http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071017/debtext/71017-0006.htm#07101749000001
17 Oct 2007 : Column 845
Opposition Day
[20th Allotted Day—First Part]
Foot and Mouth/Bluetongue
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to the main business: the Opposition day. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
1.36 pm
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I beg to move,
That this House notes the swift action taken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to impose movement controls when foot and mouth was first confirmed on 3rd August, in contrast to the Government’s failures in 2001; is alarmed that the outbreak originated from a laboratory site financed, licensed and inspected by the Government; notes that warnings about the inadequacies of the facilities at Pirbright were ignored; condemns this negligent approach to biosecurity; urges the Government to accept its responsibility for the situation facing farmers caused by the subsequent controls which for many has been compounded by the outbreak of bluetongue disease; and demands that the regulatory body for facilities using dangerous pathogens should be fully independent of the facilities’ major customers.
I remind the House of my interest declared in the register.
For those of us who were involved in the catastrophe of 2001, the news on 3 August of another foot and mouth outbreak was a body blow. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he was open and helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), myself and affected colleagues. He gave us access to his vets, and he and the Minister for the South East kept us informed. We are genuinely grateful for that collaboration. One should also point out that much of what happened predated the Secretary of State’s appointment, but as is so often the case on such occasions, he was the unfortunate person left holding the parcel when the music stopped. I also acknowledge the swift action that was taken to clamp down on the disease by banning animal movements—a welcome contrast to the costly delays of 2001.
Early on Saturday 4 August, a farmer telephoned me and pointed out that the outbreak was near Pirbright. My immediate reaction was, “So what? That’s just a coincidence.” How wrong I was. Nobody realised then that this had been a disaster waiting to happen for five years and that the trail of incompetence led all the way to Downing street. As far back as 2002, an Institute for Animal Health review, commissioned by its owners the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, stated:
“Some of the laboratories are not close to the standard that would be expected in a modern biomedical facility.”
We also know from the Spratt report that from 2003 there had been concern
“that pipes were old and needed replacing, but after much discussion between the Institute, Merial and DEFRA, money had not been made available.”
The report also contains a letter from Merial dated 20 July 2004 setting out specifications for improvements to the drainage and referring to an unspecified quote
17 Oct 2007 : Column 846
for the work. The reply from DEFRA simply stated that the proposals would appear to meet DEFRA standards for the safe transfer of the waste. That letter was dated 2 August 2004. Yet last week the Secretary of State told the House that
“until the state of the drains was drawn to our attention, and everybody else’s, as a result of the HSE investigation, nobody thought that they were in such a condition. That happens to be the truth.”—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
As there is now incontrovertible evidence that DEFRA knew about the state of the drains as far back as 2004, will the Secretary of State explain how he can claim that it did not know until September 2007?
In Spratt’s final remarks, he says:
“There was evidence of a lack of urgency and ownership of risk at all levels, resulting in the failure to take appropriate decisions on the funding for essential improvements in safety critical infrastructure. This was particularly documented in the series of letters and reports from the biological safety officer of the Institute in his attempts over four years to get agreement on funding for the replacement of the effluent pipes.”
Spratt also made it clear that DEFRA inspectors had confirmed that the drainage system was part of the category 4 containment system. He said that the pipes were old and appeared not to have been subject to regular, thorough inspection. Even during the past 18 months, there had been two incidents—both reported to DEFRA—where virus was released into the public sewer. So we have a catalogue of reports, recommendations and pleas for help regarding the drainage system. The Secretary of State cannot claim that DEFRA did not know. Some people certainly did, and the House should be told who they are.
However, it does not stop there. We find that in the years following 2002—with just one exception—DEFRA cut funding to the institute. As Spratt said, money had not been available. In January this year, the director of the institute told Radio 4:
“We are trying to deliver a Rolls-Royce service for surveillance in the UK but really we’re being funded more and more at the level of a Ford Cortina. Essentially, we are flying by the seat of our pants.”
Last week, the Secretary of State claimed that the vehicles were on the site
“Because work is under way to spend the money on renewing the facilities at Pirbright. Some £31 million of that money has already been spent”.—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
Yes, £31 million, out of a Pirbright redevelopment scheme fund totalling £121 million, is indeed a lot of money, but it is not actually relevant. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey, the Minister for Science and Innovation said:
“Tenders for the drainage scheme of around £220,000 were received in October 2006.”—[ Official Report, 1 October 2007; Vol. 463, c. 2346W.]
That work was approved in March and commenced in July. On 5 September, inspectors confirmed that the work had been completed. I quote:
“The institute has already completed relining of the effluent pipes with a polyester lining, blocked off disused drains and sealed the manholes.”
So for £220,000 and six weeks’ work, the disaster to the British farming industry could have been avoided.
However, DEFRA has another role. Under the specified animal pathogens order, it has to license such facilities. That includes meeting its own containment requirements, which the health and safety report clearly states were not met. Yet in December 2006, DEFRA inspected Pirbright, and according to Spratt,
“some issues relating to bio security were identified”.
I remind the Secretary of State of Spratt’s statement that the pipes did not appear to have been subject to regular, thorough inspection.
So why will the Government not publish that report? Is it because it is clear that the licence should not have been renewed? It seems odd that, despite the drains having been repaired, the licence is now suspended. Talk about closing the stable door after the cow has been shot! Are we really facing a foot and mouth outbreak for the second time in seven years because a facility had been licensed by DEFRA that should not have been? What is really hypocritical is that, if this had been a dairy farm or a shop selling food, it would have been prevented immediately from continuing in business until the problems were put right.
We know that DEFRA knew about the state of the drains four or five years ago. We know that it failed to fund the improvements—indeed, it cut the funding. Despite that, it went ahead and continued to license facilities that were rotten. It has cost the taxpayer well over £20 million, and rising. It has cost the English farming industry at least £100 million, and rising, and for Scottish and Welsh farmers the situation is just as serious. The potential damage, especially to our uplands, could be devastating.
What farmers need to know is, who is going to pay the price? When will somebody in DEFRA be accountable for this latest fiasco? Who will ultimately carry the can? Will it be the Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, cut the funding? Will it be the various Secretaries of State who ignored the warnings? Will it be the institute, or some inspector? No, Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that, as always with this Government, it will never be their fault. It is never their responsibility. Never resign, blame somebody else—that is the culture. The can, of course, is being carried—by the poor farmers up and down the country who cannot sell their stock, buy new stock, pay their bills or see a positive future. Already, farmers are deciding to quit the industry. They can take the weather; they can take decoupling; they can even take the vagaries of the market place, but they cannot—and nor should they—take the negligence of an incompetent Government.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): We all know that this is a dreadful situation—as, indeed, a number of other animal disease outbreaks have been. However, will the hon. Gentleman, to be fair, acknowledge that this Government have spent a great deal of money on research into vaccination? Let us consider the example of tuberculosis, into which we had a number of inquiries. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but is he aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee is looking into the money that this Government are spending internationally on this issue? Of course the Tories do not want to know—they do not spend any money.
Mr. Paice: I am very willing to engage the hon. Gentleman and anybody else on the subject of the incompetent way in which this Government have handled the tuberculosis business, as well, but that is not the issue facing us today.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Perhaps I might return the hon. Gentleman to foot and mouth, which is the worry for most of my farmers. Does he share my concern and that of many people in Somerset that infected carcases are being taken from the area of the foot and mouth outbreak and into my constituency—into the heart of dairying country—for disposal? Does he agree with me that that is an unnecessary and avoidable risk?
Mr. Paice: Any risk is worrying, and I can well understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which has been expressed by many others. I hope that the Secretary of State will address that issue when he responds.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): I listened to the Secretary of State address the House last Monday on the issue of the pipes in Pirbright. I remember that he said categorically that, although it was possible that pipes were faulty, it could not be guaranteed that that was the cause. Given the evidence that my hon. Friend has presented to the House today, does he agree that the Secretary of State must acknowledge that fact today, for the record?
Mr. Paice: Anybody who has read the Spratt and the Health and Safety Executive reports will have come to the conclusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has reached. It is stated clearly that that is by far the most likely cause; no other substantive alternative cause of infection is ventured. I can well understand why the Secretary of State does not want to admit that. I am sure that thousands of lawyers are on his shoulder, pressing him not to do or say anything that could be construed as accepting responsibility. However, I do not think that there is any doubt about how the situation was caused.
Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): As a dairy farmer close to the exclusion zone, I must refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. The Institute for Animal Health, at Compton, is in my constituency, so a lot of scientists—past and present—live there. There is great anger among them at the fact that the Government are ignoring the way in which they go about their business, which is world renowned. They believe that the Government just want to dip in and out of the science and get a quick-fix solution. The actual solution is to look at the whole biology of these pathogens, but the scientists are prevented from doing so by the manner of their funding.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. As I pointed out earlier, the director of the institute said that he is funded to run a Ford Cortina, when in fact, he is trying to run a Rolls-Royce service. That entirely sums up and fits with what my hon. Friend has just said.
So far, I have addressed the causes of this outbreak; let me turn now to the handling of it. The initial decisions were right, but there have been a number of problems in the detail. There was a desperate lack of communication. Farmers near the initial outbreak were wondering what was happening for days and days before they were contacted.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem that DEFRA has, and which Whitehall has more generally, is assuming that everybody is connected to the internet? We may have to be, but a lot of my farming friends are not and are simply left in the dark.
Mr. Paice: My next sentence was going to be, and will be, that DEFRA appeared to assume that every farmer spent their whole time studying the internet; I have obviously known my hon. Friend too long, or he has known me too long.
There was also confusion about footpath closures: whether to close them, and whether or not they were closed. There was no contingency plan to deal with casualty and dead animals at the hottest time of the year. Later, during the second cluster, we heard of different policies in different places: cattle killed on one farm, but not the sheep; goats being missed between adjoining slaughtered flocks; and, worst of all, the shooting of cattle from helicopters because they had broken out of a pen in the evening.
That raises the issue of why the country was declared free of foot and mouth only for further outbreaks to occur just days later. Last week, the Secretary of State said that infected premises 5 had had the disease for
“three or possibly four weeks”.—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 48.]
However, he said that he was not pointing the finger at anyone. Is that because of statements by the owner of premises 5 that DEFRA inspectors had been on the farm and missed the disease? Is it because by 20 September it was clear that this was linked to outbreak one and that it should have been followed up, but was not?
The Secretary of State cannot say that DEFRA emerges with credit from the handling of this outbreak. There is no getting away from the fact that it was handled better than last time, but it would have taken a superhuman effort to have done worse. The Prime Minister says that the public will judge him on what he did on foot and mouth disease. He is right that he will be judged, but it will not happen in the way that he imagines.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): My hon. Friend has been generous in taking interventions. On Saturday, I had a meeting with farmers in east Berkshire who have been affected by foot and mouth, some of whom have had their cattle slaughtered. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has also met them. In addition to the issues of lack of communication and lack of consistency, they raised a biosecurity issue to do with DEFRA’s Pirbright establishment: that topsoil was being removed from around the broken drain, which was the source of the first outbreak, but DEFRA apparently has no records of where that topsoil was taken.
Mr. Paice: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am aware of that meeting and those allegations. Many more exist, and I suspect that other colleagues will make them during this debate. To be fair, the Secretary of State has set up the Anderson committee to examine the matter. It is essential that all those issues are considered by that Committee, and that Dr. Anderson is rightly given the information to make a proper examination to see whether there was even more incompetence than we imagined.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) (Lab): I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman. Would the Opposition have vaccinated in this situation? Why is the handling of bluetongue mentioned in the motion, because the Government have done nothing wrong in that instance?
Mr. Paice: I am coming to bluetongue. On vaccination, we would have taken more notice of the scientist who told us that the pipes were damaged in the first place. We have made it clear that in the circumstances that have arisen, we would not have vaccinated, but that option would have been in the locker had the disease got further out of control.
Even though the export ban has been lifted, at least notionally, and markets and movements have resumed in much of the country, the crisis in British farming is horrendous. The Secretary of State has said that returning to normal is the best solution—nobody would dissent from that—but does he believe that that is what has happened? Merely switching on exports or movement does not solve the problem. The market overhang from weeks of movement restrictions is dire. Millions of animals should have gone by now—hundreds of thousands of sheep in our hills that are eating precious forage reserved for the winter, cull ewes, light lambs and fat pigs—and all that means a calamitous fall in prices. With no live exports, bull calves are again being shot at birth. Lamb prices are up to 50 per cent. lower and those of finished pigs are also well down, while massive rises in the price of feed are having to be contended with.
I point out to the Secretary of State that the bulk of the UK pig industry is within the zone that cannot yet export. Probably 40,000 cull sows are now on farms. They are blocking up pens, costing money and are effectively worthless. Even if they could be exported, it would take many weeks to clear the backlog. The welfare disposal scheme via the fallen stock scheme that he announced last week, should be extended to cover sows within the whole zone from which exports are banned. That could be done, and I suggest using £1 million of the £2 million that he has allocated for promoting meat consumption. Important as that is, it is no use promoting something that is wasting away.
Mr. Heath: On pigs, has the hon. Gentleman noticed something that was brought to my attention by a small farmer from Muchelney in my constituency: the limited movement orders for pigs were available only to those producers who were in established pyramid schemes? That means that small farmers, who perhaps bought from weaner stocks in order to fatten and sell on their premises, were not able to move their pigs. Why should there be that distinction between small producers and large producers?
17 Oct 2007 : Column 851 Mr. Paice: As the hon. Gentleman probably realises, I am not in a position to give the answer to that question. I suspect that it might have something to do with traceability. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us about that.
Will the Secretary of State also tell us what discussions he is having about relaxing the export controls? The huge area of the country from which exports are banned includes the abattoir that slaughters 70 per cent. of cull sows in this country. What is he doing about the 21-day rule? It is tying up farms, which, at this time of the year, are selling finished stock and normally buying new stock. That measure is in addition to the separate 20-day rule about general movements.
Will the Secretary of State speak to the Commission about one other aspect of foot and mouth control? Will he draw the contrast between the strict rules that it has imposed in this regard and its far more lackadaisical attitude to imports from Brazil? Both measures are designed to prevent the spread of foot and mouth, yet, despite a damning report from the Irish Farmers Association about the lack of traceability, the lack of vaccines and the non-use of ear tags, the Commission equivocates about Brazilian imports. In short, the regime, be it for Britain or Brazil, should be equally tough against foot and mouth.
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, because he commands great respect in the House on farming issues. He has talked about the Government paying the price and about the compensation that they have announced. In fairness, he has suggested that it should be used in alternative ways. Is he suggesting that there should be a greater compensation scheme, and, if so, to what amount and paid to whom?
Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman holds fire, I shall come to that.
I turn to bluetongue, which hit us in September. Again, the initial actions taken were correct, but it rapidly became obvious that the consequences were going to be horrendous. We were told that stock could be moved to slaughter in the control and protection zones, yet nobody in DEFRA seemed to have realised that there were not enough slaughter places to slaughter the stock. I was told by a senior civil servant, in front of Lord Rooker, that licences would not be issued to allow stock from the control zone to go to the abattoirs because of European rules, yet that is now what is happening. Countless pedigree stock—cattle and sheep for which this is the peak sale time—cannot be moved, yet in France, a combination of an insecticidal regime and blood testing is being used to allow that to happen.
I know that bluetongue is a changing picture and that as new cases occur, problems of movement controls perversely become less of an issue. Bluetongue could be even more devastating economically to our livestock industry than foot and mouth. That is why vaccines are so crucial. Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he has had with the developers of vaccines about future supplies? Why has Merial been stopped from further development, despite the drains at Pirbright having been repaired? If he is to have any
17 Oct 2007 : Column 852
chance of preventing the spread of bluetongue across central and southern England and Wales next summer, he must ensure that enough vaccine doses are available as soon as possible. If stock is not protected before next year’s midge season, there is no chance of containing this disease.Finally, let me turn to the issue of support for the industry. Last week, the Secretary of State announced a 30 per cent. supplement for the hill farm allowance. We had already said the previous week that we would have made it 50 per cent., but the gesture is right. He spent £4 million on other measures. He then announced, as if to a fanfare, the lifting of regulatory burdens. He wanted to increase the public procurement of British meat. We agree, but by my reckoning he is at least the fourth Secretary of State to say so and still only 3 per cent. of the lamb sold to our armed forces is British.
The Secretary of State announced a four-month delay in the requirement for hauliers to have a certificate of competence. It is a ludicrous requirement anyway and should be abolished. He announced a derogation for the amount of nitrogen to be spread on nitrate-vulnerable zones, but the crisis is now and no amount of nitrogen will make grass grow in the winter.
Finally—and I can hardly believe this one—the Secretary of State announced a one-month extension to a consultation. I can hear the sighs of relief as the red tape burden is lifted from farmers’ shoulders—I think not. That last cynical point is at the heart of the matter. For all its sins, the old Ministry of Agriculture knew that its role was to support and promote British farming. DEFRA’s role is to control and regulate. There is no natural empathy with or understanding of the farming industry, and no knowledge of the structures of the industry that realises that a restriction here has a knock-on consequence there. Where are the men and women who understood those things and who realised that animals keep growing; that grass is finite; and that if one cannot export pig shoulders, the price of the whole pig collapses?
Most importantly, where are the people who know that disease will wait for no man? It will not wait for a committee. It will not wait for the resolution of a turf war. Four years was too long to fix a drain. How many more times must this once proud and valued industry be ripped apart by an incompetent Government?
2.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): I beg to move, To leave out from “House” to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
“expresses great sympathy with farmers and the farming industry and acknowledges the difficulties they are facing as a result of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and bluetongue; recognises the work that has already been done by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Animal Health, farmers and their representative bodies and others in containing foot and mouth; agrees that the priority for the Government must be to work with the farming industry and others to support the resumption of market activity as quickly as possible; and notes the steps the Government has taken to deal with what happened at the Pirbright laboratory site.”
I welcome this opportunity for the House to debate foot and mouth and bluetongue, further to the statement that I made on Monday last week. I recognise the very
17 Oct 2007 : Column 853
real interest and concern on the part of many right hon. and hon. Members. We know that this could not have happened at a worse time of the year for the livestock industry. All livestock farmers have been affected and for many, things are very hard. I have met farmers and their representatives and they have left me in no doubt about the difficulties that the industry is facing. That is why, in responding to what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, I want to set out before the House the action that we have taken to try to deal with the two outbreaks and to assist the farmers who have been so badly affected.Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): Why is it that the Secretary of State’s speech on Friday 5 October contained details of compensation for Scotland and Wales, but on the following Monday there was no mention of compensation for anyone other than English farmers?
Hilary Benn: Well, I heard someone mutter the words “the election”, but I take this opportunity to put it on the record in the House, as I have outside, that there is not a shred of truth in the allegation that any possible election had anything to do with any decisions relating to funding for foot and mouth. Colleagues have discussions and options are considered, and in the end the Government decided as I told the House in my statement on 8 October. I will return to that issue if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
I wish to begin by addressing the comments that have been made about the Pirbright site, because that is where the foot and mouth outbreak began. As I have said before, it should not have happened, I am sorry about the great effect that it has had, and I am determined that it does not happen again.
Following the initial confirmed case on 3 August, it became apparent—
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): Before the Secretary of State moves on to the causes, could he return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on the response to my question about the drains after the statement last week? The Secretary of State said that
“nobody thought that they were in such a condition. That happens to be the truth.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
I am struggling with that definition of the truth. We know that Merial wrote to DEFRA about the drains in 2004. We know that the then Department of Trade and Industry had commissioned tenders to repair the drains a year before. How can the Secretary of State honestly maintain that the truth is that nobody knew?
Hilary Benn: I will respond directly to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
It became apparent the day after 3 August that the Pirbright site was the potential source of the outbreak because of the type of virus identified—01-BFS-67. That is why we commissioned the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt to lead a team of experts in reviewing biosecurity. We also took steps as
17 Oct 2007 : Column 854
the regulator to require the Institute for Animal Health and Merial to take action as concerns were raised with us by the HSE during the course of its inspection, including remedial action on the drainage system. I published both of those reports on 7 September.However, as the HSE report, the Spratt report and the DEFRA epidemiology reports made clear, we may never be absolutely certain as to exactly how the foot and mouth virus escaped from the Pirbright site. But the drains, the flooding and the construction work—ironically, there was construction work on the site precisely because the Government are investing a considerable amount of money in improving the facilities at Pirbright—do seem to be the most probable chain of events, and I have been clear on that from the beginning.
Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is a decent man, but I fear that he is avoiding answering the question that I asked—
Hilary Benn: I haven’t got to it yet.
Mr. Ainsworth: In that case, when he answers he might like also to deal with the point that DEFRA inspected the site in November 2003, August 2004, September 2005 and December 2006, after the work on the drains had been commissioned, and found—according to the Minister involved—no major biosecurity issues. What does that say about the competence of DEFRA’s inspections?
Hilary Benn: In the Government’s response to all of these reports, I accepted the recommendations that were made. They are being implemented and an improvement is planned. Since 7 September, the HSE and DEFRA have carried out further joint inspections. All of the essential work will need to be completed before IAH and Merial can resume full operations.
I shall return to the issue of bluetongue and a potential vaccine from Merial a little later.
We are now requiring of Merial that all the virus that it produces should be inactivated before it reaches even the first part of the drainage system. That will require a heat treatment facility and it needs to put that in place —[Interruption.] Well, that is a factual description of what is happening in response to the question about when Merial will be in a position to resume work to try to find a virus to deal with bluetongue. We need to be satisfied that that has been done before it can resume its full operations.
I shall deal directly with the charge by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that warnings about conditions at the facility had been ignored. The first point that I want to make is that the IAH has been inspected, as part of its Specified Animal Pathogens Order—SAPO—licence, on a regular basis under the arrangements that were set up in the early 1990s. The institute was required to take action as a result of those inspections and submit reports on progress. However, at no point was it the view of the inspectors that the IAH was unsafe in its operations.
On the issue of the drains, DEFRA—as the regulator—was indeed consulted about plans for their replacement, but we were not aware that they were
17 Oct 2007 : Column 855
leaking. That is a very important point. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone else. No scientist that I know of has said that the drains were damaged. If the hon. Gentleman can draw my attention to any scientist who did say that, I would be very interested, because that is what he claimed. As soon as we became aware of the damage—in August, as a result of the HSE’s work—action was taken.It is not the case that live virus was released into the public drainage system, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested in his remarks. There is no evidence of that at all. So that the House understands, let me say that the Pirbright site has a two-stage process to ensure that all virus is completely inactivated before it goes into the public drainage system. The IAH and Merial had their own separate arrangements, which then fed into a shared pipe, and a second-stage belt-and-braces treatment process took place to deal with any effluent before it went into the public drainage system.
Why had a discussion taken place about the replacement of the drains? It had occurred because they were old, and because of concern about their capacity and about surface water potentially coming into the system, but not because of concern that the drains were leaking. As Professor Spratt makes clear in his report, safety depends not on the age of the facility but on the procedures carried out.
As regulator, DEFRA was consulted about the specification for the replacement of the drains; we were not asked for funding to replace the drains, and nor would we have been. As I said to the House last week, one would not ask the regulator for money to improve or replace one’s facilities, any more than a factory that was inspected and found not to be up to scratch would ask the HSE to give it some money to improve its facilities.
The Government accepted the findings of the reports of Professor Gull in 2002 and Dr. Cawthorne in 2003 about the need to upgrade the facilities at Pirbright. Following the development of a costed proposal, the Government decided in 2005 to invest £121 million in new facilities at Pirbright, which, it should be acknowledged, is fundamentally important to our fight against animal diseases throughout the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of that money, £31 million has already been spent on the site. With respect, therefore, nobody can credibly argue that a lack of funding to be spent in Pirbright was the problem.
Had the drains been thought to be the overwhelming priority for action on the site, no doubt some of that £31 million would have been used to replace them, but that was not the case. I accept that that raises a question about prioritisation: if people felt that that was the priority, why was that not a factor in decisions about the £31 million expenditure? I agree that the issue needs to be examined. That is the reason why the second review that I have set up—I shall come to the other one in a moment—which the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council will carry out into IAH, will look at funding, governance and risk management.
Daniel Kawczynski: The Secretary of State is putting a robust case, but is he telling the House that there will be no resignations at all in his Department as a result
17 Oct 2007 : Column 856
of this fiasco, which could have cost our country billions of pounds? [Interruption.] It is a shame that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is shouting across the Chamber. This has been a disaster for our country, and the Opposition expect some resignations over the matter.Hilary Benn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. There have been no resignations, and there will be none. I will tell him who takes responsibility: I take responsibility. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, I happen to be the current Secretary of State. As I have done throughout, I am trying to set out for the House the steps that I have taken, accepting that responsibility, to put right what has gone wrong. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is a reasonable man, will accept that the whole system of regulation for protecting against risk—whatever we are discussing—has evolved over time, and that one of the most important factors in determining how systems are changed and improved is learning from mistakes. Things did not go right, and I am determined that we learn from the mistake.
Mr. Drew: Unfortunately, some of us have acquired a lot of expertise in drains over the past couple of months. Following the episodes in the summer, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to consider new arrangements at a range of different sites, including establishments such as Berkeley in my constituency—a former nuclear station—given the likely threat of floods hitting us again in future? Will he assure me that not only biosecurity but structural measures will be increased to ensure that such episodes do not threaten us time after time?
Hilary Benn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. In accepting the recommendations of the HSE and Spratt reports, we have issued an advice note to all the institutions handling both animal and human category 3 and 4 pathogens, which will be followed up by a series of inspections. In relation to flooding, a lessons-learned review is being undertaken by Sir Michael Pitt. When such things happen, what do most people want? I accept that some people want a head on a stick, but the most useful and important response is to learn the lessons, make sure that there is not a recurrence and put a better system in place. I am determined to do that.
Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con): In the light of the Secretary of State’s comments, will he take a serious look at the arrangements in this country for meat composting, which open up a risk of not only foot and mouth but swine fever, avian flu and a range of diseases? Will he consider in particular the fact that the process is allowed on livestock premises, because farmers in my constituency are asking that it be confined only to industrial premises?
Hilary Benn: I am happy to consider the issue raised by the hon. Lady. If I may, I shall respond directly to her, if that would be helpful.
David Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable and decent man and comes to the problem with fresh hands as a new
17 Oct 2007 : Column 857
Secretary of State. Hypothetically, if he had been Secretary of State presiding over such matters for the past five years, would he have resigned?Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that hypothetical question to me. All that I can say is that I was otherwise engaged during those five years, as I am now engaged in the task that has fallen to me. I shall exercise my responsibilities to the best of my ability.
Hilary Benn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and then to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and then I would like to make progress, as I know that many Members wish to speak.
Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): The Secretary of State has dealt at length with the question of the degree of knowledge or otherwise of those managing and regulating the Pirbright establishment of the defects in the drains. But does he not accept that, irrespective of the degree of knowledge, those who manage and regulate any establishment that is built to contain, and does contain, a substance that is inherently dangerous—and that will cause great damage if it is allowed to escape into the environment—must per se be liable for whatever damage is caused?
Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who regulate and license, and those who have the responsibility, in this case the IAH, of ensuring that the terms of the licence are adhered to—that is an important distinction, and together those provide the appropriate safeguard—have a responsibility. But I have seen no evidence that anybody acted negligently, and that is why I responded to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire as I did previously. It is clear, however, that things did not go right, and that is why we have taken steps to put them right. I shall deal with another part of that action in a moment.
Mr. Paice: The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that, despite what I have stated, there is no evidence that DEFRA knew that the drains were in such a bad state of repair. Contrary to what he said, I am sure that I did not use the word “damaged”, and never meant to suggest that —[Interruption.] Actually, if one reads the full Spratt report, the drains were damaged by tree roots. But given that the Spratt and HSE reports both indicate the dire state of those drains and prior flooding incidents, does not the Secretary of State find it odd, as an objective and sensible man, that at no stage during all the exchanges of correspondence—taking into account Spratt’s comment that the drains did not look as if they had been thoroughly inspected—did anybody in DEFRA ask what the drains were like, why there was a desire to replace them, whether it was urgent, whether it should be done quickly or why an inspector had not opened a manhole and stuck his head down? It defies belief that that could have gone on without anyone asking those fundamental questions.
Hilary Benn: We will both be able to check Hansard to find out whether the hon. Gentleman used the word “damage”. However, the point is important because the description of what went on that I am putting before the House rests importantly on the fact that, because of the combination of events that had taken place, nobody knew that the drains were in the condition that it turned out they were in by the time the HSE investigated them in April. [Interruption.] The letter from 2004 was about replacing the drains because people recognised that they were old. However, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will not find in that correspondence people saying, “And by the way, we think the drains are leaking.”
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, which I want to come to, about the nature of the inspection regime. I grant him his point about what kind of inspection of category 3 and 4 containment systems should take place. The steps that we have now taken, and the requirement that we are putting on Merial to ensure that all the virus that it puts into the system is inactivated before it gets to that bit of now-lined drainage, raise the question of what the arrangements for inspecting category 3 and 4 pathogen handling laboratories should be.
For that reason, there is an issue about the respective roles of the regulator, the funder and the customer; Professor Spratt made a recommendation on that. That is why on 7 September I announced that Sir Bill Callaghan was to carry out a review of the regulatory framework governing the handling of category 3 and category 4 animal pathogens. He has now started, and he will report before the end of the year.
DEFRA is both the regulator for the 1998 order and a customer for the important services, including diagnostics and research on foot and mouth and bluetongue, provided by the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright. As I have already said, with hindsight my view is that that arrangement is not satisfactory. The Callaghan review will consider what the right arrangement to replace it should be. That is another instance of the Government’s determination to learn from what has happened.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con) rose—
Hilary Benn: I shall give way, but then I shall make some further progress.
Mr. Jenkin: I feel that I must take the Secretary of State back. The House is entitled to an answer to the question of whose responsibility it was to know the condition of those drains. In all honesty, it is not good enough for the House to be effectively told that it was an accident and that nobody was responsible for knowing their condition.
Hilary Benn: Under the 1998 order, the responsibility is for the licensor and regulator to specify the outcome that has to be met; that is the purpose of licensing and regulation. It is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure that those requirements are met.
All the people involved in the work—and the people at the IAH and the inspectors who work for DEFRA are conscious and dutiful—did what they thought was right in the circumstances. Nobody thought, and this is
17 Oct 2007 : Column 859
the point, that the drains were leaking in that way. There was a confluence of events—a not-completely-inactivated virus coming into the system, heavy rainfall, a rising water table, a bringing to the surface and traffic because of the building work. The HSE review and the Spratt report say that that is the most credible explanation. The point that I am making to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is that we learn from such experiences. It is fair to ask whether we should have a system in which pipework that is part of a critical system gets inspected. I accept that point.I turn to the handling of the outbreak. I thank the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for his comments on the swift and effective action that DEFRA, the animal health authorities and partners in the industry have taken in trying to control the problem. Our contingency plan recognised the lessons of 2001. I hope that the House will feel that how we have responded to the outbreak this time around shows how we have applied that knowledge. Our priority, of course, has been to contain and then eradicate foot and mouth. That is why the national movement ban was brought in straight away on the evening of 3 August, a decision also taken at the same time by the devolved Administrations. We have carried out extensive surveillance, which, in the second phase of the outbreak, has gone beyond the European requirements by inspecting and testing animals. We are now 75 days into this outbreak. We have had only eight cases, all in Surrey. We want to keep it that way so that we can control and eradicate the disease.
Mrs. May: It may seem a small point, but the Government have consistently said that the second outbreak has been only in Surrey. That is not the case. Farmers in Berkshire have also had foot and mouth outbreaks and cattle stock there has been culled as a result. Will the Government please say “Surrey and Berkshire”?
Hilary Benn: I am duly chided by the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): The Secretary of State has been extremely generous in giving way.
One matter is troubling me. He says that the institute is not liable for the costs of the damage because nobody was negligent. However, as I understand it, the general proposition is that if a landowner has potentially dangerous material on site and it escapes, the landowner is responsible for the consequences. One obvious example of that is in respect of domestic animals. The Secretary of State knows well that if a horse escapes from a site, the relevant landowner will be responsible even in the absence of negligence. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s own Department is considering changing the law to address that point. I do not understand how liability can be avoided, given that the virus escaped from a Government institution.
Hilary Benn: I said that I had seen no evidence of negligence, but I did not advance an argument about what liabilities might arise from what has happened. I am not a lawyer; others are much better qualified to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument and take a decision about whether they want to use that remedy.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op) rose—
Hilary Benn: No; I shall make progress now, as I have been generous in giving way.
I shall come to bluetongue in a moment. On vaccination for foot and mouth disease, in both phases of the outbreak we had organised and were ready to vaccinate if necessary. In the event, we decided that it was not—a view shared by the chief veterinary officer and independent scientific advice. We have worked with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to take decisions about disease control, when possible on a co-ordinated basis. After all, the industry is inter-dependent in its activities in different parts of Great Britain, although we recognise that animal health is a devolved matter. We have worked with representatives of the industry to circulate information about the controls, through information packs, text message alerts and information on the DEFRA website. I acknowledge that not all farmers have access to the internet, but a lot of effort has been put into getting information to farmers. We have worked with the National Farmers Union to do so, and to try to identify and reduce the very real economic and welfare pressures faced by farmers. That is why we have taken a risk-based approach to lifting movement restrictions.
Clearly, the emergence of the third case on 12 September—more than a month and a bit after the previous reported case—made things much more difficult. We now know that that was the result of unreported infection in one premises. [Interruption.] Yes, they were visited, but as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will know because of his expert knowledge, it is difficult to detect old disease. It was picked up because of blood sampling of sheep, and that reinforces the point that farmers are the first line of defence in defeating the disease.
As a result of the case, controls had to be reimposed. Farm-to-farm movement resumed on 23 September. Markets reopened at the beginning of this month, and last Friday meat product exports from Scotland, Wales and the low-risk area of England were able to resume. That is an important step forward. We are also working with the European Commission to try to decrease the restrictions on exports, and to increase the areas of the country from which exports can be made. The next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health will be on Friday.
The 20-day rule relates to domestic controls on animal standstills. As of today, that is now six days for areas outside the FMD risk area. The 21-day rule is an EU export rule, and means that animals cannot be moved onto a premises in the preceding 21 days. To change that, we would need to persuade Europe to do things differently.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn: I will give way to both hon. Members.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Bluetongue was discovered in my constituency on Monday, and I am very grateful to members of his Department for the way that they notified me of that and for their subsequent handling of my queries about the matter. In respect of controls for FMD and bluetongue, is the Secretary of State prepared to look again at how his Department is sorting out boundaries, given the knock-on effects for other farmers in the areas concerned?
Hilary Benn: I am indeed. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I shall respond directly to it when I turn to dealing with bluetongue, which I am anxious to do in a moment.
Mr. MacNeil: The Secretary of State has said that FMD has not escaped beyond the confines of Surrey and Berkshire, but the UK is divided into two epidemiological zones—Great Britain, and Northern Ireland. Given the pattern of the spread of the disease this time, does he think that other epidemiological zones should be established within Great Britain? That is the arrangement in the continent of Europe’s land mass.
Hilary Benn: There is always a case for using the light of experience to reconsider whether decisions about such zones should be changed. In this outbreak, we have created areas of high and low risk, with the result that we have helped to pave the way to persuading the EU to allow a resumption of meat product exports. I have listened to many representations on this matter, and my judgment was that that was one of the most important things that could be done to assist the industry at this very difficult time.
As of today, the removal of all restrictions outside the FMD risk area means that animal movements can take place freely. That coincides with the protection zone being folded into the surveillance zone, it being 15 days since the completion of preliminary cleansing and disinfection on the last infected premises. The size of the FMD risk area remains under review.
I recognise that serious difficulties remain for the farming and food industries. In my statement last Monday, I set out the details of what we are doing to assist farmers in England. The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly are introducing their own welfare disposal schemes under the devolved arrangements—
Hilary Benn: I think that I can anticipate some of the questions that certain hon. Members want to ask. We are covering the cost of that assistance from our own budgets, although we do not yet know what the full cost will be. As I said last week, it is open to the devolved Administrations to approach the Treasury if they wish to do so. However, the best help that we can give is to help the industry to recover.
Mr. Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Does the Secretary of State realise that hill farmers in Northumberland have not yet received any welfare payments, even though they see that a welfare slaughter scheme is in operation for farmers on the Scottish side
17 Oct 2007 : Column 862
of the hill. For farmers on the English side, however, not even the payments to which he has referred have come through.Hilary Benn: I accept that and, as I said to the House last week, we will seek to make payments to those in receipt of hill farm allowance as quickly as possible.
Mr. Llwyd: The Secretary of State has been in discussions with the farming Minister in Wales, but his suggestion that the devolved Administrations need only approach the Treasury is not very helpful. He could sanction the £6.5 million promised in the first statement, and he should do so now.
Hilary Benn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my Department, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive each fund the schemes to support farmers in our respective areas at this difficult time. We are using our existing budgets to meet the costs thus incurred but, as I told the House last week, it is open for each of us to open discussions with the Treasury if we feel that we cannot manage with what we have. That is the sensible place to turn to first.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): May I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for making time available last night to meet me and other Scottish colleagues, as well representatives of NFU Scotland? He will recall that it was put to him that the Treasury had funded the animal welfare and economic loss compensation schemes for farmers in Scotland and other parts of the UK in 2001, and that he was asked why the arrangements should be different this time. Will he allow the House to have the benefit of knowing the Government’s opinion and tell us what is the difference between now and 2001?
Hilary Benn: It is true that the Treasury reserve met the costs in 2001, because the sheer scale of the outbreak and the costs incurred meant that no other budget—that is, of the former Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or of the devolved Administrations—could possibly have coped with paying for the measures that it was decided needed to put in place at that time. That is the fundamental difference.
Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the concordat between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Executive in respect of the state veterinary service and animal disease compensation. Paragraph 4 states:
“Compensation payments for notifiable diseases will be made by MAFF”.
MAFF, of course, is now DEFRA, but the concordat makes it clear that the obligation to pay compensation lies with the UK Government. Why, then, are the UK Government not paying the animal disease compensation as they did in 2001?
Hilary Benn: Under the concordat, DEFRA has agreed to fund compulsory slaughter for disease control purposes. That applies to most diseases, including FMD, but the concordat does not cover meeting the costs of welfare disposal or economic support schemes.
7 Oct 2007 : Column 863
Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): The Secretary of State will know that the Welsh Assembly does not have the contingency funds to deliver the meaningful welfare scheme that many of us want. Is he aware of any discussions that have taken place between the Welsh Assembly and the Treasury? In addition, we still need an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd): what happened, between draft and delivery, to the £6.5 million promised by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement last week?
Hilary Benn: I have answered the second question already. Drafts are prepared, options are looked at, colleagues have discussions, and I do not propose to get into a conversation about that— [ Interruption. ] The central charge that has been made—
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman should not be so sensitive, as I was referring to the Liberal Democrat Benches in general and not directly at him. I was about to say that there is not a shred of truth to the central charge that has been made. As for the first point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), I am not aware of any specific discussions that Elin Jones may have had, but no doubt she will enlighten us.
Paddy Tipping: In his remarks at the start of the debate, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) was, at best, rather dismissive of the £12.5 million package and the other measures that have been put in place. He implied that the Opposition would offer more in the way of compensation, but he was silent when I asked him directly who they intended would pay for it, and how much would be involved. In the longer term, does my right hon. Friend accept that we must move to a risk-based sharing of such costs, and look at insurance as a way of going forward?
Hilary Benn: In the end, it is about making choices and trying to give help in the most effective way. I listened to the representations made to me by the industry in England when I announced the package last week. I shall respond directly to the very good point made by my hon. Friend when I reach the end of my speech. I am very anxious to do that, as I have been very generous about giving way.
Mr. Davidson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn: No, I have been generous in giving way and I want to turn to bluetongue. As the House recognises—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”]. As I am being encouraged to do so from the Opposition Benches I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson).
Mr. Davidson: I am very grateful indeed to the Secretary of State. When I and a number of other Members met representatives of the National Farmers Union Scotland this morning, we had to ask more than 20 times before they eventually confessed that they have not actually asked the Scottish Executive for any money. In those circumstances, is not it either astonishingly naive or
17 Oct 2007 : Column 864
deliberately mischievous for some Opposition Members to say that it is all Westminster’s responsibility when in fact the Scottish Executive have recently been given more than £1 billion of unspent money from previous years?Hilary Benn: It is the responsibility of all of us. From the Scottish Executive’s budget this year of about £26 billion, there are choices to be made about how the money is spent. I asked the same question last night when I met the delegation that included the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). No doubt the delegation will put the same points to the Scottish Executive as they put to me.
Hilary Benn: No. I shall now conclude my remarks as many Members want to speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
Hilary Benn: I have been generous in giving way, including to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The whole industry, the veterinary profession and farmers had been anticipating that bluetongue would arrive at some point. We know that, which is why we had a bluetongue strategy drawn up, why there was a lot of coverage in the media, why it was part of the DEFRA livestock market roadshow and why Opposition Front-Bench Members were briefed in July. It seems that the wind carried midges over from Europe and the first case was detected on 22 September.
I realise that many Members have great concerns about the disease. The impact of bluetongue is considerable, as we have seen in northern Europe. That is exactly why we worked with industry leaders to identify the most appropriate boundaries and disease control measures when the disease was confirmed on 28 September. Bluetongue is a very different disease from foot and mouth; it is spread by midges and not by livestock, and rapid action will not mean rapid eradication, nor will culling animals. It presents a serious, long-term challenge, so it is vital that we work with the industry to decide what is best to do, which is reflected in the revised disease control strategy that we developed and published in August.
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con): On a positive note, I can tell the Secretary of State that the farmer in my constituency who suffered from a bluetongue outbreak told me on Sunday that his cattle are recovering well. That illustrates the different nature of the disease. However, does the Secretary of State accept that the movement controls put in place to deal with bluetongue have equally as damaging an effect on the industry as the
17 Oct 2007 : Column 865
movement controls relating to foot and mouth disease? When might farmers expect some lifting of the movement controls relating to bluetongue?Hilary Benn: I am coming to that point directly. Before doing so, I have to inform the House that as a result of reporting by two farmers in Peterborough and Ashford, Kent, following tests, we are today confirming two new cases of bluetongue in those locations. As a result, two new control zones are being introduced and the protection zone is being extended. Details will be available on the DEFRA website later today.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) rose—
Hilary Benn: I know that the hon. Gentleman is affected. I give way.
Damian Green: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the advance notice his office gave me of that distressing news not just for livestock farmers in my constituency but also for the many farmers throughout Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east who use Ashford market. I hope that in the remainder of his speech the Secretary of State can give some certainty about time scales—how long the effects and the movement restrictions are likely to last. If possible, can he offer some practical reassurance to the many, many farmers who will be newly affected by this terrible outbreak?
Hilary Benn: I shall certainly try to do so and I shall come to that point in a moment.
Mr. Jenkin: I echo the thanks of my hon. Friends who have been so well supported by the Secretary of State’s Department during the outbreak. Another case was confirmed in my constituency only this week.
Is not the answer—to which the industry does not seem to be averse—to extend the bluetongue zone substantially so that there can be movement to slaughterhouses and movement of fattening stock across the country to enable the industry to survive? Bluetongue is not a crippling disease, like foot and mouth; it is a disease that we will have to accept and deal with, eventually by vaccination.
Hilary Benn: I accept the point the hon. Gentleman makes. We have talked carefully to the industry and the consensus at present is that we need to try to contain the disease in the east of England if possible and then plan for what we need to do over the coming months. We all hope for a cold winter, although nobody can promise one. But the issue is at what point we should face up to the question the hon. Gentleman puts—declaring the whole of England a bluetongue control zone and accepting that we have to live with the disease. As I told the House last week, this is a real dilemma for the industry, because it, above all, has the greatest interest in making the right decision. That is why we shall be holding further discussions with the industry group in light of today’s development. As soon as we can make the arrangements, we shall organise a briefing on bluetongue for all interested Members, to advise them about what can be done and answer detailed questions about movement controls.
17 Oct 2007 : Column 866
We are all anxious to have a vaccine as quickly as possible. I hope one will be available next year, subject to its being shown to be safe and effective. We are discussing with the industry the approach we should take to vaccination once a vaccine is available and we are talking to companies that are trying to develop one. There are three—Merial, Fort Dodge and Intervet.
Mr. Martlew: During the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, the decision was taken not to vaccinate because the industry—supermarkets and others—would not take the meat of vaccinated animals. Does my right hon. Friend believe they will take it from an animal that has been vaccinated against bluetongue?
Hilary Benn: We do not have a vaccine at present, but consumers regularly eat other meat from vaccinated animals, including poultry, so I am not sure that there would be a difficulty.
Concerns have been raised about access to slaughterhouses. From yesterday, it is possible for animals to be moved to slaughterhouses outside the bluetongue control and protection zones in England, and I hope that that will respond to the most urgent representations and make a big difference.
Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall conclude. Many Members want to speak and I do not want to take up any more time.
This has been and remains a difficult time for the livestock industry at the very moment that prospects look brighter for the arable industry. I thank farmers and their representatives for their assistance and support, because they are our first line of defence. I thank all DEFRA animal health and other staff, including staff at Pirbright, who have done all the testing in relation to both diseases, for their professionalism and hard work over the past two months.
Today is one opportunity for the House to reflect on the lessons; Dr. Anderson’s review will be another. I shall conclude with one more lesson on which I have greatly reflected. As has been said, the two outbreaks throw into sharp relief for the House how best to take decisions about disease control. There is a strong case for the industry to be at the heart of decision making in the future, in both taking responsibility and sharing the costs. It is a difficult balance to strike, but the people best placed to take the decisions are those who are most affected by them and the Government remain determined to do all they can to contain and deal with the two outbreaks. I look forward to continuing to work with Members on both sides of the House and with the farming community in doing so.
2.49 pm
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD): This year has been a disaster for our farmers. Farmers are always at the mercy of the weather and other forces beyond their control, and that is illustrated by the bluetongue-carrying midge being blown across the channel, bringing farming in eastern England to a standstill. We very much regret the announcement that the Secretary of State has made today about the spread to Kent.
17 Oct 2007 : Column 867
However, this summer’s outbreak of foot and mouth disease was not an act of nature or random misfortune. A Government facility, Pirbright, which was designed to protect British farming has, in the words of the official DEFRA report, “beyond reasonable doubt” been the cause of the outbreak. In other words, the cause of the incident is so certain that it meets the standards of evidence required for a conviction in a criminal court. The knock-on effects of that disaster have crippled exports and the livestock market at the very worst time of year.How could DEFRA, which has statutory responsibility for licensing, monitoring and funding Pirbright, have licensed a facility with an
“old, poorly maintained and defective effluent system”,
with no fixed procedures for the maintenance of the drains? We are not talking about someone’s home; we are talking about a category 4 biosecure facility. As the motion—we will support it—points out, DEFRA not only inspected safety arrangements but approved spending at the plant. There could not be a more clear conflict of interest.
The key point, which the Secretary of State has not answered today, is that what seems to have happened at Pirbright is that the systems—not only the drains, but clearly the drains—have been run down to a point where there was no maintenance unless there was failure. That may be acceptable when running the Secretary of State’s boiler at home, but clearly in such an important facility there must be proper, scheduled preventive maintenance. We know from whistleblowers—for example, Steven Kendrew—who were contractors at the site, that there was no adequate schedule of preventive maintenance. Cameras should have been sent down those drains to check what had happened and to see whether there was damage. One need not be a Thames Water customer to know that old drains leak, so it beggars belief that DEFRA did not deal with the problem by sending down cameras to find out the state of the drains, even though it was considering the matter.
Ministers have said in the past that there was no awareness that there might be risks from the drains. Are they saying that it was not understood that the foot and mouth virus is able to survive in water and soil, and that a leaking pipe system could therefore prove to be a most grave hazard? That is exactly the sort of issue that a public inquiry could and should examine, along with the conflicts of interest.
I am frankly appalled that the Secretary of State appears to show so little interest in what exactly went wrong. He is an honourable man, and he comes here and says that he takes responsibility, but he was not there when the key points of failure occurred. If the most senior civil servants who knew about the pipework problems are not disciplined, what sort of signal will that send to other people in his Department? What incentive will there be to pay proper attention to detail and due diligence with other risks? There has been an abject failure of responsibility, and those responsible should go. They have palpably failed to do their job, which was to assist and protect British farming. After the rural payments scheme fiasco, there is a risk of a growing culture of impunity in DEFRA, where any sloppiness will be condoned simply because no one is likely to be found out, and if they are found out they will not face the consequences.
17 Oct 2007 : Column 868
As we look to the future, it would be good to know whether the Minister is satisfied that no further risk is posed to British farming by the Pirbright facility. But what about the implications of this health and safety debacle for the other Government facilities? For example, has anyone yet put a camera down the drains at Compton—Pirbright’s sister site—to see whether its effluent systems are in a similar state of disrepair? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the development of a vaccine for bluetongue has been held up by this debacle? If so, for how long?
Of course, one of the unanswered questions continues to be whether the Secretary of State has yet made a proper assessment of the costs to British farming arising from the outbreak. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) asked for such an assessment on 8 October, as did I during DEFRA questions, but we have yet to receive an answer.
The losses are very serious—I hope that the Secretary of State will also deal with this issue—because in the final two weeks of September, lamb prices were down by an average of 21 per cent. per kilo live weight compared with the same period last year. During the first week of October, the average shop price of a leg of lamb was up by 19p a kilogram, or a 2.7 per cent. increase, on the same time last year. The disparity between farm-gate and checkout prices has long been an issue, and in the light of the Office of Fair Trading’s findings regarding the fixing of milk prices, I hope that Ministers will take this problem extremely seriously and give it proper attention—if necessary, by bringing in the appropriate competition authorities to check.
The National Farmers Union estimates that the cost to British farming is in excess of £100 million, but we must have a clear estimate from the Department. In Builth Wells, last Friday, a farmer sold her blue face Leicester rams for an average of just £200 per head, whereas in 2006 they averaged £700 per head. The insecurity and the depressed prices are compounding the difficulties that farmers face, despite the very welcome limited resumption of exports. Many farmers make about 80 per cent. of their income for the year at this time, and they are facing acute cash-flow problems. The entire farming calendar has been stalled, and the disruption to breeding now will have consequences next spring.
Mr. Beith: Does my hon. Friend not find it surprising, given that every hill farmer is known to and registered with the Department and is already subject to the payments system, that they cannot have received a payment by now?
Chris Huhne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because the truth is that we were discussing and debating earlier today who will ultimately pay in Scotland and Wales. Many English farmers would like to be paid at all, without the debate about who or which budget will ultimately bear the burden, to ensure that they have some relief for the very substantial distress that their businesses are facing.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although the additional top-up payments to the hill farm allowance are worth,
17 Oct 2007 : Column 869
on average, about £800 per hill farm, the average losses to hill farmers, certainly in my constituency, are between £10,000 and £20,000? That is scant compensation.Chris Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: the amount of compensation bears no relationship to the losses that many people are suffering. The reality is that those losses are being suffered, as the Secretary of State must know, in many cases by the most vulnerable and the smallest members of the farming community. We might not get the big guns and the NFU asking for special schemes of support, but I hope that he is listening, for example, to the Tenant Farmers Association, which is pressing for exactly that.
Mr. Reid: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should have announced both a light lamb and an older ewe welfare disposal scheme for the whole UK, so that farmers in England, Scotland and Wales could all benefit?
Chris Huhne: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is clear that we need a welfare scheme. It is not enough merely to talk about compensation after the event; it is important to ensure that the impact on the market for farmers is dealt with. As he points out, not just farmers with light lambs but others in the sheep sector are struggling.
It is estimated that 40,000 sows are awaiting culling and that the number is growing by 4,000 a week. There is virtually no market for sow meat in the UK; 99 per cent. of it is usually exported. However, the abattoir in Essex that usually handles 70 per cent. of sows for export is currently within the control zone and not taking any animals. With no market for these animals, their numbers are building up on farms; that causes animal welfare issues, with overcrowding creating all the usual problems. Indeed, increasing feed costs mean that it can now cost £20 a month to feed a sow. The situation will only get worse as the number of unsellable animals increases. Will the Government listen to farmers and intervene now in instances where the suspension of exports in particular has created a surplus of animals across the UK?
DEFRA’s animal health budget is not devolved, because England, Scotland and Wales are one epidemiological area. Will the Minister assure us that his Department will foot the Bill for animal welfare and market support measures in Scotland and Wales?
Mr. MacNeil: I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the non-devolved aspect of the budget and I draw attention to the commendable argument made by the National Farmers Union in Scotland, which has asked for a mere £15 per head welfare compensation scheme. That is a low price; it is not top dollar by any means. It is a sensible request for bottoming out, to which the Secretary of State has unfortunately not yet listened.
Chris Huhne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I merely add to the arguments that we did not hear earlier from the Secretary of State.
There is one enormous difference between the 2001 outbreak and the outbreak today that the Secretary of State did not point out. The outbreak today was ultimately caused by a facility that was inspected and regulated and licensed by his Department. There is therefore a clear responsibility that must cover Scotland and Wales as well as England.
David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing for payments to be made for an economic cull in Scotland, England and Wales, as opposed to the so-called welfare cull that Scotland has claimed all along is the purpose of exterminating 250,000 lambs.
Chris Huhne: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the degree of damage to hill farmers across the UK associated with the Government’s responsibility for the facility in Pirbright means that this is a special case. The Government have to consider their own responsibility and address that.
I was interested to hear from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has much greater legal knowledge than I have. It is clear that DEFRA has a moral, and probably a legal, obligation to get British farming back on its feet. Furthermore, it has an obligation to ensure that what happened at Pirbright never happens again. That a Government facility through institutional negligence has been the source of the outbreak is a national disgrace and the people responsible must be held to account.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That applies from now onwards.
3.3 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole) (Lab): Having broken out of the Whips Office, I wish to use my re-established ability to address the House to talk about the effect that foot and mouth has had in my constituency of Brigg and Goole. In particular, I want to talk about the pig industry and the severe problems that have been caused, even though my constituency is some way from Pirbright and all that happened there.
First, let me add to the comment made by those in the farming industry, other commentators and, in fairness, in the Opposition’s motion that swift and decisive action by DEFRA when the outbreak was first notified reduced its potential to spread. As the British Veterinary Association says in its briefing for the debate, the overall approach was highly successful in that regard. However, that does not mean that there have been no problems, or that there is nothing more that the Government could do to help.
I also want to speak a little about animal welfare. Having chaired the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his officials in DEFRA and other agencies take a strong interest in animal welfare and try to do the right thing, even if they do not always do everything that I tell them they should do. It was therefore unfortunate that the shadow Secretary of
17 Oct 2007 : Column 871
State accused DEFRA and its agencies of a disregard for the welfare of animals that arose out of either callousness or stupidity. I notice that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did not repeat that remark in his opening speech, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept that many of us in the House would not accuse his officials of that.In the past few days, I have visited Stuart Teanby, a pig farmer in Winterton where I live. Stuart has a small operation—run by just himself and one other—with a weaner unit producing pigs that are reared and then moved on to other farms for fattening. I also met John Godfrey, who is not my constituent but farms so much in my area that I sometimes feel that he owns most of it. From John, I heard how the outbreak has hit someone right at the other end of farming—a huge organisation with large numbers of pigs to be dealt with. However, both are suffering from the consequences of movement restrictions and both feel there are things that DEFRA could do to assist.
I have spoken before in the House about the need to support our pig industry, which is unsubsidised. The industry has high animal welfare standards, particularly when compared with other methods of production in other countries, but that brings additional costs; in addition, increases in feed prices this year had already added another burden on to the sector. When movements stop, weaners are still coming into the production chain at a rate of about 66,000 a month and, between the ages of 12 to 22 weeks, they grow at a rate of 900 g a day—or 2 lb as I prefer to call it. A unit such as Stuart’s is rapidly filled, the pigs continue to grow, the welfare conditions deteriorate and, as I know from my days in the Whips Office, fighting and bullying can break out. Anyone who knows anything about pigs will know that they can cause a lot of damage.
The partial lifting of the movement ban helped only to a certain extent. The day before I visited Stuart’s farm, he had finally been able to sell on 880 pigs. He still had too many, but it was a start. However, the price had collapsed and he had to sell each pig at about £14 less than his production cost. That is a loss of more than £12,000, which he, as a small farmer, can ill afford. In the past, the Government have helped the pig industry with storage schemes to allow the throughput to continue and to keep a decent price. It will be some time before the market naturally balances out again and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider implementing such a scheme again.
The other issue for both Stuart and John is the culling of sows, which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned. The market was stable and lucrative before the outbreak; now, there are major problems both financially and in animal welfare terms. About 200,000 sows are slaughtered each year in the UK. There is virtually no domestic market for this meat; 99 per cent. of the meat is exported, most of it to Germany, and EU restrictions effectively stop the trade. As the hon. Gentleman said, the flow is largely handled by one abattoir in Essex, which cannot export at the moment. The result is not only that we have the 40,000 extra sows that he mentioned, but that the figure is growing by about 4,000 every week.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jonathan Shaw): My hon. Friend has asked about Cheale’s abattoir in Essex—I think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) also referred to it. In answer to their points, may I point out that we are in discussions with the European Union about allowing animals to be slaughtered at the abattoir and then exported? We do understand the pressures and we are involved in discussions.
Mr. Cawsey: I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. I will await developments with great interest, although an awful lot of sows will still come on to the market very quickly. We know what the result of that will be.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said about risk sharing and our need to develop systems to deal with such issues in the future. However, they are not in place now and, in the circumstances, I believe that a national sow disposal scheme should be put in place. I fear for the welfare implications if nothing is done. The British Pig Executive tells me that there are abattoirs that would be willing to slaughter sows—the Minister may be interested to learn that—and that rendering capacity exists. Obviously it would be for the Department to calculate the figure, but we estimate that the 40,000 backlog could be disposed of for £3 million. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire told Ministers where £2 million of that £3 million could come from, so perhaps the Department will look at that. When one considers the problems for farmers and animal welfare, £3 million is not an awfully large amount.
These are difficult days, even in places that are well away from the affected area. I know that there are many issues relating to other sectors, but we have limited time and many other eminent Members are better qualified than I to talk about them. I will curtail my comments in the hope that the deep concerns of the pig sectors are understood by Ministers and that they will take urgent action to address them.
3.10 pm
David Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con): I am grateful for the chance to participate in the debate. The Opposition have accused the Government of incompetence over their handling of foot and mouth. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to read out the indictment. I respect the Secretary of State greatly. He comes to this with clean, fresh hands, and I hope that he will purge some of DEFRA’s policy delusions. The policy delusions from 2001 are largely responsible for the present state of affairs. My criticisms might b