Debate on the Address

My Lords, I declare my interests as a partner with my husband in our small mixed family farm in Worcestershire, a member of the ethics committee of Micropathology Ltd and an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and of the British Veterinary Association. In her gracious Speech, Her Majesty confirmed Her Government's commitment, "““to protecting the environment and to tackling climate change, both at home and abroad””." As my noble friend Lord Haskins made clear, we are beginning to see some of the knock-on effects of measures that have already been taken in an attempt to secure sustainable green energy supplies in the form of biofuels. World prices for grain and oilseeds have soared in the past year, partly because of drought in grain-producing areas, partly because increased wealth has stimulated grain consumption by China and other developing countries, but also because grain for human and animal consumption has been diverted to production of biofuels. This has had effects so dire that we are in danger of losing most of our pig producers very soon, and the poultry industry will not be far behind them. This is a problem that is arising on our own territory. Disquiet is being expressed by those who are directly concerned with indigenous populations in South America, Africa and Indonesia, where land dedicated to food production is in danger of being bought by industrialists able to take advantage of the new market. The displaced natives in rural areas will inevitably starve, as will many of the urban population to whom they supply food. In our consideration of the proposed legislation, we must never lose sight of its wider implications. I am sure the Minister has taken note of the speeches of my noble friends Lord Haskins and Lord Cameron. Her Majesty's Government's commitment to pursue a stable and strong economy does not seem to extend to the agricultural industry. They have presided over the decimation of what was once the most efficient and respected agricultural sector in the world and have totally failed to grasp the importance of the continuity and stability that hold the rural community together and provide food and amenities for our urban counterparts. Agriculture has sunk so low in this Government's estimation that it no longer warrants so much as a word in the departmental title. Is it true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, that this multi-faceted department requires only a part-time Permanent Secretary? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had many of the core activities of government concerned with agriculture hived off to agencies or other arm's-length organisations that appear to be answerable to nobody. I am reminded of the mythical Hydra which had numerous heads but none that stood above the others as their leader. The department is crying out for strong leadership. In my preparation for this speech, I have reread parts of the report Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry. That inquiry was chaired by Dr Iain Anderson. I hasten to say that I do not intend to pre-empt his follow-up on the 2007 foot and mouth disease outbreak, though I will have something to say about the science that was or was not used. In the foreword to the report of the 2001 inquiry, Anderson wrote: "““Within MAFF, and now DEFRA, I detected a culture predisposed to decision taking by committee with an associated fear of personal risk taking. Such a climate does not encourage creative initiative. It inhibits adaptive behaviour, and organisational learning which, over time, lowers the quality of decisions taken. It seems to me that a reappraisal of prevailing attitudes and behaviours within the Department would be beneficial””." May I ask the Minister what has changed? Decisions are still made by committee, although they are now called stakeholder groups. What frequently emerges from their deliberations is neither well defined nor constructive but is imprecise and, on occasion, positively unhelpful. The flurry of instructions that emerged from the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, closely followed by those for the control of bluetongue and now those for the prevention of the spread of avian influenza contained some sensible and practical advice, but there were also some extraordinarily impractical and scientifically baseless exhortations, such as that to bring semi-wild animals from extensive hill farms under cover every night to stop bluetongue-virus-carrying midges biting them. Throughout the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak Ministers have assured us that they are relying upon the best scientific advice. To an outsider, it seems that the science has been made to fit the policies rather than the policies made to fit the science. Why has there been no overall review by Defra of the scientific advances and publications relating to foot and mouth disease since 2001? I suggest that the second eruption of the disease in Surrey would not have occurred and the slaughter of hundreds of uninfected stock could have been prevented had those who advise Government been aware of current scientific knowledge. The psycho-social effects of slaughter as a means of disease control must never be underestimated; no one could fail to be moved by the stoicism of the couple who featured in the BBC programme ““On your Farm”” recently. They had lost their much loved livestock under one of the many categories that allow slaughter without accurate confirmation of disease—““slaughter on suspicion””, in this case. Their underlying distress was palpable, and rightly so, as all their animals proved to be uninfected. It seems extraordinary that what some in authority might regard as a little local difficulty in Surrey can bring farming throughout the UK to its knees. Surely it is time to introduce more humane control policies. Sir David King, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, has set out a universal ethical code for scientists. One of the seven principles is to, "““minimise impacts on people, animals and environment””." If that means anything, it must surely include other, kinder options, such as vaccination to kill off the virus, instead of the current obsession with killing the host. The Government seem to have forgotten the disgust that was provoked by the destruction of thousands of healthy animals on welfare grounds during the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic. The same problems have arisen again this time—made worse by the fact that the Surrey outbreak occurred at a time when stock are traditionally moved from the uplands and marshes to their winter keep in the lowlands, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, reminded us. The loss of the export market also led to thousands of light lambs that would normally have gone to the Continent being incinerated. What a waste, when a little enterprise and planning between Government, producers and the trade earlier on could well have created an outlet for the meat from those animals. This year has proved to be pretty disastrous for many in the rural community. They have not been helped by an apparent lack of comprehension of how the countryside works; by a lack of accountability and scientific integrity; and, above all, by a lack of informed and strong leadership. With the departure of the Chief Veterinary Officer, the imminent retirement of her deputy and the appointment of a new scientific adviser to Defra, animal health is currently in a state of renewal—I was going to say ““upheaval””. I wonder whether the Minister would consider this an appropriate time for the composition, management and policies of Defra to be reviewed and reformulated. In particular, with climate change high on its agenda, the scientific base of the department needs to be strengthened. The risk of an increasing number of exotic animal diseases coming to the UK is high and we really need to be prepared—and that includes utilising the veterinary expertise that is available beyond our shores. Finally, I make a plea: can we have a few fewer visions and much more practical progress?