---

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had agreed with my noble friend Lord Sheldon. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Peston. A feature of our present levels and of our plans for government consumption and investment is that not only are they valid in their own right—in other words, they are directed at producing better public services for the people in this country—but, in cyclical terms, they are the right thing to do from an economic policy point of view.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Rooker will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the fire dispute.

22 Oct 2002 : Column 1222

Animal Health Bill

3.7 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Foot-and-mouth disease]:

The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 3, at end insert—

"( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act) before Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—
"(A1) The Secretary of State shall give priority to a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected."

The noble Countess said: My Lords, I declare my interest as the wife of a family farmer. We have Black Welsh Mountain sheep, Blonde d'Aquitaine cattle and a flock of goats.

In the aftermath of the foot and mouth disease epidemic and the bloodbath that accompanied it, almost everyone who has spoken in the many debates on the Bill has remarked on its somewhat callous opening clause. I tabled Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 in an attempt to persuade—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Countess will forgive me. I hope that noble Lords will allow us to hear what the noble Countess is saying.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 in an attempt to persuade the Minister that it would be politic to begin with a statement that does not give the impression that the Bill gives a permit to kill every animal in sight.

At the time of the epidemic, there was a hot debate on the pros and cons of vaccination. Was it effective? Would the meat be affected? Indeed, would the meat be saleable? Would not vaccinated animals still be infected? Would they not be carriers? Some of those questions are red herrings; most have now been answered. Both the science and the technology in this field are moving forward at a rapid pace. In the awful event that we should have another serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease, we should be better equipped scientifically, technically and practically to cope with controlling its spread. It could well be that vaccination will not provide the complete answer, but it should be given priority.

Experts giving evidence to the European Parliament's temporary committee on foot and mouth disease as well as to the UK-based inquiries have demonstrated their indecisiveness as to what part a vaccination policy should play in the event of a future outbreak of the disease. I quote from the European Parliament's temporary committee working document dated 16th September 2002. At paragraph 52 the rapporteur states:

"Mass culling of livestock and the subsequent destruction of meat can be ethically justified only by special socio-economic grounds. Decisions must be taken in a transparent manner: otherwise, it would be difficult to persuade those sections of the

22 Oct 2002 : Column 1223

population who suffer most from a non-vaccination policy to provide the necessary co-operation during a future FMD outbreak".

In Committee, I said that we were governed by consent. If a government are to govern effectively in this country, the laws that they make must be reasonable and enforceable. In recent years, there have been several occasions on which a lack of consent has made enforcement difficult, if not impossible. I think instantly of the poll tax legislation enacted by the Conservative government. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 20-day standstill rule is being flouted, simply because it is unreasonable, unworkable and unenforceable.

Difficult as it may be for the so-called "man on the Clapham omnibus" to understand, most livestock keepers have a bond with their animals that is almost as strong as the bond that they have with their family. They are also hard-headed realists. They know that, when an animal has been exposed to a disease, it must be dealt with appropriately. They find it tough to accept that a healthy animal that has had no contact with any infection must die, when there might be a means of protecting it from disease.

Equally, I recognise that farming has rotten apples, generally known as rogues. They are the wheeler-dealers of this world who own or rent numerous small parcels of land over a large area. They pay scant regard to biosecurity or animal welfare, and they trade animals as stockbrokers trade shares. Family farmers are still the major keepers of livestock in the UK. Most have a long association with the land and with their animals. It is painful and insulting for them to find themselves bracketed with the rogues by others who have little knowledge of farming or farming practices and who get their information from the exaggerated literature produced by some animal welfare organisations. I acknowledge and accept the need for strict controls, but there is room for a little humanity. Even the law can have a sympathetic face.

In Amendment No. 9, I ask the Secretary to State to ensure that an animal must be shown to be infected by foot and mouth disease before she can have it slaughtered. I understand that it is possible to differentiate between animals that are carrying antibodies as a result of vaccination and those with antibodies resulting from infection. If the animals have not been infected and have been vaccinated, they present no infective risk. It is the same as our measles vaccination: once we are vaccinated, we are not infective.

The Minister assured us on a number of occasions that the Secretary of State would take into account a vaccinate-to-live policy. For reasons of openness and humanity, I ask noble Lords to ensure that that policy appears in the Bill. I beg to move.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, despite our best efforts this morning, the groupings have gone slightly awry. With the noble Countess, Lady Mar, we intended that Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 9 would be grouped. I am not sure how Amendment No. 2 dropped out at the

22 Oct 2002 : Column 1224

last minute, but, with the leave of the House, I shall re-group the amendments. It might save a little time, which is something of which the Minister will approve. I shall speak in support of the amendment that the noble Countess so ably moved, and I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 9.

It is interesting that it has taken until this stage in the Bill's passage for the issue of vaccination to come before your Lordships' House. One of the reasons is that we were waiting hopefully for the Government to make their own proposals to write vaccination as an option—a preferred option—into the Bill. There are several reasons why that is necessary. One is simply to change the balance of the Bill. The issue has been discussed in detail, and I remember the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford speaking eloquently about it in Committee.

At the moment, the Bill is widely seen as a slaughter Bill. The Minister denies that, but the way in which the Bill is written means that the emphasis is on slaughter, rather than vaccination. We have now seen the Anderson and Follett reports and the public's reaction to the appalling scenes that took place during the epidemic, as people desperately tried to fight it. I shall read to the House what the Minister said on the Bill's second day in Committee. Our amendments are merely a statement of what the Minister now says is government policy. The Minister said:

"The Government's preference, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in July, is that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be used wherever possible, in line with the Royal Society report. However, there will be scenarios where vaccinate-to-slaughter may be appropriate".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 23.]

The implication is that there will be scenarios where slaughter on its own will be appropriate.

The Minister has said on several occasions that the Government's preferred first option in a future outbreak would be vaccination and that vaccinate-to-live should be used wherever possible. It could not be clearer than that, but the Bill still launches straight into slaughter. We support the noble Countess's amendment and we tabled Amendment No. 2 because we want to see vaccination-to-live written into the Bill as a strategy for dealing with a future outbreak.

Amendment No. 2 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth. There are two parts to the amendment. The first part sets out a sequential test that the Secretary of State should apply in the case of a future outbreak and in planning for such an outbreak. The test would require the Secretary of State to consider, first, biosecurity measures, secondly, vaccination-to-live, thirdly, vaccination for possible later slaughter and—only finally—slaughter. It sounds like a long and complicated procedure, but it is not necessarily so. Decisions could, if necessary, be made quickly. It is important that decisions are made in that order in the case of future outbreaks and that that sequence should underlie planning for future outbreaks.

The Minister may say that planning for future outbreaks is not for the Bill but for the protocol that he will produce, which will be welcome, or for his

22 Oct 2002 : Column 1225

contingency plan, which will also be welcome. However, we tabled the amendment because we wanted the Minister to tell us where such a system for making decisions would be set out. So far, the information provided by the Minister, including a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests that the protocol will, yet again, be all about slaughter, rather than giving fair, objective and balanced consideration to the alternatives.

The second part of the amendment probes the Government to see how they believe that they have the legal power to carry out an extensive compulsory vaccination programme to create a firebreak or as a ring vaccination or vaccination of an area—Yorkshire, for example. Where do they believe that they have those powers under existing legislation? I am no expert on existing legislation, but I read the 1981 Act and cannot find those powers. I can find the powers for compulsory vaccination, which appear in Section 16(1), but they do not appear to cover preventive vaccination of such a kind on a large scale. So mine is a probing amendment to discover where the Government believe that they have those powers and, if they do not have them or if, as they say in relation to the slaughter powers, they are ambiguous, why they do not propose to use the Bill to write them into legislation.

---