---

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Regulations 2006

My Lords, I rise to speak against the annulment of the regulations, although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue and giving us an opportunity to speak about the issues. I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Food Standards Agency and the deputy chair of the Meat Hygiene Service. I am going to take a broad view of the debate and will not attempt to answer any of the detail, although in another place I hope that the noble Baroness will take advantage of joining the seminars that are going to take place about TSEs. It is my understanding that the atypical scrapie is newly identified—she shakes her head; I say that to her because if she has greater understanding, she would be valued at those seminars and I urge her to join. As she knows, she is always extraordinarily warmly welcomed in the agency. However, as a member of the FSA board I have seen the move from a nation appalled by the BSE crisis—my sympathy is with the farmers and the terrible tragedies that they have suffered over the years—and the consequent lack of confidence in food issues generally to one where I believe that we are moving forward confidently to testing and where our surveys show greater consumer confidence across the food chain. All the Food Standards Agency surveys are showing that confidence steadily increasing. Consumers and public health are central to this important set of regulations. It covers all the key controls that protect the public from the risk of BSE—I shall return to that issue—including the feed ban, specific risk material controls (SRM) and the testing of cattle aged over 30 months. All provide vital protection against vCJD—a truly horrific disease involving a slow death and no cure. I have spoken and worked with relatives of those who have died and who would not wish to take even the proportionate negligible risk. There is consensus among experts in the field, including the advisory committee, SEAC, that vCJD resulted from transmission of infection from BSE in cattle to humans via infectivity in food. I know that in the past the noble Countess has talked about the therapeutic use of organophosphates, but experts over the years have looked at that, and in 1997 SEAC concluded that more evidence would be required to justify further consideration of a role for organophosphates in the development of BSE. The BSE inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, concluded in 2000 that the theory that BSE is caused by organophosphate pesticides was not viable. Professor Horn’s review of the origin of BSE stated in 2001 that that theory could not be reconciled with the epidemiology and was not supported by research. All the research that has been reviewed by the Food Standards Agency supports the conclusion that BSE comes from the transmission from food to humans. I am sure that anyone in the Food Standards Agency would be prepared to write to any Member of the House who would like that to be outlined in more detail. Policies have to be based on evidence, and the Food Standards Agency must base its views on evidence. If new evidence comes forward, we will review that. The evidence means that it is essential to maintain the confidence of consumers, both in the UK and elsewhere—particularly elsewhere at the moment—that they will be protected. The FSA advised that the OTM rule should not be lifted unless the BSE system that replaced it would be robust. That may be seen as difficult, but it is essential that consumers’ health and welfare is protected. That was recognised and shared by stakeholders, including the meat industry. Indeed, on the whole, the slaughtering industry has been a willing partner in setting up the testing system which is now working well in over 40 abattoirs throughout the UK. The controls have been set out at EU level, but without these regulations they could not be properly enforced and that would presumably leave us with the expensive OTM rule. The cost of continuing that would run into huge sums for this country. Things have moved on and we are no longer the BSE risk of Europe. Following extensive consultation in 2004, the FSA advised Ministers that, based on risk and proportionality, a move from the OTM rule to testing would also meet the test of protection of public health—but only if the system was robust and was checked by an independent advisory group, bearing in mind the history of this country’s BSE. Following the work of that group, the FSA concluded that,"““a reliable testing regime for OTM cattle has been successfully designed and trialled””," and that,"““arrangements are in place to ensure that, should the BSE testing regime be implemented, it would be able to operate across the UK to the highest standards””." But the independent group also considered that a recommended method of practice should be in place before plants could legally slaughter OTM cattle. The testing provisions of the TSE regulations simply implement those recommendations. I am sure the Minister will recognise the balance of care and proportionality that the FSA has brought to the issue and I commend the regulations to the House.