| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. During Question Time today we discussed stress. Stress among farmers is a huge problem and the stress of having lost their stock will remain with many of them for the rest of their lives.
Our breeding stock and milking cows are special. I hope that the Minister can put priority on some of the animals as regards vaccination. Much more research needs to be done into various vaccinations and I hope that the amendment will be carried so that priority will be given to vaccination.
There are more dangerous diseases in our community than foot and mouth. Foot and mouth is not a real killer to humans and not enough work is being done on various infectious diseases. Therefore, I believe that the amendments should be supported by your Lordships.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, first, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his consistent courtesy in keeping us abreast of the various amendments, many of which are tabled in response to earlier debates. I want to speak in support of Amendment No. 1 because, unfortunately, I continue
to be unhappy with the asymmetry which remains in the Bill, reflecting its drafting at a time long before there had been considered appraisal in the light of experience. In particular, the amendment addresses what we ought to be considering. I agree that we should be giving clearer powers for preventive slaughter, but they should be symmetric and perhaps deferential to reactive vaccination.Furthermore, the amendment gives the Government a priority to come through. Overlying all the provisions should be clear, inescapable legislation that requires preparations to have been thought through in advance and annually rehearsed. That, too, remains hinted at but not spelled out in anything like the draconian detail that the slaughtering powers are spelled out in the Bill. Until those asymmetries are remedied, I will support amendments such as this and all kindred amendments.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister can surely be in no doubt about the strength of feeling around the Chamber today on the three opening amendments.
As my name is linked with that of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on Amendment No. 1, it is natural that I refer to it first. The amendment calls for the Government to give priority to a vaccination-to-live policy. The number 13 is considered unlucky. Our thirteenth speaker, the very well respected noble Lord, Lord May, certainly is not unlucky in any way. He has served with great distinction. The words that he has added to those of the 12 previous speakers are an enormous contribution to the weight of argument in the Chamber today.
Noble Lords in the Chamber are not asking that vaccination should be the only policy. Let us make that clear before we go further. If an animal is infected the animal should be slaughtered, whether or not it has had to be vaccinated first. If it has become infected, slaughter is the only option.
The noble Lord, Lord May, touched on the fact that we started considering the Bill back in November last year, nearly a whole year ago. Since then things have moved on enormously. We have had the various reports. The noble Lord, Lord May, served on one of the bodies. I hope that we have learned something from them. Some noble Lords may place greater importance on different aspects. Amendment No. 1, standing in my name and that of the noble Countess, does not state that this should be the only way that we should deal with the matter, but asks that the Secretary of State should give priority to a "vaccinate-to-live" policy.
In Committee we had a long debate, as we have had again today, on strategy. I find it disappointing that the Government have not accepted the weight of argument behind my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that there is reference to vaccination in the 1981 Bill. I do not think that "may" give consideration to it is the same as Amendment No. 1, which raises the profile further and states, "shall give priority" to it. The two are not the same.
Other noble Lords have raised extremely important points. I do not want to go over those again. Perhaps I may pick up on what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said and remind the House that when we considered the question of vaccination last year, when the outbreak was at its height, the National Farmers Union was asked for its opinion on a vaccination policy. Those noble Lords who were involved at the time will remember that they circulated a 20-question questionnaire. They did that because at that stage there were no answers to some of the questions with regard to a vaccination-to-live policy—as to whether the science was there and whether it was possible to implement it. That was back in March or April last year. The reports have been issued since then. We have had time to consider the matter. More importantly, there has been the European report. They have all moved us along. It would be great folly to resist an amendment of this kind, which gives a steer to the Government in saying that we believe that the Government should give priority to a 'vaccinate-to-live' policy.
I should like to comment on all the other contributions. That would not be right at this stage. The case has been well made by each noble Lord who has spoken. Obviously my name is attached to Amendment No. 1, but I very much support the amendments tabled by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that the Government listen to the weight of argument that has been put forward again today on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the right reverend Prelate and others have rightly explained the genesis of the Bill. It was brought forward in the first place because the Government found in the course of the disease that there were certain powers which they lacked or which needed clarifying. This House, in its wisdom, declined to pursue the Bill and to look at the powers that were lacking until it had the advice of the various committees of inquiry that were looking into the conduct of the disease and the way forward.
We now have the results of those committees of inquiry. Their recommendations are reflected in the clause as it stands and in the Government's general approach. The reason why vaccination in this form is not in this clause is because we already have that power under Section 16 of the Animal Health Act 1981. That option already exists. We do not need an additional clause to provide for that option in the Bill. The Bill addresses gaps in the powers of the Government. It might be tidier and presentationally more desirable, and softer and more acceptable, to put in something which is already in law. However, your Lordships will know that that is not the normal procedure of the legislative process. We are dealing here with powers that we do not currently have.
One such power is the power of preventative slaughter. There is an explicit recommendation in the Anderson report that the power needs to be clarified. It should be clear that we have a power of preventative
slaughter. That is what the clause is about. It is not intended to explain the total strategy in relation to any future outbreak. It is intended to give us that power which we lacked and which we would need in a future outbreak.That is not in any sense incompatible with the recommendations of the Royal Society and the comments by Commissioner Byrne that in future we must give greater weight to the option of vaccination. And if we go down the vaccination road we should give preference to vaccination-to-live rather than the vaccination-to-kill, which was the option that we considered but did not pursue during the course of the epidemic, and which the Netherlands did pursue during the course of the epidemic.
We have accepted the recommendations of the Royal Society that greater weight in first resort priority should be given to a vaccinate-to-live policy. That however is not what these clauses seek. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was the first person in the debate to refer to what is obvious; that whatever policy one takes to prevent the spread of the disease, stamping out the disease in the first place does require, and will continue to require, the destruction of diseased stock. The Royal Society and the Anderson report also indicate that that requires the destruction of other animals on the premises where the disease is present. That would be prevented by both Amendments Nos. 2 and 9, which restrict the exemption from the vaccination requirement to animals which have been infected.
In dealing with the disease, we would also deal with the situation of direct contact, whether between animals or between human beings, which may or may not be on the same premises. That again would be dealt with by the stamping out process in the Follett recommendations, in the Anderson recommendations and indeed what is being contemplated in Europe. So if the House wants to go along with what we have been recommended to follow by the inquiries, then we do not go along with any of the proposals before us in this group of amendments.
Although Amendment No. 1 is slightly less restrictive, it would still prevent the slaughter of—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House why he asserts that these amendments are restrictive. Is it because there is an absolute discretion by the Secretary of State that is being restricted? Or, if it is not that, and we come to that later, what is it?
4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the point I am making is that the Royal Society report recommends not that we should adopt vaccination in all circumstances, but that the option of vaccination should be given primary weight at the point extending beyond the diseased premises and direct contact. These amendments suggest that we do so before that. Where a contiguous cull, a three-kilometre cull, a preventive firebreak, or whatever, is being contemplated, the Royal Society
suggests that at that point the option of first resort should be to vaccinate-to-live. Whether or not we would put it precisely in those terms, the Government recognise that that is a shift of approach and one that we broadly accept.These amendments require that vaccination shall be the option of first resort at a "closer to the disease" stage. That is not in line with what Follett recommends; it is not in line with what Anderson recommends—which is, in effect, the clause as it stands—nor is it in line with what Commissioner Byrne said is the direction in which Europe is likely to move.
Another consideration is that the Royal Society also recognised—the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred to this point—that we are not yet in a position, should the disease break-out, God help us, tomorrow, immediately to resort to vaccinate-to-live in the way in which ideally we would move in line with the Royal Society report. That report suggests that we need to look at issues of diagnostics and their validation; issues of logistics; and issues relating to the acceptability of vaccinated meat and milk from vaccinated animals. Those issues have to be resolved, as do certain European issues, before we can fully implement the Royal Society report in regard to the first resort of vaccinate-to-live.
It is to be hoped that that can be done fairly rapidly, certainly within the next two years, but, as of now, it is not an available option. Therefore requiring us to give priority to vaccinate-to-live, as these amendments do, not only relates to a situation beyond that recommended in the Royal Society report but would not be deliverable for at least the next 18 months to two years, even if everything went well.
It is important that we have on the statute book all the powers that the committees of inquiry have suggested we should have. This clause is about giving us one of those powers; others of those powers are spread throughout the remainder of the Bill; others already exist.
I indicated in one of my communications to noble Lords that government Amendment No. 8 requires the Secretary of State to give reasons for adopting one strategy as against another in the course of any epidemic. That is spelt out in some detail. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled an amendment to that amendment which requires that, if vaccinate-to-live is not adopted, part of the Secretary of State's explanation should indicate why. Although I do not entirely agree with the wording of the amendment, I agree in principle that that should be part of the Bill.
That, surely, is where we should require the Secretary of State to explain why we have gone for a policy other than vaccination. But it is not in this area because this is not the area where priority for vaccination-to-live is recommended by the Royal Society.
Those who advocate this policy should recognise two things. First, that what they are advocating in these clauses is not recommended by the committees of inquiry. Secondly, I should point out to those who
purport to speak for the farming industry that, by and large, the provisions now in the Bill are supported by representatives of the farming community. It is wrong to say that they are resented or opposed by British farming in general; they are not. For obvious reasons, British farmers are as anxious as anyone that the Government should have a full armoury of weapons with which to contain any future outbreak of this terrible disease, or any equivalent disease.
I recognise the passion and concern of those who advocate these amendments that we should clearly shift to giving a greater priority to vaccination—which the Government accept—but the way suggested in the three amendments is not appropriate. It is not in line with what has been recommended.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page