With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for Thursday 28 March will now be as follows:

Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill. That will now be followed by a debate on bovine spongiform encephalopathy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. It is acceptable to the Opposition.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a further statement about the advice that the Government have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

I begin by briefly reminding the House of the background. The advisory committee brings together leading experts in neurology, epidemiology and microbiology to provide scientifically based advice on the implications for animal and human health of different forms of spongiform encephalopathy. As I have repeatedly stressed, its members are not Government scientists: they are leading practitioners in their field, and it is the function of the advisory committee to allow them to pool their expertise to assess the latest scientific evidence that is available.

Both the Opposition health spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Leader of the Opposition stressed last week the importance of reaching decisions on the basis of the scientific evidence. I agree with them. I also agree that it is important that both the evidence on which the committee reached its recommendations, and the recommendations themselves, should be made public as soon as practicable. That is why I published the committee's recommendations last Wednesday and why I have today put copies of its latest recommendations, accompanied by a statement from the chief medical officer, in the Vote Office. I can confirm to the House that arrangements are in hand to ensure that the evidence on which those recommendations are based will be published in the scientific journals within the next four to six weeks.

Science is not a substitute for political or personal choice, but it is the only basis on which an informed judgment about these issues can be reached. Last Wednesday, I informed the House of the advisory committee's conclusions about 10 new cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The statement that the committee approved at its weekend meeting emphasises that only 10 cases of this previously unrecognised variant of CJD have yet been identified and that the committee is not in a position to confirm whether there is a causal link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the human disease. However, the committee repeated its view that the most likely explanation at present of this new form of CJD is that these cases are linked to exposure to BSE before the introduction of the specified offals ban in 1989.

Following receipt of its advice last week, I asked the committee to consider as a matter of urgency the implication of its findings for children. In considering that question, the committee was joined by three leading experts in paediatrics, gastroenterology and immunology. The committee considered carefully its knowledge of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and considered the evidence available from the 10 identified cases. Taking all that into account, the committee concluded that

"if human infection with the BSE agent occurs, infants and children are not likely to be more susceptible to that infection than are adults".

The committee also considered the possibility of increased susceptibility among patients in hospital, pregnant women and people who are taking immuno-suppressive drugs. Again, it concluded that

"if human infection with a BSE agent occurs, none of these groups is likely to have any increased susceptibility to infection".

The committee's statement goes on:

"Parents are naturally concerned about the risks to their own children. No human activity is without some risk; if the Government rigorously enforces the current and newly recommended controls we believe that this risk is likely to be extremely small; however the Committee recognises that parents will often choose to reduce risk to their children beyond that which they are prepared to accept for themselves.

It is important to be aware that many foods are associated with health risks and that changing from beef to non-beef products is not necessarily without risk."

Following the scientific evidence, there is clearly no reason for the Government to advise local education authorities to remove beef from school menus. I understand, however, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that it is customary for schools to provide a choice of menu to accommodate different dietary and cultural practices. The Government believe that that choice should continue. Local education authorities will be sent copies of the advisory committee's statement so that they can be aware of the precise terms of its findings.

The committee reconfirmed the recommendations that were published last Wednesday concerning the deboning of cattle carcases aged over 30 months, and it has made a number of other recommendations concerning the treatment of specified bovine offal. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal with those questions in his statement.

The committee also made two recommendations concerning research. It recommended, first, the reinforcement of the CJD surveillance unit at Edinburgh university and, secondly, the commitment of substantial additional resources to long-term, basic and applied research, to improve our understanding of these diseases. The Government accept those recommendations. We have already made plans to strengthen the CJD surveillance unit. In addition, I have today instructed Professor John Swales, the NHS director of research and development, to prepare a directed programme of research in this sector involving the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

Against the background of those findings, the advisory committee reports two central conclusions. First, it reasserts that, provided that the restrictions that it recommends are fully implemented and sustained, any BSErelated risk from eating beef or beef products is likely to be extremely small. Secondly, the committee's statement concludes with these words:

"the Committee does not believe that any additional measures are justified at this stage but the situation needs to be kept under careful review so that additional significant information can be taken into account as soon as it becomes available".

Throughout their consideration of those questions, the Government have made it clear that our policy is to base our own decisions on an up-to-date assessment of the scientific evidence. We have also made clear our commitment to making that evidence public. That remains the position.

The statement of the advisory committee that I am publishing this afternoon makes clear recommendations both to the Government and to the public. The chief medical officer is taking steps to communicate that new advice to all doctors. The Government accept the recommendations and they will act on them.

Once again, I thank the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee for its work. It appears that the Secretary of State has learned no lessons from last week, when I said that public confidence was hanging by a thread. Now, public confidence has collapsed. Why did he not recognise that public confidence was draining away? Even though he was advising that beef was safe, 10,000 schools had already taken it off the menu.

Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that it is his Government's reckless disregard for public health and their dogma on deregulation that have swept us into this crisis—[Interruption.]

Unparliamentary.

Order. Did I hear hon. Members saying that there was some unparliamentary language?

I said that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary, I certainly withdraw it.

It is certainly unparliamentary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to withdraw that remark.

As I said, Madam Speaker, I certainly withdraw the remark.

Is not it the Government's reckless disregard for public health and their dogma of deregulation that have swept us into this crisis? Will the Secretary of State admit that even after bovine spongiform encephalopathy was discovered, the Government dragged their feet? There was delay before making BSE notifiable; delay before banning animal protein; delay before compulsory slaughter and compensation; and delay before banning specified bovine offal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the roots of this crisis lie in his Government's repeated failure to take prompt and effective action to protect our food? Instead, deregulation dogma fuelled by complacency has caused a nightmare scenario for consumers and farmers alike.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in 1978 the Labour Government put forward extra controls on animal feed, but that when the Tory Government took office, they changed those planned controls and said that the industry could decide for itself on cattle feeding?

SEAC says that there is an extremely low risk if all its proposals for slaughterhouse and food safety rules are fully implemented and enforced rigorously. But why should anyone expect that from this Government, when they have allowed flagrant breaches of the rules in the past? We must now have rigorous enforcement of the rules and tough penalties for those found breaking them. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the enforcement authorities have the powers they need, the resources they need and strong Government backing? Is it not now time for full information and tough action?

Will the Government publish full information for the public, on the relative risk of eating beef compared with other meats? SEAC's statement barely touches on that. That is the question the public are asking. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish full information for the public on the relative risk of eating different parts of cattle? That is the question the public are asking. Will he publish a full list of all the food products that contain bovine material? Why should the public have to search the newspapers for that information? People cannot make their own choices if they do not know what they are eating.

Why is there to be a delay of four to six weeks before the publication of the scientific evidence? That evidence must be published by the right hon. Gentleman and it must be published now.

On the issue of children, SEAC recognised:

"parents will often choose to reduce risk to their children beyond that which they are prepared to accept for themselves."

When it comes to children, must not the Government therefore err on the side of caution? For school meals, should he not say, "Better safe than sorry," at least for the next nine months, during which time we shall see whether there are any further cases? Has he considered advising schools and local education authorities, to ensure that parents decide whether their children eat beef and whether there should be no beef in school dinners? To assist consumers, has he considered identifying and publishing a list of herds that have never brought in calves and where the cattle have been fed only on grass and hay? That would identify to consumers the herds that are less at risk.

Why has the Secretary of State not told the House today of all the other options that SEAC considered and that he could have acted on? Why did he reject the option of removing all cull cows or all cows over 30 months from the food chain? We should have that information. Why did he reject the option of deboning all cows—not only those over 30 months? We need to know why he has made his choices.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that he has still not done enough to restore British consumers' confidence in British beef? They will continue to buy beef, but it will not be ours. Does he not understand that it is only by tough action, which goes beyond the minimal recommendations of the scientists, that there will be any chance of restoring public confidence? Does he accept that there is a clear conflict of interest in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about food regulation? Will he therefore establish a separate food standards agency? Will he restore the strength and independence of the Department of Health's chief medical officer, who has been marginalised and weakened by the Government?

Is not the business of government about more than just occupying the high offices of state, but about occupying a position of respect in the public's mind? This crisis has shown that the Government can no longer govern because people do not trust them. How can the Government restore public confidence when the public have no confidence in the Government?

I think that the country, listening to the hon. Lady, will find it deeply offensive that she has opened up a wide chasm between the principles that she says inform her policy and the ferreting around for party political advantage that has manifested itself in both her interventions on the subject. She started off last Wednesday, as she did this afternoon, by stressing the importance of basing our decisions on this subject on science. That position was reinforced by her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition from the Dispatch Box on Thursday afternoon.

The science has been published. What the House and the country want to know from the hon. Lady is that if she does not accept the Government's actions on the basis of that science, what actions does she recommend to the House and the country? What is the way forward that she would want us to take, which is different from the way that I announced this afternoon, as recommended by the scientists who the hon. Lady says should inform our policy?

The hon. Lady talks about a dogma of deregulation. If she had examined the Southwood inquiry into the background of BSE, she would have found that it specifically dismissed that charge. She alleges that there has been delay, but has produced no evidence at any stage in the proceedings on the issue of any delay whatever. She asks for rigorous enforcement; I have committed us to rigorous enforcement. She asks for information to be published. Let her tell the House which information she wants published that I have not committed the Government to publishing from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. She asks why the information will not be made available in the scientific journals within less than four to six weeks. The reason for that, as the hon. Lady should know, is that the marshalling of scientific evidence to prepare it for a form for publication in a scientific journal normally takes between six and nine months. I have undertaken that it will be made available through that source in four to six weeks.

The hon. Lady asks about schools: I have set out clearly the position on schools. She says that we should base our decision on the science—let her explain which bit of the science would justify the removal of beef or beef products from school menus. There is no scientific conclusion available to the House that would justify that conclusion.

The hon. Lady asks why the Government are not proceeding with a culling policy and a range of other actions. The answer lies in the quotation from the scientific advice which I gave to the House and which I shall repeat to the hon. Lady:

"the Committee does not believe that additional measures are justified at this stage but the situation needs to be kept under careful review".

That is what will happen. The hon. Lady is asking the House to substitute her scientific judgment for the advisory committee's scientific judgment. I can think of no more absurd proposition.

My right hon. Friend will be appearing before a joint meeting of the Agriculture and Health Select Committees on Wednesday morning, where he will be a witness on this very important matter. Will he give an assurance that, faced with such complex matters, the Government will respond swiftly and decisively, but always based on the informed views of scientific experts, not on some of the uninformed and occasionally hysterical views that we have seen expressed in recent days?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance. That assurance is not that we substitute, as I said in my statement, the judgment of scientists for personal or political judgment, but that we agree with the principle—although not with the practice of the principle—espoused last week by Opposition Front Benchers, that decisions on the subject should be based on the science.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his commitment to the research recommended by the committee. Does he agree that although questions may have to be asked about recommendations made in the late 1970s and 1980s, those are not the principal issue for today? The principal issue for today involves what steps need to be taken for the public to be reassured and people to be safe. In that context, will he do all that he can to ensure that the committee's principal conclusion that children and young people are not more at risk than adults is disseminated and understood by radio, television and newspapers, and that the media, the outlets and politicians who are willing to join him, seek to win over the public to an understanding of the issues, not to an understanding only of prejudice and prejudiced self-interest?

On the basis of the expectation that the Government will apply the precautionary principle, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most useful thing for the Government to consider now is whether beef that is entirely unaffected by the risk of BSE—particularly herbivore beef—can be separately labelled and identified, so that people can distinguish between the different types of beef?

As the offal ban came into effect in 1989, does the Secretary of State agree that there may be a precautionary reason for placing children under seven in a different category from children over seven?

Will the right hon. Gentleman reinforce the fact that the main question that should drive all our considerations is not where the beef comes from, but whether it is infected?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the stand that I have taken on research. I assure him that, where research is necessary in order to improve our understanding of those conditions, the Government will ensure that there is support available to allow that research to be undertaken.

I agree entirely with the stand that the hon. Gentleman has taken, both in the House and in the community over the weekend, regarding the importance of ensuring that decisions are based in science. He is correct to restate and to remind the House this afternoon of the advisory committee's finding that there is no scientific basis for concluding that children are at any greater risk than adults.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether beef producers whose herds have hitherto been BSE-free for a variety of reasons should promote that fact. They are able to do that and there are examples of it having occurred. The scientific questions that lie behind some of the hon. Gentleman's assertions are reasonably complex, but it is open to producers to take that course of action.

The hon. Gentleman's key point is that, to the extent that there is a risk of infection to human beings from BSE-infected cattle, it is related to the specified bovine offals that were removed from the human food chain by Government order in 1989. Because those offals were removed from the food chain, the advisory committee concluded that the risks associated with eating all beef and beef products are extremely small.

In order to help to quell the urban panic that is being fomented on the Opposition Benches, will my right hon. Friend point out that people of all ages are at far greater risk from active and passive smoking than from BSE? Is he aware that this afternoon we are seeing a crude attempt to create the steak-rejecting economy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is a far greater risk associated with tobacco use than with beef consumption. He makes his own point about stakeholding in his own way.

Is the Minister aware that, throughout this long, sorry saga, he has talked only about the human food chain? Is he aware that many people are concerned about the meat that is used in pet food for domestic cats and dogs? Can he assure millions of pensioners that the liver and lights used in pet food are also examined? Will he confirm that pets cannot be contaminated by the BSE strain and will he ask the research experts to examine that question as well, as many jobs are involved in the pet food industry?

I do not, I am afraid, apologise to the House for being concerned principally with human health in the past week since the advisory committee first made its information available. I am absolutely certain that the Government have got their priorities right. I am advised that specified bovine offals are also kept outside the pet food chain. SEAC—which is responsible for providing advice about pet food as well as human health—has, quite properly, concentrated its considerable attentions on human health questions in the past few days.

A few minutes ago, the Secretary of State said that the resources will be found if further research is necessary. Will he look specifically at, and take advice about, whether two areas need urgent further research: first, finding ways of better diagnosing BSE in cattle at an earlier stage; and, secondly, trying to find an effective way of treating CJD in human beings?

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct on both counts. We would be in a much better position if we had an accurate live test for cattle and if we could diagnose accurately the condition CJD in humans. We shall ensure that sufficient resources are made available to allow those programmes to continue, as well as—critically, as my right hon. Friend rightly points out—examining the options for producing a treatment regime for humans in particular, which would enable us to cure the condition.

Is the Minister aware that most mothers and grandmothers are not scientists? They are just terribly worried. They have no way of knowing whom to trust and they need clear and simple statements. If a doctor or a medical researcher says that there is very little risk, although that may be absolutely correct, it engenders real worry among parents who are not clear about the present position. What would the Minister regard as a significant change in the circumstances? Ten cases a year may be one thing, but 10 cases a month would be very significant, and the House would need to know about it urgently. All the parents who are totally bewildered would need a clear statement about what the Minister was doing to save them.

As regards the position today, parents have a very clear statement. I quote it again:

"infants and children are not likely to be more susceptible to that infection than are adults".

That is a clear statement. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on the important point that she made about ensuring that we conduct accurate and timely surveillance of CJD cases and draw any further lessons that are available to us from that evidence. That is why I have provided extra resources to the surveillance unit in Edinburgh. It corresponds directly with a SEAC recommendation. The Government are taking that forward for precisely the reasons that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should learn the lessons of the scare eight years ago, when a relatively small group of scientists extrapolated information from a small outbreak of salmonella food poisoning that had caused some fatalities, and drew conclusions that led the House to implement legislation which caused the death of more than I million chickens and the destruction of some 300 million eggs? Those regulations were quietly dropped about a year later, when it became perfectly obvious that the cause of that outbreak was kitchen hygiene and not farmyard practices.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that scientists should publish their work, especially when it is based on a relatively tiny sample, and have it evaluated by their colleagues in the scientific community before we in the House cause the slaughter of herds of cattle and the destruction of our industry? Will he take my assurance as a historian of science that history is replete with people who advanced hypotheses on limited evidence, only to have them refuted at a later date? We must put that line of argument to the public, to reassure them that, if a disease breaks out in one group of animals, it is not necessarily transmittable to another group of animals that may or may not have had contact with them.

I entirely agree—that is not something I can always say to my hon. Friend—with every word that she said. It is just as important not to overreact as it is not to underreact, as I said to the House last week. We must base our conclusions on the evidence. We are responsible for those conclusions, but they must be firmly based on the evidence and justified by it.

If there is no evidence of age specificity among the 10 cases that were examined, is the low average age of cases explained by the process of selection? Are there other cases that were not included in the sample study?

There are two separate issues that could relate to the relatively young age of the 10 cases. One is their susceptibility because they were relatively young, and the other is the possibility of increased exposure to infected material before 1989. I remind the House again that we are talking about a risk associated with a product that has not been available since 1989, because that was the date when the agents of infection were removed. The background to the 10 cases may be susceptibility or exposure.

The question of susceptibility was specifically analysed by the committee, and it concluded that there was no evidence of any increased susceptibility among children, and therefore that parents and families should not proceed on the basis that children are at any greater risk of susceptibility to the condition.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on dealing with this sensitive issue so effectively. Can he give any guidance as to why the health problem has apparently not existed in countries where British beef is consumed or where suspect beef has been used? Can my right hon. Friend give any guidance to parents and young people as to whether there is any truth in press reports of special dangers associated with sausages, liquorice allsorts and a certain kind of digestive biscuit?

As to my hon. Friend's second question, the answer is no—there is no truth in those press reports. The evidence has been analysed. This is a scientific question—it is not susceptible to political argument. There is no evidence available of increased age sensitivity, which is the basis on which the Government and the scientific community are advising families to proceed in their affairs.

As to whether CJD overseas may be related to the consumption of British beef, there is currently no difference between the incidence of CJD in many different countries. There is certainly no evidence to support the assertion that the condition has emerged in other countries related to the consumption of British beef. The advice to the export market—potential overseas consumers of British beef—is exactly the same as to the domestic consumer. The risks associated with consuming the product are extremely low.

Is not the truth that the one thing that has characterised the Government during their entire period of office is that they have been telling the British people that deregulation is good for them? The net result is that there was bound to be a day when there would have to be a reckoning up. The British people are scared about the result of relaxing the rules. The Government had a judgment to make many years ago, as to whether to relax the rules in favour of animal feed manufacturers or stand four square with the British people. The Government chose deregulation. The consequence is that the British people are in fear. They have to pay for the Government's decision, and the farmers will have to sup the mop as well. The Government made the judgment and they should carry the can. It is time that they went.

There is not a scintilla of truth in anything that the hon. Gentleman just said. That is the worst kind of scaremongering—ferreting around for party political advantage in the sewer of politics.

Is it true that, whereas the rate of BSE has been rising over the past 15 years, the incidence of CJD has fallen over the past two years? Does not that put in question the relationship between the two?

My hon. Friend is quite right in his interpretation of the figures on CJD. Attention has focused on the potential link between CJD and BSE, because the 10 cases to which I referred are of a particular sort of CJD of which we have not been previously aware. That specific group, having specific symptoms, has led people to conclude that there may be a link. The opinion of the advisory committee is that the most probable explanation for that specific group of 10 cases is that it is related—again I make the point—to the consumption of the infected material that was available before 1989. The controls introduced in 1989 led the committee to conclude that the consumption of British beef and beef products is now associated with a low level of risk.

Is the Secretary of State aware that on Thursday the Select Committee on Health was told that, in 1989, the Government stopped using bovine serum made in Britain and imported it for the manufacture of vaccine? If that is the case, why were not the rest of us told? Is he further aware that after a decade of deceit, prevarication and denial, nobody believes a word the Government say?

This process has been carried on in public. The advice on which the Government have acted has been published. The evidence that led the committee to reach those conclusions and give that advice has been published, and the recommendations made last week and this week will be published. The Government have nothing to hide because they do not want to hide. What they want to do is to provide well-founded scientific recommendations based on published evidence.

In order to bring a sense of proportion to the hypochondriacal hysteria of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a list of the comparable risks in our society, based on statistical evidence, which would probably show that one is as likely to win the jackpot in the lottery and one has a much greater chance of being murdered than of dying from this disease?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The risks associated with eating this product are extremely low and are well within the normal range of risks that every citizen of this country takes every day of his life.

The hon. Member for Peckham said earlier that parents will be concerned about the taking of risks by children. I am a parent of a seven-year-old and a three-year-old, and I understand that parenting involves taking risks to develop a child's self-confidence. The risks associated with parenting are many and various. The risks associated with this product are defined by science as extremely low.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of an earlier reply, what research does the right hon. Gentleman intend to set up and what research is presently under way into the spread of BSE, because of the cannibalisation of feed, across the species barrier into pigs, sheep, cats and dogs? [Interruption.] Do listen, you silly berks. This is not a joking matter. You should all be put out of the House. Because none of you can do it well, do not be envious of those who can.

On a related issue, should not all transgenic experimentation cease forthwith?

The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point, which is the possibility of this disease being transmitted across the species barrier on farms. It is precisely for that reason that the rules on meat and bone meal were changed last week, and the advice has been given today. In particular, SEAC advised that meat and bone meal

"must not be incorporated into any feed for any farmed animals, including fish or horses, or into fertiliser likely to be used on land to which ruminants have access."

The issue about which the hon. Gentleman asked is covered by the advice, and the Government have made it clear that they intend to take that advice.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been an act of gross irresponsibility on his part to overreact to the hysterical demands coming from Labour Members? Does he further agree that if the British beef industry is destroyed as a result of that hysteria, voters in the rural economy, which will have suffered a devastating blow, will know whom to blame? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if billions of pounds of extra public money were suddenly to be available for the purpose of protecting children's health, it would certainly not be sensible to use that money to pay for the slaughter of millions of healthy British cattle?

My hon. Friend simply paraphrases the advice that is available to the Government, the House and the public. What those on the Opposition Front Benches have totally failed to do, in their comments on the issue, is to endorse the advice and make it clear that they carry through their commitment to observe science into action; or to say what they think we should do; or, crucially, to give any justification for taking different action from that advised by the scientists. That is the question that the Opposition have not answered.

Today the Secretary of State has consistently referred to the research issue. What time scale does he consider necessary for further research to be undertaken? What funding will the Government provide to ensure the highest quality of research? Will that include a live test of the nature of the disease? Many people attach considerable importance to the fact that Professor Lacey, who was involved in developing a live test, found his evidence dismissed because he was seen as politically unsound.

If this research is to be effective, will it include an assurance that BSE-free herds will be allocated the quality assurance mark that is already available to 6,000 farms in Scotland with Aberdeen Angus herds? We do not see why farmers with BSE-free herds should be affected by this panic.

There are two aspects to the research that the Government are undertaking. First, there is the expansion of the work of the surveillance unit at Edinburgh university—the unit that has been responsible for identifying the 10 cases and for leading the pathology work on which the advisory committee's findings have been based. I have committed extra resources to the surveillance of cases as they arise, at Edinburgh university and also at St. Mary's hospital in Paddington, which supplied the pathology service to Edinburgh.

Secondly, we must ensure sufficient resources to allow us to conduct a planned, directed research programme of original scientific research, so as to better understand the causes of the condition, and how it can be diagnosed and treated. That programme of research is what the NHS director of research and development, Professor Swales, will be preparing over the next few weeks. So resources have been provided for conducting the surveillance and the research necessary to improve our understanding of the underlying science of this condition.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the article in The Times today, written by William Rees-Mogg? Is it not the case that BSE has probably been in cattle for the past two centuries and was previously known as the staggers? Is it not also the case that Britain has built its reputation on roast beef and Yorkshire pudding—and there is nothing wrong in that?

The advice of the scientific committee confirms and reinforces my hon. Friend's view that there is nothing wrong with British roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. I therefore agree with that. The proposition that BSE is the same as the staggers has a rather more doubtful background. The key point is that the steps that have been taken ensure that we are able to say that the risks associated with eating the traditional Sunday joint are extremely low.

The Secretary of State is responsible for health. One would be forgiven for not understanding that 10 youngish people had died recently of the new strain of this disease—that shows how serious this matter is. Is it not a fact that public confidence has disappeared because for 10 years the Government have failed to react quickly enough or effectively enough? Just a few moments ago, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), the Minister said that the ghastly business of feeding animals dead animals across the food chain and across species had been stopped only in the past few days. Are not many people likely to die of this disease? If so, how many will die before the right hon. Gentleman resigns?

I find it objectionable when we are alleged to have acted with delay, when what we have actually done is take scientific advice and act promptly on it at every stage.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the feeding of animal-based bone meal back to farm animals. It was actually in 1988 that, on the advice of the scientists then, the feeding of ruminant-based meal to ruminants was banned. On the advice available last week, but not before last week, the feeding of meat and bone meal to other species has also been banned. It is no good saying that it is unnatural for one species to eat the remains of another—that is what the meat industry is all about. The feeding of animal remains across the species barrier is what the meat industry is all about. We want to ensure that it is only done safely, and we rely on the experts on questions of safety.

Is the Secretary of State telling those who make and sell beefburgers in this country that it would be quite safe for them to buy any kind of British beef again for their products?

I do not want to paraphrase anyone, so I am saying that the risks associated with it are extremely low. I see absolutely no reason for any responsible citizen not to buy British beef or beef products of any kind in the shops today.

Will the Secretary of State admit that, had the previous Labour Government's draft guidelines on animal feed been put into effect by this Government when they came into power, the BSE outbreak would have been completely contained and 10 young people would perhaps not have lost their lives? Will he apologise for the obsession with deregulation, which threatens to destroy the beef industry and which has scared every member of the public? When will he get up and say sorry?

The House is now being asked to compare the scientific expertise of the hon. Lady with that of Sir Richard Southwood, a former vice-chancellor of Oxford university. Given the choice, I prefer Sir Richard's.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we were to cull all cattle aged 30 months and over, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) recommended, it would eventually cut milk output by 70 per cent.? Does he believe that the subsequent import of container-loads of continental milk would improve food hygiene in this country and the health of the nation?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would respond to such a suggestion with a simpler question: on what basis would we justify behaving in that way? Where is the evidence to prove that it is a necessary and proportionate response to the problem that we face? The evidence is that it is not a proportionate response. The evidence now available tells us that products benefiting from the protection of the ban imposed in 1989 can be consumed with extremely low levels of risk. I therefore see no justification for doing more against the background of advice from the experts, who said:

"the Committee does not believe that additional measures are justified at this stage".

That is the advice of the scientists, and I have not heard any argument that could lead me to cast it aside.

Are the scientists who have advised the Secretary of State that there is no risk to children the same scientists who have been advising him and his predecessors for the past 15 years that there is no risk whatever from eating British beef? In view of his statement about the advice given a week ago, will he give a categorical assurance to the House and the public that there is no health risk whatever from eating British sheepmeat?

As I have already said on several occasions, there are no human activities where the level of risk is zero. I cannot give an assurance that eating any product, crossing the street or engaging in a variety of other activities is 100 per cent. safe. There is no human activity to which no risk is attached.

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the advisory committee, on whose evidence I rest. It was established not 15 years ago, but in 1990. I have heard nobody call in question the competence and expertise of the members of that committee. Indeed, yesterday morning I appeared in a television programme with Professor Richard Lacey, with whom I do not agree about everything. It was he who said that he accepts the scientific validity and authority of the committee.

As the Minister has quoted Sir Richard Southwood, will he comment on the statement made by Sir Richard, which appeared in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph? Sir Richard said that the Government did not react properly to his report in 1989. He stated that the Government should have said that meat was unsafe. He observed:

"They did not address it"—

that is, his report—

"with the kind of panic I think it … deserved. We are now fulfilling what was the inquiry's nightmare scenario. We acknowledged that there was a slight risk to human health. Our fears are now being realised."

What does the Minister now say to Sir Richard? Does he agree that if children and adults face the same risk, we are all at risk?

We have acknowledged for some years that there is a possibility of risk of infection from BSE. It was because of that acknowledgement that we put in place the specified offals ban in 1989. If there was no risk of infection of CJD from BSE, what was the justification for putting in place the specified offals ban? It was put in place precisely to guard against the possibility of cross-infection. Sir Richard Southwood's central recommendation was that we should establish the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, and that that committee should provide us with scientifically based evidence on which to base our judgments. That is what we have done.

rose—

Order. We shall move on to the second statement.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the beef industry.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has informed the House of the advice that we have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee earlier today. I hope that this will help to reassure consumers as to the safety of British beef, and that this in turn will lead to an improvement in market conditions.

Some of the SEAC recommendations are for Agriculture Departments to take forward. In particular, SEAC has given advice on the treatment of trimmings from cattle over 30 months of age, on meat and bonemeal, and on the status of heads from animals over six months of age. The Government have accepted these recommendations in full and I will bring orders before the House as soon as possible. Because of the nature of the advice given by SEAC, these require consultation with the interests concerned. However, I propose to proceed as expeditiously as possible.

The House will appreciate that the orders will be complicated since, in particular, a new system of licensing for plants authorised to bone out animals over 30 months of age will be required.

I turn now to the consequences for trade and for the beef market. The House will be aware that certain EC member states have banned the import of some beef products from the UK, and in some instances live animals as well. I do not believe that these measures are justified by the SEAC findings, which explicitly referred to exposure before the imposition of the specified bovine offal ban in 1989. My officials are arguing in Brussels that the bans are unjustified.

The House will also be concerned, however, about the effect of recent alarm on the beef market and on the livelihoods of the many thousands employed in the several industries connected with it. As I made clear to the House last week, a number of mechanisms exist within the common agricultural policy to support the beef market. These include intervention on young male animals, including safety net intervention if prices fall to particularly low levels, export refunds, and other measures such as aids to private storage, and aid for the slaughter of young male calves from dairy herds.

Obviously the precise use that we wish to make of these, or other, mechanisms will depend upon the extent of the market reaction. It is too early to judge this with confidence, but I am in touch with the Commission so that measures can be put in place as soon as it is clear that they are justified.

I believe that second to putting in place the necessary measures recommended by SEAC, the most important task is to rebuild consumer and market confidence, a process helped by today's statement from SEAC. However, confidence is fragile. I shall monitor it with scrupulous care and I shall not hesitate to come before the House with further measures if it is clear that they are justified by the circumstances.

Does the Minister accept that, in the light of last week's announcements, his first priority should be to ensure that the BSE agent does not enter our food? Is it not clear that to do that he must first ensure that all the necessary regulations are in place; and, secondly, he has a responsibility to ensure that they are properly enforced? I remind the Minister that, in announcing new measures last week, he assured the public that they could eat British beef with confidence. He has announced further new measures today. When does he expect all these measures to be implemented? Enforcement of BSE control legislation is crucial. I remind him that, as recently as last summer, the state veterinary service found that BSE controls were being flouted in our abattoirs. Will the Minister give me an assurance today that the state veterinary service and the Meat Hygiene Service have all the resources and statutory authority that they require properly to enforce all the regulations?

As regards the new steps that the Minister announced today, will he confirm that if a carcase or part of a carcase is believed to be contaminated with bovine specified offal it will be kept out of the human food chain? Can he say who will be responsible for deciding whether that carcase is kept out of the food chain; who will have to implement that decision; and who will be responsible for enforcing that measure?

Will the Minister consider ensuring that all cull cows are slaughtered? I ask him to consider three further steps: first, to ban from human and animal food all calf bovine specified offal—I still put it to the House that it is not wise to allow the specified offal of cattle under six months to enter our food; secondly, a random testing programme for BSE of the brains of cattle going through our slaughterhouses, as recommended by the Tyrrell committee in 1989, which would be of great epidemiological significance—and, thirdly, the safety of mechanically recovered meat in the light of the new concerns.

For the sake of farmers and consumers alike, I make it clear to the Minister that only when consumers are satisfied that the necessary regulations to protect them are in place and are being effectively enforced will they be confident that our beef is as safe to eat as any other beef or beef products in Europe. Will he recognise that his prime responsibility to the British people is to ensure that the food in our shops is safe to eat, and that the British public will judge him not by his words but by his actions?

May I deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first? Yes, I accept that the prime responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to do what he or she can to ensure that human food is wholly safe: that is our prime duty, and it overrides all others. It is, of course, true that as Minister of Agriculture I have a responsibility to the agricultural and farming communities, but my overriding duty relates to public health and the national interest.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we accept that it is important to keep the agent out of the food chain. Absolutely so—and that is the justification for the SBO controls, together with the new controls. He asked whether we could ensure proper implementation. He will remember that towards the end of last year I called in representatives of the slaughterhouse industry on, I think, two occasions; I have seen them subsequently, and so have my colleagues in the Ministry. This is an extremely important issue, and last Wednesday I issued express instructions to the Meat Hygiene Service relating to the vigorous enforcement of controls. I believe that the state veterinary service and the Meat Hygiene Service have both the authority and the resources that they require.

Diseased cattle should not enter the food chain. Confirmed cases should be disposed of and destroyed before they enter the slaughterhouses, and in any event the SBOs of all cattle should be taken out and destroyed.

The question of cull cows has been put in a variety of ways, but SEAC considered the position of cattle over the age of 30 months, and sought to deal with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has in mind by means of the deboning requirement that was announced last Wednesday. As for mechanically recovered meat, it was banned last December.

I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that we are all here this afternoon because we care about public health. Does he also agree that, given that we are all here for that reason, it is nauseating for Opposition Members to try to claim this as their own public domain? I commend my right hon. and learned Friend: his actions have been taken on the basis of the best scientific advice available, not just today but historically. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to criticise what has gone on in the past, but the Government and the Ministry have always acted on the basis of the best available scientific advice. The Government have been very responsible in that regard.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a considerable amount has been written in today's newspapers about what is known in Europe as mineral deficiency, or manganese staggers? Is he entirely convinced that that is not just another name for BSE in France or Holland? Should it not be examined very carefully? I have a feeling that our European Union partners are using the current difficulties here as an opportunity to do down our beef industry to the betterment of their own.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He brings a great deal of knowledge to the issue, partly as a result of his time on the Select Committee on Agriculture and partly because of the nature of his constituency.

On the question of public health, my hon. Friend is entirely right. I have already stressed that maintaining public health is our paramount and overarching duty. He is also entirely right about the question of acting on scientific advice. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made absolutely plain, we have always published the scientific conclusions and recommendations and have acted on them fully and promptly. I was asked whether there is BSE on the mainland of Europe. There are indeed cases—I suspect that there are more than have been disclosed—but I proceed on the basis that the problem is greater in Britain than on mainland Europe.

The Minister and the Secretary of State for Health have rightly laid great stress on the need to act only on the best possible scientific advice. Does the Minister think that it was alarmist of him and the Secretary of State in media interviews to give such weight to the suggestion of mass slaughter, even complete slaughter of the national herd? Will he consider the circumstances of replacement in that eventuality since, as I hope he will be able to confirm, in some cases young stock imported from France and Holland and from other continental breeders were subsequently found to have BSE? Would it not be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire if we found that we were re-importing BSE after having slaughtered our own herd? Is it not equally absurd for the burger giants to import beef that is not controlled, regulated and inspected to the high standards that we have in this country?

One needs to go on repeating that, in all probability, the exposure to BSE occurred before 1989. That is the considered judgment of SEAC. The scientific committee also concluded that the risks associated with eating British beef are extremely small. It follows that in logic and on the scientific evidence I must agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not necessary for anybody to stop eating British beef or to stop using it.

I was asked about a cull policy. The announcements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have made today reflect our considered policy. They are based on the recommendations that we have received from the scientific committee and we have no other recommendations to make to the House at the moment.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ignore the hysterical politicking by the Opposition and the mass, whipped-up scaremongering by the media over the weekend? Rather, will he listen to a dairy farmer in my constituency whose herd has never had BSE and who is desperately worried about the hysteria? What does my right hon. and learned Friend propose for dairy-bred calves that are now virtually worthless and unsaleable? Can he find some sort of scheme to help my constituent? If he is forced into a slaughter policy, what will happen to milk quotas? I gather that we are heavily over quota for this year, but that a slaughter policy next year or in the near future would make us very heavily under quota. If a slaughter policy is introduced, what compensation would be available to my constituent whose herd has never had BSE and who has not felt it necessary to insure against BSE because he did not feed his cattle on the sort of feed that has led to it?

My hon. Friend has asked a number of important questions reflecting the concern of his constituent and, I have no doubt, the concern of other people in his constituency and elsewhere. I shall begin by dealing with his question about calves. In my statement, I drew attention to the mechanisms in the common agricultural policy—in particular, the aid mechanism for the slaughter of young male calves from dairy herds. However, it is important first to try to restore confidence in the market. Confidence should be restored on the basis of what SEAC and others have said. If consumer confidence is restored it will have a very important and beneficial impact on the market. However, if for any reason that does not happen, I anticipate that I may have to come back to the House with further proposals. But that is not the position at the moment and, consequently, I am not doing that. Rather similar propositions apply to compensation. My hon. Friend will note that I have not in any way suggested a cull policy. That being so, I am not suggesting a compensation policy.

The Minister and the Secretary of State for Health keep hiding behind what they say is the best scientific advice. But surely the problem is that the scientific advice has been constantly overtaken by events and has been shown to be wrong. In 1989, the Southwood committee said that the cumulative total of cases by 1995 would be 20,000. It is now 155,000. The best scientific advice said that it was unlikely that the disease could be transmitted from cattle to humans, but it now says that it is likely to be so transmitted. [Interruption.] The word used is "likely". Before it was said that it was highly unlikely, but the scientists now say that the cases are likely to have been transmitted by BSE in cattle. Therefore, the Government's responsibility is to go beyond the scientific advice and get ahead of events: they should not wait for public confidence to plummet again. The first step that they should take is to ban the feeding of offal to cattle under the age of six months, as was recommended by the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1989.

Of course Ministers have a responsibility, and that may sometimes go beyond simply acting on scientific advice. I accept that, but it is absolutely the case that any policy that one presents to the House must be considered and informed and proportionate to the risk. When one determines against those criteria what it is proper to bring to the House, one inevitably and rightly places enormous weight on the scientific advice. That is not to say that Ministers are thereby exonerated from making decisions, but it is to say that our decisions have to be justified in rational and informed terms. As I say, that means placing great weight on the expert and scientific advice that we receive.

My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly laid great stress on the competence and integrity of SEAC. Its recommendations are accepted, and we are all delighted that it has come out today in the way that it has. Can he assure us that the informed views that are being heard today by the standing veterinary committee in Brussels and which will be put to it again on Wednesday will be received by people who are, first, qualified to understand exactly what they are being told and, secondly, will not have been got at by their Governments in an attempt to defend the situation that they have brought upon themselves by imposing a unilateral beef ban on no basis whatever?

My hon. Friend is wholly right to draw attention to the importance of ensuring that those who serve on the standing veterinary committee and the scientific veterinary committee in Brussels are fully aware of the facts and arguments as they are determined by SEAC. SEAC probably contains the most prestigious and informed group of scientists on this topic anywhere in the world. We have taken enormous pains to ensure that members of the veterinary committees are aware—and will be continually informed—of the facts and considerations that have led SEAC to its conclusion.

Is it not true that for six long years there has been consistent abuse by abattoir owners of the procedures that were recommended at the time of the original SBO ban—so much so that last year the Minister's officials undertook two studies, one of 163 slaughterhouses and the other of 120 slaughterhouses? It seems that they found abuses of the procedures in half the slaughterhouses that were surveyed. How is it possible that over all those years, while we were being told that the rules were being complied with in slaughterhouses, all this happened without officials in the Department or the state veterinary service even knowing that it was going on?

It is true, and the hon. Gentleman knows, that instances have been found of non-compliance with SBO controls. In the latter part of last year in particular, those instances were made known by way of parliamentary answers.

I told you in a letter early last year.

The hon. Gentleman makes a sedentary intervention, but it matters not because I accept that there has been a degree of non-implementation of the controls. As I say, I made that plain by parliamentary answer. I called in the industry on at least two occasions. One of the important functions of the Meat Hygiene Service, which has taken over responsibility from local authorities for the enforcement of the requirements, is to supervise and enforce the controls more vigorously.

In retrospect, do not the Government deserve much credit for the regulations in 1989 banning the use of offal and for setting up the scientific advisory service in 1990? Despite this afternoon's reassuring statements, for which hon. Members and people outside will be grateful, do not two major problems remain? One relates to the single market. How can we possibly have a single market where there are national bans on certain products? Surely, if there had been a danger to human health through eating British beef, that beef should have been banned everywhere, including in this country. As there is no danger, there is no justification for its being banned anywhere else. What will my right hon. and learned Friend do to restore the integrity of the single market?

Secondly, is it not a problem that this country's beef industry has progressively become a by-product of the dairy industry? The overwhelming majority of beef comes either from dairy cattle or from crosses with dairy cows. Would it not be a good idea to consider whether beef farmers who wish to specialise in pedigree beef herds and to produce pure beef cattle should receive full recognition for that? Should we therefore not consider some form of certification procedure such as exists, I believe, in France?

My hon. Friend makes a number of important suggestions. As to the latter suggestion, essentially, that is a matter for the industry, but, clearly, his suggestion has considerable force, although most prime beef that he would eat comes from specialist beef herds.

My hon. Friend suggests that the Government should claim credit for putting the SBO controls into place. The Government were performing their duty in that respect. It is important to remind the House that, when those controls were put in place, the best evidence that we had and the best views that we could form were that the condition was not transmissible, but it was against a possibility of error that those controls were put into place. We thus had a belt-and-braces approach to the control of the disease.

For all the reasons that have been outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend and me, European Union countries are not entitled to erect a barrier against the importation of British beef.

The Minister will recognise that, today, he cannot say with 100 per cent. certainty why we should believe the expert advice, which has been wrong on so many previous occasions. Nor can he say with 100 per cent. certainty that he will not have to return to the Dispatch Box to make yet another statement. Who appoints these so-called independent experts? Will he give an assurance that other people who may believe that they are experts will have all the evidence that is available so that they can check whether what we are now being told is correct?

As to the publication of the evidence, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already made it plain that the relevant considerations will appear in the scientific journals. Consequently, anyone who disagrees with or wishes to criticise the considerations that have led SEAC to its conclusions can readily do so—the material will be available in the scientific journals, as has been consistently the case throughout the management of this business.

On the question of SEAC's standing, again, my right hon. Friend made a clear point on that. Professor Lacey, who is a critic of the conclusions, does not for a moment impugn the quality of the advisory committee. I believe that, in SEAC, we have the most qualified, eminent and distinguished group of people operating in this sector of disciplines anywhere in the world.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to redress the balance that has been created by people in other countries who are seeking to take commercial advantage from beleaguered British farmers, in respect of both dairy and beef farms, and from other people who depend on them for the goods that they sell here and abroad? Will he ensure that, in other countries, a proper summary is put in newspapers by way of advertisement, for example, so that people have an objective analysis against which they could form their judgments on British beef, which I ate on Sunday and again today?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Essentially, it is this: how best do we try to ensure that the debate in other European Union countries is as rational and as considered as that which we are seeking to have in this country, and that people can make decisions in the informed and considered way that we are able to do in this country because of the quality of the advice that we receive.

Is the Minister aware that I am astonished at his complacency while countries around the world are banning British beef, while slaughterhouses are closing, while farmers in my constituency have been telephoning me all weekend distraught at what is happening and while meat renderers, butchers and processors are paying people off? All that is happening not because of any scaremongering by Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not at all. It is caused by the Government's panic, indecision and dogma. It is about time that they dealt with the matter with the urgency and seriousness that it deserves.

We should go back to the basic facts: if CJD has been caused by BSE—and it seems that it may have been—that resulted from exposure before 1989. The advice that we have received and accept is that beef now is extremely safe—the risks are extremely small. Against that background, our common duty is to ensure that the public understand those basic facts because, if they do understand that the risk is extremely small, consumer and market confidence will be restored. The criticism that is properly made of Opposition Members—especially the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), whose comments are unjustified in many respects—is that their comments damage the confidence of both the consumer and the market.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend pursue the instances of BSE in Germany, Holland, France and Italy so that those facts can be published and it can be shown that their regulations are much less stringent than ours? Will he consider the position in relation to marketing beef from herds that are absolutely free of BSE? It is wrong that farmers who have gone out of their way to keep BSE-free herds should suffer in the same way as other farmers. Cannot he design a way of either labelling or inspecting that meat for the market so that those farmers are not caught up in the general panic that has been expressed by Opposition Front-Bench Members?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the quality of beef in Britain compared with the quality of beef in countries in mainland Europe. It is true that, in a number of important respects, those other countries are operating a much less tight regime than Britain, in particular in the handling of SBOs and the contents of feed rations for ruminants. In those two respects, our controls are very much tighter than those operated in mainland Europe.

My right hon. Friend made an important point about marketing, although it is more specifically for industry to take advantage of the status that he identified than it is for MAFF to advise.

Surely one of the lessons to be learnt from this whole sorry saga is that food policy in this country should be rethought. Whatever Ministers have said today, the belief is that consumer interests have been subjugated to the interests of producers. [Interruption.] That is the general belief in this country and nothing that has been said today will change that.

Scientists have said today that people who may be worried about beef should not think that they can simply change to chicken, pork or any other meat because they are full of antibiotics which may bring their own risks. The consumer is totally confused.

The Minister boasts about taking note of scientific advice. Why did not the Government take note of their own committee's advice in 1989—the Tyrrell committee—which recommended research into the brains of slaughtered cattle to examine the incidence of unknown diseases? Why was that not done?

On the question of food policy, it is clear that these sort of incidences will inform the way that we think about food. Lessons will be learnt. It is nonsense to suggest that policy does not develop against the background of emerging problems. We learn from experience and draw our lessons from what we now know. The hon. Lady can be certain of that.

The consumer interest is heavily protected in Britain. The weight of regulations currently in place shows the significance and importance attached to the consumer interest. I shall cite one example. The House will remember that in the latter part of last year I introduced restrictions on mechanically recovered meat. Now, I am being sued for having acted in, it is said, an irrational and disproportionate manner in doing that. That shows that we put public health first.

rose—

Order. I am conscious of the need to safeguard the remainder of today's business. I appeal to hon. Members to put brisk questions. I am sure that the Minister will oblige with brisk answers.

I welcome the fact that the Government are not overreacting to the hysteria generated over the past few days by certain of the media, by the self-interested action of some of our competitors and, in particular, by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and some of her colleagues—in sharp contrast to the restraint shown by the Liberal Democrats on this issue.

Bearing in mind what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and also that McDonald's and other organisations in this country that are banning British beef intend to import beef from Ireland, France and elsewhere, will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House of the risk of BSE infection being imported into this country by that means?

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the hysterical reaction of a number of Opposition Members—and I include the nationalist parties in that. My hon. Friend referred to importing beef into Britain to satisfy the requirements of McDonald's. On the advice of SEAC, we believe that the position adopted by McDonald's is not justified on any assessment of the facts.

I do not wish to be hysterical, but I am sure that the Minister realises that his statement will do nothing for consumer confidence, and nor will it help the industry. I respectfully refer him to the fact that in Ireland the problem was virtually eradicated by selective culling in 1989, at a comparatively small cost of £12 million. When will the Minister take a real, decisive step and not pass the buck and waste time?

A number of policies can be pursued, but it is important to rest our conclusions on the best possible evidence and assessments. We have two important strategies. The first is to try to eliminate the incidence of BSE from the cattle herd. It is falling rapidly, but not fast enough. That is the justification for excluding from the animal feed chain the ruminant protein to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred. Secondly, on the question of public health—and we have concentrated for most of the past hour and a half on this—we believe that the arrangements now in place ensure that the risk from eating British beef is extremely low.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that throughout the west country, which is a major livestock area, there is considerable resentment that premature judgments have been made about the safety of beef, largely on the basis of certain irresponsible statements by politicians, journalists and other so-called instant experts? Does he agree that the greatest need now is to restore confidence in the beef market and the consumption of British beef? If a further package of measures is required to achieve that objective, it should be implemented sooner rather than later.

We have a clear duty to inform the public and the House of any important conclusions or recommendations that come to us from SEAC. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I came to the House as expeditiously as we did last week with the information that we had, namely, that CJD may have been caused by BSE, the exposure having taken place before 1989. That we have to do. The central point is that exposure probably occurred before 1989. Thereafter, controls have been in place. My hon. Friend referred to confidence. I believe that there should be confidence in the safety of British beef, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend and I have been outlining over the past hour and a half.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the only way in which confidence in British beef will be restored among British and European consumers and the market generally is an assurance that no BSE-infected meat will enter the human food chain? Can he explain to the House why the research carried out by Mr. Narang in Newcastle, which was to develop a live test for BSE, was not continued and developed? If there were to be a live test, we would be able to begin to solve this horrendous problem.

Obviously, it is vital to keep infected beef out of the human food chain; that is the purpose of the SBOs and that is why we have reinforced them. It is also true that it is highly desirable to develop a live test as soon as possible. At the moment, we do not have one and the best estimate is that we will not have one in the near future. I wish that it were otherwise, but I believe that what I have said represents the facts.

My right hon. and learned Friend has been absolutely right this afternoon to keep underlining the importance of restoring the confidence of consumers in British beef. Will he call in the heads of those retail chains that are refusing to serve British beef and at least ask them to offer a choice between Dutch or other beef and British beef?