|
Back
Extract from Hansard Debates
13 December 2001. Volume 376, Part 71. Animal Health Billl - Clause
1 - Annual Report on Animal Diseases
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/
cmhansrd/vo011213/debtext/11213-12.htm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley):
I hear the hon. Lady's allegations about
lack of action, inadequacy and illegal imports, but what firm evidence
has she about the scale of illegal imports? What evidence has she
that the measures that we have taken are not deterring illegal imports?
I accept that if an activity is illegal, one cannot guarantee that
it will never occur, but what is the evidence to back up the hon.
Lady's allegations leading to all those terrible consequences?
Mrs. Winterton (Congleton):
It does not become the Minister to be as
complacent as he appears about the serious problem of animal, plant
and human diseases that may come into this country in illegally
imported meat and meat products.
He is right that no Government can guarantee
that no disease will enter the country in that way, but I wonder
whether he has recently travelled extensively as a private individual—[Interruption.]
Would he like to intervene on that point? I think that I heard him
mention checks from a sedentary position. What checks?
Mr. Morley:
On the claims that are being made about measures taken in America
and Australia, I have been to those countries comparatively recently
and I must say that I have not noticed any particular differences
from the checks and security in our country. I am not complacent
about this matter. Some issues need to be reviewed and we want to
do some tightening up. We are and have been doing that, so the claim
that no action has been taken is completely wrong.
Mrs. Winterton:
When the Minister makes his speech, he can outline precisely what
action has been taken. Frankly, it does not add up to a row of beans.
I remind him that he made the following statement in a written answer:
"The current epidemic has been caused by a specific strain
of the foot and mouth virus (PanAsian Strain 0) which has occurred
in a number of countries around the world. The precise means of
introduction of the virus into Great Britain is unknown and the
subject of continuing investigations, but is most likely to have
been introduced in illegally imported meat or meat products"
- [Official Report, 9 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 445W.]
He can tell us later what those investigations
have found so far.
There is a problem, and as I develop my speech,
I shall show the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken no
meaningful action whatever.
Mrs. Browning:
I was astonished by what the Minister said just now in his intervention.
Many years ago, I regularly did business with American companies
and travelled to America. Some 10 or 15 years ago, it was a matter
of routine that the Americans asked one to declare both in documentary
evidence and in person at the airport whether one was carrying any
foodstuffs or plant materials. They have sniffer dogs at their airports.
The Minister must whisk through the VIP lounge and never see ordinary
people.
Mrs. Winterton:
My hon. Friend makes her point very well and explains the reason
why I asked the Minister whether he was travelling as a private
individual. I, too, travel to the United States of America, and
I do so at least once year. I am very much aware of the measures
that that country takes to ensure that visitors do not import any
disease through meat or meat products, and I admire it for what
it does. I have also had the good fortune to travel to New Zealand
and Australia. In New Zealand, they spray the plane. Elsewhere,
one has to take off one's shoes. I know that visitors to New Zealand
and Australia who have come from a farm or had an address at a farm
have been put through checks to the 10th degree. Sniffer dogs can
almost tell whether one has eaten an apple on the plane, never mind
whether one has brought one into the country.
Mr. Bacon:
I, too, have been to the United States and Australia. Indeed, I
have worked in both countries and, like my hon. Friend the Member
for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I know how strict their
controls are. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if the Minister
will not take notice of us, he should take notice of the hon. Member
for West Ham (Mr. Banks)? On Second Reading, he said:
"As a regular traveller to the United States, I know how
vigorously one is questioned there about any products that one
is taking into the country. We have no such procedures".—[Official
Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 620.]
Of course, the hon. Gentleman probably does not
go through the VIP lounge and must do what Opposition Members have
to do.
Diana Organ (Forest of Dean):
I, too, have been to America—we have reached the moment when
we all say where we have been on our holidays. I had to hand over
chewed bits of carrot and apple that small children had been eating
on the journey. I was delighted to be able to do that. However,
the questions that we are asked on entry to the United States are
a formality; 11 September is testament to the fact that security
in their airports is not as good as ours.
Mrs. Winterton:
I was in America on 11 September because one of our children lives
in Hoboken. We were on top of the twin towers on the previous Saturday
evening. Internal flights in America have poorer security, but that
does not apply to international flights. When people enter the USA,
they put the fear of God into you, for good reason. When people
enter the United Kingdom, the opposite happens. I shall consider
that contrast in more detail later when I deal with some of the
measures that the Government have introduced, which have proved
useless.
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster):
My hon. Friend probably knows that the 14 investigations at Heathrow
found five tonnes of illegally imported meat. In every example that
was drawn to the airport authorities' attention, illegally imported
meat had been brought into the country. In some cases, blood was
pouring out of suitcases. The authorities would have investigated
more cases if they had the money and the facilities. We should debate
such matters this afternoon instead of considering ways in which
to cull more of our creatures. Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes
a strong point, and he is right. There appears to be no co-ordination
in the effort against illegal imports.
Mr. Morley:
That is an exaggeration.
Mrs. Winterton:
I shall ignore that point and get on with my speech. The Government
received another warning about the danger of illegal imports. On
11 March, two weeks after the first outbreak of foot and mouth,
Clive Lawrence, director of Ciel Logistics wrote to the then Minister
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Ciel Logistics is approved to
collect and recover consignments from airline warehouses and take
them through the port health border inspection post. In his letter,
Mr. Lawrence highlights the fact that the Ministry and Customs and
Excise had long suspected that products were being illegally imported
as passenger baggage, but did not have the resources to check. My
hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made that point.
The letter states:
"The issue had to be addressed when baggage handlers at
Heathrow refused to handle the suitcases due to the smell and
the blood coming out of the bags. Inspections carried out on Nigerian
flights on the 7th, 8th and 11th May resulted in 600 kgs of detained
foodstuffs."
Mr. Lawrence continues:
"On one flight from Nigeria on 15th May, a check resulted
in 2500 kgs being detained from passenger luggage. It contained
various bush meats and a large quantity of maggot infested fish
both wet and dry. We also recovered one whole dead deer freshly
slaughtered in a suitcase."
The mind boggles.
Mr. Lawrence did not receive a reply from the
then Minister for some time. In a recent parliamentary answer, the
Under-Secretary referred to "improved publicity" to ensure
that travellers are aware of import restrictions, and claimed that
"at least 20 per cent."—[Official Report, 29 November
2001; Vol. 375, c. 1085W.]
of legal meat imports are being subjected to physical
checks. That may be because of the imports from Belgium that were
stopped recently. I believe that two or three consignments were
stopped because of the checks on legal imports.
As I said earlier, I do not believe that travellers
who enter the country are informed that they should not bring in
any animal or plant produce, nor are they questioned or required
to fill in any forms to say that they are not doing so.
When we come into the arrivals section as ordinary
travellers, there are, to the best of my knowledge— I checked
when I last went abroad—no big notices telling us what we should
or should not bring in. The only evidence of "improved publicity"
that I could find in my local airport, Manchester—one of the
most successful and best run in the United Kingdom—was one
small, peeling poster that had been placed in the departure area
rather than in arrivals. That is quite extraordinary and pathetic.
I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the precise action
taken since February to eliminate illegal imports.
The animal origin legislation is based on EU directive
97/98. The Miscellaneous Products of Animal Origin (Import Conditions)
Regulations 1999 were made on 26 January 1999, laid before Parliament
on 3 February and came into force in the United Kingdom on 1 March
that year. Any product of animal origin arriving at a United Kingdom
port or any other European port needed to be inspected for port
health clearance before being allowed free circulation in the Community,
yet Her Majesty's Customs and Excise continues to claim that it
does not have the resources to continue to target the flights that
more commonly carry illegal imports. That must be looked at, because
the dangers are inherently greater from some parts of the world
than from others.
Mr. Lawrence also has proof of the fact that the
meats are often contaminated. His company found that one consignment
was smuggled through in December 2000 as a cargo of vegetables and
undeclared to customs. It was investigated and found to contain
15 dead monkeys and some tortoise legs. Laboratory checks showed
a risk of Ebola contamination. Fortunately, that consignment was
found, but it is generally acknowledged that the majority of luggage
goes unchecked.
I wonder whether the Minister has seen the video
prepared by the National Pig Association, which highlights the dangers
facing this country from Ebola contamination. Although we are talking
about animal health today, in cases such as that it is clear that
plant health and human health are also implicated. If Ebola and
other viruses about which our doctors know virtually nothing are
imported, the effects will be far greater than the devastating effects
of the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
On 4 December 2001, the Minister responded to
a written parliamentary question about the additional biosecurity
measures that have been implemented to check imports since February.
He stated:
"Adequate measures are already in place to control legally
presented imports of meat and meat products."
That may well be true; I have mentioned recent
finds of legally imported meat of a cheap or substandard nature
coming into the country. I wonder whether those checks would also
have applied to the chicken imported from Thailand and elsewhere
in the far east—reported on the front page of, I think, yesterday's
Daily Express—that had been contaminated by pork and was full
of water. That chicken was being used by the catering industry.
Very strict checks and conditions should be placed on the catering
industry and others to prevent the importation of such cheap substandard
produce. We have been talking about legally presented imports, but
does the Minister choose to disregard those meat imports that are
not legally presented? That would appear to be the case from the
lack of action taken by the Government.
The Minister's written reply continued:
"Port health authorities and local authorities are requested
to undertake checks at port of entry and at premises of destination
to ensure that products not eligible for trade are detected."—[Official
Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 261-62W.]
|
