Animal Health Bill

Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2001.

Standing Committee E

Clause 1 - Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 1—Pet animals—

``In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 34.

`34A Pet animals

Where it can be shown that a pet animal has been in contact with an animal affected by foot-and-mouth, it shall not be slaughtered until the result of a blood test for the disease is known'.''.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

In the previous sitting, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) gave heart-rending examples from her constituency that illustrate why the Bill should give special consideration to pets. I totally agree with that principle, and in that regard I draw the Committee's attention to new clause 1. We cannot allow the disease to prevail just because a pet contracts foot and mouth, hard though slaughtering it may be for its owners. That said, we must bear it in mind that some people keep as pets what many would regard as farm animals. The hon. Lady gave some wonderful examples of such people in her constituency, and the same is true of my constituency.

I should like to share with the Committee the heart-rending case of two goats called Bella and Pippa, which, I am pleased to say, are alive and well and continuing to give great pleasure to their owners. [Interruption.] Members of the Committee are not taking this matter seriously enough. This is not the tale of ``Billy Goat's Bluff''; it concerns two living goats that were saved from the Ministry's intention to slaughter them without due consideration. My point is that the slaughtering of pets should not be contemplated until a blood test has been carried out, and slaughter should not proceed unless the test proves positive.

Bella and Pippa belong to Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, two constituents of mine who live in an area that has experienced foot and mouth outbreaks. In May, the Ministry announced its intention to slaughter Bella and Pippa without a blood test and on the sole ground that they were in what was deemed a contiguous cull area. Our local Exeter newspaper, the Express and Echo, ran a very good campaign highlighting the fact that, as domestic pets, Bella and Pippa had not been in contact with any other beasts. They had been kept in a secure area and it was impossible to prove scientifically that they posed a risk to other animals.

Not unreasonably, I wrote to Baroness Hayman, the then Minister of State, in order to plead the case for the two goats. On 17 May, I received a pleasing but none the less astonishing reply:

``Thank you for your letter of 10 May, about the goats belonging to your constituents Mr and Mrs Bennett.

I understand that this case has been carefully reviewed by the Divisional Veterinary Office and it has been decided that the most appropriate way forward in these circumstances is not to proceed with the cull. We will, however, be arranging testing for the animals to ensure that they have remained disease free.''

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Excellent.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

The Minister says, ``Excellent'' from a sedentary position, and there was indeed a big sigh of relief from all who were concerned about Bella and Pippa. However, the point is that the Ministry reprieved them before conducting a blood test. Where pets live in what is deemed a contiguous cull area, blood tests should surely be automatic. They should precede consideration of slaughter and the question of whether there are clinical signs of foot and mouth disease. It is a matter of getting things in the proper order and dealing with pets on the basis that, although they are potential foot and mouth carriers, they are special to their owners.

In the case of Bella and Pippa there was a happy ending, but it does not quite square with what the Government are now proposing. In the light of the Government's experience, and given that their committees have yet to report their findings, we shall continue to argue that much of the Bill is not based on a proper analysis of foot and mouth. This is rushed legislation, and one has to use examples such as Bella and Pippa, and those given by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, to persuade the Minister that new clause 1 is sensible and fair.

New clause 1 states that a pet animal

``shall not be slaughtered until the result of a blood test for the disease is known''.

In the light of my experience and that of other members of the Committee, the Minister can surely accept the reality of the impact of foot and mouth on pets. The new clause is reasonable and is based on the Minister's own conclusions, as outlined in Baroness Hayman's letter. In the interests of justice and fairness for pet owners, I ask the Minister to accept the new clause.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Those of us who were involved in the foot and mouth crisis experienced many problems with pets, although some cases achieved greater fame than others. There were significant problems in dealing with the emotional subject of culling pets, particularly where young children were concerned. It is well known that children who live on farms regard some animals as pets, even though they may ultimately join the flock or herd. It has proved difficult to define a pet and, in some cases, to distinguish a genuine pet from an ordinary farm animal. As we all know, in a domestic setting it is much easier to define an animal as a pet.

On agricultural holdings, where an animal is owned by the farm but looked after by a child as a pet, matters are a little more difficult, as is the problem of defining a sanctuary. When the previous Conservative Government introduced the poll tax some years ago, a gentleman in my constituency decided to establish his own faith and convert his house from domestic premises into a church, thereby avoiding the need to pay poll tax. It was extremely difficult to decide on the matter, and there are similar problems associated with the agricultural holding that becomes a sanctuary as soon as foot and mouth, or any other disease, breaks out. We are going to find it difficult to tease out these important issues, especially within the time scale of the Committee. The Bill presents many practical problems in terms of pet animals, and the Government must clarify how they will be treated and how the definitions will be arrived at. The blood test is a good way forward, and at least provides an element of protection. We are back to the age-old problem of moving quickly. We must give proper consideration to how the Government would deal with this practical problem at the height of a crisis.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

I rise to support amendment No. 54 and new clause 1. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) makes a valid point about the definition of pets and other domestic animals. I have come to the conclusion that it should cover those not destined for the food chain—that is a good enough definition in itself—and not for commercial use, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said. Another useful consideration is that, as the Minister said, vaccination could be used as a firebreak. Exemptions could be made for sanctuaries.

I am not as eloquent as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean in talking about constituency issues, but I should mention the Anglesey seven, a group of hobby farmers in my area who took their case to the High Court and the National Assembly for Wales. They pulled back and did not pursue it, but it was a strong case in that they had no intention of putting their animals into the food chain. I stress that I support a cull. Those of us who support hobby farmers are not saying that we should not cull or use vaccination.

We should seriously consider the argument about animals not destined for the food chain. The farming unions have made strong representations to say that export markets were damaged as a result of foot and mouth infection, but these animals go nowhere near markets or abattoirs. Amendment No. 54 is consistent with the Bill, and I support it.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate on amendment No. 54 and new clause 1, which deal with the sensitive issue of pets and animal sanctuaries.

As members of the Committee will appreciate, at the time of the foot and mouth contiguous cull there was a tremendous amount of publicity about people challenging in the courts the Government's right to insist on slaughter. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that any slaughter policy should be carried out according to a risk assessment and by a suitably qualified vet, taking into account the geography of the local area and the vicinity of any confirmed cases of infected animals. It believes that those criteria should be used with regard to pet animals or animal sanctuaries.

Throughout the crisis, the RSPCA drew attention to many anecdotal reports about Government officials suggesting that sheepdogs and other pet animals should be slaughtered as they were believed to be carriers. The Minister, who is a great supporter of the RSPCA, may wish to comment on that. If it is scaremongering it needs to be hit firmly on the head. The policy must be sufficiently clear that it can be understood by those involved in every aspect of the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned the case of Bella and Pippa—wonderful names—in her constituency, and there is the famous case of Mrs. Rosemary Upton of Somerset, who took the Government to court over efforts to cull a pet pig called Grunty and 11 prize sheep. The judge said that he had been most influenced by impressive scientific evidence that there was no risk to the pets even if the animals turned out to be infected, bearing in mind their number and their distance from neighbouring animals. That case can be held in proof that under the Animal Health Act 1981 the Government did not have the power to slaughter without the farmer's permission, and calls into question the legality of the Government's slaughter powers throughout the foot and mouth epidemic.

On 25 April, the Government announced a change in the 3 km contiguous cull policy, which meant that cattle on farms adjoining foot and mouth outbreaks should be spared if there was adequate biosecurity to prevent infection. The policy shift followed claims by farmers' leaders that killing one particular calf—the famous Phoenix—would make the Government look insensitive. We all know what happened next—Phoenix escaped slaughter and the Prime Minister himself announced the policy change just before the 10 pm news bulletin. Although 3.9 million animals had been slaughtered for disease eradication purposes, the Government gave special privileges to one calf. Conservative Members believe that slaughter policy should be based on qualified veterinary risk assessment.

That brings me to the interesting and powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean during the previous sitting, in which she described the situation in the forest and referred to many people there—up to 20, I believe, but she may correct me if I am wrong—

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Sixteen farms went to appeal. When I was asked how many people had farm animals as pets, I took a stab in the dark and estimated up to two dozen, merely because that is the number that has contacted me or I have heard of through the press.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I accept that it is an approximate number, but it gives an idea of the scale of the number of farm animals kept as pets that were threatened by the policy to which so many of their owners objected.

The hon. Lady talked at length about an enterprise in her constituency called Oaklands Park. I hope that she will not mind if I refer back to her comments. She may recall that I intervened on her speech for clarification on a couple of points. Since then, the people at Oaklands Park have written to say that they

``have a commercial farm and gardening enterprise which produces food not only for the 116 residents here, but also for a box scheme delivering produce to 90 families in Newnham and the surrounding area, as well as selling wholesale to Organic food distributors in Bristol.''

That demonstrates the scale of the enterprise. The letter continues:

``Much of that produce comes from our large market garden, but we also sell meat to the box scheme customers, as well as being self-sufficient in meat and milk in this community and for our sister community of 100 in Newnham. All this is achieved together with our adult residents with learning difficulties, who gain enormous pride and satisfaction from their work on the land and with animals.''

It is clearly a very particular kind of community, and one that is to be admired.

The letter goes on to say that the fact that Oaklands is

``a self-sustaining mixed biodynamic farm does not mean that we are non-commercial. It means that we have already diversified to the extent that the government is now starting to propose as a viable way forward for agriculture in this country.''

The park appears to be going in the right direction. The letter goes on to say that the hon. Lady's comment about livestock being regarded as companions

``is a correct one. Our cows are known by name, and there are several generations living side by side in the Byres.''

It states that the aim is to

``give our animals as healthy and contented a life as possible and, when the time comes for slaughter, a dignified and fearless death. (This latter point is becoming increasingly difficult due to Government policy to close down small, local abattoirs.)''

It reasserts that it is

``not an animal sanctuary but a commercial farm which, like many other farms, want to provide our animals with care and affection due to them being sentient beings.''

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

On that point, the people of Oaklands Park are concerned that local abattoirs are kept alive and well. The Forest of Dean has two successful local abattoirs that have received good hygiene assessment scores—HAS.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's clarification. I was merely quoting from the information that her constituent sent to me, but if Oaklands Park can send its produce for slaughter to two small abattoirs, that is excellent and I wish that it were the case throughout the United Kingdom. We all know how often the big supermarket chains insist on slaughter taking place in a specified slaughterhouse, which is often hundreds of miles from the farm. No one feels happy about that.

The Oaklands Park people went on to comment on the Minister's assertion that the contiguous cull was a success. Their letter states:

``On the contrary the contiguous cull has been shown to be heavy-handed due to unnecessary means to control FMD in the light of international developments in vaccination and blood testing that the Government were aware of in March if not earlier.''

The letter states that the hon. Lady said:

``the Forest of Dean is considered as one premise for the purpose of the contiguous cull''

and asserts that that is an unworkable and unreasonable ruling, given the large area and the diversity of the farming practices that border it. It continues by stating that it was alleged that

``the Forest of Dean suffered 47 confirmed cases.''

This relates to the pets and animal sanctuaries issue—there is little difference because all are animals that could contract foot and mouth; they are parallel arguments. The letter asked:

``How many of these `confirmed cases' were tested, and how many were merely clinically confirmed, later to be shown negative when tests were returned from Pirbright after culling?''

It stated that the national foot and mouth group had been requesting that information from the DEFRA headquarters in Page street since 1 May and still does not have it. Will the Minister look into that?

The letter continues:

``It is possible that the actual number of positive cases in the Forest of Dean, could be minute. This is information that should be in the public domain by now, and its absence begs more questions.''

Diana Organ indicated dissent.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but if that information were in the public domain, there would be no arguments. I give way because I can see that she is brewing for another intervention.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

We had a devastating time during foot and mouth. The divisional vets operating in Elmbridge Court in Gloucestershire confirmed the 47 cases. Some were confirmed from clinical diagnoses and some from blood tests, but all cases were confirmed positive.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but her constituent is not satisfied that that was the case. I do not want to enter into an argument with the hon. Lady and her constituent because that would be wrong, but I feel that many, if not all, of the points that her constituent made are valid and relevant to the parts of the Bill that deal with animal sanctuaries and pets, and with farm animals. The same rules should apply to those animals. We have a tabled a new clause that would be helpful to pet animal owners and that has received certain support from Labour Members.

In the letter, the lady goes on at length about farming in the Forest of Dean. I shall not continue to read her letter, although its points therein are valid. The Committee will have noted that new clause 1 states:

``Where it can be shown that a pet animal has been in contact with an animal affected by foot-and-mouth, it shall not be slaughtered until the result of a blood test for the disease is known.''

Bearing in mind the amount of research underway, and that which has been neglected by successive Governments since the previous outbreak, we should expect tremendous progress on blood testing in future.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I want to be clear: can the hon. Lady confirm whether she is proposing to remove any discretion on the part of vets to make on-the-spot diagnoses of foot and mouth? Is she saying that such vets would be irrelevant because one could simply send off a blood test?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The problem throughout the cull was the issue of doubt. We know that veterinary surgeons saw clinical signs of the disease but that, in many cases, signs were showing that were not foot and mouth. Many younger vets did not know of some diseases that affect sheep—[Interruption.] No, they did not know of them—they are very difficult to diagnose. If doubt exists, we should be able to test farm animals and pets; there is no difference because they are all animals and can contract the disease. We will get much smarter at that in future and it will be possible to have a test that will reinforce, or deny, the veterinary surgeons' view. Veterinary surgeons cannot be right in every case—how could they be? They are human like us, and make mistakes as we do—in good faith—from time to time.

New technology and science, better testing and quicker results being returned to the veterinary officer and the owners of the animals, whether they be farmers or pet owners, will show us the way forward. That is not so far down the track. The new clause is one way forward that would prove satisfactory. As I said earlier, nobody has the slightest problem with slaughter if they know the disease is present, but they do if doubt exists, or they believe that the disease is not present.

That is particularly so in respect of pet animals. At times, people in this country like their pets rather better than members of their family. We are an animal-loving country and great emotion is tide up with pet animals. If they must be slaughtered—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) finds so amusing; perhaps, he has no pets. However, I am sure that he agrees that the issue arouses strong feeling and emotion.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

That is the crux of the matter, not compensation. No compensation for slaughtered farm animals is adequate. Such animals may be considered as pets by their owners and those who look after them. That is why we must take special care.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman makes a telling intervention, with which I could not agree more. I cannot further embellish what he said. I prefer the phrase ``compulsory purchase'' to ``compensation'', because that is, in effect, what happens even though the word compensation is always used. The hon. Gentleman made a valid and telling point, and I agree with it 100 per cent.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

The hon. Lady makes a comment about a trait in the British character: that we are sympathetic and loving to animals, including those in the wild. That is why the overwhelming majority of people want a ban on hunting with hounds.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Lady, as always, shows her lack of understanding. I was talking about pet animals.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Foxes.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Foxes are not pets; they are vermin.

I respect the hon. Lady's view, which she has held for a long time, but I do not believe for one moment that she is right. If she farmed and saw the destruction—I did because I kept chickens when I was a teenager—she would feel differently. The issue, for people whose view of field and country sports is different from mine, is how to contain the fox population without wiping it out. Over the years, hunting has ensured—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. We are drifting slightly wide of the mark again, so perhaps we could return to the Animal Health Bill.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Mr. Illsley, you are quite right to draw me to order. I get carried away down country lanes to the right and to the left. I shall return to the issue of animal sanctuaries and pets.

I assure the hon. Member for Forest of Dean that, like her, I have domestic cats at home—only two now, sadly, because the old one went—and I have never known such assiduous and cold-blooded killers. They bring me presents almost every morning, which they leave on the door mat. None the less, we love our pets and are upset when one disappears and goes to meet its maker. I am just as sentimental about domestic pets as any other member of the Committee.

The proposal in amendment No. 54 and new clause 1 is a sensible way forward, but in my mind there is no difference between pets and animals in sanctuaries, and farm animals. They should all be treated in the same way.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I apologise for my lateness, Mr. Illsley. I had an interesting travelling time after a bad night last night, but I share that with many people. When one's team loses 11-10 on penalties, it is not the happiest time.

I should like the Minister to answer two questions. First, in response to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), I should be interested to know the number of cases in which vets made a diagnosis that was different from the eventual blood test result. My understanding from what vets have told me is that the accuracy of a blood test depends on how and when it is taken. Clearly, there is always a question mark over the accuracy of a test, and that reduces vets' ability to diagnose. Contrary to what the hon. Lady said—I made this point last Thursday—there was a lack of knowledge among vets about what foot and mouth looks like. That had an impact on the handling of the disease in the early stages, but in later stages, most vets, including those from abroad on whom we relied a lot, were confident about what they were seeing. They were able to diagnose foot and mouth, but the diagnoses were not necessarily borne out by the blood tests.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support my call for a full independent public inquiry. Those are the very issues that need to be flushed out in public so that they are transparent. The problem with the Government inquiries that have been set up, part of which will be in public, is that they will not restore the confidence of the general public, including farmers and those who own pets.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Some of us have supported the call for a public inquiry, but not necessarily on tribunal grounds, which, as I have said, would cause delay and allow lawyers to play around with the evidence.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I wish to make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are not calling for an inquiry on tribunal grounds such as the Government introduced for BSE. There is no need for that, but there is a need for the chairman to be absolutely independent and respected for that, and for all sessions to be held in public. It should be full, so that no difficult questions can fall between the cracks of the three inquiries that the Government have set up. People should be able to listen to the evidence and witnesses should be cross-examined in public.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is a judicial inquiry.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

No, it is not judicial and it can be quick.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I suggest that the hon. Lady talks to the shadow Attorney-General, because he very clearly called for an inquiry along the lines of a public tribunal. There seems to be some confusion on the Opposition Benches, which I hope I shall not add to.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point that concerns us all. It does not have to be a judicial inquiry, but the Government could volunteer to make available to the inquiries, as the last Government did for the BSE inquiry, Cabinet and ministerial papers.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I am trying to clear up in my own mind some of the confusion that exists. I have talked to the shadow Attorney-General, who is clear about what he means by a public inquiry and, unless there is a split among the Opposition, that is what I take their position to be. I support a public inquiry, but I do not support a public tribunal.

My second point concerns the definition of a pet. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that someone who keeps a pet does not draw a sheep subsidy or suckler cow subsidy? A pet is cared for and looked after, and the state has no involvement in that. Will the Minister confirm that no one who keeps a pet draws a subsidy?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

There are certain rules concerning subsidies, including size of holding and number of animals, but there is nothing to stop people who have animals that they describe as pets from claiming a subsidy if they meet the rules.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I find it somewhat disingenuous that people who keep an animal that they call a pet might rely on the state to help them to support that animal. Part of the problem is how to define livestock and pets. I support my hon. Friend the Minister, but we need to tease out that information and clarify it. There may be different rules, but if people keep pets they separate themselves from the normal procedures of headage payments for their animals. If my hon. Friend could clarify that, it would help considerably.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Can the Minister clarify how he would class four or six sheep? People who have orchard space and so on often keep sheep so that they do not have to cut the grass. If they receive no support or subsidy, are those sheep pets or farm animals? It is a difficult matter.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I have thought so hard about this that I have tabled written questions to try to obtain clarification from the Ministry. My point is serious. We must be clear on what grounds someone keeps an animal and how he or she is treated if the dreadful scourge of foot and mouth disease returns, although we all pray that it will not. When I dealt with mainstream farmers, they were clear about the policy. They did not like losing their animals, but they knew what was happening. People keep animals for many reasons, and pets are different from livestock. I hope that the Minister can clarify—he may not be able to do so now—the grounds on which public support is given for those animals.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I have an addendum to the hon. Gentleman's question, based on the number of foot and mouth cases. If only 2,030 cases were confirmed, the number of vets who had the opportunity to witness the disease is not great. When judgments were made between orf and foot and mouth, there very possibly was room for error. Will the Minister tell us roughly how many vets witnessed the 2,030 cases? Given that 5 million animals were slaughtered, the number of vets might have been small.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I reiterate my earlier remarks. Because of the incidence of clean and dirty vets, there might be more. Thankfully, not every vet will have experience of foot and mouth. I see no reason, however, why such information should not go on the public record. There will be difficulties, because some people played only a marginal role in attempts to control the disease, and how they and their time are defined might vary, but all such information should come out through the inquiries. It is important that we in this place do everything possible to help clarify the situation. I accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

This has been a useful debate, and I listened to my hon. Friends carefully. They have made a persuasive case that has touched on reasonable concerns that people have about the Bill. It is perfectly reasonable to raise issues such as blood testing and how it can be applied. I do not believe that such things have to be in the Bill, but it is reasonable to raise the various options and alternatives.

It is not in the Government's interests to have large-scale culling. It is expensive and causes huge logistical problems. We will always look for alternatives to culling where possible. However, in the range of scientific and veterinary advice, culling in some cases cannot be ruled out. That brings us back to the whole purpose of the Bill: if there is to be culling, it should be done quickly and efficiently to control disease and prevent its spread. I doubt whether anyone disagrees with that as a concept.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Given that the inquiries have yet to report, and that the basis of the Minister's argument for introducing the Bill now is urgency, will he put in the public domain for all to see the information about computer modelling schemes that he apparently has now collated and which he claims justifies the need for the Bill? Many people challenge the way in which data was prepared and used. Unless we can examine that information, arguments about the necessity for the Bill go by the wayside. Can he put it in the public domain so that Committee members can examine it, and take advice?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I have no objection to putting the details of the modelling in the public domain. Two detailed reports by the expert epidemiologists who advise the Government have now been printed and are in the public domain. I have no problem with putting all that evidence in the public domain, and people are welcome to look at it. I will deal with that point in a moment, but there are people who will not believe any evidence that they are shown because they have set their face against the whole idea of contiguous culling. In the end, action must be based on the best available independent scientific and veterinary advice. The Government, like all Governments, have followed that policy.

For the record, I want to make some points clear. First, the hon. Member for Congleton said that it was Government policy to close small abattoirs. There is no such Government policy.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I was in fact reporting what a constituent of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said in her letter to the hon. Lady and me, objecting to some of the remarks made in the previous Committee sitting.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I accept that explanation, and stand corrected.

On that claim, however, as all hon. Members know, it is not Government policy to close small abattoirs. All abattoirs are subject to EU hygiene rules, and no special treatment is given to large premises. Closures can result from various causes. It is like the supermarket and corner shop syndrome. The big slaughterhouses have economies of scale and have put pressure on smaller ones. If premises consistently fail to meet hygiene requirements, they should not be allowed to continue operating. I do not think that any reasonable person would think that they should, because it would put public health at risk.

The lady who wrote the letter should be aware that the Government made funds available in the rural White Paper to support small slaughterhouses. We recognise that they have an important role. The main pressures on them are market pressures, as well as regulatory ones. There are various reasons for closure, and one cannot put one's finger on any one.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The Minister raises valid points. He is correct that there are market pressures on the running of abattoirs, but he rather skipped over the fact that there is so much regulation. On hygiene, we expect abattoirs to be clean but in this country we gold-plate the directive from the EU because we enforce and police them. If one went to an abattoir here when they are slaughtering, one would find many men in white coats standing around. If one went to an abattoir in France, Germany, Spain—horror of horrors—or Portugal, one would not find that.

My point is that although regulation is there to protect the public, we over-regulate and go over the top. The costs involved have forced small abattoirs to close.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. Before the Minister responds, may I say that I am not prepared to tolerate a debate on EU directives, gold-plating and abattoir closures? We should return to pets and the amendment.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Illsley. You are absolutely right, although I would like to say that I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Lady's last point, having seen some abattoirs abroad. One can mix up xenophobia and reason.

I turn to information. We are holding an independent scientific inquiry, which is very valuable, to look at all aspects of animal disease. The Anderson inquiry will look at ``lessons learned''. I want to make it clear that we will make available to that inquiry whatever papers are asked for. Whether it publishes those papers is entirely a matter for the inquiry, and we will not seek to influence it.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Will the Minister request the chairman of the inquiry to publish all the papers?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is an independent inquiry. It is not for the Government to tell it what to do. We will not interfere with Dr. Anderson.

Finally on meat hygiene regulations, we do not gold-plate. We have not implemented all the 1995 directive on that. Not all the points made about that were fair.

I turn to the crux of the serious issues in the amendment. I recognise the sensitivity about pet farm animals. I must make it clear that those are the animals that we are talking about, because I have yet again seen a Sunday newspaper that says that the Bill relates to cats, dogs and horses. As its author knows that that is not true, it seems that people have resorted to telling lies about the Bill because they do not have valid arguments against it.

Pet farm animals are susceptible to disease. No one disagrees with that. That those animals can get and spread the disease must be taken into account, but there is sensitivity to that. I was delighted to hear about Bella and Pippa and am very pleased that they did not have to be culled. I understand that people get attached to their pet animals in the same way that the hon. Member for Congleton is attached to her pet cat. I also have a pet cat. That only brings in leaves and twigs. That is the difference between a New Labour cat and a Conservative cat: the hon. Lady's cat has been causing carnage.

The sensitivity on culling goes beyond pet animals. There are difficulties in the definition of a pet animal and of sanctuaries. There are issues about rare breeds and important blood lines of herds spanning generations. There are sensitivities involved in cases such as Oaklands Park. We recognise all those.

I would like an element of flexibility in the setting of standards. The risk assessment that the RSPCA was asking for is not unreasonable. We can give guidance on appeals to the deputy veterinary manager. The fact that Bella and Pippa were spared through an appeal to the deputy veterinary manager shows that the appeal system works.

Issues of biosecurity and risk were taken into account during the last epidemic, and there is no reason why we cannot do that again.During the passage of the Bill, I seek to make the measures better and more transparent, to explain them and to involve the farming industry and the public in the consultation on how to achieve those aims.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I am sure that Mr. and Mrs. Bennett will be pleased that the Minister shares our joy that their pets have been spared.

Forgive me if I am just being a cynical old politician, but I must point out one or two other factors to the Minister. We were just going into the first week of the general election campaign, and the decision by the Minister to spare those animals was preceded by two weeks of constant campaigning by newspapers, by me and by the local community. I do not know how typical that will be of situations in future, but I do not think that the decision was totally unrelated to the election campaign.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

There were many cases where appeals to the deputy veterinary manager were upheld; that is not the only one. Sixteen premises, including Oaklands Park, made appeals to the DVM. There was a time lag in the appeals. Logically, the number of outbreaks of the disease in the Forest of Dean had to be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean made representations to me as a Minister. Our vets decided that, given the decline in the number of outbreaks and the increased capacity of blood testing, all those farms in her constituency would be blood tested rather put into the contiguous cull. That is another example of how reasonable standards can be applied in a logical, common-sense way to exempt such premises. I am glad that those premises were exempted. That is the issue that we need to address: how can that be achieved in a reasonable way?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The Minister is pouring oil on troubled waters yet again. Oaklands Park has featured in this debate on animal sanctuaries, although it is a commercial farm. Is the Minister aware that it took legal action? It did not have a cosy chat with the deputy veterinary manager. Well, it did initially, but then it had to go to court, and so did many other farmers. It was an expensive route and took up a lot of energy. In the end, a lot of the farming community gave into the bullying by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and complied with the contiguous cull.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Some went to court, and some did not. There was a repeated claim that Alayne Addy assisted 200 farmers to resist the contiguous cull in Devon. We have no record of legal cases concerning 200 farmers there. We had many appeals to the deputy veterinary manager. The hon. Lady rightly said that we introduced exemptions for cattle if the case was reasonable. Those cases did not have to go to court. It is in solicitors' interest to claim that some great change was brought about by legal action. There is a vested interest there.

Incidentally, it was stated— it may be a mistake by the newspapers—that not one premise on which there was a challenge became infected. That is not the case. At least three premises dealt with by Burges Salmon were later confirmed as infected. Three cases went to the High Court. We lost only one case, and the premises concerned went on to become infected. That is incorrect because I have details of three cases that went on to be confirmed as positive. One of only three cases that went to the High Court related to Alayne Addy, whose premises went on to become infected.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The people from Oaklands Park whom I quoted earlier said:

``Only because we legally challenged that decision to cull are our animals alive today. The new law would mean that if the magistrate grants permission, we could only appeal after the animals were dead.''

That is it in a nutshell. They also said that

``all those who did contest the cull in the Forest were consequently blood-tested and shown to be negative. Indeed none of the 34 contiguous culls proved positive when blood tested, although 19 farms had already been culled.''

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is wrong. In 16 cases the cull was held up because individuals appealed to the divisional veterinary manager. Those premises, which included Oaklands Park, were exempted from our powers to blood test. Oaklands Park made a legal appeal, and if it had gone to court there is no guarantee that the court would have upheld it. Indeed, few such appeals were upheld, and of the cases that went to court most judgments were in the Ministry's favour.

The Bill must contain a system that ensures that such situations are dealt with quickly and efficiently, and the issues about which people are concerned are taken into account. We are putting this in place when we have no epidemic raging, and we have sufficient time to discuss the matter.

The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall pointed out that we should not rush the Bill through. We do not have to rush: we can consult; we can talk with the National Farmers Union; we can talk to interested parties; we can put in place a better system.

The hon. Member for Congleton made the reasonable point that science and technology move on all the time, and there may be other options that we can use in future.

The Bill is an opportunity to deal with two things: first, the national scrapie programme—the sooner we get on with that the better; and, secondly, the epidemic that is not yet over—I hope that we see no further cases. It was good news yesterday that the last infected area, Cumbria, which is where my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) has his constituency, is no longer classified as a high-risk infected area because it has been downgraded. It was the last such area in England, which means that we are making good progress in stamping out the disease.

We need the widest range of options when we obtain independent advice, and such advice may come from the independent inquiries. The Royal Society inquiry into disease control will take a view on future measures to tackle both foot and mouth and other diseases. Nothing in the Bill commits us to one course of action, and nothing in it precludes the outcome of the inquiries.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman asserts that nothing in the Bill precludes the outcome of the inquiries. However, the Government are taking increased powers that would allow them to slaughter animals to create a firebreak before the results of their inquiries are known. They are putting the cart before the horse. It is ridiculous that the Bill should be rushed through the House. The Minister says that he will consult widely; he should have consulted widely before he brought legislation to the House.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

This is enabling legislation that allows us to get on with things. I like to get on with things because I find that the wheels of government move slowly enough, and I should like to move forward on making options available on scientific and veterinary advice. Whether we would use those options depends on the circumstances. If we were to use a combination of disease control measures, such as vaccination, in any future outbreak, culling would be unlikely to be eliminated. Vaccination could be used, but if there were an outbreak in intensive pig units there would be a downward plume—it is possible to model downward plumes of the spread of a virus. Members know that pigs can pump out an enormous volume of virus, so it might be desirable to carry out firebreak culls within that downward plume. Vaccination may be an option, but if other intensive pig units are within that downward plume, it would be very difficult. I present that as an example of why these options are in the Bill.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Clause 32(1)(a) of the 1981 Act already gives the Minister that power. It states:

``The Minister may, if he thinks fit, cause to be slaughtered any animal which—

(a) is affected or suspected of being affected''.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Lady is right. That is our legal power under which the 3 km cull in Cumbria was applied. However, that does not stop the invitation to lawyers to quibble with the language of the 1981 Act, which is why the Bill makes the matter clear.

We are entering a Second Reading debate and I do not want to be distracted. I want to deal in detail with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen), who made an important point about his experiences in his constituency. I shall also address the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall), for Forest of Dean and for Stroud. Much of what I shall say will deal with their concerns.

I have been thinking carefully since the Committee previously sat about how to achieve a balance between rapid culling on veterinary grounds as a disease control measure—presuming that that is the advice—and ensuring that the powers to cull are not exercised in a disproportionate, inconsistent or unfair way, so that farmers and livestock owners have confidence in the basis on which those powers are exercised and, where necessary, have the opportunity for a reasonable hearing. That is the balance that I want to strike. I want the arrangements to be better than the rough and ready appeals system in the 1981 Act. Lawyers are not necessarily better arbiters of these matters than vets.

The new measures are designed to ensure that delays in culling are minimised once the decision to cull has been taken, so it would be wrong to introduce new procedures that delay the process further. I recognise the genuine concern that a farmer or owner may not agree with a decision to slaughter animals and should therefore continue to have the opportunity to make representations where they have reasonable grounds for thinking that the powers are not being applied in accordance with the Government's stated policy of proportionate action.

There is a problem with the definition of pets. Although pets and animal sanctuaries are sensitive subjects, I do not want farmers to think that we have no regard for their animals. The measure is a general appeals system and reflects a proportionate approach. Transparency is the key, enabling people to see from the beginning how decisions are taken on whether to cull animals.

I want full consultation with the industry on the criteria that will govern the way in which the new slaughter powers are used. That consultation, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has been pressing, should achieve three results. First, a protocol will be published, explaining clearly how the new powers will be used. People will be able to consult it so that before any future outbreak, they can determine in which cases the powers will be used and what the criteria are.

Secondly, the consultation will provide revised instructions to DVMs and our vets—as hon. Members will know, many local private vets also work for us as temporary veterinary inspectors—on how to implement the powers in line with the criteria. Again, the information will be made public so that people can consult it and see the instructions that we are giving to our vets. As a result, people will understand how the instructions are being applied and in what circumstances.

Thirdly, there will be widespread publicity of decisions, so that farmers can understand how the powers will be exercised and receive assurances about the Government's commitment to proportionate action based on risk assessment. That is in line with the wishes of certain hon. Members and of the RSPCA.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I am very interested in the Minister's comments, and I suspect that a lot of work has been going on at the Ministry since last Thursday. One senses that, in keeping with our earlier comments, a certain language is now being used by the Minister. Is he still contemplating the 24-hour time limit for appeals against a decision, to which he referred last Thursday, or is the limit subject to further consideration?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

All these issues are open to consultation. As I understand it, the hon. Lady is talking about the time limit for infected premises, but here we are talking mainly about contiguous premises, for which the target was 24 to 48 hours. However, I have no objection to discussing whether those time scales are appropriate. Most people would agree that the sooner such things are done, the better, but there has to be some proportionality. As far as I am concerned, those objectives are open for discussion.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I, too, am fascinated by what the Minister has been saying. I have lost count of the number of times he has used the word ``proportion'' this evening. [Interruption.] Did I say this evening? I am sure that we will still be here this evening.

The Minister will know that the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates not only the European convention on human rights but all the jurisprudence, including the concept of proportionality, which is much broader than the concept of reasonableness as understood in English law. Has its introduction had any bearing on his thinking and his frequent use this morning of the word ``proportionate''?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Basically, any Government measure must be applied in a proportionate way—there is nothing new about that. I am seeking to reassure people, to take their views into account, to make public the criteria and how they would be applied, and to give people a chance to comment on and influence matters. I am therefore saying nothing different from what has been said about any Government legislation, or the way in which Government powers are used. I want to ensure that people's views are taken into account during consultation, so that farmers will be better placed to understand why, and how likely it is that, their animals will be slaughtered in given circumstances. What I want is a no-surprise approach, given some of the concerns expressed by farmers during this outbreak.

The outbreak was indeed huge. The demands placed on resources were enormous, and the need to get to grips with it was paramount. Obviously, we learn certain things in retrospect. We want to influence future policy and give people a greater understanding of the different circumstances in which particular policies will be applied.

The consultation will also cover cases such as pet farm animals, animal sanctuaries and rare breeds. We cannot give a blanket exemption to any category of susceptible animal, although I appreciate that no member of the Committee has actually asked for one during our deliberations. As I have said, we recognise the sensitivities, and we can draw attention to any particular factors that may apply. Once instructions to our vets have been finalised through consultation, we will do all we can to ensure that they are widely publicised through press releases, web sites and so on, so that people can understand how the process works. Of course, understanding that process also helps to guide appeals. If farmers and animal owners are aware of the steps that can be taken to enhance biosecurity, they can think about how to meet the criteria for exemptions, for example. I am happy to make these points public.

Although from the outset we are putting in the public domain, through consultation, the procedures that will be applied, I accept that in certain circumstances a farmer might disagree with the decision of the DEFRA vet who is following the criteria. In the first instance, such a farmer should discuss the decision with the vet on the ground, as I am sure he would. If they cannot agree, the farmer still has the right to make a representation to the DVM.

Where there are grounds for believing that the criteria are not being properly applied, the DVM will be obliged to listen to reasonable representations and to take them into account in reaching a final decision. Naturally, that process will be limited by the need to ensure swift action to control disease spread, but that is already an imperative. None the less, we will lay down that procedure and consult on the criteria, and the DVM and all our vets will be obliged to follow it.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have been listening carefully to what the Minister is saying and I trust that I have not missed anything. How long will it take to complete the consultation and when will the guidelines be issued?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I would like to begin the process within weeks, and we will set a reasonable closing date so that we can get on with things. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will have to seek advice on what constitutes a reasonable period for consultation, but I certainly want matters to proceed as quickly as is reasonably possible. Some pressure has been taken off us, in that the epidemic is no longer raging, but we cannot be complacent and there remains the risk of a reoccurrence. We are doing all we can to prevent such a reoccurrence, and in that regard it remains important for farmers to consider biosecurity—

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

And officials, too.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

And officials. Everyone who has contact with livestock should consider biosecurity, and it is also important to maintain restrictions on licences for animal movements.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am sorry to press the Minister, but this is an important point. He has just said that pressure on his Department is easing because, hopefully, the epidemic is reaching a conclusion, yet he is arguing that the Bill be rushed through the House because the situation is urgent. I accept that he needs to consult on what is a reasonable time scale, but can he say what he considers reasonable at this stage, bearing in mind a possible need to move away from that estimate? I am not trying to tie the Minister's hands; I am simply trying to get a grip on the sort of time scale that we can expect.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can certainly give the hon. Lady some idea, and I do want people to feel that there has been no opportunity to consult on the time scale. However, I dispute the notion that we are rushing the Bill through the House—it is following the normal parliamentary procedure. I have always said that I want the consultation to begin within weeks, and by the new year at the latest. I imagine that between eight to 10 weeks would constitute a suitable consultation period, but I do not want to set that in stone.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I think that we are all very interested in what the Minister is now telling us. When consultation takes place after a Bill has been enacted, it is normally related to matters that are dependent on secondary legislation and any orders arising. Assuming that I have understood the Minister correctly, is it not rather unusual to consult on matters of primary legislative importance after a Bill has been enacted?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that. As a very experienced Member of this House and a former Minister, she will know that many aspects of any legislation can be consulted on during its passage and after its enactment. Although some provisions in the Bill are enacted by order, not all are. There is nothing unusual about this procedure. I accept that legitimate concerns have been raised, and I am trying to respond in an open and reasonable way.

Although the appeal to the deputy veterinary manager will remain—I want to make the process better and more open, and I want it to deal with a wider range of circumstances—the option of an independent judicial review will remain available to any farmer or animal owner if they are not satisfied with the appeal process.

It is true that the idea of the Bill is to speed up the culling process, but we are dealing with procedures here. If it is shown that this or any other Government did not act in a proportionate way, they will suffer the legal consequences.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I think that I know the answer to this. I must put it on the Committee record. Since the Committee met last Thursday, has the Minister received any new legal advice from his officials?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I have received none at all.

We want to be equally open about the possibilities created by the Bill for extending slaughter powers for other diseases. We should not focus just on foot and mouth disease. We will be able to extend those powers only under the affirmative resolution procedure: both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the measures. Our intention is to use that period to consult on how to put the powers into practice. Precisely which criteria we take into account will vary from disease to disease. As part of future planning, we will look at all those issues.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I am listening to the Minister with great interest, but also with growing astonishment. He has mentioned that he does not want the approach to be disproportionate, inconsistent or unfair. He wants an understanding of the risks and proportionate, risk-based action. Those are all fine and laudable aims, but I do not understand why, in referring to the concerns of his hon. Friends, he has not acknowledged the fact that those concerns have also been expressed by Opposition Members. The amendments that we tabled to clause 1 are littered with phrases like, ``after consultation with the animal owner'' or ``has reasonable justification to believe after consultation''. An amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall suggesting that slaughter should occur only after disease risk assessment by a suitably qualified and independent representative. In each case, the Minister has said, ``I am sorry, I cannot take any notice of that. It will cripple the Bill.'' Can the Minister explain the sudden volte-face?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Yes, I can.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

So the Minister admits that there has been a volte-face?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

No. I can explain it. The wording and detail of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends is superior to that of some of the amendments tabled by the Opposition. The eloquence of their argument touched me.

In all seriousness, I did say that perfectly reasonable points were raised by all members of the Committee. Indeed, the new clause on blood testing is perfectly reasonable, apart from the fact that it does not have to be in the Bill: the blood-testing option can be applied in certain circumstances.

I cannot accept new clause 1, first, because it is too prescriptive and, secondly, because it is technically flawed. As drafted, it would mean that no pet animal that had been in contact with an FMD-affected animal could be slaughtered until blood tests had been analysed. Even those animals that had become infected by FMD could not be immediately slaughtered if they were pets. That is the strict legal interpretation of the wording.

I know that these are probing amendments, so I do not want to make a big issue of that, but obviously I cannot accept new clause 1. My response has taken a bit of time because it relates to issues that arise later in the Bill. It might save us time to deal with those matters now. I have given a detailed response to my hon. Friends. I think that it is an issue—

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but what he has said is of great significance not only to the new clause but to many subjects that we will debate later this morning, this afternoon and on Tuesday. Before the afternoon sitting, can the Minister's officials make available copies of the statement that he has read out? It is long and detailed, and it would be helpful to have it in front of us this afternoon.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

That is not a point of order.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I have taken note of the hon. Lady's request. There are certain protocols and procedures in Committees, which I frequently trip over, but I will take advice on the matter.

Many hon. Members have raised reasonable concerns that reflect the views of people outside this Room who have animals. I have discussed those issues and the Bill with the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Sheep Association and a range of other bodies, and I will have further opportunities to talk to them. I am trying to respond to hon. Members' concerns in an honest and transparent way. I do not believe that going to court is necessarily the best option. It will be better to have a written and public protocol for our vets to follow and to make people aware of the procedures, on which we can consult. The Bill will provide better safeguards than the ones under the 1981 Act.

The Bill introduces changes to that Act—for example, to preventive and curative powers—and contains new options. It gives us an opportunity to deal with legitimate concerns about how measures were applied during the FMD epidemic. There may be different ways in which to deal with epidemics in future, but we need to deal with culling.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I find the Minister's remarks interesting, and they please Labour Members, although perhaps not Opposition Members.

There is one crucial group that we have not mentioned: farmers who wish to protect their stock through a firebreak cull and who may, under the current arrangement, have to take legal action against those who do not want their animals culled for some reason. That subject is frequently avoided, but it is of real concern. Those farmers support a cull to protect their stock, but often that is not brought out in the arguments. Does the Minister agree that that has been a problem? Perhaps transparency will allow us to make progress on that.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I agree that problems such as that arise. I have mentioned that when the Prime Minister visited Cumbria and met the NFU, farmers pressed him strongly to accelerate the culling programme. They were desperate to ensure that the disease did not spread out of the valleys, where it was raging. I am glad to say that, by and large, the disease there was contained within its main epicentres, which was no mean achievement. The independent inquiry will probably want to examine that.

I return to the letter that the hon. Member for Congleton read. There are people who simply do not believe that the contiguous cull had any bearing. I do not believe that myself, even though I advocated the vaccination policy in Cumbria. There was resistance to that and various problems, which I am sure the inquiries will deal with. The contiguous cull brought that outbreak under control. We will have the opportunity to assess in detail whether that is true through the Royal Society and the independent Anderson inquiry. They will guide us through the options.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

That point applied in the case of the Anglesey seven. Several farmers who had complied voluntarily with the contiguous cull to prevent the spread of the disease became very concerned when a number of hobby farmers, pet owners and smallholders resisted it and, in the farmers' view, put the commercial farmers beyond in danger again from disease spread.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Such points were made during the outbreak, and we are trying to deal with all such issues. I am suggesting a way of proceeding. The Bill covers a range of concerns and would leave us in a better position than under the 1981 Act. It is a reasonable and proportionate response to people's concerns. I have listened to the points carefully and taken them on board. I intend to start acting on such issues by the end of the year. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean will withdraw the amendment.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

I thank the Minister for his detailed response to the amendment. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that it was a change from what was said on Thursday.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

It is.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Yes, it is. The Committee stage of a Bill is all about looking carefully at the Bill, laying down amendments, and changing it to make it more fair, transparent and reasonable. That is surely what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee seek to do.

What the Minister has just spoken about will be tremendous progress. One problem was that people did not know what was being done, how or why it was being done, and what decisions were being based on. That ignorance caused a problem. The Minister laid ghosts to rest when he mentioned press reports about which animals the Bill covers. Press reports and a meeting in the Forest of Dean have suggested that the Bill relates to dogs, cats and horses when patently it does not. It concerns sheep, goats, pigs and cattle.

Another problem is the widespread myth that the Bill will take away the option of an independent judicial review. That is clearly not the case.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I presume that African horse sickness is likely to affect horses. [Interruption.]

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

As my hon. Friend the Minister said from a sedentary position, that would have to be done by order.

The Minister has usefully dispelled myths. What he has proposed—a full consultation on criteria, a published protocol, widespread publicity and revised instructions to vets on applying the criteria—is a real move and will allay many concerns over how disease is to be dealt with. As a result, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

We are now coming to what I hope will be a brief debate on clause 1 stand part. This has been a wide-ranging debate on clause 1. I have allowed such a debate because the clause is obviously essential to the Bill. From here on in, I expect the Committee to concentrate specifically on the amendments before it, otherwise I shall be unwilling to allow further debates on clause stand part.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Illsley. Clause 1 is an important and weighty matter. Many hon. Members have questioned whether the Bill contravenes the Human Rights Act 1998 in three specific areas—the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private and family life and correspondence, and the right to property. Members of the Committee raised those issues frequently during our debates on amendments to clause 1.

The Bill is designed to give absolute power to the Government to cause the slaughter of animals. It allows them to claim that it is immaterial whether animals are infected with foot and mouth disease, whether they have been in contact with infected animals or even whether they have been vaccinated. These powers would allow animals to be slaughtered at the whim of authorities with no definitive control, and I say that in spite of the Minister's statement this morning. His conversion on the road to Damascus is too late. Had he made that statement before he legislated and amended the Bill accordingly, he might have received the Opposition's support.

Many organisations object to the Bill, and the Minister mentioned that he has consulted with many of them and seeks to consult with more. However, the National Sheep Association described its ``discomfort''--that is a good word--at the possibility that the Government could be given further powers such as those described in clause 1, in view of their appalling reaction to this year's outbreak. It said:

``Bearing in mind the very considerable shambles associated with entry and slaughter during the recent outbreak, we are extremely concerned that even more power should be given to a group of people who in far too many cases proved that they did not understand farmers, livestock, livestock handling''—

it would be fair to add modern farming methods to that list—

``and frequently had extremely poor management and organisation skills.''

That message comes back loudly and clearly from every part of the United Kingdom that has suffered from this appalling epidemic. Unnecessary slaughter was imposed in an abundant number of cases. The experiences of those who resisted culls are evidence of the weak and changeable slaughter policy adopted by the Government. Early in the debates on clause 1, I raised specific examples of that, and I have some more here.

Guy Thomas-Everard, who owned 980 healthy pedigree cattle in Somerset, was served with an A notice by MAFF, which stated that his farm had been visited 12 days before by contract workers, who were suspected to be a dangerous contact. Only two weeks earlier, MAFF had declared Somerset to be a disease-free county. After Mr. Thomas-Everard contested the cull for five days, MAFF dropped its slaughter plans, stating that the herd

``no longer posed a risk''.

Another case that has been brought my attention concerns Adam Westaway of Devon, who also contested a Government slaughter order in March. Although he had permitted the slaughter of his 160 sheep, which had been grazing in close proximity to a neighbouring outbreak, he was adamant that his 100 cattle, which were valued at £300,000, should be saved. He argued that they had had no contact with the possibility of infection, having been kept indoors since the previous November. That point that relates to the housing issue. After Mr. Westaway contacted Exeter-based lawyer Alayne Addy, whom the Minister quoted, MAFF stated that it would not carry out the cull.

The Minister stated that MAFF had won most cases that went to court. He has not told the Committee the number of court cases from which MAFF withdrew, which would be an interesting statement for him to make, and I hope that it comes out in the inquiries that the Government have set up. After his experience, Mr. Westaway also criticised the Bill:

``I would oppose any attempts to stop farmers from appealing against slaughtering their animals. The Government doesn't seem to listen to farmers and seems to make it up as it goes along.''

Opposition Members feel that the Government are going too far in taking draconian powers that fly in the face of natural justice. A proper right of appeal must always be available before slaughter.

A Scottish farmer was told that he must lose his pedigree herd and rare Cheviot sheep because infection was suspected some miles away on another farm of which he was a part owner. Although the farmer explained that he had not visited that farm, MAFF officials allegedly behaved as if he were lying. Because officials were delayed by another confirmed case nearby, there was time for tests from the allegedly infected farm to come back, and—surprise, surprise—they proved to be negative.

Throughout the crisis, the Government showed a lack of consistency and understanding regarding their powers to slaughter. The Private Eye special investigation listed three main areas in which MAFF and DEFRA are believed to have been in serious breach of the law. I am sure that the Minister has read the article, which makes some interesting comments.

It is questionable whether the Government had legal powers to kill healthy animals without proof that they had been directly exposed to infection. By the end of April, a respected west country law firm, Clarke Wilmott Clarke, was preparing a test case against MAFF contesting that the contiguous cull scheme, under which 2 million animals had already been slaughtered, was illegal in EU law. Directive 85/511 states that only infected animals can be killed, which was the understanding of many farmers whom I met in Devon when I visited recently.

A London barrister, Stephen Tromans, argued that it was ``highly dubious'' that MAFF had the power under the Animal Health Act 1981 to slaughter uninfected animals without proof that they had come into contact with the disease.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Let us be clear on this, because some of us must deal with other diseases such as bovine TB. Occasionally, a whole herd will be slaughtered because some animals clearly have the disease, and others will suffer from it if and when it spreads to them. The hon. Lady would completely rule that out because there would be no further slaughter unless an animal had a proven case of TB.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman makes a false point, because we know what must happen where there is TB in a herd. If there is infection in a herd, nobody will stand out against its slaughter. I hasten to add that many veterinary surgeons in the west country have told me that they are slaughtering far too many cattle and should be slaughtering other animals that they believe—I stress, they believe—may be spreading TB. There is no argument about the slaughter of a herd if TB is proven—it is an open-and-shut case.

Christopher Booker is another famous journalist who is always well worth reading.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

For a laugh.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Not for a laugh. I shall tell the Minister about a serious case involving the contiguous cull policy in the parish in which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I live. A suspected case in sheep which was later found to be only a welfare problem—a minor foot condition—led to three very valuable dairy herds being threatened with the cull. I cut out The Sunday Telegraph article by Christopher Booker that explained what was and was not legal and gave it to the three farmers in question, one of whom is my own producer-retailer, saying, ``The decision is entirely up to you; I am not trying to persuade you one way or the other because the responsibility is yours.'' They were convinced, because of biosecurity, housing and the topography of the land, that their herds were in no danger.

I am grateful to Mr. Booker for giving the advice on which the three farmers were able to stand up against the MAFF vets and officials, and their herds are alive to tell the tale. [Interruption.] No. There was a lot of argy-bargy. The Minister was not involved in what happened on farms, so he did not really know about it—how could he have done? He is a very distinguished Minister, and he was tied up in policy making and meetings here. He should hear about the experiences of people who went through it, which were exceptionally difficult. They were bullied, but they were convinced that they were right to resist. In the case of the three farmers—I do not say in every case—they were right, thanks to Mr. Booker having given them the information that they needed to stand up against the slaughterers. Incidentally, they did not even hear directly that those people were coming on the Monday; they heard it indirectly, on the grapevine. I do not know how the Minister would react to that, but I would be absolutely livid. I would feel ill treated and ill served.

Mr. Booker asserts that the Government were guilty of breaking the law through wholesale breaches of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 by those carrying out the slaughter. As someone who comes from a farming background and knows all about caring for stock and the practices of farmers in my constituency, I found some of the scenes that we saw on television shocking. I do not wish ever to see such scenes again, and we must take action to ensure that we do not.

None of this takes into account slaughter that is mistakenly proposed or enacted by DEFRA. I heard about a case when I went up to Cumbria, where, as the Minister may know, the land often includes so-called blind lanes with a stone wall on each side. DEFRA officials turned up to slaughter on the farm in question, drove the sheep into a nearby blind lane because it was convenient to carry out the slaughter there, and only afterwards found that that land belonged to the farm next door, so that farm also had to be slaughtered out. That is just one example of the many examples in Cumbria where things went wrong.

Clive Davies, a Gloucestershire farmer whose 255 cattle were mistakenly culled due to a ``clerical error'', stated that, under the DEFRA slaughter rules,

``you became a statistic. It becomes a rollercoaster. There is no stopping it.''

Such views are expressed by people who were affected by mistakes, and they have every right to do so in strong terms.

In another example, a vet and two soldiers were sent to a farm in Great Broughton in Cumbria, where they slaughtered 200 ewes and 300 lambs, claiming that they were inside a 3 km cull zone. They also killed a pet pig belonging to the farmer's young son—we have just debated that subject. The soldiers later discovered that they had got the wrong grid reference and should have been slaughtering 100 miles away. Where was the organisation? Was DEFRA in control? What was going on?

These draconian proposals will provide little spirit of confidence between farmers and DEFRA. In introducing stronger powers, the Minister and others must consider what happened before and how the farming community feels about the future. It would be better if they withdrew the whole Bill right now, went back to the drawing board, consulted widely and introduced any necessary extra powers in the light of the conclusions of the inquiries by the Royal Society and Lord Anderson.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Dr. Anderson.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Dr. Anderson. He will probably be a lord eventually—we shall have to wait and see.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

Clearly, we should all learn from the mistakes that we make. Appalling mistakes were made, and we all hope that the circumstances in which they were made will not arise again. However, if the hon. Lady were at some future time to be in charge of a policy to tackle an outbreak—

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I demur.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I said ``if''. She cannot seriously be saying that if she was in that position she could guarantee that there would be no mistakes. That could arise only if the Government of the day chose not to carry out a slaughter policy to tackle another outbreak. If that is what she is driving at, she should spell it out, but surely she must accept that human beings can make mistakes, unfortunate as that is.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I said. Of course all individuals and all Governments make mistakes. I have been explaining to members of the Committee, and to others who may not know, the scale and kinds of mistakes that were made and how they affected farmers and their families. The Government have the responsibility to ensure, first and foremost, that the disease does not get into the country again and, secondly, that they have a meaningful contingency plan that would stop the disease in its tracks.

We have rehearsed the arguments several times in debating clause 1, but the hon. Gentleman has clearly not listened to a word of it. Of course people make mistakes, but I ask him, rhetorically, how he would feel if he were a victim of one of the serious and unforgivable mistakes that I described, which had a terrible impact on the lives of the farmers involved. It is all right for us: we get a salary every month; we operate in a heated building; we have a pension. What about the people farming at the margins in the uplands whose livelihoods and futures were seriously affected by the epidemic? Does he think that they want further powers to be introduced to make the situation worse?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

They do.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they do not.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

We recognise the scenario that the hon. Lady described of farmers who have been through a very difficult time with many losing their livelihoods, particularly hill farmers in marginal areas. She asked a rhetorical question about the further powers in the Bill, which suggested that farmers did not want the cull at all or want action to be taken speedily to eradicate foot and mouth disease. I suggest that that was not the case and that, in fact, farmers wanted the quick and efficient eradication of the disease so that they could return to full productivity of their livestock.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I shall take no lessons from the hon. Lady. She was one of those who tabled a perfectly good amendment and then voted against it. That does not show much principle.

At no time during this debate have I said that there should be no culling. Most farmers accept absolutely—more than that, they know—that if the disease is present, there must be a cull and it must take place as quickly as possible. However, they object to some of the things that happened—we have described them many times—because they were unjust. The Government are taking further powers and farmers are worried because of their experiences.

I want to quote from a letter from a Cumbrian farmer's wife who said:

``Our community believes that the Government hates us and is determined to destroy us. They are putting forward a rural vision which is as unrealistic as Pol Pot's urban one. We are, to put it bluntly, frightened''—

[Hon. Members: ``Disgraceful.''] I am quoting. The letter states:

``We are, to put it bluntly, frightened of our own Government. We do not have a voice and there is no control over their power.''

In fact, with the new provisions, they will have no control over the power because animals will be slaughtered and there will be no right of appeal. That goes to the very heart of the Bill in clause 1.

We do not want reassurance after the event. We want it in the Bill, which is where it should be—[Interruption.]

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the noises from the Labour Benches indicate the fundamental misunderstanding that Labour Members have of the effects of foot and mouth disease? They cannot ignore the emotional side of it and the way in which communities feel. Is it not important that the lady whom my hon. Friend is quoting, who feels that she does not have a voice, at least has her voice echoed in the Committee? Is that not a proper use of the Committee's time so that Ministers and Labour Back Benchers can understand the depth of feeling in the countryside?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I thank my hon. Friend who has stated what to me is obvious. So often, we at Westminster get sucked into talking about trying to amend legislation and so on but forget the basis on which legislation is introduced. The terrible experiences that many people out there in Cumbria, Staffordshire, Cheshire, down in the west country and so on suffered will live with them for the rest of their lives. We must also remember that organisations such as the rural stress network are doing tremendous work. The incidence of mental health problems resulting from what has happened will continue.

Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands) rose—

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I give way to my next-door neighbour over the border in Staffordshire.

Charlotte Atkins (Labour, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Does the hon. Lady recognise that she debases her argument by using such exaggeration? I appreciate that it was in a letter from a constituent. I have received letters from constituents—even threatening ones—but I would not think of reading them out in Committee. I would never do that. As the hon. Lady recognised, I have a large rural area in my constituency and there has been a deep emotional response from people, whether to bovine tuberculosis, foot and mouth or scrapie. However, to compare that with Pol Pot is a gross exaggeration and debases the hon. Lady's argument.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. Her constituents will note that their views will not have an opportunity to be aired in Committee or on Report.

The point made by the Cumbrian farmer's wife obviously hit home, and I am glad. I make no apology for reading out what she wrote—she felt it and wrote it. I know that the constituency of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands has had foot and mouth cases, but perhaps she has not been to see them, experienced them for herself or met the people involved, as I have done in Cumbria, Yorkshire and, only last week, Devon. If she had done, she would understand that the reason I have given my examples in Committee is that they are directly relevant to clause 1 and the powers that the Government are taking unto themselves.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

It may interest the hon. Lady to know that I am the only Cumbrian MP present and my constituency was hit desperately hard by foot and mouth. However, I would never use such examples either. I have talked to farmers and had their wives crying down the phone with emotion, so I fully understand their anger and have sympathy for what they say. However, to use the language that the hon. Lady uses debases her argument.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is obviously purer than pure, whiter than white and will go to heaven one day. However, I make no apology for repeating what many farmers and their wives have said. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) like to intervene? He is gesticulating from a sedentary position.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I simply remind the hon. Lady of the well-known advice of a former Minister: if one is in a hole, one should stop digging.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman is doing the same. If such language were not allowed, you would have called me to order, Mr. Illsley—I accept that the hon. Gentleman is new and so probably does not know about such things. My comment is fair and it stands.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. We have spent about 27 minutes on the clause stand part debate and I am delighted that everyone took my advice before we commenced. Can we return to discussing clause 1?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Illsley, for that advice and hope that you understand that, when people intervene in the spirit of the debate, one must respond even if one is sometimes led down a blind alley.

I genuinely believe, as do Conservative Members, that clause 1 is an important and vital part of the Bill to which we thoroughly object. The Minister has had a change of heart and has come forward with a softer line on proportionality—a word that was never used by Labour members of the Committee last week, but was used frequently on the Conservative Benches. That suggests that he has received positive advice, which has changed the tone of his remarks. I hasten to add that one welcomes such a change. However, that change is not apparent in the Bill and we remain sceptical about it. The Minister will therefore understand that we do not want the clause to go unamended when all our previous amendments and reasoned arguments have been rejected.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

The purpose of the Bill is to address some of the lessons that were learned during the foot and mouth crisis, and clause 1 constitutes the essential part of that process. In trying to achieve their objectives, the Government, the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were frustrated by the terms of the 1981 Act. The response was clause 1, which contains the most wide-ranging, all-encompassing powers imaginable. Quite properly, Opposition members of the Committee have tried to restrict use of its draconian powers to very specific circumstances by adding qualifications that are reasonable, proportionate and fair in every sense of those words.

I turn to an issue that should be considered in the context of the ``lessons learned'' inquiry. A letter from Alan and Rosie Beat, of the Bridge Mill, Bridgerule, in Holsworthy—I lived in Holsworthy for some time and I know it well—states:

``Official statistics show that . . . 20 per cent. of animals slaughtered on contiguous farms have tested positive for FMD . . . so the remaining 80 per cent. were healthy and were not incubating the disease.''

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is worth reiterating that one cannot draw that conclusion from testing. Blood tests identify antibodies in the latter stages of incubation, so a negative test does not mean that the animal was not incubating.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Actually, I was just about to make that point—[Laughter.] However, I am grateful to the Minister for putting it so succinctly. Nevertheless, he will accept that a large number of healthy animals were killed, and that that exerted a powerful negative influence on disease control by diverting resources away from genuine cases of infection. In Devon, at least, carcase disposal—an important side effect—created huge problems. As a direct result of killing those additional animals, the crucial target of slaughtering all infected stock within 24 hours became impossible to achieve. That is one real lesson that we have learned from the outbreak and the use of the contiguous cull.

As ever, the Minister is the personification of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality, but the same cannot necessarily be said of the agents who work on his behalf. It is the Minister who considers and decides, but he is not the person who carries out the deeds and applies the principles of reasonableness and proportionality to individual farms and animals.

There is one other unfortunate lesson that we have learned. As Mr. Beat says,

``when MAFF officials enter private property to interfere in other people's lives, and perhaps to kill their livestock, they should act with courtesy, consideration and compassion. These simple but necessary qualities have at times been lacking, to be replaced by rudeness, arrogance and disregard for human or animal suffering.''

I know that officials are under pressure, and that many different people and personalities are involved, but we are talking about granting powers to the Minister, who grants them to others—

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I want to put on the record the fact that those of us who lived and worked through this on an hourly basis know—I could quote many instances and certainly letters from constituents—that care and consideration were shown in the most difficult circumstances, particularly by MAFF officials but also by TVI people, who spent hours counselling and working with people. We must strike a balance.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Like him, I lived through it and, yes, I can accept what he says. We are discussing proportionality and the issue concerns the extent of the powers that are being given, their widespread nature and to whom they will be given. I entirely accept that the overwhelming majority of people worked hard under terrible emotional pressure, but there were lapses. We must accept that.

The other aspect which was raised concerned the responsibility of the veterinary profession, which is in a difficult position. We have discussed the fact that the independence of vets will be important, particularly if farmers use their own vets, and the powers that the Minister will have to compel them to work on his behalf will put vets in an even more difficult position. I do not know whether there are any practising vets in the Committee, but I understand that their oath includes a promise to put animal welfare first. Many of the vets who worked for MAFF had to juggle their conscience on that. There were instances of vets signing form A to authorise the slaughter of what they considered to be healthy stock on many contiguous premises. It is a difficult matter and the way in which vets will be used and compelled to operate under the powers will be difficult. We must try to ensure that the qualifications and restrictions on all those involved in the exercise—we hope that it will never happen again—provide a framework within which farmers, those who work for farmers, vets, TVIs and so on can operate satisfactorily.

When we were discussing pets, the Minister indicated that he would be able to report back before Christmas with a framework. That is only a few weeks away, but it would be helpful even if he did that early next year. Bearing in mind that, as of yesterday, the outbreak seems to be over—we hope and pray that it is—we now have a modicum of additional breathing space, so it might be possible to delay Report stage until the Minister can return with the protocol or framework. It is an important part of the Bill and even two or three weeks would assist his hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean. She withdrew her amendment, but I am sure that she wants to ensure that the matter is dealt with adequately, instead of the Committee proceeding at a pace that is not now so necessary. We could then consider that protocol, framework, or whatever it will be called, before Report.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech—I hope that that will not blight his parliamentary career.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I do not have one.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. We hope that every day that passes with no evidence of a further outbreak will give the Government and everyone else time to think about the future and legislate appropriately in the light of experience, the results of the reports and our debates on the Bill so far.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I entirely agree with her. The Minister should give some thought to that, in all fairness. I think that we need to wait only two or three more weeks. Were we still at the height of the crisis, that would not be an argument. The last case was on 30 September, all areas are now cleared and hopefully we shall keep the biosecurity going.

The Christmas recess is approaching. If Report stage takes place when we come back in January, that will mean only a few weeks' delay. It will give the Minister and his officials an opportunity to produce a paper explaining how they will deal with pets, which is an important issue for many people, and will enable us to look more sympathetically at the whole Bill.

At present, this clause, which I accept is the essence of the Bill, does not provide us with an opportunity to support it because it is too wide-ranging. The Minister has failed to accept some very reasonable qualifications and restrictions on these draconian powers, and as a result we do not support the clause.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

The Government's motivation in bringing forward the Bill, especially clause 1, has become clear. The explanatory memorandum states that the power in clause 1(1)3 not only

``adds to the categories of animals'',

``makes it clear that the new power may be exercised whether or not the animals concerned are affected or suspected of being affected with the disease''.

Indeed, the regulatory impact assessment produced by DEFRA on this part of the Bill goes on in similar vein, saying that

``there is considerable scope for debate about whether the slaughter powers apply in particular circumstances, especially relating to whether animals have in fact been `exposed' to disease.''

Today we have established pretty clearly that section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981 already gives the Minister those powers—he admitted that. Therefore, an awful lot of what has been officially written about clause 1 is already on the statute book.

Why does the clause need to be in the Bill? It does not concern whether animals must be known to have the disease before the Minister grants the power to slaughter, because slaughtering can be done on the basis of suspicion. During an intervention last Thursday, I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton that the previous Government used section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981 to justify legally the selective cull of animals that were clearly in a similar position. There was no proof that the animals were incubating BSE or had been in contact with contaminated feed, yet section 32 allowed sufficient power under those circumstances to slaughter the cattle concerned.

The wide-reaching powers of the Animal Health Act 1981 would certainly continue to enable the Minister to decide to slaughter on the basis of suspicion, purely on the grounds of curtailing and preventing animal disease spread. The Bill is somewhat bogus in suggesting that those are the reasons the Minister needs the power. He clearly does not need those reasons, as he already has those powers. The issue is not about the Minister's power to decide to slaughter, but about peoples' rights to challenge that decision to slaughter.

As I mentioned earlier, I want to study the rather detailed statement that the Minister presented to us. Although he used that statement in response to a particular amendment on the slaughter of pet animals, there is clearly a wider implication for the whole Bill, relating not just to pet animals within a contiguous cull area but to everything.

Whatever Labour Members say, we have a problem in that a balance needs to be struck between DEFRA's need for powers to slaughter quickly to contain the spread of animal disease and the rights of individual animal owners to challenge that decision if they feel that there is a legitimate reason to spare those animals. We must debate that in more detail. We are led to believe that the powers will be proportionate. The Minister nods his head; he will recall that we use the word ``proportionate'' because that is a legal requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998, which may be interpreted more widely than it was when the selective cull was introduced.

As a former Minister, I am not revealing anything too secret by stating that when Ministers were advised of their powers under the 1981 Act, they were told that they could slaughter animals on suspicion, but if the animals' owner presented legitimate evidence that their animals might prove not to be infected and challenged that decision, a Minister would have to consider the position in exercising section 32 of the 1981 Act. With regard to foot and mouth, the Minister is legally obliged to exercise proportionality. We have not identified how he will make that proportionate in terms of clause 1, so that owners of animals who legitimately want to challenge the decision to slaughter can appeal. It was pointed out to the Minister that whatever powers he has in London, activities on the ground determine whether an animal is presented for slaughter under those powers.

I should like to mention the findings of the Mercer inquiry in Devon because some Government Members were critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton when she quoted from constituency letters. The Mercer inquiry, which has already published its preliminary findings, states:

``It was not obvious to us from the evidence received that MAFF was working to any form of coherent contingency plan . . . We find that in the field there would best be a military command, with police, environmental and veterinary aids at its side from Day One of an outbreak. The Inquiry heard that a culture of secrecy was perceived within MAFF and this led to an atmosphere of suspicion, confusion, changing advice and inconsistencies which in turn was reflected by farmers, the media and other organisations the Ministry had dealings with.''

The Minister asks us to put on the statute book legislation that would give limited powers of appeal—I do not suggest that there will be no power of appeal—particularly in respect of contiguous culls. Thus, we are being asked to believe that if such a dreadful thing were somehow to happen again, from day one DEFRA would get its ducks in a row and all the problems that the Minister has not mentioned would not occur for a second time. Not only hon. Members, but the farming community in general, are concerned that the right to challenge inequalities in the way in which decisions are made on the ground will be curtailed to the point that it is neither just nor proportionate.

Clause 1 is not about giving the Minister powers that he has not got; it is about restricting the right to challenge DEFRA. As I said to the Minister at the beginning of our proceedings, unless proportionality is demonstrated, the Bill will be challenged in the courts because it is disproportionate. It is incumbent upon the Minister in Committee to allay our fears that there will not be proportionality. The Minister still believes that 24 hours is okay, but 48 hours is too long, and that the science backing his theory on contiguous culls is 100 per cent. accurate. I do not challenge contiguous culls in general, but we have seen no evidence to convince us that the Bill, with its draconian powers, is based on the experience on the ground during the foot and mouth crisis, or backed by independent scientific advice.

Although I welcome the Minister's earlier statement, which, I perceived, was a modification of his original intent, further modification will be required of later clauses if the Bill is to be seen as rational and proportionate.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I shall attempt to be brief in summing up why I oppose clause 1. To accept the sweeping powers under clause 1 would be premature, particularly given that the inquiries that should inform legislation such as this have not completed their findings. I am thinking particularly of the Royal Society inquiry, which is to look at how the disease was spread and how good the predictive models were at predicting its spread. The latter is particularly interesting, because I am not aware of an independent assessment that the Minister has made of the mathematics underlying the predictive model on which the Ministry relied. The inquiry will also address the effectiveness of the culling. Its principal purpose is to discover whether there were serious alternatives to culling. To adopt clause 1 prior to those findings would be premature.

My next point concerns the Ministry's behaviour and the trust that it failed to engender by its actions during the crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton gave many examples where the Ministry's actions undermined trust. I shall not trouble the Committee with further examples, but had the Ministry acted more reasonably and proportionately, people would be more inclined to listen to the arguments for the Bill.

Conservative Members have sought to make a number of proportionate and reasonable amendments to clause 1 to give it the balance that it lacks, but the Minister has refused to accept any of them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said, plenty of powers are already available under the Animal Health Act 1981. Under section 32, the Minister has the power to slaughter animals even if he thinks that they are only suspected of being infected and, in section 87, which he can extend by order, he can slaughter any animal that he likes, more or less. Section 87(2)(a) states that

``any kind of mammal except man''

may be slaughtered by order, and paragraph (b) refers to

``any kind of four-footed beast which is not a mammal.''

I assume that that would include duck-billed platypuses, but not kangaroos. The Minister has the powers if he wants to use them reasonably. The question is whether he wants to do that, or create unreasonable powers.

I am new to the House, but I understand that the first clause of any Bill contains the heart, the meat and substance of the Bill. However, clause 1 of this Bill makes no reference to imports. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the Devon foot and mouth inquiry, the first recommendation of which concerned the need to take cognisance of the problem with imports. A food manufacturer in my constituency who imports food—legally—from different parts of the world, recently said that until the Government took the question of illegal imports seriously, there was little point in doing anything else because Government measures would be ineffective. Paragraph 1.2 of the Devon findings states:

``We . . . find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary be the subject of new legislation.''

I oppose the clause also because it contravenes the human rights convention, article 6 of which makes plain the right to a fair trial. I emphasise the word ``fair''. No one suggests that the Bill removes all rights of judicial review, but unless there is a reasonable chance of exercising those rights, the right to a fair trial enshrined in the convention is denied.

The clause is not balanced, proportionate or reasonable. The reasonable powers are already contained in the 1981 Act. Clause 1 does not mention the most important issue: imports. It almost certainly contravenes the Human Rights Act 1998 and will be challenged in the courts. On past actions, the Ministry has not earned the trust of Opposition Members or farmers that is needed to introduce such sweeping powers. The Minister's cuddly, warm, approachable, proportionate, balanced and reasonable approach is a bit late in the day. If he really believes that that is the right approach, why was it not included in clause 1?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

As I have explained, the reason is that the Government have an obligation to be proportionate. Looking at Hansard, I can see that in our first sitting, I used the word ``proportion'' at least three times. There is nothing new about it.

My hon. Friends took exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Congleton because we can always find letters to read out. It is unfair to exploit someone who is probably genuinely emotionally upset to make a political point. I could detain the Committee by reading endless letters of thanks for the way in which MAFF and then DEFRA handled individual cases. When I went to Cumbria, a whole wall was covered in letters of thanks. People even took out adverts in the local paper to say thank you, so the hon. Lady's remarks were unreasonable.

An extreme position, based on Private Eye and Christopher Booker, now seems to be guiding Tory party policy. I can tell the hon. Lady that such people might be entertaining to read, but they are dangerous to listen to. The claim that slaughter powers are inconsistent with EU directives on disease control is simply untrue. The Bill's slaughter powers are fully compatible with EU law. Other member states have implemented much wider culling programmes than ours. Pro rata, the Dutch in their post-vaccination cull killed five animals for every one that we killed. The French used extensive culling as part of their FMD control policy. We must be careful about saying things that are not true.

I accept that there is an issue of trust, although it does not help when individuals and organisations make it their business to divide farmers and the Department. That does not help the Department's work because its priority was and is to defeat the disease. Let me give one example. Anthony Gibson from the south-west NFU wrote a column whose headline said that DEFRA had lost blood samples, delaying the lifting of the restrictions in Devon. No such case ever happened. It was completely fabricated. What does it do for trust when people make claims that are patently untrue?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

No, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. I have only a few minutes left.

The hon. Lady was also wrong about appeals. There is an appeal review procedure in the Bill. She has just heard me make that clear in response to concerns raised. I want to strengthen that procedure and make it better and more transparent than under existing law. I believe that, if the Bill is enacted, we shall be in a better position than we are now and have a more transparent explanation for individual farmers and animal owners of how things work. We do not need to delay the Bill's progress to do that.

Mistakes made during the epidemic must be rectified, and there will be opportunities to do that. The outbreak was disastrous and hugely costly. It caused enormous stress to, and impacted on, whole rural communities—not just farmers, but those with rural businesses. I therefore make no apology for ensuring that we have a range of options to give us the most effective, speedy and best response.

We are also taking into account organisations' legitimate concerns. I can tell the hon. Member for Congleton that, when I met groups such as the NSA and the NFU, they did not ask for the Bill to be withdrawn. They wanted clarification, which is what I am giving.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 7.

Standing Committee E

Animal Health Bill

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Further to my request to the Minister, could the very long, detailed and interesting speech that he made in the Committee this morning be made available to the Committee in note form this afternoon?

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I understand that copies are now available in the Room. Does the Minister wish to add anything?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Further to that point of order, if copies are not available in the Room, they will be very shortly, because I have arranged--[Interruption.] I understand that they are available in the room. I am glad that the hon. Lady found what I had to say interesting. I like to think that whenever I speak, it is interesting. Clause 2 Extension of power to slaughter

Clause 2 - Extension of power to slaughter

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 4, after `of', insert `contagious'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 2, line 4, after `of', insert `infectious'.

No. 87, in page 2, line 5, after `disease', insert--

`except where those animals have been kept indoors constantly since the day before the first announcement by any Government Department of an outbreak'.

No. 118, in page 2, line 5, after `disease', insert--

`following a full disease risk assessment'.

No. 4, in page 2, line 7, at end insert--

`(1A) An order under subsection (1)(a) above may in particular refer to the following diseases:

Foot-and-mouth diseaseSwine vesicular diseasePeste des petits ruminantsLumpy skin diseaseBluetongueAfrican horse sicknessClassical swine feverNewcastle diseaseVesicular stomatitisRinderpestContagious bovine pleuropneumoniaRift Valley feverSheep pox and goat poxAfrican swine feverHighly pathogenic avian influenza.'.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

This morning we heard the Minister explain how other amendments had not been eloquent enough to be worthy of his approval. How much more eloquent can they be than ``insert the word `contagious'''? I am pleased to speak on a very important improvement. Some may think that some amendments are not as helpful to the passage of the Bill as others. How much more helpful can we be than adding just one word?

It is important to point out at this stage that this part of the Bill refers to diseases other than foot and mouth. It is extraordinary for the Minister to find it necessary to slaughter animals that have a disease that is not contagious or infectious. Why would he want them slaughtered? Having thought a great deal about that, I wondered whether the cat-loving Minister, in the kindness of his heart, wished to put suffering animals out of their misery. Realistically, however, I do not believe that that is what is going on in this part of the Bill.

I also wondered whether he thought that there was a genetic reason for slaughtering animals, which is why he omitted the words `infectious' or `contagious' when he drafted the Bill. I know that we shall deal with transmissible spongiform encephalopathy later and discuss the different types of diseases that are transmissible. I also realise that that could not be the Minister's reason for omitting those words. It may be to do with the spread of genetically modified diseases. This morning, Radio 4 announced that evidence had been found that the spread of genetically modified maize pollen was considerably more extensive than first estimated. That is of great concern to my constituents, as there are several GM crop test sites near my constituency.

Then I thought that bovine TB might be the reason that we needed the amendment. Bovine TB can also be spread by badgers, so perhaps the words `infectious' and `contagious' have been missed out of the clause because the Minister plans to slaughter badgers. [Hon. Members: ``Oh, come on.''] It might not be such a bad idea. More legislation is written on badgers than on any other animal, including pandas and blue whales.

I have written to the Minister about the fact that, in my constituency, bovine tuberculosis appears in herds of cattle that could not have been in contact with other cattle because they are surrounded by crops. The only change has been the appearance of badgers. I shall not go on about badgers, because those who remember my father know that they were his obsession and that the Agriculture Select Committee had to consider badgers more than perhaps they should have done.

If it is not badgers, perhaps it is worms. I refer the Minister to the letter that I sent him some time ago about a poor constituent whose sheep were slaughtered in the cull. The run-off went into his worm pit and now he cannot sell his worms in case they have eaten the soil containing the virus and have become infected with foot and mouth. With this gentle nudge, I hope that the Minister will remember to reply to that letter. Why on earth would such vital words as ``contagious'' and ``infectious'' be missed out?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

My hon. Friend may not forgive me for dragging him back to the subject of badgers, but does he agree that it would be useful to hear in the Minister's response about the effect of the foot and mouth crisis on the badger cull? We read in Farmers Weekly that 90 out of the 3,000 herds involved in the Krebs badger culling trial have now been slaughtered. I believe that the trials, and the slaughter policy on badgers, are still on course, so it would be useful to know how that affects having results by 2004{**nrl**}05. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be useful?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Yes, that would be extremely useful and I am sure that the Minister has much to say about badgers, and we looking forward to hearing it.

Amendment No. 87 deals with animals that have been kept indoors constantly since the day before the first announcement, and it would be a useful addition to the Bill because it offers farmers and animal owners the carrot approach--the incentive to take action to protect their own stock. The carrot and stick approach would be useful in the Bill, but is missing.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Will the hon. Gentleman define ``indoors''?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The key point that the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting at concerns intensive pig units.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

No.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Perhaps not yet. We are looking for an opportunity for people to take positive action to protect their animals. The important thing is not whether they are indoors or outdoors, but that they have been protected and action has been taken before the disease was announced. That would be a useful addition to the Bill.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Should not the words be, ``secure from any other wildlife''? Being indoors is completely irrelevant to any farm unit that is secure from wildlife.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman is leading me down the garden path to say that it will make no difference where animals are kept. During the debate, we might find out whether one can make a building disease-proof. I certainly hope that the offices in Pirbright, where the tests are done, are disease-proof.

Not only farm animals are at risk; section 32(4)(a) of the Animal Health Act 1981 includes horses. The Minister was at pains to point out that only farm animals were in danger of being culled. Horses are not farm animals and I am sure that he recognises that, when dealing with a problem as thorny as the spread of disease other than foot and mouth, he would have needed a wider remit. That is why I am surprised that poultry were not covered. Foot and mouth does not affect poultry, but other diseases do, and that might have been a useful addendum. The Bill is beginning to widen and badgers, horses and other animals are beginning to appear on the Minister's menu for culling.

No one is perfect, and we are doing our best to improve the Bill. Labour Members may snigger, perhaps at the thought of their own imperfections or at the thought of mine, but the amendment, which would insert just one word--either ``contagious'' or ``infectious''--into the Bill, would considerably restrain the much wider powers that the clause gives the Minister. What is the point of culling animals that are not infectious or cannot pass on a disease unless it is genetic? I hope that the Minister will tell us why animals that are not infectious need to be culled. I have given the matter a great deal of thought and I can find no evidence of the Ministry proving conclusively that it knows precisely when animals are contagious or infectious. Indeed, this does not help them in that search.

This part of the Bill is wide and draconian, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made about spreading the net wider. If we were considering the spread of disease other than foot and mouth, we would be considering diseases of which the Committee does not have a great deal of veterinary experience. Inclusion of the word ``contagious'' or ``infectious'' would be a positive step.

If that is not acceptable, including the phrase

``following a full disease risk assessment''

would ensure that we knew what we were talking about before culling. Given that the Minister may be doing something else in the future and although his intentions are undoubtedly positive, it might be useful to improve the clarity of the Bill for his successors. The Minister wanted transparency in the Bill and I hope that we shall get that transparency and clarity to show us which animals can and cannot be culled to prevent the spread of diseases other than foot and mouth.

I hope that the Minister will tell us what diseases would be covered by the provision, why they are not specified, why the words ``infectious'' or ``contagious'' would be such a disaster in the Bill and why he would want to cull animals that were not contagious.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I should like to speak to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). I thank the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) for his encouraging words about it. The amendment would require a disease risk assessment to consider whether a disease was infectious or contagious, where the animals were kept, how secure they were from wild animals and how near or far they were from other animals that might be susceptible to the infection. The words in amendment No. 118 cover all the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Leominster and I commend it to the Committee.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I, too, shall be brief and supportive of the two contributions that have already been heard on this group of amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the clarification that has been sought, because we need to know on what grounds he would take those powers to himself.

Two vital issues are at stake. First, slaughter should be made less of a blunt instrument to allow for exceptions where it is warranted, for example in respect of animals that have been neither in contact with, nor exposed to, the disease and are therefore unable to spread it.

Secondly, a full risk assessment should take place to help the Minister to decide whether a policy of slaughter is the best course of action. That raises questions about who should undertake the assessment and the right to appeal in cases where the policy is followed.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I accept that the amendments are well meaning, but they are unnecessary, partly because they can be dealt with under the guidelines on acting on these measures and partly for technical reasons.

The technical reasons relate to the comments of the hon. Member for Leominster. Amendment No. 12 would insert the word ``contagious''--that is, spread only via direct contact. We cannot accept that, because some animal diseases are not spread by direct contact--that is, they are not contagious. Two examples of that are African horse sickness and blue tongue, where the vector is biting insects. The amendment would restrict the number of diseases that can be dealt with under the Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister's wording appears to be rather different from mine. The amendment does not say, ``due to contact'', but merely ``contagious''.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Yes, but the definition of ``contagious'' is ``due to contact'', or certainly ``due to local spread'', and some disease vectors are not spread in that way. Incidentally, I do not want to give the impression that African horse sickness and blue tongue necessitate the culling option.

The amendment is unacceptable because it would remove the opportunity for limited slaughter to remove reservoirs of infection if it was decided that that was an option. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this part of the Bill covers only foot and mouth disease. If its powers were to be extended to other diseases, it would have to be by the affirmative resolution procedure. That is a safeguard in that it gives Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise and debate any decisions before they are enforced.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

As the Minister knows, TB in cattle is a very serious problem, and it is spreading like wildfire up the west coast. Will he comment on how it could be contained--[Interruption.] It is a serious matter, and the amendments could have an impact on its control. Can the Minister give us the benefit of his wisdom?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Bovine TB is indeed a very serious disease, and we treat it as such. For example, we are implementing the Krebs trial. I shall say no more, Mr. Conway, because you would call me to order if I was diverted from concentrating on the Bill.

Amendment No. 87 would exempt animals from wider slaughter powers relating to diseases other than foot and mouth if they have been kept indoors since before the start of the outbreak. I understand the principle behind that, but the problem is that ``indoors'' could be very difficult to define. The consultation, and the guidelines and protocols that we will issue to our vets, will take into account the way in which animals are kept and the balance of risk. As has been said, risk assessment is perfectly reasonable, but we have not included such a provision in the Bill because there would be all sorts of wrangles about what is meant by ``indoors''.

We were somewhat surprised by the spread of disease to cattle that were still in sheds during the winter months. We thought that cattle in sheds would be secure from the disease, although it may have been spread by the movement of people. We need to examine such issues.

Under amendment No. 118, any decision to use the powers to prevent the spread of disease would need to be based on sound veterinary judgment. I agree entirely, but that principle is taken as read. We shall consult on the criteria so that farmers can understand why those decisions are taken. If the Bill were to include provisions such as a full disease risk assessment, it would be enormous. None the less, I understand and accept the principles behind the amendment.

Amendment No. 4 would limit the diseases to which powers could be extended. That would be very constraining and in many respects illogical, as the list does not include TSE or BSE. A key lesson from the Phillips inquiry was that contingency legislation should not be constrained by current circumstance. That we must try to think ahead is one principle behind the Bill. Indeed, the Department is following post-Phillips guidelines by preparing for all eventualities. The Bill does not specify diseases that would not be controlled through a slaughter policy, such as African horse sickness.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendment and I assure the Committee that we will take into account the principles that underpin it. Nevertheless, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the Minister for the useful information on bluetongue--it is perhaps an improvement on silver tongue, which I was rather hoping I might catch one day. [Laughter.]

I recognise that Committee members are working far more closely together in an effort to make constructive progress, but I still have grave reservations about this wide-ranging provision. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his reservations, and for his answers to some of my questions. I am disappointed that he avoided badgers. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, page 2, line 6, after `compensation', insert `at full market value'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 25, in page 2, line 7, at end insert

`pursuant to section 36(3) of this Act.'.

No. 38, in page 2, line 14, at end insert--

`(2A) The Minister shall for animals slaughtered under this section pay compensation, which shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered.'.

No. 39, in clause 4, page 2, line 39, leave out from `compensation' to end and insert--

`which shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered.'.

No. 132, in schedule 2, page 19, line 27, leave out from `compensation' to end of line 28 and insert--

`to the full value of the animal immediately before slaughter'.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The amendments relate to the important issue of compensation. Amendment No. 25 refers to the 1981 Act, section 36(3) of which states:

``The compensation payable under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above for anything seized shall be its value at the time of seizure.''

Amendments Nos. 5 and 38 reinforce that point. Amendment No. 5 would require that compensation was paid at full market value. Self-evidently, it would ensure that farmers' rights were protected and that orders could not limit compensation.

Amendment No. 38 would reinforce that point by inserting:

``The Minister shall for animals slaughtered under this section pay compensation, which shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered.''

The important point is that full compensation should be paid. I would like reassurance from the Minister on those points.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I shall briefly add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).

EU Governments usually agree the matter of compensation. What discussions has the Minister had with the Commission and other EU partners about compensation levels? Will he outline why he felt it necessary to introduce compensation into the Bill in this way? He clearly has the right to pay compensation when animals are slaughtered. That is not being questioned, but the Bill defines how compensation may be paid in certain circumstances. What discussions has he had within the EU about compensation when there is an outbreak of foot and mouth? How does our compensation for foot and mouth compare with that of our EU partners, if I may use that phrase?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I shall take the last point first while it is still in my mind. Compensation arrangements vary among member states, and they vary in this country depending on the disease. I shall explain why in a moment. Although I do not know the details of every EU country, I know the Dutch details because I had a long discussion with the Dutch chief veterinary officer about Holland's experiences of foot and mouth disease control. The Dutch told us about their laws on compensation and how it relates to biosecurity. Their laws go much further than the measures in the Bill. In Holland, much of the compensation for foot and mouth comes from a levy on farmers, which means that the state does not pay 100 per cent.

As the hon. Member for Congleton rightly stated, the Bill will give us powers to pay compensation for any disease, and we can pay up to 100 per cent. of market value, which is appropriate in many cases. We discussed that issue with farmers' representatives such as the NFU, which does a good job of negotiating on behalf of its members.

The reason why 100 per cent. compensation is not specified in the Bill is that it acts as an incentive in the case of diseases such as classical swine fever. The current arrangement is that, where animals are affected, compensation is paid at 50 per cent.; where they are unaffected, it is paid at 100 per cent. It is important for people to report such a disease as quickly as possible to prevent its spread. The mechanism is designed to encourage early reporting, and there is a major incentive for farmers to report the disease before it spreads to their herd. Pigs that are not affected attract 100 per cent. compensation.

That is just one example. The Bill contains powers for 100 per cent. compensation, but there should be some flexibility to adjust compensation rates when that is felt appropriate, and to recognise the present regime. The amendments do not recognise that there are differences now.

There is nothing sinister here. In many cases, market value is not an unreasonable aspiration for farmers, but any responsible Government would want some flexibility to design a compensation scheme with an element of incentive.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I understand the Minister's argument about incentives, and I would generally support it. I am a little concerned that the Government's regulatory impact assessment associated with the Bill--I am afraid I cannot quote it because I gave the document to Hansard this morning--gives the impression that this measure is to save money. It cannot be for both reasons.

The Minister has made a sensible case for the incentivisation of compensation, but let us bear in mind that document. It is not made available to Committee members. I do not know how many of them have a copy, but such documents never form part of our general discussion in Committee. I always read them, because I find them fascinating. Perhaps I am a bit odd in that way. Will the Minister look at the wording of that document? It does give the impression that the motive is to save taxpayers' money.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I assure the hon. Lady that saving taxpayers' money is not the primary purpose. That, however, has to be a consideration; the money must be used in a reasonable, proportionate and justifiable way.

There is nothing sinister about the fact that the Bill does not specify 100 per cent. compensation. That does not necessarily mean that 100 per cent. compensation will not be paid. There may, however, be cases where we want some flexibility over the structure of a compensation scheme. I do not want the Committee to close that door.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The Minister has been extremely helpful in responding to the valid points that were raised. He has gone out of his way to state, on more than one occasion, that 100 per cent. compensation or full market value could be paid, and that although under certain circumstances that may not happen, he hoped--if he did not quite say that, I, at least, hope--that those who had to lose their stock would be compensated in an appropriate manner. I would have liked him to go a little further, but he has been generous. He has said, ``Trust me; all will be well'', and on this occasion I think that we will give him the benefit of the doubt. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Adjusted compensation

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 12, line 6, leave out from `slaughtered' to end of line 8.

This is a small amendment, and I seek clarification on it. It would omit paragraph 2(1)(b) so that that part of the Bill concentrate on the time when the animal is slaughtered. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could give the reasons why paragraph (b) should be included in the Bill. Perhaps I have a mental block, but I would be grateful for his comments.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The problem with the amendment is that it would limit the scope of the adjusted compensation scheme. When animals that are dangerous contacts are slaughtered, including those on contiguous premises, we cannot be sure whether they are infected: they may be slaughtered on clinical grounds, or on suspicion. Samples are taken and analysed in the laboratory, after which it is confirmed whether the premises is to be declared as an ``infected place.'' If blood results come back negative, the premises is clear, but if they do not, it will be recorded as an ``IP''.

The blood sampling process requires a period of four to five days after slaughter--that is sufficient. However, at the height of an outbreak laboratories can be under severe pressure, so we allow a maximum of 28 days to cover all eventualities. At the height of the recent outbreak, enormous pressure was put on blood-testing capabilities. The main reason was that we expanded the availability of blood testing in this country from a capacity of 400 to 200,000 tests per week. That is no mean achievement. The restraint is that we need category 3 laboratories, but they are not easy to find, so we had to convert and build laboratories to make testing available. That is why the 28-day period exists. Having spent a lot of money on increasing our laboratory capacity, we should be able to deal with tests more quickly, but that time gives us flexibility.

It is essential that we have the ability to apply assessments to premises that are subsequently declared as IPs. Otherwise, a category of farmers could escape from the application of the scheme--we are trying to be fair about how it is applied. It is intended that an assessment of the premises will be carried out at the time of slaughter. That is the explanation for the way in which the Bill is written.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The Minister has clarified that point. Although 28 days is a long time--

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is the maximum.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Indeed, it is the maximum, but I should have thought that with better and more efficient blood testing, and after the experience of the foot and mouth epidemic, the process could be undertaken more quickly and the time taken to turn a premises into an infected premises could be foreshortened--the Minister has almost said as much. That would be helpful to the farmer and to everybody.

In the light of the Minister's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 12, line 16, leave out `B' and insert `A'.

This is a more meaty amendment. Under the terms of the adjusted compensation scheme, and in the case of infected premises, the Bill provides for only 75 per cent. of the value of animals to be paid in compensation to farmers in the first instance. Disease risk assessments are to be made in every IP case. Despite that, Ministers have said on many occasions that they believe only a small minority of farmers failed to meet appropriate biosecurity standards and risked spreading the disease by their action--or, indeed, their inaction.

At best, the Bill would significantly slow down the delivery of full compensation for the majority of farmers. The Minister talked earlier about the balance in the Bill, but I he will appreciate that the balance is quite wrong in this regard. The amendment would address that balance. It would also introduce a resource-intensive regime, whereby state vets would spend substantial amounts of their time, which is a scarce professional resource in the middle of an epidemic, producing disease risk assessments. It is reasonable to suppose that, in most cases, those would merely confirm that the farmer had done everything that he could have reasonably have done, and was therefore entitled to 100 per cent. compensation.

In paragraph 46 of the explanatory notes, it is conceded that additional costs to the Government will result from these arrangements. However, it also says that

``it is not possible to predict these costs with any certainty''.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

This small amendment will go some way to reassuring farmers that the Bill is not designed to penalise them. If 25 per cent. of the perceived value of a farmer's property is immediately withdrawn under this Bill, what sort of co-operation can we possibly expect between farmers and the Ministry? If animals are due to be slaughtered, it is fundamental that full compensation be delivered.

Does my hon. Friend have any further views on how much more compensation should be paid to farmers who lose their livestock? They have to wait 28 days to find out whether their premises are infected, so they are already down on the deal. The amendment is an important step that the Committee should take to reassure farmers that they are not a persecuted group of people and that we are not legislating to take away at least 25 per cent. of the value of their stock.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

My hon. Friend has raised some valid points. The farming community feels that it stands accused of spreading the disease. Indeed, that type of statement has been coming from Ministers. Perhaps the balance in the level of accusation against the farming community has been wrong, which is regrettable. On Second Reading, the Minister used the word, ``minority''; it is a minority that is involved, and all Committee members agree that the balance seems to have been struck in a wrong and unjust way. Farmers will be given, as a matter of right, only 75 per cent. of the value of their stock and, as my hon. Friend said, they will have to wait for their initial payment for a maximum of 28 days before it is determined whether their premises are infected. They will probably have to wait considerably longer for their money because, sadly, DEFRA repayments take a long time at the moment. I suspect that the delay is due to the current dispute among staff and the creation of the brand new Department.

Conservative Members want the Bill to provide a more equitable way of treating our farming community. The purpose of the amendment is to reverse the approach in the adjusted compensation schedule so that it is presumed that farmers are complying with biosecurity standards unless the Minister, advised by state vets, has reason to believe that the required standards may not have been maintained, in which case and only in such cases, a disease risk assessment would be made. Under the amendment, 100 per cent. compensation would be payable, except when the Minister decided it would be appropriate for a disease risk assessment to be made. The number of assessments would be confined to those cases in which it was thought there could be a biosecurity problem. That would also have the benefit that valuable veterinary time would not be diverted from the prime task of controlling the disease into a bureaucratic jungle of producing reports and even more paperwork for someone to examine and on which to make a decision. It would also respond to representations from the farmers concerned, which, in most cases, would prove to be unnecessary.

There should be a clear policy on biosecurity, with clear and unequivocal advice not only to the farming community, but to DEFRA and other bodies that might visit the farm. Such a policy was not available during the last foot and mouth epidemic. It must be farm sensitive--but perhaps that is an issue for later. The argument for the amendment is forceful and sensible. In one fell swoop, the Minister could prove to the farming community that he believes that the great majority are decent, law-abiding folk who do not want to risk passing on disease because of inadequate biosecurity arrangements. I hope that the Minister will respond to the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I wish to add one or two points to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. The 25 per cent. reduction will apply not just to the owners of animals on infected premises, but to people who will be eligible for compensation because they own the animals but their animals are on someone else's premises for good reasons. As we saw frequently during the foot and mouth outbreak, many lambs are overwintered in lowland areas. That is common practice at the time of year when the foot and mouth outbreak struck. Pigs that go to fattening units are not necessarily all owned by the same farmer. It is common practice for farmers who own animals and would be entitled to compensation to send their animals to someone else's farm in good faith. The provision is unfair to that group of farmers in particular. Farmers who send lambs to be overwintered elsewhere have the choice of where to send them, but it is unlikely that they could carry out a full biosecurity check of the farm that they choose. We all recognise good and bad practice in general terms, but it puts an onus on farmers that they have not had to consider in the past.

For those reasons, and those outlined by my hon. Friends, the Minister should consider the amendment. He is rightly concerned about biosecurity, but I agree with comments from both sides of the House on Second Reading that it is wrong to assume automatically that a breakdown in biosecurity comes only from farmers--

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming--

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I support the Minister in his concern about biosecurityone cannot afford to be cavalier about itbut I must return to what has been a running theme throughout our deliberations. We have yet to be given a definitive explanation of how biosecurity was breached during the latest outbreak. It would be useful if that information were available, because even though it is not, the Minister has asserted that farmers breach biosecurity to such an extent that a penalty must be built into compensation rates in the Bill.

Opposition Members in particular have suggested to the Minister that biosecurity has been breached by all manner of people going on and off farm, including officials. I had the impression that he had not totally discounted that view, yet we have heard nothing about how those problems will be addressed and what the repercussions will be. We are, we trust, in the final weeks of this outbreak, and we hope that no new cases will occur. However, on 22 October the Western Morning News, a daily newspaper in my constituency, reported an incident--[Interruption.] I should point out that this is a shocking story. The newspaper reported that the ``Department of Agriculture'', by which it presumably means DEFRA--

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

News is a bit slow in reaching the west country.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

We do not need the Minister to tell us that we in the west country are slow. We could teach him and his officials a few things about agriculture in our region.

As I was saying, the Western Morning News reported that the ``Department of Agriculture'' is investigating claims that the bloodstained overall of a Ministry slaughterman was discarded in a country lane adjacent to a farm field in Pennymoor, near Tiverton. The point is that disposable overalls--it is pretty clear where they came from--covered in blood were discarded in a part of my constituency that has not been infected. That is a biosecurity issue that should be taken very seriously. In the light of DEFRA's comments, the newspaper claimed that DEFRA was investigating the matter, but in fact it has done absolutely nothing. Mr. Harris, who found the overalls, was advised to contact the local DEFRA office and that the overalls would be collected and examined, but nothing has happened since. He was told to double-wrap the overalls in plastic and put them in his deep freeze--he has duly done so--so that DEFRA could collect them. He has heard nothing. DEFRA is not in the least interested in this serious breach of biosecurity. I hope that it is not out of order to point out that, on Monday, Mr. Harris asked me to tell ``that Margaret Beckett'' to go and look in his freezer.

I cite that example in the hope that, when he leaves this Room, the Minister will immediately telephone the DEFRA office in Exeter and demand that it do what it told the Western Morning News it would do more than a month ago: send someone to Pennymoor to investigate that breach. If not, he will have to go and look in Mr. Harris's freezer himself. This is an important matter, and the Minister must recognise that incidents such as this need to be investigated and sorted out. I hope that he will do so.

Officials have breached biosecurity and that issue must be properly addressed. It is not a question of playing ping-pong with blame. The Minister knows that if farmers commit serious breaches, he has statutory powers to bring them to court, and I would be the first to support him wholeheartedly if he did so. The Bill makes a financial consideration in terms of a presumption of guilt in relation to the farming community, but gives us no reassurance about breaches of biosecurity by other people, including Ministry officials.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The Minister said that, in a minority of cases, breaches of biosecurity have been caused by farmers and in some cases by officials. Does my hon. Friend agree that the analogous act for him to take in relation to his officials would be to dock 25 per cent. of their salary every time they do so?

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

That sounds like justice, but I suspect that no civil service rules would allow him to take such action. [Interruption.] I should caution my hon. Friend, who is new to the House, that his comments--

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. We are straying some way from the matter in hand. Lectures on procedure are always welcome, but not at this point.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

The measure goes too far and the Minister should consider accepting the amendment, which would be seen as reasonable and fair. He has the power to act, and should act, if biosecurity is breached. The full force of the law should fall on those who do not keep to the rules.

In my constituency, we had just eight confirmed outbreaks, but many farms were slaughtered out on suspicion in contiguous culls because they bordered an area where there were a lot of outbreaks. Many of my constituents whose livestock did not get foot and mouth and were not slaughtered stayed on farm for weeks for biosecurity reasons. They were effectively locked into their premises; they could not get out or attend family functions, and suffered from isolation and stress, but were determined not to risk their biosecurity. We owe it to such farmers, who are the majority, to ensure that nothing in the Bill assumes that farmers are reckless, because in the main they are not.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

In the light of the warning that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton did not quite issue to me, I shall be careful to confine my remarks to schedule 1, page 12, line 16 and the issue of compensation. In doing so, I want to refer to the question of trust--the trust that farmers do or do not have in the Department. Many Members on both sides of the Committee would agree that trust is at an all-time low, and the Department needs to do something about it.

I want to cite two examples of farmers' distrust, and indeed fear, of the Department. A pedigree dairy farmer in mid-Devon was told that he faced a contiguous cull because of his proximity to his neighbour's herd. He resisted, because the neighbour said that his cows did not have foot and mouth. He was then told that if he did not allow his herd to be slaughtered, he would not receive compensation in future, and that his neighbour, despite his protestations, definitely had the disease. He asked to wait for test results on his neighbour's stock, but was told that that would not do. He very reluctantly agreed to a contiguous cull, then found out a few weeks later that the neighbour's tests had come back negative.

Another Devon farmer resisted culling for several weeks and reached the point where he was almost the only farmer left in his valley who had not been culled. His cows were still healthy and were inspected by MAFF vets every day. They passed the 21-day threshold, so they fell out of the contiguous culling policy. However, the Department built a pyre for various neighbours' stock, which included stock from infected premises next to his cattle sheds. He therefore applied to the Department for an emergency licence so that he could temporarily move his healthy cattle across the road away from the fumes, heat and smoke from the pyre. The Department refused the licence and the farmer had no choice but to have his cattle slaughtered. The Department told him that he would not be compensated if his cattle got foot and mouth, and he could not face years of health problems in his herd if it were affected.

There are many more examples. I mentioned those two because they are specific cases in which farmers were effectively threatened that they would not get compensation unless they toed the line and behaved as the Department wanted them to. The Bill explicitly assumes that most farmers have done something wrong and that they are, in some sense, guilty or culpable. Perhaps civil service rules do not permit it, but my earlier analogy stands about departmental officials and what should happen to their salaries.

In light of the poor relations between the Minister's Department and farmers, and the extraordinary sweeping powers in clause 1 and the clauses on enforcement to which we shall come, there are probably few clauses in the Bill that could be amended so simply. The Minister could obtain more credibility in farmers' eyes by addressing in their favour the question of compensation. He should make it clear that the vast majority of farmers are trying to do the right thing, to be honest and to abide by the law. No one will have a problem with taking severe action against the minority of farmers who do not act in the right way, but that does not apply to the vast majority.

There is huge distrust between farmers and the Department, and it is time that the Minister and his Department recognised that. Accepting the amendment would be an excellent way to make a gesture in the right direction after years of mistrust.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The way in which this measure is applied is clearly important. I have made it clear on several occasions that I am not blaming the majority of farmers, who were sensible and responsible in their approach to biosecurity. However, a minority were not sensible, and it does not take many such farmers to spread the disease. That is recognised within the farming community, and I pay tribute to organisations, such as the NFU and Ben Gill, that joined the Department on public platforms to emphasise the need for good biosecurity. We spent a great deal of money sending out to all farmers videos that explained biosecurity measures. The videos were also useful to those who reported the disease, because it helped them identify symptoms.

It is a fact that 80 per cent. of the disease's spread was a function of local spread, which was caused by contact between animals and movement of personnel, vehicles and machinery. Much of that would have been inadvertent, but some of it was the result of irresponsibility, which we know from the blue box restricted zones. I do not want to point at poor North Yorkshire and Cumbria, but we had the blue boxes in place and we have figures on the number of people who were stopped, the number who were cautioned and the number who were prosecuted for poor biosecurity. Although it was a minority, as I keep emphasising, those figures were depressingly high given all the warnings that we gave and the united front that the Department formed with farming organisations to get the message across.

We must therefore consider the majority of farmers who are at risk from the minority, and we take that seriously. I experienced the outbreak from the beginning because I served in MAFF and DEFRA. However, I did not take responsibility for animal health before the general election, although I played a role in the Department. Our officials were in despair. They were working seven days a week on the various committees, including the Disease Emergency Control Centre, the Cabinet Office Briefing Room and the Joint Consultative Committee, with reports coming in on how and why the disease was being spread by a minority of people. That will all come out in the inquiries, because no one has yet heard the views of our officials. That opportunity will come and some of the examples that Members are asking for will be made public. The number of people who are being prosecuted is already public. The figures are available now and I have put them on record in our discussions.

I am not blaming farmers uniquely for the spread of the disease. Other factors were involved, such as vehicles, including milk tankers, although I pay attribute to the dairies. I went to Thirsk where the main co-operative had invested in very sophisticated equipment for cleaning its milk tankers. We worked with the co-operative and put money into an on-board disinfectant system so that each time a tanker went to a farm it could be sprayed with an on-board electric machine. That co-operative took its responsibilities very seriously and I want to put on record my appreciation and recognition of the many people and organisations who worked in partnership with us to deal with the problem.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

On milk tankers, there was a lot of confusion concerning the Page street policy and whether it was implemented throughout the United Kingdom. One of my constituents was involved with a milk processing company and said that in one area each tanker was required to have a spare man to follow biosecurity measures, but in other places that requirement was not made. My constituent felt that it added a huge cost, albeit for good reasons, for some dairies but not others elsewhere. There seemed to be no conformity in the advice and instructions that were given to those companies.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

There was a standardised policy on the guidance given on milk tankers, feed tankers and other lorries that went on to farms. People sometimes accompanied tankers within the blue box restricted areas, but that was because those areas were very high risk . The measures were taken just within those areas. I do not want to hold those areas out, because the measures were put in place later during the epidemic. That was all part of the experience and information gained from the outbreak. I want to make that clear.

I accept that our staff had a responsibility when going on to farms; I do not shirk that for a moment. Reference was made to the steps that we would take on enforcement and I was asked whether there would be penalties, restrictions and so on. I want to make it clear that whenever we received complaints about DEFRA staff or contractors working for DEFRA, they were followed up.

Many myths have been associated with the outbreak. For example, stories of DEFRA contractors walking around dripping in blood were legion, but when they were investigated the contractors could not be traced and probably did not exist. Such stories spread from person to person. I assure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that I shall investigate the story behind the overalls and ensure that there is some follow-up. One of the depressing features of the outbreak was the way in which the myths not only spread--that was inevitable--but were promoted by some people and organisations who should have been more responsible. The Western Morning News was one. The former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), talked about a mass cull on 8 June: as soon as the election was over, everything would be culled. The political opponents of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) made great issue of that too. I hope that he has apologised for his ridiculous mythologising and scaremongering.

Biosecurity is a key issue and has been during the disease spread, and throughout the outbreak. That information will come out and will be quantified. There is no argument among those in DEFRA, or in the farming organisations, over the fact that biosecurity is a serious issue, and that we should take steps to ensure that the minority do not jeopardise the majority. The question is how to achieve that.

The Bill proposes that all farmers on infected premises--we are talking only about infected premises, not those that are contiguous or on suspicion--will get 75 per cent. of the market value in compensation straight away. Subject to them passing their biosecurity assessment, a maximum of 25 per cent. can be given in addition. We would have the powers to vary that figure so that, say, 10 per cent. may be withheld.

That should be seen as an incentive measure. I want to make it clear to the Committee that the Government are under no legal obligation to pay 100 per cent. compensation for infected premises. We are therefore paying 75 per cent. right away, and the additional 25 per cent. is the incentive for all farmers to ensure that they take biosecurity into account and to ensure that the minority do not jeopardise the majority. We have already talked to stakeholders about how to apply that, and I propose to consult on a checklist for biosecurity assessments that farmers would have to follow. It would be useful for them to know the criteria--in a checklist fashion--that they must follow. We can design it to be as simple as possible for when our staff go on to premises that are suspected of being infected. The farmer will have that checklist and know what we are looking for, and our staff will be able to carry out the assessment as quickly as possible.

Given that there must be an evaluation and given the time taken to pay compensation, I imagine that the Bill will not inconvenience the vast majority of responsible farmers. Their assessment will be done quickly and, if they pass, that will be communicated to headquarters staff. The processing of claims and payments should not interfere with the 100 per cent. payment.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

If compensation is contingent on the biosecurity assessment, will the Minister spell something out to us? Given that breaches of biosecurity could have happened weeks before, and an assessment will not take place until the animals are slaughtered, what comes within the remit of the biosecurity assessment? If a breach has occurred, it will be almost impossible, in some cases, to prove that X happened a couple of weeks ago.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is a fair point and we have thought about it. If poor biosecurity took place, it may have been outside the remit. However, under the Bill, a time period can be applied retrospectively, so that we can take evidence into account on whether a breach of biosecurity took place in that period.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Are we focusing only on illegal movements of animals, as opposed to other biosecurity measures?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

No, but that is an issue in itself. We are focusing on basic steps that a farmer may not have taken, such as using disinfectant baths and mats at the entrance and exit, keeping vehicles clean, how animals and feed have been kept and machinery moved. We shall consult on this issue, which will be transparent, open and made public. There will be a checklist and, in the event of further outbreaks, we shall ensure that farmers have a copy of it and shall publicise it so they can see the measures that we want them to follow. The majority of farmers will not consider that unreasonable.

The argument surrounding the amendment is how we apply it, and we have given some thought to that. I do not dismiss the reasoning behind the amendment, because we want to apply the measures in the Bill in a proportionate way. This brings us back to the issue of balance--we do not want unduly to inconvenience responsible farmers with the measures that are designed to protect them. However, the problem with the amendment is that it involves paying the 100 per cent. upfront, and then clawing back 25 per cent. As a general principle, it is always harder to get money back from people once it has been given to them. A procedure that requires checking that farmers have complied with the assessment before money is paid to them would be easier.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister's approach is pessimistic, given the Government's record on claiming their own agrimonetary compensation. He knocked the previous Conservative party leader for the potential cull in the Brecon Beacons, which, sadly, did take place, although it was delayed.

There is now no obligation for farmers to come forward with foot and mouth cases if they are putting at risk at least 25 per cent. of the compensation. By failing to pay out 100 per cent. initially, albeit delayed by the machinations of DEFRA, there is no reason why anyone should ever report foot and mouth cases--especially sheep owners, because sheep suffer only from the equivalent of a minor cold.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The hon. Gentleman can put a point to the Minister, but must not make a speech now. He will have an opportunity to speak once the Minister sits down.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Conway. I simply wanted to ask the Minister what incentive he hopes to achieve by denying 100 per cent. compensation in the first instance. I hope that he has a better answer than what we have heard so far.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The incentive is that people take biosecurity seriously. I repeat that the Dutch have had this system in place for many years. Theirs is a much more complex system than the one that we propose, which is easy to apply and easy to understand.

I do not believe that there is no incentive to report the disease. Foot and mouth cannot go unnoticed, because it will spread in a big way, as we have just witnessed in the recent outbreak. It is wrong to say that there is no incentive to report it. The incentive is to make sure that the measures are acquired, and that is the idea of the measure. I do not believe that responsible farmers will suffer under these measures. Indeed, they will gain if the standards of the worst are raised to the standards of the best. We shall consult fully on the detailed assessment and publicise the decision, as I have said.

The idea that foot and mouth is just like a mild dose of the flu is another myth. It is a serious welfare issue for sheep. It leads to a very high percentage of abortions and it damages their immune system, which makes them vulnerable to a range of other diseases and illnesses. People should not think that it is just a mild dose of cold, because it is not. It can be much worse in other species.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The Minister said that no responsible farmers would suffer. Does he not appreciate that all farmers, including the vast majority who are responsible, are suffering hugely now? They are bleeding. Is he aware that the average income of a farmer in this country is £5,200, and that for a cereal farmer it is £4,400? In the light of that and given the history of relations between farmers and his Department, does he not think that making a gesture to pay 100 per cent. upfront and prima facie assuming that the farmer has done the right thing would be a terrific gesture in the right direction?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I understand what the hon. Member is saying about gestures. The average income is not £5,000 per farmer, but that is the way that it is recorded. New figures will come out shortly on total farm income, and they will give a more accurate impression.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I shall give way in a moment.

Average income is not £5,000 per farmer, but that is how it is recorded. New figures will come out shortly on total farm income, and they will give a more accurate impression. I do not dispute for a moment that many farmers have suffered hardship and great stress; I am trying to ensure that disease is brought under control as quickly as possible and that the irresponsible minority do not jeopardise the responsible majority. The vast majority of farmers would not contest that argument because they know that there have been problems with biosecurity. It is not good enough to say that they have been caused by DEFRA staff as well. We have dismissed contractors who have breached biosecurity. We expect it to apply to everybody, and we are not singling anybody out for criticism.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Will local authorities have a responsibility to report breaches to DEFRA so that action can be taken in terms of payments? What is the role of local authority trading standards officers?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

We work closely with local authority trading standards departments, and their officers played a key role in relation to blue box areas. I pay tribute to them for that. The nature of their role will form part of the consultation. We are not putting burdens on local authorities; DEFRA staff will carry out the assessments. We want to make that process as efficient as possible.

I understand the arguments about whether compensation should be 100 per cent. or 75 per cent., but what we want is an incentive for good standards of biosecurity. I repeat that we are not obliged to pay 100 per cent. That is not the case in Holland, where there is a farmer contribution. We are not going as far as that, but we are saying that if certain farmers cannot comply with perfectly reasonable biosecurity measures, it is reasonable, as an incentive, to say that the maximum that they can get is 75 per cent. I do not believe that it will apply to many farmers. Sadly, however, it does not take many people to ignore biosecurity rules for the disease to continue to spread.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I have a massive problem with the explanation that I have just had to sit through, despite my attempts to intervene. I am still very unhappy. If farmers are guilty of wilfully neglecting their biosecurity, thereby putting at risk their county, colleagues, friends and neighbours, why stop at 75 per cent.?

The Bill is hopelessly inadequate in terms of guaranteeing biosecurity. Instead of starting with the premise that the man is innocent until proven guilty, it starts with the premise that he might be a little bit guilty, so compensation will start at 75 per cent. That is wholly unfair. It means that it is extremely unlikely that a person who has breached biosecurity will own up, because he is already at a disadvantage. A farmer who thought that he had broken the rules might feel that he would be better off if he sold his flock or his pigs, despite the effect on his neighbours, because he was already presumed to be guilty.

That is why we must begin by assuming that all farmers care about their livestock, and why the amendment is a fundamental step in the right direction to correcting the draconian and repulsive nature of the Bill. I have heard nothing from the Minister to change my mind, and I am heartily disappointed about that. The Bill does not even begin to encourage people to follow the right sort of biosecurity, nor does it properly penalise those who do not. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

No one in the Committee or outside it would fail to condemn people who had spread the disease through lack of proper biosecurity. However, the problem is wider than the Minister suggested. I start from the premise that I would rather give the farming community the benefit of the doubt because the majority are straightforward and upfront. I would rather say to them, ``We trust you and you should have 100 per cent. compensation for your stock.''

I have great problems with the way in which any lack of biosecurity will be decided by inspectors. The state veterinary service will decide on the evidence from the inspectors, but who will the inspectors be? Will they be suitably qualified? Will they work closely with trading standards? Will they be people who have been picked from the unemployment register and given a little training? Who will act as judge and jury on cases where there may have been a biosecurity lapse? In every case, there will have to be onerous biosecurity inquiries because the Minister will not trust the majority of farmers.

When there is a biosecurity lapse, or it is alleged that there is, will it always be the farmer's fault? How can anyone prove or disprove whether an individual or organisation has brought infection on to a farm?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is possible that somebody could bring infection on to a farm, but it is the farmer's responsibility to ensure that it does not happen.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

If it is farmers' responsibility to ensure that it does not happen, they must provide footbaths and mats--[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Forest of Dean says ``yes'', but if she waits for a moment she may say ``no'' to one or two of my remarks. It is easy to check whether such measures are in place, but one cannot necessarily check that every single person uses them because sometimes people come on to a farm without the farmer knowing, so there could be cases in which other people introduce infection. Although farmers can put up signs at the gate, they must milk and perform other tasks; they cannot stand there with a shotgun saying, ``Do not come on to my farm.''

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Theoretically, that is possible. However, an agreed checklist is in place and the farmer complies with it, even if someone sneaks in or refuses to use the facilities it is not that farmer's fault, and he would not be penalised. That the disease is on a farmer's premises does not mean that he will not get 100 per cent. compensation. What it means is that he must comply with the various checklists in relation to biosecurity, which is reasonable.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to the Minister. Therefore, as long as the measures on the checklist, which has not been available during the recent epidemic, are in place, no questions will be asked because the farmer will have implemented biosecurity arrangements, and that will be the case irrespective of whether someone has been come on to the farm without using the facilities. That is a little dodgy.

The Minister has said that instructions were given to DEFRA staff and contractors that biosecurity arrangements should be followed. I mentioned that I was in Devon last week. I did not ask to visit the DEFRA headquarters because the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food forbade my predecessor to visit DEFRA in Exeter, and I thought that it might be a sensitive issue if I asked to go. However, I was taken to the DEFRA headquarters by people involved in one of the farming organisations. They showed me the biosecurity arrangements, which they said--I have no reason to disbelieve them--were in place at the height of the epidemic.

As the Minister probably knows--my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton certainly knows--the DEFRA headquarters at Exeter is up a long and winding drive. Part way down it are two strips of matting or carpet that are not very wide, and it is difficult to imagine that a wheel that just touches them would be completely disinfected. Unlike in parts of Cumbria, there was no bath in which properly to disinfect a vehicle's wheels. I recently visited a dairy show at the Royal Bath and West showground, and the biosecurity arrangements there were very good. The same cannot be said of DEFRA's. Apparently, a back-drive into the headquarters was frequently used by slaughterers, contractors, veterinary surgeons et al.

I do not mind the Minister's preaching at the farming community, and I agree with him in condemning those who fly in the face of common sense by failing to fulfil biosecurity arrangements. However, I ask him to look at the biosecurity arrangements at DEFRA's headquarters in general and at its Exeter headquarters in particular. Prominent members of the farming community who belong to a farming organisation told me categorically that those arrangements have not been altered since the height of the epidemic.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.