| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, when the United States has a highly successful global positioning satellite system giving world coverage, why is it necessary for Europe, at vast expense, to produce its own global positioning satellite system?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are a number of very good reasons. The first is that, if the Americans have a total monopoly of global positioning systems, which will have enormous economic applications in the next 20 years, they will do what we and any other country would do: ensure that their industry has first use of it. That is the key issue. The second reason, which I do not think is widely understood, is that we require GPS and Galileo to work together and be inter-operable to ensure the necessary robustness for some of the more sophisticated projects on, for example, aircraft control. One simply cannot conduct such projects with GPS alone. Therefore, Galileo—and its inter-operability with GPS, on which discussions are in progress—is clearly the route forward.
Government Publications: Cost and Style
2.59 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will in future require all departmental and other governmental reports to carry indexes and full contents pages and to be printed more economically.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the inclusion of indexes and contents pages is a matter of good practice, but speed of production often prevents their inclusion. HMSO provides guidance to departments on publication of Command Papers and advises that colour printing or anything that significantly adds to costs should be used only when the improvement in presentation can be justified.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister was frugal in his response. He is, I think, aware of the fact that the vast majority of reports carry no index.
Does he appreciate that the recently published Auld report, A Review of the Criminal Courts, is published as a public consultation document? Is he further aware that it is 783 pages long, that it has no index and that it costs £42.50? Is that not a completely self-defeating state of affairs if one really wants to consult the public? Is it beyond the wit of government to issue with every such report a summary leaflet such as accompanies the Budget report?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord and I have done our extensive researches in the Printed Paper Office. I have also looked at the Auld report; it is, if I may correct the noble Lord, 686 pages long. It is a weighty tome but it is on a website. Some 4,500 copies of A Review of the Criminal Courts have been printed. The uptake of the report is high. I am told that it is likely to be reprinted as it is so popular, although, I hasten to add, it is not popular in all quarters. A summary of the document is widely available. We take the point that is made.
I draw the noble Lord's attention to another important publication to which I have referred, How to Publish a Command Paper, produced by the Cabinet Office which has a "top 10 tips" in note form and a helpful index at the back. I have requested that the reprint of the document we are discussing should draw attention to the necessary good practice of including indexes, where appropriate, in all government publications.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rather than worrying about the cost of government documents we should spend a little more on parliamentary documents which look—although this is not always the case—as if they are unreadable?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot possibly agree that all parliamentary documents are unreadable. However, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. It is for the Government at all times to pay close attention to making sure that documents are produced and printed in an accessible form. That is exactly what the Government have done and that is why the good practice guide exists. If those guidelines are followed carefully, the quality of publications will continue to improve over time.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, why is it that many government White Papers are no longer white, but, like the Auld report, are red, or some other near-red colour?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I read many White Papers—perhaps that makes me a rather sad character—and what has impressed me, and perhaps other Members of your Lordships' House, over the past few years is the fact that they are produced in an attractive, readable and accessible form. That is what
we in government should try to achieve. They may not all be coloured white, but they are certainly published in clear print.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that he is not—that when I am in the United States I spend a lot of time reading newspapers on the Internet? Following his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is he also aware that the idea of trying to read a 686-page document—I think I have that right—on the Internet without an index is a daunting task?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I confess that I have never tried to read a 686-page document on the Internet. I suspect that I should be rather boggle-eyed if I managed to achieve that objective. The noble Lord makes a perfectly reasonable point.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the document the noble Lord mentioned published on the Internet in word format which is searchable and where therefore it is not so necessary to have an index, or, like so many documents which the Government put on the web these days, is it in PDF format which makes it impossible for the user to search?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have searched through my extensive briefing but I am afraid that that precise point eludes me. However, as I and other Ministers often say, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister recall that his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer explained the merit of the Government's annual report to the people when he said that it was a means of focusing on what the Government had achieved during the year? What was the reason, therefore, for cancelling publication of the report for last year?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I presume that the Government quite rightly decided that it was best to provide the information in other formats. No doubt, much of the information can be found on the Internet.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it too late to add the index about which everyone has talked?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I must confess that I asked advisers that question when I was being briefed on the Question as I thought that it might be asked. That is not an unreasonable request. However, given that we are discussing a consultation document and there are tight timetables for consultation, I suspect that that is probably unlikely to occur. However, I am happy to forward that sensible suggestion to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Lord McNally: My Lords, to return to the matter of the annual report, does not the Minister agree that the publication of the annual report by the Government was a flagrant abuse of public funds for party political
reasons? Will he assure us that its disappearance is now permanent and that such abuses will not occur in the future?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot possibly commit the Government to decisions on such matters as annual reports for future years. I cannot possibly agree that it was a flagrant abuse for party political purposes. I believe that it was a useful exercise designed to inform the public of the progress of government policy. Many people read the document and it was widely circulated. I believe that the record speaks for itself.
Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the rail strategic plan. It is likely that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and before the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how pleased I am to see present the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, after her recent illness.
Animal Health Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has two main purposes. It will strengthen our ability to respond effectively to future outbreaks of potentially devastating animal diseases, most notably foot and mouth disease. It also makes provision to accelerate the eradication of scrapie from the national sheep flock by introducing new powers which would allow us at some future date to place controls on the breeding of animals that are particularly susceptible to this disease and, by extension, similar diseases.
In view of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I need to say something about the timing of the introduction of the Bill. Today, after months of devastation from the biggest epidemic of foot and mouth in any country since records began, I can make a good news announcement: that the last county in England and the UK, Northumberland, will be declared foot and mouth free at midnight tonight. That is, free in the sense that there has been no outbreak for over three months and the serological tests on sheep flocks in the county have yielded negative results. That is a major step forward but it is not the end of the story or the end of the risk of the disease. It will be some time, probably months, before our international partners restore our trading status in the EU and beyond as a fully foot and mouth free state as defined by the OIE.
We also have to be eternally vigilant at home. Not only do we have the possibility of recrudescence of the disease as restocking and lambing take place—in 1967 the last few cases were at that stage of the disease—but also there is clearly in today's globalised world an increased risk of foot and mouth re-entering the country and, indeed, increased risk of other exotic animal diseases reaching our shores.
The first part of the Bill gives government as rapidly as possible powers which they currently lack—and the lack of which at crucial points in the epidemic threatened to accelerate its spread—to tackle any recrudescence, or new occurrence, of foot and mouth and other diseases over the next few months.
This is probably the only piece of legislation that I shall introduce in this House that is to a large extent down to my own experience and judgment. Noble Lords will know that over the past few years I have, from various departments, introduced many Bills in this House, and I have always tried to bring both logic and passion to my advocacy of such Bills. That is easier with some Bills than with others!
The Bill reflects what I found in dealing with the foot and mouth disease over the past few months. Noble Lords will know that since the June election, I have chaired the Government's COBRA committee and successor committees, which are co-ordinating interdepartmental and interagency efforts to control and eradicate the disease. By the time that I took over, and thanks to a large extent to the heroic efforts of my predecessor Ministers—not least my noble friend Lady Hayman—the peak of the disease had passed. However, we were still faced with what in historic terms was a series of very dangerous individual outbreaks, the spread of which would have been catastrophic.
Until July, it had been the judgment of MAFF Ministers and the incoming DEFRA team that we did not need additional legislative powers to overcome the disease. It was the outbreak of the disease in the Thirsk area, in North Yorkshire, that convinced me and my colleagues that those powers were inadequate. I should like to give noble Lords a flavour of the situation at that point.
Noble Lords may recall that the Thirsk outbreak was a new outbreak in cattle and sheep. To contain it, we adopted a new form of regime—the blue-box regime—with heavier controls on movement and biosecurity in the area. Even so, the disease was spreading rapidly and moving in a south-easterly direction. It was within 15 miles of large concentrations of pig farms, from where it could have spread into the key areas of large pig units in the East Riding and beyond into Lincolnshire and the East Midlands.
Noble Lords may know that one of the few pieces of good fortune that we have had during this epidemic is that the mass populations of pigs have largely escaped the disease. However, the airborne production of the virus among pigs is several thousand times greater than the rate in cattle and sheep. If the virus had got into those pig populations it would have meant
complete devastation. We had at that point to contemplate contingency plans for destroying—or rather for vaccinating to kill—virtually the whole of the pig populations in East Riding and Lincolnshire. If the disease had moved from the Thirsk area another 10 miles south-east, I should have had to take that decision. That was a particularly acute stage in the history of the disease.But why was the disease spreading so rapidly in the Thirsk district? When I went to the Northallerton Control Centre, the vets there made it clear to me that the main reason for its rapid spread was the delay in the contiguous cull. By that stage, local veterinary experience on the ground and epidemiological analysis by scientists made it clear that the closer we got to meeting our targets for slaughter within 24 or 48 hours, the more rapidly we contained the disease.
As noble Lords will know, there were many reasons for failing to meet that target at various points: poor organisation, complex logistics, difficult topography and bad weather. However, few of those reasons applied to the new blue-box area in North Yorkshire in July. The main reason why there were delays was resistance to the contiguous cull. At one point, as many as one in three farmers was opposing the cull in one way or another and many were threatening to take legal action. There were teams of lawyers in the district trying, very irresponsibly, to provoke them to do so. Many of those who were delaying that action were eventually affected by the disease, as, of course, were their neighbours, who were perfectly prepared to go along with the strategy.
We were therefore a hair's breadth from disaster. Luckily, the disease did not spread any further south east, although in other directions the spread did not stop. That was due to luck, although good organisation and the support of the bulk of the farming community also played a major role. In the end, given the delay in the contiguous cull, it was probably luck that stopped the disease from spreading further.
Powers to enforce the contiguous cull are provided for in the Bill. If, during the summer months, the disease recurred in this country, or if a new strain or a different disease broke out, we could face a similar situation. That time, however, we may not be so lucky.
That is one of the lessons from the epidemic that is already clear. Some people say, "Let us not act until we have learnt all the lessons and until we have completed all the inquiries". It is often those who advocate delay who also want longer and more legalistic inquiries. If the Government already knew of a major defect in the powers that are available to them and did not introduce legislation to correct that, we should be acting extremely irresponsibly.
To those who say that the Bill will involve the slaughter of yet more animals, I say that recent experience shows me that we need such powers to avoid the slaughter of potentially millions more animals. If throughout this epidemic we could have accomplished a quicker cull of fewer animals, many
hundreds of thousands of animals would have been saved. To delay bringing in those powers would therefore be doubly irresponsible.There are many other lessons to be learnt from the epidemic. Noble Lords will discuss some of them and we have already learnt some of them, including control of movement as quickly as possible and control of imports. However, those approaches do not require primary legislation to be put into effect. Some lessons require deeper analysis and probably more radical redirection. That is why the Government have instigated two independent expert inquiries into the handling and the science of the foot and mouth epidemic. We look forward to learning the longer-term lessons that those investigations will yield. I wish therefore to refute any suggestion that, by bringing forward the Bill at this time, we are taking the perverse step of pre-judging the findings of those inquiries. However, in relation to those lessons about which we are already aware, we should take steps to rectify the situation now. That is what the Bill is about.
The House is of course right to scrutinise in detail the Bill and the Government's motivation for it. However, if, at the end of the day, noble Lords conclude that the powers are necessary it would be irresponsible of the House to delay their implementation until the completion of those inquiries. I will listen carefully to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but on the face of it that is the implication of her amendment.
Noble Lords will know that the Phillips inquiry into BSE taught us that,
- "legislation should clearly empower Ministers to take precautionary measures in a situation where the existence of a hazard is uncertain".
The powers in the Bill do not relate only to slaughter; they also relate to alternative and complementary strategies for combating the virus. For vaccination to be effective—many noble Lords are concerned about this—it requires just the powers of entry and the speed of execution that the Bill will provide. Vaccination, even more than culling, will fail if there are loopholes in the system. Powers are also needed for surveillance through the administration of blood testing. There were examples of resistance to blood testing, which threatened to delay the lifting of restrictions on several neighbouring farms. Other powers in the Bill relate to the improvement of biosecurity.
The Bill seeks to sharpen those options in the light of our experience in the field. It places at our disposal a more effective combination of recognised options, in case they should be required in the coming months. We have learnt in particular that where slaughter is required it must take place as quickly as possible in
order to prevent further virus production. Delays in slaughter can lead to the presence of more infective material in the environment, with a consequent increase in the risk of a spread in the disease.In addition to the North Yorkshire example, to which I have already referred, the situation in the Brecon Beacons, where there was a dangerous and rapid spread in the hills, is also instructive. There, the additional policy of contiguous heft culling proved to be essential to stop further spread of the disease. The concerns expressed in that area were most vocal and needed to be resolved because the initial strategy required serological testing to be carried out before we engaged in contiguous culling. It was only with that approach, rather than the one based on serological testing of exposure, with its associated delays, that the outbreak in Brecon was resolved.
In no sense does that mean that we blame the farmers of Brecon, North Yorkshire or anywhere else for the delays or for exercising their legitimate right. Indeed, the Bill goes on to strengthen the right of farmers to challenge action which they consider unreasonable. However, I want to underline the devastation that would have resulted had we not taken the contiguous cull steps in that area. I also want to underline what was put at risk by the inadequacy of the existing powers.
The Bill also provides for the powers to be extendable to other animal diseases. We are seeing increasing signs of the risks presented by dangerous pathogens which, in the past, were often endemic to far-flung regions of the world. Some of those diseases can also affect humans. The precautions provided for by the Bill embrace the most serious animal diseases, including some of which we have little knowledge.
A number of commentators have suggested that some provisions in the Bill represent an infringement of the basic rights of farmers and others. I anticipate that a number of your Lordships will wish to engage in debate about those issues, and I should welcome that. However, perhaps it would be helpful if I were to spell out the main reasons why we believe that the measures in the Bill strike an appropriate balance in protecting the overall public interest.
We are determined to ensure that farmers and livestock owners can have confidence in the basis on which the powers are exercised. I am aware that some have criticised the Bill for removing a so-called "right of appeal" against entry for vaccination, slaughter or other purposes. That is not the case. It appears to be based on the fact that the Bill replaces the current procedure for securing entry to premises on the authority of a High Court injunction with the far swifter procedure based on a magistrate's warrant. In fact, under the Animal Health Act 1981 there is no legal right of appeal against the existing entry powers. This Bill does not change that situation. Moreover, the existing procedure whereby a farmer may seek review by a senior vet of a decision to cull and to make representations to him will continue to be available.
Indeed, in future we propose to make that a more formal process, and we are now consulting publicly on how that will be done.The provision for entry by a magistrate's warrant is not exactly an unknown procedure in legislation. Indeed, I have set out in a letter to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—a copy of which I shall place in the Library—a number of the related enforcement precedents which have existed in many Acts of Parliament over the years. To meet the requirements of the human rights legislation, we must of course show that the use of those powers is both in the public interest and proportionate. Their use must rest upon inspectors presenting sworn evidence that satisfies the test of reasonableness, together with other conditions prescribed in the Bill. I believe that those safeguards are proportionate and they also reflect our need for speedy action.
An epidemiological analysis in Nature last October emphasised that,
- "continued vigilance is . . . essential, both in rapid clinical diagnosis and enhanced serological surveillance".
- "disease control requires good disease surveillance, rapid diagnosis . . . and quick intervention".
I am also aware that some unease has been expressed about the allegedly open-ended slaughter powers in the Bill. I understand some of those concerns but I believe them to be misplaced. The Bill alters the circumstance in which an animal can be culled from one in which exposure is the issue to one in which prevention is the key. That will by no means lead automatically to the culling of more animals; in fact, the opposite will be the case. Considerable scientific evidence supports the view that, by culling quickly, we might prevent the further spread of disease.
Moreover, we are required to exercise our legal powers in a proportionate and reasonable manner, and we shall do so. As I have explained, the slaughter powers are geared to prevention. Therefore, they must be sufficiently flexible to enable us to respond to all relevant situations. Ultimately, it is a veterinary judgment, and the factors that will help to determine where slaughter is justified must be considered in relation to local circumstances. As we learnt in North Yorkshire during the epidemic, such a risk arose when we faced the prospect of FMD spreading to the pig-rearing areas of east Yorkshire.
In order to clarify how the wider slaughter powers would be exercised in practice, and to reassure the public that they will be exercised reasonably, last week we launched a public consultation on the key criteria that will govern their use. The consultation document is available to your Lordships. It includes undertakings to consult in advance on our assessment of the risks and to publish in good time our decisions and the reasons for them. It also sets out the technical factors that will need to be taken into account in deciding whether preventive slaughter is justified. In
each case, we shall seek to consult relevant interest groups at local and regional levels as well as national organisations.I have spoken at some length about the slaughter provisions. Your Lordships will also be aware of the new approach to compensation in respect of infected premises, which is related to the enforcement of biosecurity measures. Poor biosecurity has proved to be a major factor in the spread of foot and mouth disease. Our information on biosecurity breaches in North Yorkshire and Cumbria as a result of the enhanced blue-box restricted zone regime shows that more than 1,000 investigations were carried out into suspected biosecurity offences. Most of those exposed some degree of biosecurity problem and were dealt with locally. However, there were serious breaches in over 70 cases, where formal or informal cautions were issued and court action taken.
I do not dispute that the vast majority of farmers ensure that their animals have the proper high standard of care. But those figures indicate the number of lapses and problems which arose. We are determined to create new incentives to encourage the minority, whose practices can place others' livestock at risk, to raise their standards. I must emphasise that the provisions apply only to infected premises. As in the past, the majority of farmers will continue to qualify for 100 per cent compensation. To encourage the remainder to match that, 25 per cent of that amount will serve as a positive inducement over and above the rate of 75 per cent compensation for which infected premises will automatically qualify.
I do not accept the argument that I have heard that such an approach treats farmers as "guilty until proved innocent". Indeed, the level of compensation varies according to the many different regimes and different animal diseases. In the case of classical swine fever last year, we paid only 50 per cent of the value for affected animals and 100 per cent for healthy animals in an affected herd. What we propose in this Bill is driven by a similar principle. It is also the case that in the Netherlands a figure of approximately 50 per cent was paid automatically with the other 50 per cent being dependent on biosecurity performance. This issue will also be helped by the so-called "disease risk assessment", which will help to determine levels of compensation awarded on infected premises. That is also covered by the consultation document to which I have referred.
I do not apologise for dealing mainly with the first part of the Bill. However, in many ways the second part is just as important and deals with the eradication of scrapie from our national flock. In recent times the sheep sector has suffered particularly badly. It must be desirable to seek to eradicate from our sheep flock the risk of the entire family of such diseases, known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—TSEs. I shall use the term "TSEs" from now on. It includes both scrapie and BSE.
Last July we announced the establishment of the national scrapie plan, which is designed to enable us, through a long-term programme, to breed TSE
resistance into the national flock. The plan has received much support from the sheep sector, but it is a voluntary scheme. At the present rate, it could take far too long to have the desired effect. The Food Standards Agency has recently called on the Government specifically to seek to speed up scrapie eradication in this country. Scrapie eradication will, of course, also deal with the potential, but as yet theoretical, possibility of BSE being present in the sheep flock.Therefore, the Bill will enable us, if necessary, to accelerate the process of eradication by compulsory means. Ministers could specify the types of sheep which, by virtue of their genetic susceptibility, stand the risk of developing scrapie. The Bill would then allow not only for the identification of those animals but for their exclusion or the exclusion of their semen, eggs and embryos from breeding programmes.
To ensure that we have the means to carry out that work effectively, the Bill contains limited new powers of entry and enforcement consistent with similar provisions relating to the control of foot and mouth. I must emphasise that none of those powers is intended to raise the prospect of mass slaughter. They are designed to facilitate the redevelopment of the national flock in a managed way. Indeed, Ministers will be required to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances, for example on specialised breeds, that justify the continued use of some susceptible sheep for breeding purposes. Farmers whose animals are subject to breeding restrictions will have the right of appeal to an independent adjudicator.
Throughout the development of the scrapie plan we have been in close consultation with the sheep industry. However, we believe that these powers are necessary further down the line to ensure that the outcome is a scrapie, BSE and other TSE-free flock in this country. That will give us a great advantage, not only in terms of the health of our animals but also in terms of international trade.
Therefore, the Bill reflects the lessons already learnt from foot and mouth disease; the need for us in the coming months to have a full armoury of weapons, should the disease recur or a new disease enter the country, pending the time when we can take into account the full outcome of the inquiries which we have set up to look into the disease and the lessons learnt on a longer-term, more strategic basis. At that point I have no doubt that the Government will need to come forward with both legislative and operational proposals in more comprehensive detail.
Finally, I emphasise that the Bill will deal with what has been one of the great gaps in our armoury over the past months and will ensure that that will not arise again should we be faced with another catastrophe in the coming months. More positively, it will also put the national sheep flock in a position where the diseases which have afflicted it for many years, and those which might potentially be there, will be eliminated. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Whitty.)
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I believe that I should now rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page