| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need to explain the use of the slightly unusual procedure in tabling a manuscript amendment in what is already an unusual procedure for this House. The substantive reason for
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, seeks to address the concerns in a constructive way which the Government can understand. However, paragraph (a) of his amendment could be both damaging to the disease control and to the industry, and it does not recognise the process as it exists. I therefore believe that our formulation is better. I shall deal with that in detail in a moment.
Before doing so, it is probably appropriate in moving the amendment to indicate the Government's general approach to the prayer to annul. I therefore need to address some of the allegations and assertions made by the noble Countess and the noble Lord and explain what the regulations would do and what would be the effect of not passing them.
First, the regulations are about TSEs and not about anything else. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, it is not about foot and mouth. Nor is it about any other disease. It is about TSEs and everything in it relates to the EU directive relating to TSEs. The regulations are about consolidation of previous UK controls and consistency with the new EU measures. Those measure substantially mirror our own and were adopted because, for obvious and tragic reasons, the UK was well ahead of the rest of Europe in establishing a regime of BSE and TSE controls. We are therefore proposing consolidation and consistency, not in any sense radical change.
In virtually every area, the regulations simply continue the robust package of enforcement powers which already exist. The powers are needed to back up key controls already in place to protect human and animal health from vCJD and BSE.
While the regulations reflect the increased testing programme for TSEs that is required by the EU regulation, there are no new slaughtering requirements in the regulations. Therefore, the references by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to the TSE requirements to implement the national scrapie plan are not relevant here. There are no further slaughter powers in the regulations.
Our surveillance, to which most of the regulations relate, is to use and test animals which are already dead or on the point of being slaughtered, or if they are casualties or fallen stock. That very much follows the line of surveillance and monitoring we were already pursuing and the line required by the EU. In terms of consistency, Part IV, of which the noble Countess read out significant sections, in no way materially differs from what is in the existing regulations. Let us therefore be clear that the regulations are about consolidating an existing position.
However, for reasons put by the noble Countess, it is important that the choice before the House today is either to support the regulations or to have no regulations in place. That would destroy a framework which we have established here and which has been very effective in reducing the incidence of BSE and which has been adopted by the EU for its approach to BSE controls across the Union as a whole. If these regulations fall, we will be in a very serious situation indeed. Previous legislation will no longer be in place; there will be no controls; people will be exposed to health risks from meat potentially contaminated with SRM; animals will not be protected from infected feed; and BSE could escalate.
I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Countess or of those who support her, but it would at least for a period be the situation. That is why those bodies which are concerned about the regulations have expressed their alarm at the possible implications if your Lordships were to agree to the prayer and annul the regulations. The Food Standards Agency, for example, this morning stressed that the controls against BSE are vital and if the prayer were successful not only would the new controls cease to be applicable but it would be impossible to reinstate many of the measures previously in place.
Such a scenario would leave a serious gap in our control framework. It would, for example, immediately throw into jeopardy the right of the Meat Hygiene Service to prosecute for failure to remove specified risk material from animals at slaughter houses. That would represent a significant risk to public health. SRM controls are estimated as removing 95 per cent of infectivity.
Likewise, the National Farmers Union has made its position clear. Its advice and that of the Government is that voting down the regulations would have the effect of suspending existing BSE controls. If that occurred, even for a short period, says the NFU, it would be very damaging to British agriculture and to the public interest. Therefore, both those who are regulating and the industry are concerned about the effectiveness of the controls.
The regulations have two clear objectives. First, they bring together the key controls which exist and, secondly, they reflect the need to transpose EU directives. The other implication of voting down the regulations today would be that we would be in danger of infraction proceedings from the EU at a time when we are trying desperately to re-establish confidence in British livestock and British meat. That would be a bizarre outcome as the EU has adopted effectively the British approach to the controls. The Community provision, Regulation 999/2001, which was adopted last summer, provides a secure legal basis for such controls.
It is also the case that there was consultation on the regulations. Admittedly, it was shorter than is normally the case but it was a wide consultation with feedback both formal and informal from a wide range of organisations and individuals. No objections in principle were made to these regulations. The only
I should also point out for those who are still following the assertion made in the Daily Telegraph that this is a way of pushing through the Animal Health Bill by the back door, that of course that consultation took place and those regulations existed well before we reached our decision or, indeed, the Animal Health Bill came before this House. So I think that that particular conspiracy theory can be put on one side.
We need a comprehensive framework: the Community framework, the consolidation of our own framework and a full range of surveillance, of specified risk material removal from cattle, sheep and goats, so that consumers are not put at risk.
To some extent the noble Countess let the cat out of the bag in her opening remarks, although she did not then pursue them. From what she said, I do not think that she is convinced that this is in fact a public health risk. There is always an element of doubt in any scientific judgment, but the vast majority of scientists, medical experts and vets have reached the conclusion that BSE is transferable to humans and is the cause of variant CJD. In those circumstances, it would be utterly irresponsible of the Government and utterly irresponsible of this House to force the Government to drop the measures they have put in place to protect public health. Essentially, this is a public health regulation. It is not primarily an animal health or agricultural regulation; it stems from anxieties surrounding public health. The House needs to recognise that.
I turn now to the allegations of gold-plating and of going further than we need to in this area, or at least going further than the pre-existing position. None of that stands up. Let me put it into perspective. In the regulations there are very limited provisions which go beyond the controls previously in place in the UK, but only three such changes have been made. Two of the issues reflect new EU requirements in Regulation 999/2001 and one flows from a recommendation from SEAC, the advisory committee.
The first issue relates to additional EU surveillance requirements, to which I have already referred, for the presence of TSE in sheep and goats and casualty cattle aged from 24 to 30 months. As I have already said, I am sensitive to the concerns of abattoir owners about the costs of this. That is why DEFRA is meeting all the costs. However, we are obliged to put in this additional requirement.
The second provision relates to the vertebral column of Beef Assurance Scheme cattle aged over 30 months, which can be sold for consumption up to 42 months. That material must now be removed and treated as SRM. Bearing in mind the very low BSE risk, the British Government were not particularly happy with this provision in the EU recommendations, but the
The third provision relates to incinerators used to burn SRM. In future the ash must be disposed of by burial at a licensed landfill site. That is the only possible area where allegations of gold-plating could be made in that it is not an EU requirement, but it does meet a specific recommendation made by SEAC. By and large, it reflects existing industry practice.
Those are the only ways in which these regulations make any kind of meaningful difference to the pre-existing regulations already in force. Therefore the exaggerated reaction to these regulations is in no way understandable. Some of the concerns which have been expressed relating to data protection and human rights are covered in the general provisions. We have to be proportionate. The implementation of the order has to be consistent with the Data Protection Act and it has to comply with the Human Rights Act, as does all legislation passed by this Government. It is not necessary to specify that explicitly in orders of this kind. Indeed, it would be a strange precedent were we so to do.
I turn now to the point of my amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, and specifically to why I do not consider the specification of seven days to be appropriate. This relates to the one area where there are slaughter provisions on animals which are suspected of being infected with TSE. In the case of BSE, for example, a seven-day delay—which the noble Lord's original amendment would imply—would be unacceptable in most circumstances. It would mean that we would have to wait for seven days to see whether anyone was going to appeal against the order from the veterinary inspector. That would be particularly difficult were the farmer or livestock owner to be intent on moving the animal. Although some of that could be accounted for by the restriction elements contained in the order, if an appeal were still outstanding then it is possible that the animal might be removed to premises which would not be appropriate. Indeed, so far as concerns the farming industry as a whole, it would rather see such an animal slaughtered as rapidly and as humanely as possible. Therefore the notion of a built-in seven day delay while we wait to discover whether anyone will appeal is inappropriate.
Of course there may be mistakes. After testing, the animal may turn out not to be suffering from BSE or from another TSE disease, in which case the normal 100 per cent compensation is raised to 125 per cent. So there is some protection for the farmer in those circumstances. But the seven-day delay does not seem necessary in order to allow for the kind of representations which the noble Lord and the noble Countess argue should be available under the provisions.
The current procedure is that if there is an objection to the order to slaughter, the vet will go to the magistrate, the JP, to seek an order. An appeal to the Secretary of State in those circumstances is probably not the appropriate process. We accept that there is an argument for assuring people that there should be some means of making representations. That is why my amendment indicates that we should consider the options of how that process of making representations should be established.
It probably should not be a national appeal system as implied in paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's amendment. Indeed, paragraph (b), upon which he laid considerable stress, suggests that there should be an independent BVA-appointed adjudicator, which would be much more appropriate at the regional or county level. In the interests of speed and efficiency, we may consider that kind of representation to be appropriate in these circumstances.
We have no problem with paragraphs (b) and (c) of the noble Lord's amendment, but I would be grateful if the House were to accept my view that the specification in paragraph (a) is not appropriate. If the House were prepared to agree to that, it would be a useful indication to the Government of how we should implement these measures in practice.
But I repeat, the reaction to these measures is misguided in the sense that it is based on a misapprehension of the amount of change the regulations will achieve. It is also based on a misapprehension in that the human rights dimension, the data protection dimension and the proportionality requirement are already there in every statutory instrument that the House now passes. The prayer to annul should be resisted.
"(a) to give an undertaking that they will consider ways of ensuring that representations can be made against a notice of intended slaughter issued by a veterinary inspector;".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page