| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to reply again. While I am on my feet, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his support for the amendment. The Bill as it stands includes a reference to priority. Noble Lords will recognise that that was agreed to against the advice of the Government; nevertheless, it is in the Bill. Without prejudice to that, if the Secretary of State decided against the priority, having assessed it, he or she would have to give reasons for doing so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 3:
- Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Slaughter of vaccinated animals]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 4:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. These amendments are proposed to correct an error in the drafting of the Bill. Removing the word "infected" and inserting "affected" in this part of the Bill is necessary to ensure consistency with paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981, which provides for compensation for slaughtered animals where they are affected, or suspected of being affected, with or exposed to foot and mouth disease. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I raise just a small point. Should not the noble Baroness's first amendment read,
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I was going to make a quick point and it certainly was not that. I am very impressed that my noble friend picked up an issue that we missed. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Government for listening to our arguments in Committee and for returning with this amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the amendment seems logical to me. But does this description occur because the vaccine can have an effect on an animal which might not be quite the same as the animal being infected? It also appears to mean that compensation can be paid for an animal which is affected, and it is rather important for the definition to be precise. Can the Minister give us an explanation on that point?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is right. If an animal were subsequently slaughtered, the compensation would be the value of the animal before it was vaccinated. At present, this section of the Bill is not clear because it refers only to compensation for infected animals slaughtered. By changing the wording in this part of the Bill from "infected" to "affected", the compensation arrangements take account of vaccinated animals which were slaughtered but not necessarily infected.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her observation. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, it is just possible that, prior to my admission to your Lordships' House in 1994, the noble Lord was not in the Chamber when the original Act was passed. It may be that, in order to comply with the original Act, we have to use the language in that Act. It is
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 5:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 6:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the vexed question of the 20-day livestock movement restriction rule. I believe that all Members of the House will be aware of the immense problems that the rule has caused the agriculture industry. Therefore, I make no apologies for tracking through some of the things that have occurred since the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease nor, indeed, for asking how a different scenario would apply in the case of—God forbid!—a new outbreak somewhere down the line.
The amendment refers to any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease in relation to the imposition of a 20-day livestock movement restriction rule. As the amendment states, any restriction of 20 days or more will lapse at the end of a period of eight weeks following the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease in any future outbreak. The question that must now be asked is: why do we still have a 20-day movement restriction on animals?
That was undoubtedly sensible during the decline and the ending of the 2001 outbreak, and I should have been the first to support the Government when they took that action. But the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease was on 30th September 2001; the United Kingdom was declared free of foot and mouth disease on 15th January 2002; the OIE gave an FMD-free status to the UK on 22nd January 2002; and the European Union sanctioned UK exports on 5th February 2002. That was exactly nine months ago.
I believe that three factors are closely related to biosecurity. It is my belief that the continuing 20-day rule is closely related to the total inadequacy of meat import controls into the United Kingdom on the one hand and, on the other, DEFRA's time mismanagement of the risk assessment that it commissioned. Livestock farmers have had to shoulder the brunt of the 20-day rule in order to save DEFRA's neck.
We all know of the tremendous hardship that livestock farmers have suffered as a result of the 20-day rule. That is especially the case in relation to the movement of breeding stock, where it is absolutely vital to be able to move rams, bulls and young breeding sheep in the autumn markets, let alone in relation to the movement of store lambs, calves and so on.
Why has this huge delay come about in trying to lift the 20-day movement restriction? I believe that it is because the Government had to wait for the Lessons to be Learned report until 22nd July 2002. Secondly, that report advocated the carrying out of a risk assessment. Thirdly, a subsequent delay occurred during the month of August, when farmers are at their busiest and when bureaucrats are on holiday. As a result, there was a delay in putting out tenders and in making appointments. Only in mid-September, almost two months after the Lessons to be Learned report was published, was the risk assessment ready to start. Even then, it was said that it would be completed before the end of October. Now we are told that it may be ready by December or January, with a new verdict on the 20-day rule to be given in February.
This is an appalling delay. By February 2003, it will be more than one year since the UK was declared free of foot and mouth disease. This is incompetence of the highest order. It is clear that the risk assessment, variously described in veterinary circles as a "buzz word", can be carried out within two months. If one tracks back through what I have just said, that was already the Government's original target.
We have been told by Ministers on several occasions that lifting the 20-day movement rule is dependent on a risk assessment being carried out. The Lessons to be Learned inquiry indicates the relaxation of the 20-day rule in due course. Given that the timescale predicted for the completion of a risk assessment by the Government is, in any case, eight weeks by my calculation, I refuse to believe that any attempt to alter upwards the timescale in my amendment is acceptable. It stands up to its statement that,
The amendment seeks far better controls on imports which would have a major effect. There is no doubt that risk assessment can be carried out far more expeditiously. I understand some of the reasons why there has been a delay. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I very much support the principles behind the amendment. I do not underestimate the need for proper biosecurity controls. I do not think anyone does. There is no question of doubt: this 20-day rule creates enormous
I do not have the facts in front of me. But in Scotland there is a different system and I believe that the maximum number of days for restriction is six. The Minister shakes his head, so clearly I am wrong. But there is certainly a different system in Scotland which is easier for the farmers to operate on. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter urgently. It is causing enormous difficulties.
"(a) for the exercise of the power;
(b) for not exercising his power under section 16 to cause animals to be treated with serum or vaccine."
Page 4, line 37, leave out "infected" and insert "affected"
"leave out 'infected with' and insert 'affected by';
otherwise, the wording would be grammatically incorrect? Perhaps the government advisers could look at this matter and the wording could be changed when it goes back to the other place.
Page 4, line 39, leave out "infected" and insert "affected"
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"20-DAY LIVESTOCK MOVEMENT RESTRICTION RULE
In the 1981 Act the following subsection is inserted after section 8(1) (movement generally)—
"(1A) In making an order under subsection (1) restricting the movement of animals in connection with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, any restriction of 20 days or more shall lapse at the end of a period of 8 weeks following the last confirmed case.""
"any restriction of 20 days or more shall lapse at the end of a period of 8 weeks following the last confirmed case",
of foot and mouth disease. That refers to any future outbreak. If Ministers consider that to be reckless, it most certainly is not. It still allows for a restriction of less than 20 days and delays with risk assessments are unacceptable, as are wholly inadequate controls on meat imports. Those three things have a stark bearing on why the 20-day rule is still there.
3.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page