Animal Welfare: Infectious Diseases

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for introducing this appropriate topic. I declare my interest as a partner with my husband in our small mixed farm in Worcestershire and as an honorary associate of both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. I offer the Minister my assurance that any criticism that I make of Defra will be on my understanding that its staff are operating under almost impossible financial and manpower constraints, caused in large part by legacies about which we all know. On that basis, I hope that he will accept that I am trying to be constructive. It is essential that the new-look Defra leadership is strong and that the appointed leaders are allowed to function without having to endure the constant interference that has become a pattern in recent years. In the field of animal health, with its often rapid advances in scientific knowledge, there needs to be a clear decision-making sequence. I am unconvinced that diluting the process by consultation with numerous stakeholder groups makes for effective decisions. Department and agency heads are selected for their knowledge, experience and wisdom. They should be respected and given the freedom, in their turn, to select those who will give them the best truly independent expert advice. The acceptance of decisions depends much more on the communication of clear, concise and reasoned instructions, based on real expert opinion, than on imprecise and sometimes unreasonable directions given with little clear practical understanding of how they will be implemented. I would appreciate documents that are short and simple to read, which give useful illustrations instead of pretty pictures and which adequately define the technical terms that we must understand. What is happening on the prevention front? The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned exotic diseases. Meat illegally imported into the UK poses a high risk of exotic diseases. How has Defra helped to reduce the risk? In the past two years, it has reduced from 11 to nine the number of specialist sniffer dogs at ports of entry, while spending nearly £1 million on items such as pens and toothbrushes, T-shirts and banners, television and newspaper advertisements, and posters. There have been only 11 successful prosecutions since 2003. By contrast, Australia has 75 sniffer dogs and an average of 50 successful prosecutions a year. Will the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the deterrent effect of spending so much on advertising and junk gifts compared with that of highly publicised successful prosecutions? What are the purchase and running costs of each sniffer dog and handler? Have leaflets in appropriate languages, advising prospective passengers not to bring meat and meat products into the UK, ever been distributed with airline tickets? The considerable number of people and vehicle movements from potentially infected food and animal production units on the European continent to the UK must be a cause for concern. Australia and New Zealand are rigorous in their determination that no diseases should be imported from abroad. They require all incoming passengers to certify that they have not been on farms for a specific period or, if they have, to undergo disinfection procedures. Could we not do something like this, especially when we know that there has been person or vehicle contact with possible sources of disease? Compared with the huge financial costs of an outbreak of disease, these simple measures would appear to be cost effective. Does the Minister agree that they are worth considering? If they have already been considered, what were the reasons for rejection? The farming community’s recent experiences with potentially disastrous outbreaks of infectious diseases have made it vigilant. Its action, and that of Defra officials, has limited the spread of disease—everybody here should be congratulated on their response to the most recent outbreak. There have been major improvements in the speed and accuracy of laboratory diagnosis in recent years, but this is still hampered by shortcomings in clinical diagnosis. It is essential that peer-reviewed knowledge is rapidly incorporated into protocols; for example, up-to-date peer-reviewed information on foot and mouth disease has not yet been incorporated into the protocol for controlling it. There need to be different precautions and zones for diseases caused, or carried, by species that fly such as birds and midges, compared with others associated with land-based animals. This does not yet seem to have got through to the imagination of Defra staff, let alone been translated into action. When disease appears, we need to know precisely what action must be taken. We all need to know when and where vaccination is to be used before an outbreak occurs. Furthermore, we must work with our European partners to ensure that directives are updated so that trade issues do not stand in the way of scientific advances when disease strikes. Effective contingency protocols work best when they are based on accurate science, have been practised and involve only a small chain of well informed command. I make a plea. Our climate is changing with worrying speed, and we need to be fully prepared for a number of exotic diseases to strike. Animal health, in particular, must be prepared to ask for and receive advice from scientists whose expertise and experience of exotic diseases are acknowledged by their colleagues around the world. If they are prepared to share their knowledge, they should be welcomed with open arms rather than snubbed in the belief that all the expertise is already available in the UK. I bring to mind the way that the late Fred Brown was so badly treated during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. Finally, it is absolutely essential that the Government understand that science should define the policy and not let the policy define the science. By pursuing the latter, the Government pervert the decision-making process and produce policy that, not surprisingly, provokes the distrust and the disrespect of the citizen. Government should also recognise the limits of science.