friend refers did not comply with the rules, and that is why they were closed down. They did not provide the kind of standards that the Meat Hygiene Service wished to see in our abattoirs and slaughterhouses.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Minister understand that there is a difference between Professor Pennington&apos;s team knowing that the work was going on&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Hon. Members: Sit down.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister has my permission to stand at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1028&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;will not be kept there too long, and that questions will be short and to the point. I know that he will give short answers.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there is a difference between Professor Pennington&apos;s team knowing that the work was going on, and his being sent a copy of the final report and recommendations? Is he further aware that Dr. Ahmed, the consultant in public health medicine in charge of the outbreak control team dealing with the E. coli outbreak in my constituency, has widely been giving the advice that it must be assumed that 20 per cent. of the fresh beef sold in Scotland today is contaminated with E. coli? What action has been taken on the report?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: It is for the chairman of any inquiry or review team to determine the evidence that the team wants to receive. It is for him to determine the lines of inquiry that he wishes to pursue. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has always been ready to provide any information, evidence or material to the group. Indeed, I think that a specific offer was made by the veterinary service. Moreover, a member of the ownership group of the Meat Hygiene Service is on the Pennington group, so it is clear that the group was perfectly well aware of what was going on&amp;#x2014;the report and the fact of the review. It is for Professor Pennington to call for material that he deems relevant to his inquiry, and we would be happy to respond.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Greenway: Is not the issue at stake the following: it is extremely unlikely that, had we not created the Meat Hygiene Service, a report of that nature could ever have been prepared, because there was no mechanism at a national level for local authority-supervised abattoirs to be required to carry out such hygiene checks? As for independence, can the Minister assure me that all meat hygiene inspectors are qualified veterinary surgeons, and are being properly briefed on what needs to be done to ensure that there is no outbreak of E. coli in any of our local abattoirs, where none has taken place thus far?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made a serious point. When the controls were administered by 300 local authorities, before the creation of the Meat Hygiene Service, it was not possible to have an overview of what was happening in slaughterhouses&amp;#x2014;and, a fortiori, it was not possible to have a national policy to improve them. The setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service has enabled us to know precisely what is going on throughout the country, and through that knowledge, and through the existence of the agency, which was opposed by the Opposition, to drive up standards. That is a very serious improvement, attributable to the Meat Hygiene Service and to Government policy.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Garrett: Given the increase in E. coli infection foreshadowed by the report, why did the Minister subsequently cut by &amp;#x00A3;2 million the funding for food safety research being carried out by the food research institute in Norwich, which specialised in examining the causes and effects of E. coli poisoning?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: We always have to judge at any one time what are the chief priorities for scientific research. As a matter of policy, we have substantially increased&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0522"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1029&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the spending on research into BSE, in accordance with the wishes expressed in the House and with the peer assessment by those who know. I think that that was widely welcomed in this country.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I took part in a Wednesday morning Adjournment debate on the Meat Hygiene Service initiated by an Opposition Member? The hon. Gentleman and I reflected the concern and unhappiness felt by many within the meat industry about the cost and the bureaucracy of the Meat Hygiene Service. Is it not odd, therefore, that the Opposition now seek to take what I regard as irresponsible advantage of the situation, in a manner that does no good to the consumer or to the industry?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In fact, perhaps even against my wishes, the Meat Hygiene Service, which has been responsible for revealing the problem, was set up against the wishes of the Opposition. Should we not make that obvious to the people of this country?&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that, after that, questions will be short and to the point. They are much too long; they are comments and speeches, not questions. We must move on. We have another statement after this.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: Few hon. Members are more powerful than my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). He is right to say that the Labour party opposed the instrument by which the facts are being known and the improvements carried out. That is an absurd position for the Labour party.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that Professor Hugh Pennington is not just an eminent scientist, but a truthful and mild-mannered man? He told me this morning that he had no knowledge of the report, had not seen it and was extremely angry about it. Does the Minister not think that the House should believe him? Does he not find it incredible, against the background of 20 fatalities in Scotland, that no civil servant from MAFF or the Scottish Office thought to provide the report to Hugh Pennington? Is that not a comment on the atmosphere of secrecy over which the Government and all ministerial teams preside?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: That is nonsense. Of course Professor Pennington is a man of the utmost distinction. If he says that he has not seen the report, I am not saying he has. However, people in his group knew of the existence of the review. It would have been passing strange if they did not, because it is referred to in the annual report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Page 18. I am glad that hon. Members have got it. They will find an explicit reference to the review on page 18, paragraph 4.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tony Banks: It does not say what it said.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: It was open to the hon. Gentleman to ask for a copy of the review. He did not read it at the time, and he is now kicking himself.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is fatuous&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1030&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;to suggest that any Minister can read every report produced by his Ministry, let alone every report produced by every agency under the aegis of his Ministry? It may be that some of his officials should have drawn his attention to the report or to passages in it, but if he was left in ignorance, it was hardly his fault, was it?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: Reference has been made to a report prepared by Mr. Swann. No report was prepared by Mr. Swann. He prepared a first draft, which his professional peers&amp;#x2014;and nobody else&amp;#x2014;found unsatisfactory. They wanted him to change it because it did not reflect their views, although they had helped to carry out the assessment. He decided not to do that. Consequently, another report was prepared&amp;#x2014;shorter and simpler to read&amp;#x2014;which was widely circulated in the industry. It is referred to explicitly as "the review" on page 18, paragraph 4.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Alan Williams: I accept that the Minister may not have seen the report, but is he seriously suggesting to the House that, when he and his fellow Ministers came to the House to answer questions and make statements about E. coli, there was nothing in their background briefing on the contents of the report? If there was nothing, should not his civil servants be sacked? If there was, and he failed to tell the House, should not he be sacked?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: There is a serious misunderstanding here. The Government have known for a long time about the problem of, for example, faecal contamination of carcases in abattoirs. That was expressly referred to in the other place by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howe, when talking about poultrymeat and other regulations. The problem has existed for some time. It is one reason why the Meat Hygiene Service was set up.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We have discussed the recommendations to carry on the various works. I have had discussions with the Meat Hygiene Service, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has had discussions with the industry on many occasions.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have a view about why the earlier, and it seems unsatisfactory, draft of the report, which appears to have been lurking around since the end of 1995, should have been given to the press in March 1997? Does he agree that people involved in farming and the meat industry will not easily forgive those who, for purely political reasons, seek to generate a fraudulent panic about the safety of British meat?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I suspect that many farmers and others will agree with my hon. Friend. What is absolutely certain&amp;#x2014;this is the crucial point&amp;#x2014;is that there was full discussion of the report, which was the majority view of the professionals who carried out the assessment.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;That full report&amp;#x2014;28 pages of it&amp;#x2014;was put before the industry forum, which includes the National Farmers Union and others and all those in the meat industry. They had copies of it, and it was discussed. The carrying out of the review is referred to in the annual report, which was laid before the House and which has been placed in the Library of the House. Any hon. Member who wanted a copy of the document had only to ask, and we would have been pleased to send one to them.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tony Banks: On the radio this morning, the Parliamentary Secretary said that she had not seen a copy of the report, and that it had not been drawn to her attention. With the benefit of hindsight, to which the Minister referred earlier, does he accept that it would have been better if the report had been drawn to the attention of Ministers?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: It is for Ministers to lay down policy. The implementation of the policy is the responsibility of the agency. In this case, the agency was doing three things: first, it established the benchmarks by which one can identify progress in the future; secondly, because it was taking over responsibility for functions previously held by local authorities, it determined the allocation of staff, both regionally and plant by plant; and thirdly, it wanted to use the process as the mechanism for driving up standards. All those things come into the category of implementing policy.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I have the highest confidence in the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service. He knows his function, which is to tackle this sort of problem. He will keep Ministers informed about the detailed implementation to the extent that he deems necessary, but he is primarily responsible for the implementation of the policy, and I have every confidence in him.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my disappointment at the way in which the matter has been reported, particularly on television programmes today? The sight of filthy animals going into abattoirs caused me to telephone Southern Counties and Romford Meats to ask what it would do if it was presented with animals in that condition. I was told, unequivocally, that any such animals would be sent straight back to where they came from.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: That is absolutely right. If one looks at the report, which was circulated among the industry and was the subject of discussion within the industry, one can see that great weight is placed upon the ante-mortem inspections. It is made plain in that document that, if cattle are presented in a filthy state, they will be rejected. It is important for everybody in the industry to understand that, if cattle turn up at an abattoir in the state to which some people have referred, they will be sent straight back to where they came from.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harry Barnes: On several occasions, the Minister has mentioned page 18, paragraph 4 of the Meat Hygiene Service report. Will he confirm that that survey makes no reference to the report under discussion&amp;#x2014;either the draft report or the subsequent report&amp;#x2014;and talks merely about a "national review" taking place? That review could presumably have led to a report later. If that is to be interpreted as a report, why are Opposition Members guilty of not having read the report, when Ministers are held to be innocent for not having seen it or had it presented to them?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not done me justice. I said in the statement that the fact&amp;#x2014;only the fact&amp;#x2014;of the review was explicitly referred to on page 18 of the annual report.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tony Banks: We have all got it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I am glad that everyone has it. The hon. Gentleman should read it. In case he cannot understand it, I shall read some of it for him. Paragraph 4 on page 18 says:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"MHS Hygiene Advice Teams (HATs) involved two-person teams of experienced OVSs and MHIs who, during 1995/96, assessed, through individual plant audits&amp;#x2014;"&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;the point that I made to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)&amp;#x2014;&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"standards and inspection processes at all licensed premises throughout Great Britain. This national review provided the first comprehensive benchmarking of standards and practices within the fresh meat industry"&amp;#x2014;&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;and it goes on. I have never heard of a review that does not generate a document.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harry Greenway: Have there been any prosecutions as a result of the report? I believe that there have. If so, is that not evidence of its great value in driving up standards as my right hon. and learned Friend said, and would not reports of such prosecutions have provided an opportunity for the Opposition and anyone else to pick up information about the report? Should not Professor Pennington have done that also?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The report and the process have indeed driven up standards; that is plain from the report that was discussed by the industry forum. I do not know the number of prosecutions offhand, so I shall write to my hon. Friend. I can tell him, however, that I have told the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service that, if the facts justify it, he must not hesitate to prosecute.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister tell us clearly when he read the annual report of the Meat Hygiene Service, a copy of which was placed in the Library before the last summer vacation? Why, when he read it, did he not call for a copy of that damning report? He cannot have it both ways: he cannot argue that Opposition Members should have asked for the report when he himself never asked for it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I have already made the position plain. Ministers are responsible for policy. In this class of case, the implementation of policy is the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service. I am absolutely confident in the quality of that service and in the competence of its chief executive. I am happy to leave to him the responsibility for implementation, which is a role imposed on him by Parliament.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some people in the west midlands and Staffordshire&amp;#x2014;the owners of abattoirs that have had to close or have had to have a great deal of money spent on them to bring them up to the standards required by the Meat Hygiene Service&amp;#x2014;will be pretty sick of this debate? They will know that Her Majesty&apos;s inspectors went in and made such closures as&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0524"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1033&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;a result of that review. Is it not further the case that, if it had been left to the Labour party, there would have been no Meat Hygiene Service and no review?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is true that, if it had been left to the Labour party, we would have had no Meat Hygiene Service, no report, no review, no discussion, and standards would not have been driven up. It is also true&amp;#x2014;there is a certain irony here&amp;#x2014;that most of the complaints that I have received are not about low standards and so forth, but about closing small abattoirs because of the higher standards. The plain truth is that we are driving standards up, and, as a consequence, some small abattoirs have been closed.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gordon Prentice: The charge, surely, is that the annual report of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was published in June last year, gave no warning&amp;#x2014;least of all to people who, like me, are interested in the matter&amp;#x2014;that there was anything so bad in our slaughterhouses. I have read the Swann report, and it makes chilling reading. The Minister said that the purpose of the report was to establish benchmarks in the slaughterhouse industry. How many slaughterhouses were not up to standard in December 1995, and how many in March 1996, when the BSE crisis broke? He should have the figures at his fingertips.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The review process had three purposes: first, to establish benchmarking and to take an overview of the state of the industry, which had previously been in the hands of the local authorities; secondly, to determine the allocation of resources; and thirdly, to drive up standards, both nationally through national practices, and on a plant basis, by on-plant discussion with the plant operator, based on the plant report. There is no doubt that the effect of that process has been greatly to improve standards.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;If the Labour party had had its way, this business would still be in the hands of the local authorities; we would not be having this discussion; standards would be as they were when they were in the control of local authorities; and we would all be much worse off.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Richard Alexander: Is it not regrettable that some people are willing to use food scares to embarrass the Government, and, in doing so, unnecessarily alarm members of the public? Was there not a typical example of that this afternoon, when the Leader of the Opposition stirred it for all he was worth but did not even stay to hear the facts from my right hon. and learned Friend?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The Leader of the Opposition asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister three questions on the report and then walked out, even though he knew that a statement was coming. If he was seriously interested in the matter, and not merely trying to make cheap political capital, he would have listened to the facts. He did not, and the country will judge him accordingly.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I tell the Minister that the Leader of the Opposition is one of the few Members who has read the whole report? The Minister has all his Ministers with him. Did any Minister&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1034&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;or civil servant issue an instruction. write a letter or send a memo to anyone suggesting that this report be given only limited circulation because of the danger of it generating concern among the British public?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I had hoped that, by explaining the process, I would have answered questions such as this. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Mr. Swann carried out, along with others, assessments of abattoirs. He was asked by the editorial board, which comprised his peers, to produce a first report. That editorial board found, in its professional judgment, that the draft report was unsatisfactory. It asked him to make changes; he declined. At that point, it commissioned another expert, who was also involved in the assessment&amp;#x2014;he had done the poultry section&amp;#x2014;to do the red meat section, and that he did. The report that emerged and that was subsequently circulated to the industry represents the majority view of the veterinary experts who carried out the review, and no other.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a troubling constituency question? West Lothian council and I endlessly, over three years, wrote to and met Scottish Office officials about the outbreak at Redhouse dairy in Blackburn in my constituency, which was the first E. coli 0157 outbreak in recent times. Are we to understand that neither the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), nor the Earl of Lindsay, the Minister responsible for agriculture, nor the Secretary of State for Scotland was alerted to the report?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) asked, very properly, about the figure of &amp;#x00A3;1 million, the Parliamentary Secretary shook her head. What were the costs of the report, and why was it not brought to the attention of Scottish Office Ministers, who were faced on a day-to-day basis with the entreaties of West Lothian council and others who were affected?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: The cost, speaking off the cuff, was not &amp;#x00A3;1 million. I think that it was &amp;#x00A3;454,000, but if I am wrong, I apologise, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. On the report&apos;s availability, the final report&amp;#x2014;the one that was circulated to the industry&amp;#x2014;was made available to all concerned, including the Scottish Office.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Andrew Miller: Am I right in saying that, when the Minister placed the document to which he referred in the House of Commons Library, he assumed that there was another document associated with it? Is he telling the House that that is what the paragraph to which he referred means? Does he ever ask for such documents to be brought to his attention, or has he published a paragraph in that report which he did not understand? Is that not an indictment of him?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I have never said that a copy of the final report was laid in the Library. What was laid in the Library was the annual report, which states in terms in paragraph 4 on page 18 that a review was carried out. As anyone who knows anything about government knows full well, a review generates a report. If anyone wanted the report, he had only to get on the telephone and ask for it. I would have sent him a lordly number.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Paul Flynn: Have we not seen today a deplorable exhibition of casuistry by the Minister,&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0525"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1035&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;who admits that he has received a report in his Department which cost half a million pounds and made the most serious complaints about the state of the meat hygiene industry? He was unaware of the seriousness of the report, and neither he nor his Ministers asked to see the report. Is that not a confession of incompetence?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Does the Minister not think that the country is getting fed up with the weekly promulgation by members of the Government of their doctrine of ministerial infallibility? Why is it that everything that goes wrong is the result of the work of officials, and everything that goes right is the result of the work of Ministers?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: Just occasionally, Opposition Members should try to get their minds around the simplest of propositions. Just to encourage them, I will repeat it. Policy is a matter for Ministers. As this is a particular case, the implementation of policy is a matter for the agency. I have total confidence in the chief executive. He has put in hand a process which has informed the industry what needs to happen and is driving up standards. Had the matter been left as the Labour party wanted it, there would have been no improvement of any kind.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Ann Winterton: Most consumers will have welcomed the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service and its drive for higher standards, and will have noted that its inception was opposed by the main Opposition party. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me and all other United Kingdom consumers that meat and meat products that are imported into Britain are slaughtered and transported to the same high standards that apply in this country?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hogg: I have always said, because I believed it, that British beef, as now is, is the best and safest in Europe. The reason for that is the rules we put into place, such as the 30-month rule, controls on cattle rations and controls in abattoirs. I want to see, and I am pressing for, similar regimes in Europe. Until the Europeans have put those things in place, I shall continue saying and believing that British beef is the best and safest in the Community.' title='Meat Hygiene Service (Report)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/06/meat-hygiene-service-report'></outline>
    <outline id='3119837' text='4.23 pm&lt;br/&gt;The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;MONDAY 10 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Opposition Day [7th allotted day] (first part). Until 7 pm, there will be a debate entitled "Public Responsibility for Social and Economic Justice" on a motion in the names of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;TUESDAY 11 MARcH&amp;#x2014;Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;WEDNESDAY 12 MARcH&amp;#x2014;Until 12.30 pm, debate on the first report from the Scottish Affairs Committee on the removal of tariff rebate subsidy on Northern Isles Freight, followed by a debate on the first report from the Select Committee on Agriculture on the United Kingdom dairy industry and the common agricultural policy dairy regime. That will be followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In the afternoon, there will debates on motions on the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations, the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations, the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order, the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations and the European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations. Those are the regulations about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked me last week.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding excess votes, the spring supplementary estimates, and the defence votes A.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;THURSDAY 13 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Debate on future pensions policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;FRIDAY 14 MARCH&amp;#x2014;The House will not be sitting.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Once again, I am able to give the House only limited information about business for the following week.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;MONDAY 17 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Committee and remaining stages of the Building Societies Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Remaining stages of the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 19 March, there will be a debate on structural funds and cohesion policy in European Standing Committee B.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Details of the relevant documents will be given in the &lt;i&gt;Official Report.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;i&gt;[Wednesday 19 March&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;i&gt;European Standing Committee B&amp;#x2014;Relevant European Community documents: 11382/96, Structural Funds; 12614/96, Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 36-xi (1996&amp;#x2013;97).]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for the limited information that he has, once again, been able to give us. He will recall that, last week, he told the House that the Easter recess would be&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"in the vicinity of Easter."&amp;#x2014;[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 452.]&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Does that mean that there will be an Easter recess? If so, surely the sooner the dates are announced, the better. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges can meet during any recess?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Last week, the Leader of the House promised to draw to the attention of colleagues our request for a debate, before its privatisation, on the future of the Building Research Establishment. In view of the alarming facts that have been unearthed by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) about that privatisation and the contradictions contained in answers to parliamentary questions on the matter, surely we should have such a debate before the contracts are signed.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Leader of the House has announced that next week the House will debate amendments to the regulations that govern elections. Have the Government considered improving the arrangements in polling stations, to reduce the number of spoilt ballot papers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the general election was held on the same day as local elections, the number of spoilt papers for general election candidates rose threefold, mainly because electors voted for more than one candidate, as they are sometimes entitled to do in local elections? As we know that local elections will be held on 1 May, including those for the new unitary authorities, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the possibility of an unusually high number of spoilt ballot papers, should the general election fall on the same day?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Finally, may I thank the Leader of the House for arranging the debate on pensions, to be held on Thursday of next week, as I had intended to ask him once again whether we could have such a debate? May we hope that the Secretary of State for Social Security will confirm during that debate that the Government&apos;s proposals on pensions will mean the abolition of the basic state pension and the abolition of the state earnings-related pension scheme&amp;#x2014;SERPS&amp;#x2014;and that the Government intend to spend billions of pounds of taxpayers&apos; money on privatising the pensions of millions of people? We welcome the debate, because it will be an opportunity to warn the young and the old alike that one cannot trust the Tories on pensions.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: On the Easter recess, I thought that my statement last week was admirably clear, and I am certainly not in a position further to clarify it this afternoon. On the Standards and Privileges Committee, the hon. Lady knows the answer to her question, as we were together responsible for the regime under which it operates: it can, of course, meet during a recess.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On the question of the future of the Building Research Establishment and the associated points that the hon. Lady made, she will not be surprised to learn that I am not in a position to promise a debate, but I shall ensure that her comments are examined by my right hon. Friends in the relevant field. On the matter of spoilt ballot papers, I am not in a position to confirm whether the general election&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1038&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;and the local elections will coincide, but I am sure that, were they to do so, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office who are responsible for electoral matters would consider her remarks with care.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Lastly, on pensions, to be perfectly honest I am slightly surprised that the Opposition were thinking of asking for a debate on pensions, because it is increasingly clear that they have no policy of their own on pensions. It is also clear that they do not understand our policy and therefore mis-state what that policy is.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Roger Sims: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the correspondence between us on the topic of the report of the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse, of which I was a member? Given the importance of that issue and current public interest in it, may I ask my right hon. Friend to find a slot between now and the end of this Parliament, to give the House an opportunity to debate the report and its recommendations?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I greatly respect the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in those matters over many years. As he has referred to the letter that he wrote to me, he will recall that I have indicated to him informally that I thought that a Wednesday morning application might be the best way. I ought to admit that I have some slight reservations about whether this is an appropriate time for such a debate, while there is such a large and important inquiry into such matters going on in Wales. It may be that when that report appears&amp;#x2014;it certainly will not be in this Parliament&amp;#x2014;would be a more appropriate time for a debate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Simon Hughes: If I was right to think that the House might sit until Maundy Thursday and that we might come back for two days on 7 and 8 April to fit in for a 1 May election, would the Leader of the House consider whether we might use that time to the full and pick up the debates that we normally have before the end of the Session, but which we have not yet had? Those debates are: foreign affairs, especially with Hong Kong issues on people&apos;s minds; Northern Ireland, in the light of the ending of the talks yesterday; women&apos;s issues, which we had last year; and London, which we are promised every year.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: All I can say is that, were the hon. Gentleman&apos;s speculation to become reality, I would consider his and other suggestions.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Ivan Lawrence: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the disgraceful way in which two members of the Labour party tried to destroy the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill, which was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). In view of the fact that the House has been rising early recently and given that it will doubtless continue to do so on some evenings in the future, will he consider the possibility of the Government taking over the Bill, which the Government have backed and which would have the overwhelming support of anybody in this country who wants to stop Britain becoming a haven for the most serious international criminals?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: Of course, I understand my hon. and learned Friend&apos;s point and I note his suggestion; but he&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0527"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1039&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;will be aware that it has been settled policy, not only in my time, but over the past nearly 18 years, that the Government&amp;#x2014;however strongly they approve of proposals in private Members&apos; Bills&amp;#x2014;have hesitated, to put it mildly, before picking and choosing about providing Government time for one Bill rather than another.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House accept that, if the Government did change their mind and bring forward that Bill and give it time, they would be giving time to the Government&apos;s own Bill, which they handed to a Back Bencher to promote on a Friday? Will he bear it in mind that, if they did that, it would give some of us a chance to explain that we were not against the provisions on drugs or certain other aspects of the Bill, but against the part of the Bill that deals with freedom fighters and that would land them in gaol at the whim of the Attorney-General? If that part of the Bill were taken out, he could have a guarantee from me and other Labour Members that we would give the Bill a clear run.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Government could not find more than 20 Members last Friday. Within hours of that wonderful Wirral by-election success for Labour, the dispirited forces on the Conservative Benches were apparent to all and, at twenty minutes to 10, this lousy, rotten Government did not even have more than 20 people to carry their legislation through.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Why do not the Government resign?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has just delivered the speech that he would have delivered last Friday, had he not deprived himself of the opportunity to make a speech by the procedural device that was employed. I cannot say that I am happy to have done so, but I have listened&amp;#x2014;enthralled, as always&amp;#x2014;to what the hon. Gentleman has said.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Has my right hon. Friend seen the results of a recent MORI poll, commissioned by Zee television, an Asian network, which show that 62 per cent. of the Asian residents of this country who were polled by MORI held the view that the current immigration and asylum regulations were too lenient?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we owe it to the whole nation&amp;#x2014;including the Asian community, which has been so successful here&amp;#x2014;to have a proper debate and discussion about the Opposition&apos;s proposals fundamentally to relax the immigration rules, and especially the primary purpose rule? Do we not owe it to everyone to use the House to discuss something that is of real importance and concern?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that we regard the primary purpose rule as an essential safeguard to prevent abuse by people using marriage as a means of obtaining settlement in this country but, beyond that, I would want to emphasise, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did in responding to my hon. Friend on Tuesday, that our approach rests very much on pursuing calmly and&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1040&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;dispassionately, in as non-partisan a way as possible, the firm but fair immigration policies that underpin the improvement in race relations in this country.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would the Leader of the House like to come to the House next week with his colleagues from the Department of Transport to make a statement about the reasons for the marked lack of urgency in their approach to ferry safety? It will soon be Easter, which is usually regarded as the beginning of the holiday season, when many people will travel on ferries without being certain that safety standards are being maintained that would prevent a repetition of the appalling Zeebrugge accident. May we have some urgent action on that matter?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, who is expert in those matters, knows that a great deal of action has taken place; as it happens, regulations to introduce a higher survivability standard for roll on/roll off passenger ferries will come into force next month.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Julian Brazier: Following the earlier question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), may I urge my right hon. Friend to hold a debate on the workings of the new law that we sensibly introduced, to require employers to check that their employees have valid work permits or some other legal reason for working if they are not British citizens? I further urge on him that there is a very grave danger that, were that law to be repealed at the moment when the minimum wage was introduced, we could have what several of our continental partners have experienced&amp;#x2014;spiralling domestic unemployment on one hand and, on the other, an ugly growth of illegal and dangerous sweatshops, where illegal immigrants were exploited by unscrupulous employers wanting to undercut that wage rate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes several additional points and comparisons with what is happening elsewhere, but I cannot sensibly seek to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) a few moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tam Dalyell: Forgive me for intruding into a Front Benches&apos; china shop and, I suspect, a legal mire, but I raised with the Leader of the House a month ago the statements on television, so far unchallenged, of Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed who said, parading banknotes, that Members of Parliament could be hired like London taxis. Although I do not doubt the good faith of the Front-Bench negotiations and the legal difficulties, the House of Commons is in some difficulty. As we go into an election, people see that the statements from Mohammed Al-Fayed, which are deeply damaging to Parliament, are unchallenged. May we have an assurance that an attempt will be made to resolve the matter? The Standards and Privileges Committee can meet during the recess, but is unlikely to do so, for understandable reasons.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman referred to negotiations as if that was a usual channels matter between the two principal parties in the House, but it has nothing to do with that. The hon. Member for Dewsbury&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0528"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1041&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;(Mrs. Taylor) and I speak to each other, as we are both members of the Standards and Privileges Committee, but much of the material relevant to the hon. Gentleman&apos;s comments is currently under examination by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who will produce a report. I have no doubt that he is working as hard as he can.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On a related matter, the hon. Gentleman may not yet be aware of the fact that a substantial report by the Parliamentary Commissioner, also connected with suggestions made by Mr. Al-Fayed, in this case relating to the Home Secretary, was published one hour and 10 minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman might wish to look at it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend initiate an early debate on the terms of reference and competencies of the local government ombudsman? That would enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to judge the strong arguments in favour of strengthening the power of redress of the ombudsman against such malpractices as the advertisement&amp;#x2014;three months in advance of the public inquiry, let alone the granting of planning permission&amp;#x2014;of a tender worth &amp;#x00A3;3 million for the construction of social housing on a recreation ground on green chain land in my constituency.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that all I can say is that I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is drawn to what he said.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Janet Anderson: Is the Leader of the House aware that this Saturday, 8 March, is International Women&apos;s Day? May I remind him that it has become customary to have a debate in the House at this time of the year about matters of concern to women, and that last year that debate was held in Government time? Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have not been willing to allocate time this year, and will he reconsider, in view of the insulting remarks of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) about women?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady has added to the rather long list given to me earlier by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), of subjects that we seek to debate at more or less annual intervals. I shall bear in mind the subject that the hon. Lady wants us to debate in the near future, but she will understand that there are a number of other uncertainties.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Graham Riddick: May I back up the calls of my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for a debate on race relations in Britain, so that I can point out that the firm control of immigration over the past 18 years has contributed significantly to the vast improvement in race relations? For example, an Asian constituent of mine said to me only last week that his community has not had to put up with&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1042&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the violence and intimidation from skinheads over the past 18 years that was so prevalent in the 1970s, particularly when the previous Labour Government were in office.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I shall take note of my hon. Friend&apos;s suggestion, along with the similar suggestions made earlier by my two other hon. Friends.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Paul Flynn: As today is the 10th anniversary of the entirely predictable and avoidable deaths of 194 people on the Herald of Free Enterprise, how can the Leader of the House be happy that pretty basic new safety regulations will come into force in a month, 10 years and one month after that disaster?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Is it not horrific that the ferry industry is already trying to circumvent those regulations? Four ferries should have been subject to the new safety regulations this year, but two are to be sent down to the Mediterranean, where they will not be subject to the regulations, and the regulations will not apply to the other two ferries. Is it not a disgrace that the new safety regulations are being avoided? Sixty ferries&amp;#x2014;which is 60 per cent. of the ferries using British ports&amp;#x2014;will not have new safety features installed in them for five years, until October 2002. We urgently need a debate on those matters, as ferry transport is the only form of passenger transport in which, when a disaster occurs, the systems are not changed to failsafe, but are allowed to fail in the future as they have in the past, dangerously and lethally.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: Although I cannot promise a debate, I can point to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, have acknowledged that a wide range of measures has been introduced over the past 10 years to contribute to the improved safety of ferries. In his question he provided part of the answer: clearly, this is a matter in which, if possible, it is best to proceed internationally, which takes a good deal of time. The UK has been at the forefront of negotiations for improved standards. The Stockholm agreement on ferry safety is a major achievement, whose requirements go significantly beyond those applicable in the rest of the world.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hartley Booth: Having heard the &lt;sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;question of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims), and that of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) concerning a possible debate on women, will my right hon. Friend consider, as an alternative, a debate on children? Children are of enormous importance to everyone and the responsibility of virtually every Department. We frequently receive in our postbags complaints about the Government arising from lack of co-ordination in other areas, but the Government have a fine record on their policy on children. As an alternative to last year&apos;s debate on women, would it not be appropriate to have a full-scale Government debate on children?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I acknowledge, not least as a former Minister in that area, the importance of the subject that my hon. Friend has raised, but I am bound to say that with the list of requests for debate that I have received in&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0529"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1043&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the past 20 minutes, it is not just the Standards and Privileges Committee that would be sitting during any recess.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harry Barnes: On Wednesday, we are to debate regulations on the representation of the people. Would not that be a good opportunity to discuss the state of the electoral register in the run-up to the general election, and to see whether it is in as bad a state as it was last year and whether there are millions missing from the register? In preparation for the debate, will the Government publish the number of people who are on the electoral register?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Answers are being given in connection with Northern Ireland. In reply to a question on Scotland, I was given the wrong figures&amp;#x2014;last year&apos;s. I cannot get the figures for England and Wales until the end of March. I understand that there are five returning officers who have not yet submitted their figures. May we have provisional lists, and could those areas be contacted to find out the details?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I told the hon. Gentleman last week, to which he referred. I am sure that his remarks about the five returning officers will be examined by those responsible for producing the figures as soon as possible.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on the training of our national firefighters, so that I could draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 608, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;i&gt;[That this House notes the internal publication of a report on Health and Safety at the Fire Service College, Moreton in Marsh, Gloucestershire; further notes that the report was in response to recent accidents at the college; is concerned that the report made observations concerning risk to those at the college; agrees with the report that &apos;burning people, exhausting them or otherwise putting them at risk is not high on the objectives of the training programme&apos; at the college; is surprised that in his Answer of 20th January to the honourable Member for Montgomery, Official Report, column 430, concerning health and safety at the college, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, the honourable Member for Bolton West, made no reference to the report or the problems the report identifies and expressed himself satisfied with the health and safety situation at the college; and calls on the Government immediately to assess the needs of the Fire Service College so that full health and safety measures are implemented.&lt;/i&gt;]&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. and learned Gentleman scurrilously put on the record and quoted from an internal report that was produced for the Fire Service College in my constituency, without giving any warning to the college or to me as the constituency Member. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would allow me to bring to the attention of the House the outstanding qualities of the Fire Service College, which were recognised in an answer given to me today by the Home Secretary? The finances of the college have been radically overhauled, so it now faces a certain&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1044&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;future and can go out into the national and international market and sell itself on the excellence of the training that it provides.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend&apos;s question gives him an opportunity to make those points about the college. I share his surprise&amp;#x2014;I think that that is the appropriate word&amp;#x2014;that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) should have tabled such a motion without consulting the constituency Member or checking the facts with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary or the college.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate on the export of live animals for slaughter? In that respect, I draw the right hon. Gentleman&apos;s attention to early-day motion 615.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;i&gt;[That this House calls attention to the transportation of sheep from Dover on the MV &apos;Caroline&apos; on, or about, Friday 7th March; notes that the vessel is chartered by Live Sheep Traders of Dublin and operated by Mr. Roger Mills of Framlingham, Suffolk, who himself has a conviction for keeping animals in an unfit condition; further notes that the old cull ewes will be making a sea crossing of between 9 and 12 hours, subsequently to be moved via Holland or Belgium to the killing fields of Paris where they will be ritually slaughtered for the festival of Eid; believes the journey times, conditions of transportation and method of killing to be unacceptable to public opinion and contrary to EU law; and calls upon Her Majesty&apos;s Government to take immediate steps to prevent this barbarous trade from taking place.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that old cull ewes will be crammed on to MV Caroline and exported from Dover to France, where they will be taken to fields outside Paris and ritually slaughtered? Would he be interested in seeing the photographic evidence that I have of ewes giving birth while their throats are cut and they are bled over ditches? Is not that an obscene and disgusting trade? If we cannot debate the issue, will the right hon. Gentleman draw it to the attention of Ministers, to ensure that the trade does not continue?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I share his general view about the importance of animal welfare matters. Enforcement of the slaughter rules in Paris is clearly a matter for the French authorities, but I assure him that we are in touch with them about it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware that parents at eight out of nine secondary schools in Gravesham and at a further three schools in the borough have voted for those schools to become grant-maintained. May we have a debate next week on grant-maintained schools? I wish to express the growing concern of those parents that Labour would overrule their decision and claw back 15 per cent. of education funds from the schools, to the central bureaucracy of the local education authority.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend&apos;s best bet is probably the return to this place of the Education Bill from another place.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Gunnell: The Leader of the House may be aware that Imperial Metals&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0530"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;1045&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;is to close Yorkshire Alloys Ltd., which provides more than 400 jobs in my constituency and more than 200 jobs in Smethwick. Will he note the fact that the company exports to the tune of &amp;#x00A3;25 million a year, which would be a serious loss to the British economy, and is also an important contributor to defence sales in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Ministers are made aware of the situation so that, when I seek an opportunity to raise the matter again in the House, they will be able to provide some answers concerning the reaction of Government Departments&amp;#x2014;particularly that of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry&amp;#x2014;to that important occurrence?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I certainly take note of such matters myself. I have hastily scanned the rather large number of ministerial