POLITICS
Government takes immediate measures against Mad Human Disease. Pity about the cows
BRUCE ANDERSON
On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, Stephen Done!! discovered that political rhetoric is an amoral business. He began with a wise and pithy observation — an admirable one-line summary of the beef crisis. As a result, he was fiercely criticised and thrown on the defensive. He tried to cover his retreat with as foolish a comment as a minister has ever made. He was then praised for his statesmanship.
The wise remark was: 'It isn't the cows that are mad, it's the people.' Absolutely right, but one of the defects of democracy is that ministers are not allowed to cast doubt on the sovereign people's judgment. For more than a week now, much of the British public has been behaving idiotically, but then again, millions of people read astrology columns every day, and not only buy lottery tickets but they expect to win. We are a lamentably ill-educated and superstitious nation — but our politicians dare not point this out.
Instead, they have to flatter us, as Mr Dorrell did on Wednesday, saying: 'I flatly refuse to believe that people are incapable of considering the evidence . . . In a mod- ern democracy, Government must trust the people, give them the facts and and leave them to draw mature conclusions.'
That is a good description of the way ministers have responded — and look where it has got them: panic, opprobrium, huge bills, and no signs of a return to sani- ty. But this should have been anticipated. When the news first filtered around White- hall, only a few hours before it reached the press, the reaction was one of fatalism. There was going to be an almighty row, but nothing could be done except batten down and plough on. With hindsight, that was never going to work. The option of culling older dairy cows was discussed at the outset; it should have been acted on, right away. But there was an obstacle. The Chancellor was in Africa, and could not be persuaded of the seriousness of the situation. He did not see why the public purse should be mulcted of hundreds of millions of pounds — or more — to deal with an outbreak of hysteria. He was right, and wrong: correct in his assess- ment of the problem, in error, alas, as regards his fellow-countrymen. But, as ever, Mr Clarke displayed stubbornness. As late as this Wednesday, he had still not agreed to fund a culling programme. He was persisting with a rational, common- sense approach to the problem long after that had ceased to be relevant.
There is also the matter of Europe. It was predictable that the Commission should behave badly, and not only out of the wish to strike a low blow at the British. If you invite Continental politicians to choose between a calm, measured response which will also protect an important British industry, and a panic measure that will reassure their consumers and benefit their producers — there is no choice.
Now our ministers have to placate them, a business which may prove as difficult as it is disagreeable. Not only is there no way of stabilising the British beef industry without recovering its export markets, there is no way of restoring domestic confidence as long as foreigners refuse to buy our beef. So Messrs Dorrell and Hogg will have to fight down their distaste, go to Brussels and cut a deal. This will certainly involve culling the older dairy cattle, which is likely to become Government policy within hours rather than days; there is a limit even to Ken Clarke's obstinacy.
But Mr Clarke should not be blamed for acting as any sound custodian of the nation's finances ought to act. It is not a question of saving his tax cuts; spending all this money on destroying harmless beef is hardly more sensible than using it as kin- dling. We still do not know whether there is a link between BSE and CJD. If there were, one might have thought that Britain, with a much higher incidence of BSE than France, Germany or Holland, would also have many more cases of CJD. In fact, the rates are almost identical. We do not know whether the newly discovered strain of CJD is linked to BSE, nor can we exclude the possibility of a link with scrapie, the sheep equivalent of BSE. There must be at least a ten per cent possibility of a sheep scare over the next few months.
We do know that until the late Eighties, some cattle-feeding and slaughterhouse practices were undesirable. But corrective measures have been taken, although the slaughterhouses were initially reluctant to implement them. The rate of BSE among British herds is falling; the rate of CJD is not increasing. It is worth remembering that around 140 people die every year from beef-related food poisoning, generally due to the consumption of low-grade beef prod- ucts long past their sell-by dates, or to incompetent freezing and refreezing. This is two and a half times the CJD death rate. Nor do ten cases over two years of a new strain of CJD justify the disbursement of a billion pounds. Such a sum allocated to the public health budget or the road safety budget could bring benefits. There will be no benefits from the money spent to appease the beef hysterics, and when all the costs are added, the total may may well reach several billions.
The risk of catching CJD is greater than that of being killed by lightning. But it does not compare with the risks involved in trav- elling. I wrote the wrong word in my col- umn last week; what I meant to say was that the annual death rate from CJD is about half the weekly death rate on Britain's roads. The Ministry of Agriculture cannot guarantee that there is no risk from consuming beef products, any more than the Ministry of Transport can guarantee the safety of Britain's road passengers. But there would be more reason to impound all cars than to slaughter all cattle. Nothing more can be done. Ministers simply have to placate Brussels, sign large cheques, consent to the costly destruction of healthy beef, and hope that the out- break of mad human disease can be con- tained before it turns into electoral insanity.
Previous page
