---

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, can the Minister say whether pressure is being brought to bear on the Irish Government through these negotiations to ensure that the lights on the Irish side are being automated at the same rate as they are on this side? Bearing in mind that there is no incentive on the Irish Government, can the negotiations be given at least a bit of an edge in that direction?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can assure the House that we are trying to ensure right around the whole of the British Isles that there is an absolutely up-to-date and optimal security regime in place in all lighthouses. A good deal of investment is taking place in the Republic in that respect as well as off our shores. While some of those changes are relatively expensive, it is believed, with good reason, that the savings that will be made and the security that will be enhanced will make those investments very worth while.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the arrangements with France have worked
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 380
 
profitably for many years as far as Britain and France are concerned? What chance is there of that position being replicated in relation to Ireland?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I recognise that those arrangements have worked well with France. Many of them have dealt with traffic separation of ships rather than simply the provision of lighthouses. The critical issue in relation to the Republic of Ireland and the whole of the island of Ireland is to ensure that navigational aids are part of a coherent system. It is greatly to our benefit if they are part of a coherent system.

The reason for the delay is not tardiness. I hope that that will be recognised in the House. The transfer of the functions in respect of this safety issue are to a new all-Irish body, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, which was established under the Good Friday agreement. Some of the arrangements under the Good Friday agreement have not come forward as quickly as we had hoped for the reasons that everyone knows. That is why the formal discussion has not taken place.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, will the Minister be reassured that we on these Benches appreciate the Government's position at this important and delicate time for Ireland, both north and south? We are aware that the matter, which has been the subject of detailed negotiations, cannot finally be resolved, as the Minister has said, until devolution is restored. We look to a speedy solution thereafter.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, because he has hit the nail on the head. That is the real position. As soon as we can make progress, which we really desire to do, we shall proceed.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, can my noble friend say why we waited until the Good Friday agreement came about to arrange this matter? Can we also send a message to the Irish Government that we want the matter settled speedily, otherwise the lights might just go out?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is not much fear of the lights going out—a phrase that seems to come up in all kinds of contexts in this House. I do not believe that people are about to place shipping or the lives of people on the sea at hazard. I cannot believe that that would happen. Until 1998, good progress was made in the discussions and everyone felt that they would come to a conclusion. We all know, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, kindly pointed out a moment ago, why there has been a pause. We hope that the pause will not be too long and that the problem will be resolved.

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, as a former serving lighthouse keeper, and for Latin scholars, I can tell the House that the motto of the Irish Lighthouse Service is In salutem omnium—for the safety of all.
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 381
 
Does the Minister agree that, at this delicate time of trying to reinstate devolved government in Northern Ireland, it would not be right to cause difficulties with a friendly government in the Irish Republic and it certainly would not be in the interests of mariners if the lights were to go out?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I could put the matter no better myself.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Crickhowell asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their response to the European Court of Auditors' report on the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the conclusions and recommendations made in the Court of Auditors' report are, in the main, sensible. The UK will continue to work with the EU Commission and other member states to ensure that the lessons learned from the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in 2001 are applied here and in other member states.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. The report of the Court of Auditors makes a number of devastating criticisms of the Government's handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001. Do the Government accept those criticisms and the fact that about 62 per cent of the claims for £948 million from the EU will be disallowed by the Commission? Will he confirm that the Government will not seek to recover the shortfall of around £600 million from farmers and the rural community, which is already hard hit by the Government's incompetent handling of the crisis?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first point, the criticisms in this report are fairly well accepted and, indeed, reflect the views of the Anderson inquiry and other inquiries that we conducted domestically following the foot and mouth outbreak. Certainly, we accept the broad thrust of those recommendations.

On the question of the contribution from European funds towards the cost of compensation, the noble Lord is right to say that the Commission has judged that we overpaid in certain circumstances and failed to maintain some financial control over some of the other payments. That has led to a shortfall of approximately £600 million, but I can assure him that we shall not seek to recoup that from the farming community.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, given that the European Commission is very concerned about the costs of the contiguous cull—and that I understand is the bulk of the overspend—will the Government
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 382
 
review whether the first option should be vaccination in any future outbreak, which might cost a great deal less?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the contingency plan we now have in place—and it was one of the criticisms of the Court of Auditors that prior to 2001 we did not have an adequate contingency plan—is robust and asks to consider vaccination in circumstances beyond the initial exposure. That does not, however, mean that there will be no culling of animals. Clearly, those with the disease and those directly exposed to the disease will continue to need to be culled.

What the noble Lord refers to as the "overspend" is not in fact an overspend, it is the valuation of all animals, whether they were killed in the primary cull or in the contiguous cull. Therefore, the issue of control of compensation arises in all circumstances.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, following the criticism by the Audit Commission on that report, how many more unsettled claims are there—I have raised this question several times—and is that figure included in the £600 million or is it in addition? Secondly, in respect of the criticism of the Government's handling of the foot and mouth outbreak, did the Government take into account the apparent failure of a Defra official to be aware of what was going on at Burnside Farm?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first point, it is clear that there are still a number of claims. I will have to give the noble Baroness the details in writing. A relatively small number of claims have yet to be settled. Those claims and the estimated outcome of those claims are included within the total, so there is no additional money as regards the figures in the Court of Auditors' report.

In respect of the situation at Burnside Farm, we have made clear that the Defra vet who saw the condition of the farm reported it at the earliest opportunity. I do not think that—despite what has occasionally been alleged—there is any additional evidence which would point to any other conclusion on the origin of the disease than that reached by the Anderson and Royal Society inquiries in 2001.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the crisis was better handled in Scotland—I suspect, mainly due to the tighter community—and that the mistakes that occurred in England did not occur there? Has the Ministry learned anything from that?

---