|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and on raising issues that are of particular importance to Northumberland. Of course DEFRA recognises that Northumberland was hit very hard during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I shall try to respond to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, and as he requested I shall spell out the aspects of the report that we recognise and accept. However, there are one or two parts of the report that we do not accept, as I shall make clear.
One aspect that we do not accept is the invitation to join the Gold command centre. We have no record of any such invitation, and we are not aware to whom it was sent. That may be a small point, but it needs correcting. We also reject the argument that we did not respond immediately by setting up a command centre. A centre was set up in the early stages, and I shall give the details in a moment.
I understand that the supply of natural gas is important to rural areas. I represent a rural area, and some years ago that question took on great importance in my constituency. However, gas supply is a matter not for DEFRA alone but for British Gas as well.
The right hon. Gentleman gave detailed examples of some of the cases that he has dealt with. I shall look carefully at those examples. I hope that he will give me details of the cases that he feels have not been addressed properly, and I shall ensure that they are investigated.
I now turn to the recovery programme. Obviously, I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's request that she meet a delegation, but it might be appropriate for his constituents if he were to seek a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend is responsible for co-ordinating the rural recovery, and I should be pleased to speak to him to see whether such a meeting could be arranged. I am sure that he would be sympathetic to any such request.
I appreciate the tributes paid by the right hon. Gentleman to all those who worked during the foot and mouth epidemic in Northumberland. That includes the county council and other local authority employees involved, who worked very hard. DEFRA staffthe vets, office personnel and other workersare also worthy of recognition. Many DEFRA staff had no connection with animal health or foot and mouth because they were working in other divisions, yet they responded to our calls for volunteers. They were transferred from all the different divisions of the Department, which used to be known as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and were allocated to Northumberland, where they were asked to fight and defeat the disease.
The logistical operation was enormous, and I freely confess that the Department paid a price for it. One problem was the disruption to correspondence, for which I apologise. That was not satisfactory, and I am glad that we are now back on track after rectifying the problem, and that hon. Members can again receive the service to which they are entitled. We certainly intend to provide it.
We agree that there is a need for lessons to be learned, and that local inquiries have a role to play in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have set up the Royal Society inquiry, under Professor Sir Brian Follett. He is looking at the question of disease control, although it is inevitable that the inquiry will concentrate on foot and mouth, because it is so topical and its consequences are so far reaching. The other inquiry is the "Lessons Learned" inquiry under Dr. Iain Anderson, who will make recommendations on how the Government should handle any major animal disease outbreak in the future.
We are committed to those inquiries, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the policy commission on farming and food has already reported. Local inquiries, such as that instituted by Northumberland county council, provide useful local perspective. Their efforts will feed into the work of the national inquiries, and I am sure that the experiences and evidence recounted by people will be very valuable.
We made it clear from the beginning that DEFRA was happy to assist Professor Dower by sending comments on issues that were likely to be of interest to the inquiry. We answered in detail two sets of questions from the inquiry team. However, given our commitment to assist the national inquiries and the need to finish the work of dealing with the disease, it is not possible for us to send staff and Ministers to all the local inquiries in the country.
There have been many county council inquiries. Ministers and staff are also involved in parliamentary inquiries such as the EU inquiry. In contrast with the previous Government, Ministers have attended the EU temporary committee and answered questions in a public forum. I have no objections to doing so; it is part of the democratic process. We have also had to deal with the National Audit Office inquiry and Select Committee inquiries. Those are part of the parliamentary process, as is this Adjournment debate. Ministers are open to public scrutiny all the time, but we cannot take on the whole range of local inquiries and give them the kind of attendance to which parliamentary inquiries, which have a prior claim, are entitled.
We do not accept all the report's findings. It was critical of the very hard work done by my Department and previously by MAFF. It should have been fairer in recognising the commitment and hard work that our people put into controlling the disease. The report also did not recognise that the disease control centre was created at Newcastle as soon as the first case was confirmed in Northumberland.
I had the opportunity to talk to Professor Dower in Strasbourg, so I am not saying anything behind his back or making an unfair criticism. Professor Dower knows my views on the issues. I made it clear to him that we disagreed that there had been greater scope for on-farm burial. We followed the advice of the Environment Agency very closely. Part of the problem of on-farm burial is that we have moved on from the original Duke of Northumberland inquiry because of taking into account water tables and potential pollution.
What we have now that we did not have in 1967 is BSE in cattle. We preferred older cattle not to be buried on farm but in properly managed, supervised and run disposal sites. Professor Dower said that we could line pits on farm, but the costs of digging properly lined pits on farm are enormous, not to mention the logistics. The delays that that would have caused for carcase disposal would have been unacceptable. It would have been unacceptable in Northumberland.
Mr. Morley: Even with those examples there is a misunderstanding. People talk about the ash having to be cleared, but it was always intended that it would be removed later. It is not as if something went wrong; that was part of the disposal and recovery programme. It was already part of the proposals. I do not doubt that there were cases of leaking vehicles, because we pursued these complaints, but there were only a few. Generally speaking, the lorries were sealed. The sites are properly monitored and engineered and will continue to be monitored for some time to ensure that pollution is not a problem and that they are being managed like proper landfill sites. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that.
As for the claim that animals were killed unnecessarily, Professor Dower seemed to be under the impression that there was a 3 km cull in Northumberland. There was never a 3 km cull in Northumberlandhe is mistaken. There was certainly a contiguous cull in the county, but that is not the same as 3 km cull. The only place where there was a 3 km cull was Cumbria. Professor Dower and his committee may have been labouring under a misapprehension. The most important issue is whether the disease was brought under controland it was.
That is not to say that there may not be alternative ways of dealing with such an epidemic in the future. We certainly do not rule that out. We are not saying that a culling programme is the only way. We have already made it clear in our interim contingency plan that we would not consider pyres for the disposal of animals. Our top three priorities would be rendering, commercial incineration or landfill. We do not want to go back to using funeral pyres. We accept that.
We also accept the points made about blue-box biosecurity controls. Professor Dower's report strongly commended them, and I am pleased about that. However, we must remember that the outbreak was like no other outbreak; it was probably the world's worst outbreak of foot and mouth. No other country had experienced such a scale or spread. The original 1967 Duke of Northumberland report was not adequate to guide the response for a very different outbreak on a much larger scale and with a much wider spread.
One of the lessons that we learned in the course of dealing with the outbreak was that biosecurity was a key issue: 80 per cent. of the spread of foot and mouth disease was within 1 to 3 km of the original outbreak. Eighty per cent. of that spread was local; it involved animal- to-animal contact, movement of animals, movement of
The blue-box zones, successful though they were, were extremely resource-intensive, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge. At the height of the outbreak, when we were dealing with hundreds and hundreds of cases, it was simply not possible to make the resource commitment on blue boxes that we were able to give as the number of cases fell. There is no doubt that the strategy was successful and that we need to take that approach in future.
We have certainly already learned lessons. They guided our interim contingency plan. Indeed, many aspects of that plan coincide with the recommendations of the Northumberland county council report. We are already picking up those points and responding to them.
We realise that contingency planning will also include the provision of suitable facilities for the disposal of carcases in any future outbreak. It will need to take into account issues such as the effect on tourism of pyres, public health and nuisance problems in respect of burn and mass burial sites and the major environmental management tasks that need to be addressed in relation to those sites.
The arrangements will be subject to full consultation in advance to try to avoid the problems that arose at sites such as Widdringtonthe right hon. Gentleman will be aware of those. It is very difficult to deal with all those problems in the middle of a major epidemic when time is everything. In those circumstances, it is not possible to hold the amount of consultation that would normally be desirablewe realise that.
We can certainly consult on the contingency plans, including the interim one, which is out for consultation now. There will also be responses to the Royal Society report and the Anderson report. Those responses will also guide our future contingency plans, which will be redrafted accordingly. We will make the plans available for public consultation, so that people are aware of our proposals and can have an input.
The Northumberland county council report is helpful in that it gives a local view, and it will be taken into account by Dr. Iain Anderson in his findings. We have already responded to some of the suggestions in the report that we agree with, and I have outlined some that we do not agree with. They are mistaken and do not take into account the changing circumstances. If there are particular points that the right hon. Gentleman would like me to consider regarding the impact on his constituents, I am willing to do so, and I shall carefully consider what he has said tonight.