Animal Welfare: Infectious Diseases

rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what improvements have been made in the management of infectious animal diseases. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to have secured this short debate and I thank all those who are going to participate for bringing their expertise and knowledge to these deliberations. I also thank the Minister for his continuous support of the industry. I declare my various interests, held in the Register of Members’ Interests, such as my honorary associate membership of both the Royal College and the BVA. I should add that our family no longer has livestock on the farm. In my contribution today I shall cover bluetongue, avian flu, foot and mouth and bovine TB specifically, although I know that other speakers may wish to broaden the debate. I am well aware that the Government have no control over the midges that spread bluetongue or over the wild birds that carry avian flu to this country. However, I would be grateful to know of any extra checks that have been put in place following the flu outbreak on the Bernard Matthews complex to reduce the risk of disease brought into this country either by infected legally or illegally imported meat or by the movement of people or lorries. Is the Minister satisfied that the Government’s emergency plans are sufficiently robust to deal with future outbreaks of bluetongue? I understand that in the United Kingdom vaccination of susceptible animals will be completely voluntary. How will the Government know which animals have or have not been vaccinated? What vaccines have been ordered and in what quantities? When will they be available? In what circumstances will they have to be administered by veterinary surgeons rather than by individual farmers? Written Answers from another place that were published in Hansard on 20 November made some of the following points. The midges that carry bluetongue are likely to survive the winter; I say as an aside that I understand that they have cross-contaminated some of our UK midges. The virus lives in infected animals for eight weeks or so. Testing for the presence of the virus is concentrated in the protection zones, but it also covers animals that were moved from a protection zone before the registration was put in place plus any that appear to exhibit signs of bluetongue infection. Has the Minister any plans to introduce proactive rather than random testing in areas where midges might be present? The BVA believes that any cost-sharing arrangements must provide the industry with an incentive for action. There should not be simply a flat levy on farmers; all interested parties should be encouraged to improve their practice. Cost sharing should surely reward those who achieve good animal health and welfare outcomes. I turn now to the ongoing problem of bovine TB and refer directly to the House of Commons EFRA committee report. TB is a menace to cattle and badgers alike and continues to spread unabated. Figures published this week show that the number of fresh outbreaks of TB in cattle reached a new record for modern times of 4,137 in 2007. The incidence of TB—that is, the proportion of herds tested resulting in a breakdown—increased by 18 per cent on the previous year. Some 28,000-plus cattle were slaughtered as TB reactors, inconclusive reactors or dangerous contacts, and 6,532 farms were under TB restrictions in 2007 because of a TB incident. That TB outbreak is costing taxpayers more than £90 million, let alone the heartbreak to the farmers concerned. A recent independent report published by the Royal Society suggested that 75 per cent of new TB outbreaks were caused by local effects in high-risk areas, the most significant of which is contact between badgers and cattle. Controls of the spread of TB by cattle movements have an important part to play, but TB will never be brought under control without tackling the reservoir of the disease in the badger population. The report highlights that the disease is now effectively out of control. Clearly something needs to be done urgently. The Royal Society report recognised the need for a multifaceted approach to the problem. Vaccination, effective biosecurity arrangements at farm level, increased frequency of testing and a greater use of gamma interferon are recommended. The ISG report of 2007 acknowledged that the removal of infected badgers can have a beneficial effect on the instances of TB in cattle in parts of the country where there is a high incidence. The Minister will be well aware of the concerns expressed by dairy and beef farmers in the hot-spot areas, particularly those in the south and south-west, which is where I was this weekend. The Government’s record of managing outbreaks of foot and mouth leaves much to be desired. The 2001 epidemic, in which thousands of cattle and sheep were slaughtered, was a disgrace. The Government failed to address the original outbreak with the urgency that was needed and, as a result, the disease spread rapidly throughout areas of the country. The Government have learnt lessons from the three inquiries, although I am still unsure whether they are prepared to use vaccination rather than slaughter in the first instance should a new outbreak occur. We debated this subject at great length when we took through the Animal Health Bill. The 2007 outbreak of foot and mouth at Pirbright was, from a management point of view, dealt with quickly, although I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the second outbreak was directly linked to the first and, if so, whether the management controls put in place at the time were found to be inadequate. Will he also tell us whether the decision to restrict movement and slaughter rather than vaccinate throughout the immediate area was prompted by a lack of vaccine or whether the Government simply chose not to use it? As the source was known, it seemed an ideal situation in which to use vaccination for the whole of Surrey in a controlled trial. The government proposals for cost sharing for future animal diseases have been viewed with alarm. The Minister is no doubt aware of the difficult financial circumstances that threaten the survival of many livestock farmers. Indeed, the petition from the National Pig Association last week highlights the industry’s troubles. Farmers well understand that they have a responsibility to maintain strong biosecurity measures on their farms. Equally, they believe that the Government of the day should be robust in keeping out animal diseases from this country and should have strong, foolproof emergency measures in place. A number of people have asked me how the cost-sharing position will work with regard to the devolved Administrations. In the event of, say, an outbreak of bluetongue that encompasses south Scotland or north Wales and Cumbria, will Defra’s costs be recovered throughout the UK or only from the farmers affected? If the scheme takes the form of an annual premium, will all UK farmers contribute or only those within England? That is not clear. Will the charges that are to be made be based on the inclusion of Defra’s management, administration and overhead costs as well? I assure the Minister that the livestock industry is not wholly opposed to cost recovery, but it would like to know exactly what it will be charged for. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, at a time when we are experiencing a warmer climate, the chances are that new infectious diseases will be coming to these shores. It is against that background of changing climate that I wanted to introduce this short debate tonight, which I feel is very important. I greatly look forward to hearing other contributions and the Minister’s response to some of the questions that I have posed today.