................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 24.3.96
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. What can the Government
do to restore confidence in British beef - and save the industry? I'll be
talking to the Agriculture Minister after the news read by MOIRA STUART.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: And let me now turn to the Minister himself,
Douglas Hogg. Mr Hogg, the statement that you made in the House last Wednesday was intended
to restore the confidence of the public.
Now that clearly has not worked. What else are you prepared to do?
DOUGLAS HOGG MP: Well, I think the important thing is to
spell out the facts as we know them, and also to implement as thoroughly as
possible those recommendations that have been made to us by the experts, and
also of course we will explore any further policies that we think are desirable
and we will have to announce our conclusions on those.
HUMPHRYS : Well, you've done some of those things.
As you say confidence has not been restored - as I say we've now seen
McDonald's the biggest of the lot in terms of beef buying voting with their
wallets.
HOGG: Yes indeed, it is I'm afraid predictable
and entirely foreseeable that public confidence would take a very severe blow
as a result of this news, and I entirely understand that. What I think is very
important however to grasp is that so far as we can judge it, if there is
transmission between BSE and CJD, that is between cattle and humans, it
occurred before the offal ban was put into place at the end of the
nineteen-eighties, and that the risk now of eating beef is extremely small. I
say that you can eat British beef with confidence, which I hope explains how I
assess the risk.
HUMPHRYS: Nonetheless, you entirely understand
what McDonald's have done - you understand their decision?
HOGG: It's a commercial decision, and of
course I understand it as a commercial decision, but it's also important to
repeat what McDonald's also said, which was that in their judgement British
beef was safe, and that their decision was made for commercial reasons rather
than scientific ones.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, because they recognise that it is a
matter or perception isn't it - it is a matter of confidence. And they
believe, they believe that the British public does not have confidence in
British beef, otherwise they'd continue to sell it.
HOGG: That is correct, and I've already said
that public confidence in British beef has taken a very severe blow. That was
predictable, it is understandable, I think it is wrong, but that is a fact I
freely and willingly acknowledge.
HUMPHRYS: One of the reasons perhaps why the
confidence isn't there came out this morning. We learned this morning that the
new measures that you announced last week, and that you told us about this
morning have not yet been acted upon.
HOGG: They can't be because I have to proceed
according to statute, and the statutory requirements require a period of
consultation. I can only lay orders, that is actually the mandatory process
after there has been a period of consultation. If I tried to do otherwise I
should be struck down in the courts.
HUMPHRYS: How long a period of consultation are we
talking about here?
HOGG: We're talking about a few weeks.
HUMPHRYS: A few weeks?
HOGG: But that has to be the case because if I
don't do that I shall be struck down in the courts.
HUMPHRYS: What....
HOGG: Now, give me just a moment. However,
the more important part which relates to the, in this context, which relates to
the animal protein in the feed mills. The manufacturers are already acting
promptly on that because they know what is going to be done by law.
HUMPHRYS: So they've given you that guarantee have
they?
HOGG: Well, they have announced it themselves.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but you see you talk about the
manufacturers - let's talk about the slaughter houses. Now let me just make
this point, because people may not understand this.
HOGG: No, no, I think you're alarming people
unnecessarily.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I'm merely trying to present the
facts to them Mr. Hogg.
HOGG: Just a moment Mr Humphrys, just a
second. We have a second recommendation which requires de-boning in respect of
cattle over the age of thirty months. Now it takes time to get up a de-boning
plant, and that will take a little time. We have to proceed by consultation,
we have to proceed in accordance with law, and we're going to do that, but
we're going to move as fast as we can.
HUMPHRYS: It may well take time to introduce new
machinery and that sort of thing, but according to reports this morning, and I
quote from an Observer report: slaughter houses have been sent no official
notification of the new measures - none.
HOGG: We go out to consultation early this
week. Angela Browning and my colleagues have already been discussing with
representatives of the industry what has got to be done. The actual mechanics
of what has got to be done has got to be worked out in detail because it is
very far from easy, has got to be the subject of statutory consultation,
because otherwise we act unlawfully, and then will be the subject of the
necessary orders.
HUMPHRYS: And in the meantime, no ....
HOGG: Just a second. We will move as fast as
we can, because that is our duty.
HUMPHRYS: And in the meantime no interim advice
has been offered to these people?
HOGG: Forgive me, I think you are - you are
simply mishearing what I said.
HUMPHRYS: I'm hearing you perfectly clearly
minister.
HOGG: Mr Humphrys just a second please. I've
already in the House of Commons made absolutely plain what our position is. It
was announced to the entire country, including the industry. Directions have
already been sent as to the vigorous enforcement of the SBO controls through
the Meat Hygiene service. That was done on Wednesday. Representatives of the
industry have already been seen and talked to, and the consultation process -
the formal consultation process which is required by statute will start as soon
as conceivably possible.
HUMPHRYS: You have acknowledged that there is no
confidence out there at the moment, at least I believe that is what you said..
HOGG: Public confidence has been damaged yes.
HUMPHRYS: Quite so, that is why people are looking
for new measures from you isn't it, more than has already been announced.
HOGG: They certainly want to be reassured and
it is our business to do all that we properly can to do so.
HUMPHRYS: And a number of other measures have been
suggested by independent outside scientific experts, there is, for instance,
the European Veterinary Committee which says that we should slaughter all the
older cattle, you heard Gavin Strang there saying much the same, Professor
Southwood, the author of the original report in 1988 says the same, are you
actively considering that?
HOGG: We certainly will consider any proposals
that come to us from sources which have clearly given the matter considerable
consideration. A slaughter policy is not excluded, there are, of course, a
variety of models that you could follow. The Advisory Committee did not in
fact recommend a salughter policy but the Advisory Committee did in fact focus
on the problem which you've touched on already in the programme, mainly of the
older cow. By which, for these purposes, we mean the cow over the age of
thirty months. And, there they came up with the deboning policy. They could
as a matter of fact, have recommended that those other cows, those beasts
should not go into the human food chain.
They decided not to do that but,
clearly, that is a matter which we need to consider.
HUMPHRYS: So, should we assume that that is at the
top of your list of options - I take your point, if you haven't yet decided
upon it. But, can I take it that that is at the top of the options?
HOGG: I, certainly, am focussing on the
question of the older cow if I - that is the jargon, in a sense, for the beast
above thirty months. I think, that is the class of beef that we should look at
first.
HUMPHRYS: And, you would look at that option
first, rather than another option, which would be to slaughter all the animals
in herds that have been infected?
HOGG: That is another option but, I think,
that there are two points to make in preference of focussing ... in support of
focussing on the older beast and they are esssentially these. Firstly, there
have been very, very few cases of BSE confirmed in cattle under the age of
thirty-eight months. I believe that there have been eighty-four such cases. In
any event, it is believed that even if they were sub-clinical, at that stage,
below the age of thirty months, the infectivity would be extremely low.
But, secondly, and I think, perhaps,
even more important that the number of cases of cattle confirmed with BSE, born
after the offal ban has -is very, very limited. There was one case, I think,
in 1993 - and, I believe that there have been no cases since that time. So, by
focussing on thirty months, as Seac has done, they are actually focussing on
the core of the problem as I believe it to be.
HUMPHRYS: So, is your next action going to be
determined by Seac - that's to say, the advisory committee of scientists whom
you've appointed - and, if they say we - we, the scientists - do not believe
any further radical measures, such as the slaughtering policy should be
pursued, will you then say: ok, that's fine?
HOGG: I wouldn't put it like that.
Now, we've got, first of all, to
consider the advice that we do receive from Seac. I regard that as absolutely
critical importance. We, also, clearly, have to take into account, public
reactions. We, also, have to take into account the views of the standing
veterinary committee within the European Union. And, then, we have to form a
view. Now, within all that process the views of Seac are of very high
importance, indeed.
HUMPHRYS: Therefore, there will be severe economic
consequences, in all sorts of areas, but particularly as far as the farmers
themselves are concerned. Many of them are going to go bankrupt. What are you
going to do to help them?
HOGG: We're now talking about the general
problem, rather than about the thirty month cattle, are we?
HUMPHRYS: Well, whatever you do - whatever further
radical measures you adopt is going to carry with it profound economic
consequences.
HOGG: I think, that whatever we do is going to
have real, economic consequences. To start off with - as you have repeatedly
said - and, I agree with you - we are seeing a substantial blow to consumer
confidence. Now, that may or may not recover - I think, it will recover in
time - but there is a short term and maybe a medium term problem of a
considerable dimension. That brings into question how we try to support the
agriculture community.
HUMPHRYS: The farmers, particularly - obviously.
HOGG: Now, if you go into-if you're raising a
different question which goes to the question of slaughter policy, then, you
have a different problem because you've got the problem of the render of the
slaugherhouse people, people who've been relying on this source of meat for
this and that. And, of course, farmers themselves. So, there are a variety of
economic problems which will arise - all of them large.
HUMPHRYS: Let's deal first, though, with the
farmers themselves - and, let's assume that the price of beef continues to
freefall - is that beef, as far as you know, going to qualify for any sort of
European aid?
HOGG: I'm afraid you're just fading out, at
that point, on the line.
HUMPHRYS: I'm sorry. Does the beef, as far as you
know - assuming that the price of beef continues to freefall, does it qualify
for European aid? Might we get aid for Europe?
HOGG: Well, there are a number of mechanisms
within the European Union, which we can invoke. The most important and most
immediate relates to intervention - intervention by - and we would certainly
say that that policy did apply in a case such as this. There are, in fact, a
number of other policies that we can look to - and, in any event I shall be
looking to the European Union - for financial support should we require a great
deal of public expenditure.
HUMPHRYS: Even though we have already heard - as I
understand it - from the Commission that beef that's unfit to eat doesn't
qualify for that kind of intervention by-
HOGG: Well-
HUMPHRYS: -that sort of support.
HOGG: I think, you want to be very careful
about the definition. What we're actually talking about is not beef which is
unfit but beef for which there isn't public confidence, at the moment. That is
a wholly different thing. Because I accept that public confidence has been
grieviously - I'm not disputing that, for a moment - but I go back to the point
which I said a number of times, the risk of eating British beef is extremely
small.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
HOGG: That being so it is fit to eat but
people, at the moment, don't want to eat it-
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
HOGG: -which is a different point.
HUMPHRYS: It is, indeed, but as far as you're
concerned, Europe's gonna have to pay up - given the consequences that we
assume.
HOGG: I, certainly, look to our colleagues in
European Union, to provide very substantial assistance through the mechanisms
of the Common Agricultural Policy - yes, I do.
HUMPHRYS: And, what if they don't?
HOGG: Well, let's come to that one if it
happens. But, I should be very surprised if it did because this is precisely
the kind of situation in which I think one can properly look to one's
colleagues.
HUMPHRYS: We've used the word 'confidence' many
times in this conversation. You have a long term problem, as far as confidence
is concerned - in your Ministry, that is. And, let me suggest why. People
have lost confidence in the Ministry of Agriculture because of the way it has
behaved in the past.
HOGG: Now, I don't think that criticism would
be well-founded. I think, it's very important, looking at the events of the
last eight or nine years, not to interpret them with the benefit of hindsight.
They have to be judged against the best knowledge that existed, at the time.
And, I think, judged against that criteria, my predecessors and my Department
have done everything that we ought to have done fully and promptly. And, I've
read both the Select Committee Report and, indeed, the reports of the
scientific advisers and I have not identified any serious or significant
criticisms of what the Ministry has done - probably, the reverse.
HUMPHRYS: Well, let me suggest to you why you
don't need the benefit of hindsight to criticise the Ministry. In 1986, from
1986 to 1988, the Ministry refused to listen to warnings based on scientific
evidence that giving animals contaminated foodstuffs would lead to trouble.
You don't need hindsight to prove that.
HOGG: No, but we appointed, as soon as we'd
identified the gravity of the problem, Sir Richard Southwood was appointed.
He produced an early report and we then put into early implementation the
recommendations that he made.
HUMPHRYS: Well, let's deal with first of all
listening to the advice that was available to you during those years, '86 to
'88. You did not, not you personally, the Ministry did not listen to the
advice, and I base that - I'll just finish the point - I base that on what
Edwina Curry, who was the Minister for Health at that time, has said.
HOGG: Within any scientific community or
within the scientific community, you will get a range of opinions, and what
government has got to do is to try and identify the source of the advice which
it wishes to put in place and then, of course, make known its conclusions,
recommendations, and conclusions of that scientific body of opinion. Well,
that we did very early. It's perfectly true that throughout this eight or nine
years, there have been scientists who have been saying different things, but
the Government has tried to follow fully and promptly the advice in the first
place of Sir Richard Southwood, thereafter Professor Tyrell and now Professor
Patterson.
HUMPHRYS: But that isn't the point I'm making, and
that isn't the point that Edwina Curry is making. Edwina Curry is making the
point that the laws were there, but they were not used. That's the point.
HOGG: No, I don't quite know the point in this
context, that Edwina Curry...
HUMPHRYS: ...do you want me to give an example
there of what she's talking about?
HOGG: I don't, I'm afraid, comment on
colleagues, on the result - on the back of of just a paragraph being read to me
on the ......
HUMPHRYS: Well, no no...
HOGG: No, no, no. I think the more important
point is this. That we did fit into place, or set up, an Advisory Committee
really very early on. They made a huge number of recommendations, you can see
it from your own programme, because throughout the period we were introducing
new measures, new controls, as they were put to us by the scientific advice
that we were receiving. We've in no sense held back on either publishing
information or acting on recommendations, we've been very full and prompt.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you say that, but Edwina Curry,
and you say you don't want to comment on what she has had to say, if I may say
so, that is rather a difficult position for you to take. She was a Minister
in the Health Department at the time.
HOGG: When I see details on what she has
got to say....
HUMPHRYS: Well I'm offering you some details
Minister, with great respect,...
HOGG: Mr Humphrys, you've put to me the
detail that you want to put to me...
HUMPHYRS: And you're answering the questions that
you choose to answer rather than those I wish to put to you...
HOGG: Mr Humphrys, just a moment please.
You're putting to me the detail that you want me to comment on. I like to see
detail in the proper context and I am making the important point which is that
we set up a scientific committees very soon, we acted on them very fully and
promptly and those people who studied this matter in detail - for example the
Select Committee of the House of Commons - did not make the kind of criticisms
that you or perhaps others have made.
HUMPHRYS: But you see.. you are making an
important point. You say - it seems to me an important point that a Minister
of Health says at the time she discovered that they were carrying out
inspections, that is to say the Ministry was carrying out inspections of this
feed. Thirty per cent of samples were contaminated, and I quote from Edwina
Curry who wrote an article in her own words this morning, so it's not taking
an interview out of context or anything of the sort, "I was horrified to learn
that they did absolutely nothing about it. The foodstuffs were not destroyed,
there was not a single prosecution".
HOGG: I come back to the broad point, which is
that we have set up scientific committees, we've acted fully and promptly on
their recommendations, the causes of this problems were looked into with very
great care by Sir Richard Southwood and thereafter by the Select Committee of
the House of Commons, which as you know, is a broadly based committee, and
they did not make these kind of criticisms. On the contrary, they made it
plain that the Government has acted fully and promptly on the recommendations
made to it.
HUMPHRYS: So you don't believe there's any
argument for severing food powers from the Ministry of Agriculture,
notwithstanding some people say their task is to look after, or they interpret
it as looking after the farming industry and not the consumers?
HOGG: I think that that approach has two..
there is one misconception and one major disadvantage. The misconception is
this - that the primary duty of the Ministry of Agriculture is to the
agricultural community. That's not true. We have an overriding duty to the
public, expressed in terms of public health and the national interest. If I
have to make a choice between on the one hand the narrow interests of
agriculture, important as they are to me, and the national health or the public
duty that we owe to the nation as a whole, then we will always prefer public
health and the national interests, That is my duty as a Minister and our duty
as a government and there should be no doubt about that at all. On the narrow
point of an agency, unless the agency has the authority of a Minister, that is
to say, is directly accountable to a Minister, then the agency will be less
influential than, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture now which has a
Cabinet Minister at its head.
HUMPHRYS: Douglas Hogg, there we must end it.
Thank you very much.
HOGG: Nice to talk to you.
....oooOOOooo....
|