| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say in reply whether he has any information of the effect of the 20-day restriction on sheep dealers as opposed to sheep farmers? I find it hard to know exactly how this hurts a farmer who wishes to bring in and keep stock as compared to sheep dealers who buy sheep and move them around the country. The nearest outbreak to where I live in Wiltshire was in an abattoir in the next village. I think it was about the sixth or the eighth outbreak. It was found in a sheep, which had started in Northumberland, had gone to Cumberland, had then gone to Devon and had then come to Wiltshire to be slaughtered. That illustrates what was happening and it was a major factor we now know in the spread of the disease.
Is there any information on how many sheep farmers of the breeding flock, who wish to bring in new lambs or who have taken in fattening lambs to keep over the winter or whatever, and farmers who are dealers, who wish to move sheep on quite quickly, are affected by the 20-day restriction?
Can the Minister confirm that the 20 days is linked to the 21 days incubation of the disease? It takes 21 days for the disease to incubate and to show itself. I have assumed that the 20 days was linked to that. Also, as we know, the lessons to be learned from the Anderson inquiry report—which your Lordships asked the Government to wait for before bringing the Bill back—recommends that we should keep the 20-day restriction until the risk assessment is completed. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell us how the risk assessment is going.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, when I first heard that the Government were introducing the 20-day rule a long time ago, my reaction was, "How wise". I thought that if I still had responsibility for these things I would have been tempted to do much the same thing for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just explained to us, with animals going from one end of the country and back again. It seemed to me that the movement of animals in certain circumstances from market to market has become an absurdity.
One has since become more aware of the massive problems, to which my noble friend Lord Peel referred, that this rule causes within the industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he is sympathetic to the huge problems that the 20-day rule causes; and that the Government are of a mind as soon as possible to do something about it so that these problems do not
become a permanency and that a way can be found of trying to deal with the advantages of the rule, while at the same time dealing with all the problems.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, have just said. Perhaps I can give a slight answer to my noble friend Lord Carter. I declare a particular interest. We start lambing on Friday in the West Country. If, as is inevitably the case, there are orphaned lambs which need regular feeding, I would want to move those lambs to my shepherd's farm, which is a short distance away. If I do that he will be unable to sell any of his lambs from his own farm during the 20 days.
That is an absurdity. I am a small hobby farmer. People on a larger scale find themselves pushed to a point where they find it very difficult to stick within the rules. All we ask is that someone in the department recognises the real problem that is being caused and gets to grips with it now. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging response from the Minister.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has highlighted a point with sheep. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has talked about people buying in ewes while at the same time selling lambs. There is a difficulty in that they cannot sell lambs when they have bought in the ewes. It is the same if one buys a ram. This is the period of time when these things happen.
Also, in the case of beef, where people raise young stock, take it to market and then buy in replacements, there is a problem. The replacements come in as the other ones go out. It is constant. I know that small beef breeders—I declare an interest here although it does not affect us—who go to market, buy calves and then rear them on suffer considerable hardship because they cannot work out their fodder requirements, and their income is affected. They like to have a steady income—like us all. So I support what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has said. We need to think about the matter very carefully.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will not forget my question about the male goats.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I share the concern of my colleagues on all sides of the House about this point. Can the Minister explain in some detail the scientific advice that he has been given on the 20-day rule and why it is still in force? I have noticed a number of academics at various conferences—in particular the Moredun Research Institute—saying that there is no justification for keeping the 20 days now. I hope too that he can explain exactly how we stand on cross-border movement between Scotland and England; what discussion he has had with the Executive in Scotland; and how it will work out in practice? Perhaps he could give a clear indication of the present position.
There is no doubt at all, as my noble friend Lord Peel said, that farming generally is gravely concerned about the 20-day rule. It makes farming even more difficult than it is at the present moment. All of us, bearing in mind what he said in his original remarks, are very concerned that there is no chance of foot and mouth coming back, but at the same time farming has to go on in a practical way. This rule makes life extremely difficult, particularly when dealing with sheep farming and the movement of tups and ewes.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I can well understand the reasoning behind the amendment. I know of the unpopularity, to say the least, of the 20-day rule. But I am not sure that the amendment is the answer. It is inflexible. Tying in a time limit to the lifting of the restrictions is not terribly helpful. For example, why a period of eight weeks? Why not seven or nine weeks? I am not at all sure that that is needed. I can understand the difficulties that have been raised and the reasoning behind the amendment. But I do not think that this amendment is the answer.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I fully support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would say that he has spent more than 20 days discussing the matter with the industry in recent weeks—to some effect, because I know that he has been listening to many of the flock masters and other livestock people, who are extremely concerned. The situation is and has been desperate, especially as concerns the movement of sheep. The Minister may tell us that the 20-day standstill period is fine as a concept for preventing disease spread during an outbreak. It would be accepted if it were not causing so many difficulties in the market-place and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the problem that arose because of the quantity of sheep moved around the country. But as he and the whole House well know, that system has operated for many years. Sheep and sheep flocks are moved from one area to another and split up en route because of the very numbers moved. But when there is no foot and mouth disease in the country—thank God, we are clear at the moment—the increased cost the standstill period brings to extensive livestock producers, in particular, is far too heavy a burden to inflict on an already hard-pressed sector. It is therefore totally unacceptable in peacetime, and alternative methods must be found that provide biosecurity but allow flexibility for the industry to operate.
As my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, asked: why is the provision different here from in Scotland? Why is there a different attitude towards dealing with the species, as well as regards the number of days for which movement is restricted? Like others, I await the Minister's reply and the scientific advice. Knowing that it is impossible for him today to give us the answer that we want, I hope that he can give us some sort of commitment about how the matter may be dealt with in future—by which I mean the immediate future, not the long term.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some general issues have been raised about the standstill to which I feel obliged to reply, as well as addressing the specific terms of the amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, have said, the reason for the 20-day rule and the Government's approach was that it was absolutely clear that the devastation of the disease was caused by the rapidity of its spread, and that the rapidity of its spread was caused by a large number of rapid movements—especially of sheep—around the country. That is not in dispute. That was further aggravated by the fact that the disease was not detected for three weeks—it might not be again.
For all those reasons, a regime to restrict movement is a strong recommendation of both veterinary and other scientific advice available to the Government. That is based on two premises. The first relates to the incubation period—in fact, the veterinary advice is ideally for a double incubation period that would take us to 28 rather than 20 days. The second relates to slowing down the movements. So there are two objectives: first, allowing time for detection; and, secondly, in any case slowing down the speed of movement and therefore the rate of infection. Both those arguments still stand.
As noble Lords have pointed out, both inquiries advise that until we have a robust risk assessment recommending that we should change the provision, the 20-day rule should remain in place. We are following that advice. However, there have been considerable modifications to the full-scale range of that rule. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to my continuous discussions with all sections of the industry on the matter. As a result, a significant number of concessions, relaxations and modifications have been introduced during the past few months. The largest of those relates specifically to the current breeding season and provides exemptions to the movement of breeding animals provided that those animals are on isolated premises on the farm that they enter.
There are differences between our regime and that in Scotland, the principle difference being that the isolation exemption is available for all animals in Scotland, but only for breeding animals in England and Wales. That results from a different judgment made by Scottish Ministers on the basis of similar veterinary and scientific advice. That clearly causes some problems for cross-border trade, but is one consequence of devolution in this matter.
We are continually considering how the regime may be further modified. In particular, we have commissioned a risk assessment and a cost-benefit analysis, as recommended by the Anderson and Royal Society inquiries, but which we would have commissioned anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is right to say that there has been some slippage in the risk assessment—although of only about a month, which means that we will receive the results around the end of this month. As we stated when we introduced substantial modifications to the regime in August, the
next major change will come before the spring movements—towards the end of February next year. We are currently addressing the matter on the basis of the best possible advice and will consider the information from the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.On parallel activities, the better the biosecurity, the better the position and the further we can consider relaxing the movements regime. Likewise, the more effective the import controls, the less likely it is that diseased meat may enter the country. But, as I have always emphasised in the House and elsewhere, no system of import checks provides 100 per cent security that no diseased meat will enter the country. We therefore need a regime to prevent it entering the food chain and spreading among flocks and herds across the land, as happened last time.
It is therefore incorrect to say that there is a trade-off between the level of import controls and the level of movement restrictions and other biosecurity precautions to be taken internally. We must act on both fronts. I have tightened import controls and there is more to be done on that front, but that is not an alternative; we must move in parallel.
We recognise that the current 20-day rule imposes costs and disruption—on parts of the livestock industry, quite heavy disruption. Substantial parts of the livestock industry can live reasonably well with the 20-day rule. Indeed, in certain respects the rule helps sections of the industry. For other parts, especially the sheep sector, there is grave impact on costs and on traditional methods of trading and operating. That is why we are considering the cost-benefit analysis. The department's figures for costs were not accepted by the industry, but the impact falls substantially on a relatively small section of farmers, rather than across the board of livestock farmers.
All of that will be taken into account in assessing the current regime and considering what would be more appropriate for the longer term—in particular, from next spring. However, the House should recognise that we shall not return to the status quo ante. It is unlikely that there will be no movement control regime.
Whether the 20-day limit applies and whether the precise requirements for isolation in Scotland or England are a feature of the regime is all for discussion. But we do not intend to return to the complete free-for-all of movements—aggravated, as my noble friend Lord Carter implied, by the rapidity of turnover by some dealers, especially in the sheep trade. Whatever regime is in place, it will not involve the complete removal of all movement controls. That is the position on the issue generally.
I accept that some noble Lords will not agree with some of that and that many in the farming community will say, "That is all very well, but, actually, the cost is too high". I recognise that that argument is still there. However, there is another serious consideration about the amendment. Whether or not we agree that the 20-day rule should be there now, it would be extremely reckless to lift that rule only eight weeks after the last confirmed case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, said, the granting of FMD-free status by the EU and the OIE happens at a minimum of three months—not eight weeks—after the last confirmed case. It is clear that, had we been unable, at that point, to say to the OIE and the EU that restrictions on movements—the main cause of the spread of the disease—were still in force, the granting of the exemption at the earliest time allowed by their rules would not have been forthcoming. Therefore, instead of having the ban lifted at the first possible moment under international rules, we would have had a further built-in delay in our trade, had we been required to lift the movement controls within eight weeks.
That is not a killer argument as to whether the 20-day rule should stand now. Wider issues are involved, some of which have been raised by noble Lords and some of which I have discussed. However, to accept the amendment would be to place us in danger, in any future outbreak of disease, of not getting the understanding of the international community and the European Union. It would restrict our farmers from trading for a longer period than was necessary, thanks to their understanding of and co-operation with the biosecurity precautions that we put in place, including, at that point, the 20-day rule. Whether we would always be required to go on with the 20-day rule as long as we have is another issue. Making an amendment to include the eight-week period would border on the reckless. It would not be appropriate for the House to pass the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page