Animal Welfare: Infectious Diseases

My Lords, I join in the congratulations that have been offered to my noble friend Lady Byford on securing this debate at so opportune a time. It has been most valuable. One look at the speakers list will tell us that those noble Lords present constitute the usual suspects on this subject. That means, however, that we across the House share a similar agenda, and I include the Minister in that category. We have been able to discuss this topic with a genuinely shared interest in trying to make improvements to the existing situation, while acknowledging that it is not easy. I declare an interest in my family horticultural and farming business, although the sheep grazing on our farm are owned and looked after by someone else. If the past 12 months have taught us anything, it is that, at a time when the threat of animal disease is growing even greater, it is important that we tackle the problems of prevention and treatment in a manner that ensures that the remedy is not more expensive and destructive than the infection. My noble friend Lord Plumb emphasised that the losses borne by our livestock producers are real and substantial. It is likely to take a considerable time for the industry to recover. It is also important that we take whatever steps are necessary to reduce the range of maladies affecting our livestock. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, emphasised the role that science can play. Avian flu and bluetongue may be brought by wildlife and therefore be more difficult to prevent, but we can and should strengthen our biosecurity to ward off the dangers of diseases such as foot and mouth disease and African horse sickness. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, talked of the influence of climate change, and the position that presents as a reason why more exotic diseases are arriving in this country. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, we need more effective control of illegal meat imports. The current position suggests that the Government do not take this seriously. At the same time, we must bring an end to the scourge of bovine TB. The Government have a decision to make. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, graphically described the options available to the Government and the nature of that decision. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referring to the incidence of roadside casualty badgers, brought to mind the fact that, when I was a child, badgers appeared only in Rupert books, but now they are everywhere, particularly by the roadside. The noble Lord also emphasised the difficulty of the decision that the Government will have to make. I know that the Minister has his own view. It would be helpful if he could explain his thinking to us, so that we may assimilate his ideas to aid preparation for the action plan that will be announced. In a Written Answer published in Hansard on 20 November, the Government referred to the stringency of the new commission regulations on animal movements in an area where bluetongue has been confirmed. I am particularly concerned about the situation of pregnant ewes and cattle that need to be moved from a protection zone to birthing facilities elsewhere. Can the Minister tell me whether there are any proposals under discussion to ease the problems of these animals and the farmers who are trying to adhere to the welfare rules, while at the same time earning enough money to stay in business? In addition, the past six months have seen the emergence of further problem areas associated with movement restrictions. We have an unequal distribution of abattoirs in the UK. Unlike France, where it appears to be a local government responsibility at département level to ensure the provision of adequate slaughterhouses, we are particularly short in certain areas. The whole question of selling animals for store and slaughter has been a serious concern to farmers and auctioneers alike. I have received a regular update from Newark livestock market on the situation. They have benefited enormously from the vector-free period. This window is due to close on 15 March—the Ides of March—and there is much apprehension about the consequences. This is something that should be dealt with by all the interested parties getting their heads together to work out solutions that avoid unnecessary wastage or massive cost. By ““all”” I mean to include not only the Government, but opposition parties, supermarkets, livestock markets, farmers’ markets, abattoirs, farmers, vets and all the rest. It may be that the only workable solution is to create a protection zone that covers the whole country. Several speakers have touched on cost-sharing. My noble friend Lady Byford questioned both the coverage of any such scheme and the nature and content of the costs that Defra would seek to recoup. We know from an Answer from Mr Jonathan Shaw in another place that Defra is committed to reducing the animal welfare budget by £121 million by 2010-11 as a result of the most recent spending round. The Minister himself told the EFRA Committee last week that decisions on the spending round impinge on other areas of the department’s work, particularly in the animal welfare field, where resource implications have led to reordering of priorities and the abandonment of some work schemes. Exactly which work schemes? It sounds like cuts to me. We, as the Opposition, are prepared to support cost-sharing in principle. We are, however, anxious that the system that is introduced provides an incentive to good husbandry and biosecurity, and a reward for the achievement of excellence. There must be a genuine partnership if cost-sharing is to be accepted by the industry. Not only should the costs be shared, but the system should allow for measures for recovering an element of the cost of dealing with the outbreak of a disease where that outbreak has been caused by some person or agency failing to do their job correctly. It follows that the make-up of the costs to be shared must be clearly enumerated and firmly controlled. It also implies that all parties to the agreement must have both major input to the schemes of disease control for which these charges are made and a substantial role in their monitoring and review. I am sure that the Minister has been most thoroughly briefed for this debate. None the less, I hope that he has been given some new perspectives and ideas by the contributions that noble Lords have made. It is a most serious topic and I look forward with interest, and not a little hope, to his response.