| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I remind him that he has exceeded the time limit. He is now in the tenth minute of his speech.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the Whip on duty I accept that rebuke. However, there is a little extra time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will finish now.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I shall finish very quickly. We need enough vets, a contingency plan, a crackdown on meat imports, proper surveillance and a large increase in regional rendering capacity. If all that were done, contiguous culls would not be so necessary.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am looking at the Whip and thinking, "May I have my minutes too?" However, I shall try to stay within the seven minutes.
I thank my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for securing this debate. The Government's contiguous cull policy during last year's foot and mouth outbreak caused great consternation when it was introduced and resulted in thousands of uninfected animals being killed. At the time the Government failed to convince those who questioned the legality of a contiguous cull. This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to consider the many questions posed then and raised again tonight. I hope that he will fully respond.
I again remind the House of my family's farming interests, although we were not directly affected by the outbreak.
My questions to the Government are fairly simple. On what basis were the Government convinced that their contiguous cull was legal? Did the Government seek approval from the European Commission as to its legality and, if so, when was it given?
On 23rd March 2001, the Chief Scientific Adviser recommended that, following modellers, animals on contiguous premises where it was believed that animals had been exposed to infection should be culled. But some vets and scientific advisers argued that local circumstances and adequate biosecurity measures should be taken into account before a contiguous cull was carried out.
As others have said, on 12th May Dr Alex Donaldson of the Institute for Animal Health considered that action taken on contiguous premises should be determined by the species at risk on those premises—sheep are at risk due to the difficulty of diagnosis and cattle should be subjected to intensified clinical surveillance. On 26th April 2001, more veterinary resources were made available for patrolling. That was welcome.
As I said, vets were allowed to give greater consideration to cattle, especially milking cows. After much argument in this House, the Government acknowledged that rare breeds should be assessed separately rather than be automatically included in a contiguous cull. Will the Minister clarify how and when that decision was taken?
At the time the NFU accepted the necessity for the contiguous cull and the three-kilometre culls but welcomed greater flexibility. What made the Government change their mind about fully applying a total cull on contiguous farms, as they did in the early stages? Were the Government given new legal advice that made them change their mind and, if so, when was that advice received and from whom did it come?
My noble friends have referred to the Rosemary Upton case. It is the only case in which the judge based his evidence on the scientific evidence that was available. It swayed him to come down in favour of Rosemary Upton. On previous occasions when we have raised the matter, the Minister has not responded fully. I hope that he will respond fully tonight as it is an extremely important matter. I have considered other cases but the Rosemary Upton case stands alone. If the Government were so rigid about the matter, why was Phoenix the calf spared? What scientific reason was there for the decision taken by the Prime Minister?
By the end of April 2001, Clarke Wilmott Clarke argued that the contiguous cull was illegal within EU law. Directive 85/511 stated that only infected animals could be killed. William Neville from Burgess Salmon argued that the Government withdrew from seven out of the nine cases that he represented. Why did that happen? What was the reason for the Government not pursuing those seven cases? How did the Government decide which cases to proceed with and which ones to withdraw from?
On 6th November 2001, Mr Morley was challenged in the House of Commons Select Committee on the legality of the contiguous cull. He responded that the Government were confident that the culling had been absolutely legal and that a court ruling had not challenged that. So how does the Minister explain the ruling of the judge in the Rosemary Upton case? I refer
also to the Exeter based solicitor, Alayn Addy, who represented 200 farmers, none of whose livestock subsequently developed the disease. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is present. She and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have argued that the fact that livestock did not develop the disease did not mean that they did not run a risk of doing so. To a certain extent I accept that. However, I need to push the Minister further rather than accepting a rather broad brush approach. I hope that he will discuss that matter when he responds to the debate.I understand that MAFF stated that it was not confined by EU directive 85/511 but was overruled by the Animal Health Act 1981 which widened out the matter to include animals which a veterinary official might, on his discretion, have reasonable grounds for supposing had been exposed to infection. Did the Government raise that issue with the European Commission and, if so, when? My noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lord Monro raised the whole question of the balance and the difference between the contiguous cull and the three-kilometre cull. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
On 26th March this year the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, following my question about the need for additional powers in the Animal Health Bill, said,
- "The issue is whether the House wishes to deprive the Government of powers which in their judgment the Government consider are wanting for the period between the passage of this Bill and a point at which we can further legislate".—[Official Report, 26/3/02; col. 195.]
- "in particular in carrying out a contiguous cull ... we do not have adequate powers of entry or rapid enough powers for enforcing entry in order to contain the disease".—[Official Report, 26/3/02; col 196.]
As others have said, the farming industry is still in deep crisis. The Government must appreciate that there are still concerns and doubts about the contiguous cull. Tonight the Minister has the chance to redress the situation. I express my concern in regard to the cut in finance allocated to animal health research. There may be a misunderstanding as regards the figures that were mentioned in another place. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am to some extent grateful for having the opportunity to clarify the position yet again. A number of the points raised by noble Lords addressed concerns in the farming community and beyond. Others slipped into paranoia and conspiracy theories. I should have thought that by now we would have moved away from that. As I have said before in this House, it is quite understandable that within the farming community there was much confusion and mistrust and that allegations were made during the course of the epidemic which overwhelmed us all. It is understandable that such allegations were
made in the heat of the moment. However, it is not reasonable that some of those allegations should be repeated several months later when we have had time to reflect on the disease and are in the process of receiving a number of well founded inquiries into how well or how badly the Government dealt with the outbreak and how well or how badly the farming community dealt with it.However, this debate is focused on legality. I make it quite clear—as several noble Lords have almost explicitly said—that the basis of the contiguous cull rested on paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981 which states,
- "animals . . . which appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease".
I shall refer to particular cases in a moment. However, as regards the situation in general, throughout the epidemic Ministers—like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am glad to see that my noble friend Lady Hayman is present—acted on the clearest veterinary and epidemiological advice, all of which indicated that the highest risk of exposure would occur on premises situated close to the premises where an infected case had been found. I refer in that connection to the contiguous cull which was operated for the most part in the whole of England and to the three-kilometre cull which was operated for the most part in Scotland. However, due to the overlap of certain premises in Cumbria, we also operated a three-kilometre cull in Cumbria as well as across the Border in Dumfries.
Both the contiguous cull and the three-kilometre cull were based on strong advice received from vets on the ground and from epidemiological modellers. We were advised that the best way to contain the disease was automatically to presume that the contiguous premises, or the premises three kilometres away, could have been exposed to it. That stance was not adopted from the beginning of the outbreak. We reached that conclusion through our experience during the first few weeks of the disease when it became clear that infectivity was primarily local. The overall indications are that during the course of the disease 80 per cent of cases were transmitted by local infection.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked whether the Donaldson report was before the Winslade case. So far as I am aware, that report was not before the judge. The judge, as I said in an earlier debate, had before him the same information that Ministers had before them, including an assessment of all forms of transmission. The Donaldson report dealt with only one form: airborne transmission. Most local infectivity occurred as a result of direct contact of animals or direct contact with human beings who had been in contact with animals, or it resulted from vehicles. That is the way in which the infection spread. Airborne infection was only one element. That is why
the Donaldson report was not of itself a determining factor; in that regard we should refer to the combination of all the matters that were in affidavits before the judge in that case. It is therefore not relevant whether the Donaldson report was before the judge. I believe that that was also referred to by the legal representation on the other side at that case.The noble Lord also asked whether we had effectively suppressed the Donaldson report. That has never been the case. We have always been as open as possible about the advice received by the Government during that period. I therefore do not accept his argument that those cases would have led the judge to a different conclusion had that information been before him.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others referred to the Upton case, the case of Grunty the pig. That judgment found against the Government. However, that was not a contiguous cull case and is therefore completely irrelevant to the legality of the contiguous cull. It was a direct contact case and has no bearing on any individual contiguous cull case or on the overall approach of the contiguous cull. In that case, the judge was absolutely supportive of the Government's policy and stated that, in his opinion, the action of MAFF in carrying out the contiguous cull operation was reasonable.
I have started to explain the distinction between the three-kilometre arrangement and the contiguous cull; both were based on the same veterinary advice. That advice was going to Scottish Ministers with regard to the three-kilometre cull arrangements—that was because of the structure of farms in Scotland and the logistics of the situation there—and it was available in England and led to the adoption of the general contiguous cull arrangements.
DEFRA and the United Kingdom Government have a responsibility for the state, size and operation of the State Veterinary Service but the detailed application of animal health matters are a matter for Scottish Ministers under the devolution of those powers within Scotland.
On the size of the State Veterinary Service, various erroneous figures are floating around. The figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, are misleading. Although the numbers have come down significantly in total, that is largely because of managerial changes, a reduction in the number of regions, the switch of some of the veterinary service's activities to the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency and the fact that the research side has moved to the Veterinary Laboratory Agency. The figures do not compare like with like.
On the Veterinary Field Service, the figures have not changed significantly during the past 10 years. There have been some ups and downs but broadly they have been in the low 200s. That service is mainly responsible
for dealing with animal disease. The inquiries are currently considering whether that is an adequate level.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |