| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the scientific basis on which we have engaged in the slaughter since 30th September is, in broad terms, the same as it was prior to that date. Individual sheep tests may show that the virus has passed through but they also indicate that the virus was present in the flock. Therefore animals which are sero-positive are slaughtered for a pro-bang test. Most of the animals slaughtered recently have not been sero-positive cases but suspect cases, with one "clinical signs" case. As to the import situation, the Government have significantly intensified their efforts in that area. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State held a meeting with all the enforcement authorities, the airlines and the ports only last week, during which we further determined to co- ordinate more effectively the checks on meat imports at ports and airports.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord will hurry to agree with me, but is he aware that many people feel that the ex-Ministry of Agriculture usually responded to scientific and well thought-out questions in a way that led one to doubt the merits of the scientific basis on which those answers were founded?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that in a number of fields the advice that the Government have received from their scientists has been queried in this House and beyond. In a sense, that is as it should be. The nature of science involves varying interpretations of facts. However, both the Ministry of Agriculture, and my present department, had and had available to it the best scientific advice in their fields anywhere in this country and probably anywhere in Europe. That there are different opinions within the scientific community is a fact of life. Science is never 100 per cent certain, in this as in other fields.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any of the animals he classified as "contacts" were slaughtered as a firebreak and did not have contact with any infected animals? What is the Government's policy on this issue at the present time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, of those animals which have been slaughtered since the last confirmed case, about a third were slaughtered as a result of decisions taken prior to 30th September and may well have involved some contiguous cull premises, which I believe is what the noble Lord means. The majority were slaughtered because of sero-positive tests or other signs in the sheep rather than as part of a contiguous cull. Our policy in this regard is as set out in our interim contingency plan—that is, were the disease regrettably to recur, we would continue with a contiguous cull, although it could be subject to substantial local discretion in particular circumstances.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 3,305 of the farms which lost their animals under
the cull did not test positive for the virus and that 98 per cent of the animals slaughtered were killed unnecessarily? What progress has been made with regard to vaccination? And, to follow on from the question of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, how quickly can we expect the report of the group considering the issue of the importation of meat and food into this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have a continuous process of improving the checks on imports. There are certain matters that will require report, but a great deal of action is under way both by government agencies and by the industry.
On the question of what proportion of contiguous cull animals were subsequently found to have the disease, I do not entirely recognise the figures indicated by the noble Baroness; but it is bound to be a low number. The disease has a 21-day incubation period. Therefore, it would not necessarily be found immediately. However, had those cattle not been slaughtered, not only is it highly probable that many of them would have developed the disease, but also it would have led to a further spread of the disease in those premises that were contiguous to the initial contiguous cull. Indeed, in circumstances where there was a slow-down in engaging in the contiguous cull arrangements, there was a worse spread of the disease.
In response to the noble Baroness's other point, vaccination during the course of the disease would have been unlikely to avoid the death of the animals, as we saw in the Dutch case. The question of whether there should be a new European policy in relation to vaccination and to control of the disease in general is being pursued at that level.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, in the event of a return of foot and mouth disease—which I am sure we all hope will not happen—does my noble friend consider that there are sufficient powers in place to deal with it?
Lord Whitty: Not entirely, my Lords. In the interim contingency plan we have identified a number of measures that we would take to ensure that we had tight control. We have also identified, in relation to the Animal Health Bill, additional plans and powers which the Government would need to ensure the maximum containment of the disease. That Bill will begin its Committee stage in this place tomorrow.
Disabled Children in Residential Schools
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to implement the commitment made in the White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm 5086, paragraph 3.22) that the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills "will work together to find out
more about the numbers, characteristics and outcomes" relating to disabled children in residential schools.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, a joint Department of Health and DfES officials working group has been set up to take this work forward. It has met several times over the past three months and is currently agreeing a programme of work to improve the information collected about disabled children in residential placements, including schools, and to ensure that they are properly supported and protected. It will report by the end of this year.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Is he aware of recent research by the Norah Fry research centre indicating that the current legal framework is not working effectively to safeguard the interests of disabled children in residential schools and that there is confusion among local education and social services staff about their duties to these children? For instance, one in four social services departments does not recognise its duties under the Children Act to review the placements regularly and to consult the children about their wishes. Is the noble Lord further aware that the same research found that some children remain at school for possibly 48 or even 52 weeks a year, and yet parents generally receive no help at all in maintaining contact with their children? What are the Government planning to do to rectify the situation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness may be referring to a report by the Rowntree Foundation. Yes, that has drawn attention to a number of areas where we believe there is a need to improve standards and practices in a limited number of local authorities. The data collection that I mentioned previously is intended to give a clear foundation as to exactly where children are and what are the particular circumstances of their need. It is true that there has been some confusion about when children are in care and when they are not as a result of joint funding placements, as opposed to placements simply by an education authority rather than with a social services authority.
There is a range of action, but the key to bringing about progress is that, from April this year, the national care standards commission will come into being and will be inspecting all such places in an attempt to ensure that they meet the kind of standards indicated in the Question and that they meet the 33 specifications for good quality care, as well as good quality educational facilities in special residential schools.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the 1998 Quality Protects programme should, by now, have yielded some practical results for disabled children? What has been done in practice under that programme for disabled children with special educational needs?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the early signs—and it is still relatively early given that this is a 10-year programme—are that it is making a considerable difference already. One example is that £60 million of funding in the Quality Protects programme has been earmarked specifically for services for disabled children. We have a lot of confidence that that is raising the profile of care that is important for children with disabilities, both in social services and in local education authorities.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of these children who are placed in long-term residential schools have a tremendous problem when it comes to adult life, and are often moved merely from one institution to another? They are usually moved to long-term care institutions, where much of the company is of a much older nature. Are the Government examining this problem and attempting to get such people into a situation where there is a far higher amount of social inter-activity with their own age group?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page