Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Few people are coming to farming from fresh, without a farming background. The farming lifestyle is very attractive in many ways and the work done is so valuable, but increasingly few of those who are from
farming backgrounds are taking the risk of following their parents into farming. One consequence is the reduction in the number of working farms. One valley in my constituency had 26 farms 25 years ago, but now has only seventhe same amount of land is managed by a much smaller number of people. The consequences are clear. First, we run a huge risk with the security of food supply. The Government are vexed about energy supply, but they are seemingly not that bothered about the food supply; they should take the issue on board.
Secondly, there is the landscape. People may think that farming is heavily subsidised and we give folks in agriculture money for nothing, but they should remember that the countryside that we value so highly and on which tourism completely depends does not occur naturally. It exists because it is farmed. It is estimated that some £400 million a year is spent by farmers on maintaining the countryside, and they get none of that back. The footpaths are maintained by farmers. Fields are not boggy and flooded, thanks to farmers. Natural England should be reminded that if it wants partners to help to deliver its biodiversity programme, it needs farmers farming.
Keeping Britain farming is an investment, and I am afraid that the Government are not making that investment. If we are to invest money in the industrythe Government owe it to farmers to provide more than the pittance that has been offered so far. The most obvious approach to take is price support, as many other hon. Members have pointed out. If a third of sheep were to go to export and now will not do so, the answer is to buy them and create a floor price so that farmers get a fair return for the work that they have done. After all, as we have established, the problem is the Governments fault.
Let us be clear: foot and mouth disease is an animal welfare problem, but principally it is a farm economics problem. That is why it is so important that the Government get the balance right. In killing off foot and mouth, we must not kill off farming.
Mr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I have often said that Mystic Meg would have done a better job of economic forecasting than the Prime Minister managed when he was in the Treasury, but his ascension as pharaoh this summer was met in short order by, if not quite the full spectrum of biblical plagues, at least a fair proportion of them. The rivers did not exactly turn to blood, but they certainly burst their banks, and our farmers have had to endure more than their fair share of pestilence and death. But sadly, across swathes of the country, there has been no exodus of animals going to market. The only frantic escape this summer has been the number of savers fleeing in the face of the Governments inept handling of the Northern Rock debacle.
The Prime Minister was keen to assure the country that he took personal control of the latest foot and mouth crisis. With typical hubris, he told the press in September that,
it is only because we learnt lessons from what happened in 2001 on foot and mouth that we were able to act as instantly as we did to prevent the spread of that disease.
Only a week later, the Government had their own attack of foot in mouth, when they were forced to revoke the all-clear in the face of a new outbreak.
The 2001 general election was delayed because of the seriousness of the foot and mouth outbreak, but this year the Prime Minister was far more concerned with his own case of election fever than with the plight of thousands of farmers. Although he is quite safe from bluetongue, when it came to quashing election speculation, he proved that he was suffering from a good dose of forked tongue. Indeed, he decided against taking his case to the country only when he realised that he had become,
a tainted wether of the flock,
Mr. MacNeil: Given what the hon. Gentleman said about the Prime Ministers hubris, does he agree that the Prime Minister and his Government should not be allowed to get away without paying the compensation due to farmers and crofters in Scotland?
Mr. Newmark: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent pointthe same point made by all Opposition Members. I completely agree with what he says as it applies not only to Scotland, but to England and Wales.
My constituency lies within the present bluetongue control area. I can only say that over the summer local farmers were more interested in getting accurate information from DEFRA than they were in election speculation. As the livestock manager for a large farm in my constituency says,
DEFRA guidance has not been particularly clear,
situation is changing so fast that nobody seems in control.
As a dairy farmer, he has not been too badly affected, because milk sales have continued and the price of milk has actually risen. However, although some livestock sales have now resumed, he has had to cull bull calves from his herd because they could not be sold and he has lost £40 or £50 per head as a result. His vets are being very strict, which he admits is quite right, but vets and farmers alike are finding it hard to get access to accurate and up-to-date information from DEFRA.
Farmers are not irresponsible people and they are not unreasonable. They appreciate that it is hard for the Government to keep up with a rapidly evolving situation such as the bluetongue outbreak.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I share my hon. Friends view that farmers do the best that they can but that it is often DEFRAs operating procedures that cause the trouble. Is he aware, for example, that in the Windsor constituency in Berkshire, which was affected by the outbreak, cattle were seen falling off the back of a DEFRA lorry on a roundabout?
Mr. Newmark: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I need to move on.
As I said, farmers are not irresponsible. They appreciate that it is hard for the Government to keep up with what is going on, but they should not have to fight to get accurate information and to get the necessary authorisations when they are only trying to obey the law. They should not be feeling that the Government have lost control.
Like much of East Anglia, Essex has been caught once again, now in a double whammy from foot and mouth and bluetongue. Forty years ago almost to the day, the first cases of foot and mouth were confirmed in Oswestry, marking the beginning of the 1967 outbreak. The culprit for the August outbreak was quickly established as the strain of virus from the 1967 outbreak, which was stored at Pirbright and released through broken drains. It seems that short-sightedness is not the only guilty bequest that the Government have inherited from the era of Harold Wilson.
Responding to the inquiry into the 2001 epidemic, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) said:
The House will want to know what else would be different in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease.[ Official Report, 6 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 286.]
Well, although farmers have again been left to pick up the pieces, the difference is that the Government caused this outbreak directly. Why do I say that? As the Secretary of State himself announced last Monday, no money had been invested in the drains because they were not believed to be problematic. He was adamant about the sincerity of that belief, but how far was it reasonable and who is to be held accountable for it, given that it proved so disastrously incorrect? The Secretary of State told the House that
nobody thought that they were in such a condition.[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 39.]
But did anybody think to checkand if not, why not?
If, in similar circumstances, there had been an outbreak of a disease that was infectious to people, resignations would have followed and, presumably, charges would have been brought against those responsible.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newmark: I have not got the time, so I am not giving way.
The latest foot and mouth outbreak has indirectly affected thousands through the loss of livestock and livelihoods. Someone still has to step up and take responsibility for that outbreak and its consequences for farmers.
Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): We have covered an important subject today. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) opened the debate by asking all the right and awkward questions of the Government. He also patiently took some rather silly interventions from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who clearly had not read page 9, item 31 of the Spratt report.
My hon. Friend also took an important and valuable intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the removal of top soil from the Pirbright site, and the Governments complete failure to record where they have put it.
The Secretary of State did not do himself a great deal of credit in his response to my hon. Friends opening speech. I believe that he told us that no work on a bluetongue vaccine will take place until the new heat treatment filters are fitted. As I understand it, the Pirbright factory was making a vaccine for a disease that we did not have in this country, and allowed that disease to escape. Now that there is bluetongue all around the Pirbright factory, it is not making the vaccinealthough we now need it, because the disease has emerged. It defies belief that the Government cannot get anything right.
Nor is it right for the Secretary of State to suggest that no scientist had complained about the drains and that therefore the drains could not have been leaking. Scientists do not look down drains. That is the responsibility of DEFRA; it is supposed to regulate the site, rather than leaving it to scientists to complain about the drains. The idea that nobody acted negligently cannot be right; it is absurd and flies in the face of DEFRAs reactions to farmers, who are now being prosecuted. John Hepplethwaite, 72, and his wife Sally, 69, are being prosecuted for not noticing, I believe, that their cattle had foot and mouth. They are not vets or veterinary inspectors, but they are being prosecuted while DEFRA, which is responsible for patrolling and regulating the Pirbright site, is, apparently, without blame. That is patent nonsense. The Secretary of State described farmers as the first line of defence; we cannot go around prosecuting our first line of defence, Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said clearly that the Government were guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and he is absolutely right. He issued a withering attack on the Government and robustly defended his farming constituents. Sadly, his mind may be on other things at the momentin particular, persuading the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) not to vote for him.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) praised the Government and described his interest in animal welfare. He also described some of the difficulties that his pig farming constituents had had, but failed to make the point that the Government could do a great deal more for animal welfare. Top of that list would be to ensure that the right drugs were available for animals that have caught bluetongue diseasethey need steroids, painkillers and penicillin. What is the correct dosage for animals with the disease? What guidance is there? Hon. Members may have seen the excellent article in this weeks Farmers Weekly; it made clear that lessons from Holland can be learned, but I have not yet seen anything that shows that the Government have picked up on those valuable lessons.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) made a brilliant speech. He accused the Government of incompetence, citing at least 13 instances in which they had done the wrong thing because they are obsessed by farm movements and not their own biosecurity. He timed his speech to the moment, and it was a joy to hear him show that, without any reasonable doubt, the Government have been guilty of negligence.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) rightly mentioned the importance of farm-gate prices. She spoke too about the power of the
supermarkets, the speed of single farm payments and of hill farm allowances. She was also right to note the importance of producing our own food.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) thanked his local people and councillors, and spoke extremely eloquently about Merial. He rightly said that it was entirely DEFRAs responsibility to license, regulate, inspect and fund the Pirbright site. He also mentioned that footpaths had not been closed, something that has caused much distress to all our constituents across the country. It is a great shame that the Government have singularly failed to deliver the joined-up thinking that we were promised. He asked about compensation and about the quality and frequency of inspections, and he wanted to know whether DEFRA was happy about the present arrangements. He made some extremely important points, to which I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond when he winds up the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) made a lovely speech about his pride in his constituency, and in its farmers and lamb production. He talked about the pathetic prices that farmers now receive36p a head for certain ewesand he spoke brilliantly about the legal precedent involved. He attacked the Governments reputation for competence, rightly citing the Prime Ministers cynical manipulation of the process, and he also spoke about accountability and resignations. He said that the farming industry will not forget what has happened.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about the price for light lambs for export, and about the huge numbers of sheep being traded in Wales. Citing the Rylands v. Fletcher judgment, he made the case that liability lies with the Government. My notes are a little shaky, but I suspect that he meant that the person performing an action must take responsibility for it. That means that it is the responsibility of the regulatory body to ensure that none of its sites leak diseases, and especially not one as important and dangerous as FMD.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) thanked the Government for briefing her and keeping her in touch. Her approach was very reasonable, and she quoted from Spratt about the long-term leakage problems. She made a very good case about the state of the pipes, rightly saying that the Government had failed to keep them in good condition. She said that the Secretary of State was wriggling on a hookquite generous, given what I saw of his performance. She also mentioned the lack of integrity on display, and I suspect that she might have been a bit tougher if the right hon. Gentleman were a less popular Minister, as this was not his finest hour.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said that the damage done to the farming community by an outbreak at this time of year was like an attack on retail at Christmas time. He was absolutely right: all livestock farmers will have had a terrible time, and that is certainly true in my constituency. The price of lamb has collapsed, and the ripple effect will hit the beef price as the year goes on. He added that Labour had no rural representation in the Chamber, and it was unfortunate to see that there were no Labour Back Benchers listening to his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) made an excellent speech, in which he claimed that the Government were speaking with a forked tongue. I suspect he was making his speech with a silver tongue[Hon. Members: Oh!] I accept that this is an extremely serious matter about which we should not joke. My hon. Friend also told the House about how vets and farmers in his constituency had been kept very short of information. He took an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) who talked about cattle falling from the back of lorries. Obviously, the Governments handling of these things leaves a lot to be desired.
I started asking questions about bluetongue as long ago as 16 April when the Government seemed confident that they could handle any outbreak of the disease. Sadly, that has not proved to be the case. The virus has spread to 36 farms, 60 infected animals have tested positive since the first case on 28 September and now the disease is present in sheep.
The Secretary of State suggested that a vaccine will be available in the summer. I hope that is true and that the Minister will confirm that information. I understand that 36 scientists should be working on producing the vaccine at Pirbright, but obviously they are not because of the lack of the right heat filter.
Lord Rooker told my noble Friend Baroness Byford that DEFRA and its partners have been undertaking
a cost analysis of potential bluetongue outbreaks and control measures in the United Kingdom.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2007; Vol. 690, c. WA291.]
Has any work been done to examine how the disease is being handled in Holland? I have already mentioned the article in Farmers Weekly and I hope the Government will look at it and reflect on what they can do to improve animal health in the UK.
What did the Prime Minister say when he was told about the foot and mouth outbreak? How did he react after coming back from his holiday to go on the radio on 8 September to tell everybody what his Government were going to do only to discover that the disease had broken out again?
There is another thing that is not quite right. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
Any issues relating to the funding of the effluent system, whether remedial or replacement, would be a matter for the IAH and Merial...the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council...and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.[ Official Report, 9 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 450W.]
Nobody has mentioned their role. Have they been asked to contribute to the fund the Government have put together to help farmers? If they have, how much have they put in? After all, the Minister said that they were among the people responsible. We need to know who he thinks is responsible for the escape of the virus. We know from the Spratt report that the Pirbright site is not up to scratch and that the proposal made to DEFRA in 2004 was ignored. It is important that we have answers from the Minister.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |