................................................................................ 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....