Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006

rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 31 January, be annulled (S.I. 2006/168) [23rd Report from the Merits Committee]. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move a prayer to annul the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006. The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, in its 20th report of 2005/06, has drawn the attention of the House to this statutory instrument. In its Explanatory Memorandum, at 3.1, it states that the 21-day rule is not being observed in spite of the radical changes that the new compensation scheme brings. Moving from the current system to a predetermined 47-category system is a major change. These changes will be consistent in all parts of the country, as is quoted in the statutory instrument, but I understand that the instrument itself applies to England only. Is the previous scheme operating still in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or will they also change to put this new system in place? It is claimed that the previous system gave rise to over-compensation, particularly for bovine TB, but even Defra acknowledges that the tabular evaluation system has limitations and cannot incorporate certain qualitative data, which will result in under-compensation of high-value animals and over-compensation for poor animals in comparison with market prices for the healthy animals. How many stakeholders were consulted and how many objected to the new proposals? Were the stakeholders concerned with farm or land management or were they outside stakeholders? That is important to this debate. Has the proposed advisory group, which was due to be formed in February or early March, been established? What will be its remit? In my preparations for today, the NFU sent its parliamentary briefing, for which I am grateful. I will obviously not read it all, but I turn particularly to the two starred paragraphs. The brief states:"““The order makes no provision for appeals””." What happens if anyone wants to appeal? My understanding is that if a farmer believes that his animals will be significantly undervalued by the tabular system there is at present no mechanism whereby he could bring evidence to an independent arbitrator charged with determining his case to decide whether it was a good one—if so, the farmer should have his compensation increased. We regard the lack of such a remedy as an unjust omission which the Government should rectify. That is my first point. The second point is that, if the Government are confident that the new system will be fair to farmers, there is no real reason why they cannot provide reassurance on this point by appointing an independent reviewer who would assess the performance of the scheme after six months and subsequently. Such a person might be a judge with valuation experience or a senior and respected surveyor. Just as the human rights lobby derives assurance from the work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as the official independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, so the farmers would also know that, if their fears about the new scheme prove to be well founded, the Government would have taken notice of any criticism that an independent reviewer concluded should be made part of that scheme. In considering the reasons for moving to a tabular valuation scheme, I notice—and it may be a deliberate ploy or a mistake—that, in the beef sector, farmers are not to receive any payment for pedigree animals before those animals are six months old. For non-pedigree animals there is a range of up to three months and then three to six months. Similarly, in the dairy sector, non-pedigree animals are listed up to three months, then over three months and up to six months. Dairy pedigree animals fall within the up-to-two-months range, the two-month range and then the up-to-12-months range. Is that an error? It seems very strange that a pedigree animal, which would surely be more valuable, does not have any showing at all in this present system. The foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 saw the slaughter of millions of animals. I suspect that in current times the largest call on the public purse comes from cattle affected by bovine TB. I have to say that the Government’s lack of decision-making on the control of bovine TB has greatly added to the spread of the disease in England. Consultation with various stakeholders was required; scientific evidence must be weighed—I accept all that—and farmers know that strict biosecurity measures are needed. But we believe that the Government cannot keep ignoring the role that wildlife plays in the spread of the disease. There are new testing mechanisms in existence, and I hope that the Minister will use this occasion to bring us up to date with current thinking, because what we wish to see is surely a healthy cattle population living alongside a healthy badger population. Surely it cannot be right or defensible that more than 20,000 cattle are slaughtered each year, but nothing is being done to control the disease in badgers. The figure for last year—2005—was that 29,585 cattle were killed, which was a 28 per cent increase on 2004. The Government themselves have acknowledged that they have put £9 billion aside to cope with the disease for the next 10 years. That cannot make sense and the situation should not be allowed to continue. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response when he comes to speak, and I thank other noble Lords who might be going to participate. Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 31 January, be annulled (S.I. 2006/168) [23rd Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Byford.)