Orders of the Day — Animal Health Bill

House of Commons, 13 December 2001.

New Clause 1 — Annual report on animal diseases

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Annual review of import controls—

'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 10.

"10A Annual review of import controls

(1) The Ministers shall prepare a report during each financial year reviewing all of the activities of government departments, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, port health authorities and other relevant public agencies directed to the prevention of the introduction of disease into or within England and Wales through the importation of animals and other things, including their making of orders under section 10 of this Act, assessing the effectiveness of the action taken, and proposing such further action as may, in the opinion of the Ministers, be required to further reduce the risk of disease being imported.

(2) The Ministers shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, lay their report before Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.".'.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has responsibility for animal health, is on the Front Bench, having returned, no doubt triumphantly, from a conference that the Government organised in Belgium on the eradication of foot and mouth disease. A press release on the conference says that the Secretary of State addressed it on the way in which the outbreak developed and was tackled. However, she did not tell the conference the cause of the outbreak, which is one reason why the Opposition have tabled the new clause.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

A bit late.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

It is not late. It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we are not in government; I remind him that both foot and mouth outbreaks, in 1967 and this year, occurred when a Labour Government were in office. In 1967, the relevant Minister handled the matter in an exemplary fashion and, as a result, the very good Northumberland report was produced, which pointed to the way forward for the future. I concede that, sadly, successive Governments have not done enough work on preventing further outbreaks of animal disease from being imported into the country.

The saying "Prevention is better than cure" is echoed by the farming community today, despite the introduction of the Bill, which was conceived in haste to put right legal problems encountered during the foot and mouth epidemic and also to deal with matters relating to scrapie, about which there is no hurry at all. However, the Government have not addressed the real problem facing the country—our vulnerability to future infection. The United Kingdom will be as vulnerable as ever to the importation of animal, plant and even human disease, even after the enactment of the Bill.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

My hon. Friend will know that, although the Government introduced the Bill before their own inquiries reported, Professor Mercer's report for Devon county council makes action on imports the first recommendation in his conclusion.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Minister and an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. She is right; in fact she has uttered the words that I would have uttered a little later in my speech; in fact, I probably will still utter them as the point is well worth making again. Well done Devon is all that I have got to say. Would that the Government had tackled the problem as a matter of urgency.

New clause 1 would oblige Ministers to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of actions by all the agencies concerned to prevent animal disease, including foot and mouth, from being brought into the United Kingdom. We are an island nation; many farmers have asked me why the sea that surrounds us, which should form a protective barrier, has not done so.

Our defences against the importation of disease are minimal. At our airports and seaports, checks on baggage and goods in transit are infrequent, but when they are made, more often than not they reveal illegal imports of food, particularly meat. Many people travel extensively and visitors to the United States of America, Australia or New Zealand cannot fail to be impressed by the extremely tough and thorough precautions undertaken by those countries to minimise the risk of importing disease. I admire the policies of those countries and their actions, which have proved to be extremely successful.

Why should the United Kingdom leave itself wide open to unnecessary risk of disease in the future, and why have the Government not taken any meaningful action to clamp down on illegal imports? I have no doubt that the usual talking shops will have been set up between representatives of the various agencies involved, such as Customs and Excise, the Food Standards Agency, local and port health authorities and the Home Office, in order to find a way in which import controls could be strengthened, but what action has been taken?

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

None.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

What decisions have Ministers made to protect animal, plant and human health?

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

None.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

My hon. Friend takes the words from my mouth. Answer is there none. What a disgrace. What an insult to the farming community, which has suffered so much as a result of Government incompetence and inaction. How much longer must we wait until the nettle is grasped—

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Until the next Conservative Government. [Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

My hon. Friend is right. He is very enthusiastic, and so he should be. The Government's inaction will have been noted by people in the country. They look to the Government to do something to help the situation, instead of doing nothing. I am not sure whether Ministers are prepared to take the necessary action to protect the United Kingdom from a scourge similar to the recent foot and mouth epidemic.

We may never discover the precise cause of the outbreak, mainly because the Government have refused point-blank to hold a full, independent public inquiry. At least the Devon inquiry undertaken by the county council, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred, points us in the right direction and recommends that prevention of disease through importation should be given the highest priority.

Many organisations involved in the rearing of livestock have commented on the present unsatisfactory arrangements. In December 2000 the National Pig Association forwarded comments as evidence to the then Select Committee on Agriculture regarding the Government's handling of the classical swine fever outbreak in August last year. Those comments included criticism of the lack of speed of Government action, and went on:

"The NPA fears that . . . UK pig producers are unreasonably exposed to a repeat outbreak of a disease such as Classical Swine Fever, due to the Government inaction on effective control of the import of contaminated meat."

The association continued with an analysis of the lack of a governmental contingency plan:

"The NPA fears that the Government will wash its hands of the consequent problems, in the event of such an outbreak."

As a result of the classical swine fever outbreak, the NPA had clearly understood the Government's irresponsible attitude to the amount of food imports entering the country, which remains as big a risk today as it was last year or in February 2001.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I hear the hon. Lady's allegations about lack of action, inadequacy and illegal imports, but what firm evidence has she about the scale of illegal imports? What evidence has she that the measures that we have taken are not deterring illegal imports? I accept that if an activity is illegal, one cannot guarantee that it will never occur, but what is the evidence to back up the hon. Lady's allegations leading to all those terrible consequences?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

It does not become the Minister to be as complacent as he appears about the serious problem of animal, plant and human diseases that may come into this country in illegally imported meat and meat products. He is right that no Government can guarantee that no disease will enter the country in that way, but I wonder whether he has recently travelled extensively as a private individual—[Interruption.] Would he like to intervene on that point? I think that I heard him mention checks from a sedentary position. What checks?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

On the claims that are being made about measures taken in America and Australia, I have been to those countries comparatively recently and I must say that I have not noticed any particular differences from the checks and security in our country. I am not complacent about this matter. Some issues need to be reviewed and we want to do some tightening up. We are and have been doing that, so the claim that no action has been taken is completely wrong.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

When the Minister makes his speech, he can outline precisely what action has been taken. Frankly, it does not add up to a row of beans. I remind him that he made the following statement in a written answer:

"The current epidemic has been caused by a specific strain of the foot and mouth virus (PanAsian Strain 0) which has occurred in a number of countries around the world. The precise means of introduction of the virus into Great Britain is unknown and the subject of continuing investigations,"—

he can tell us later what those investigations have found so far—

"but is most likely to have been introduced in illegally imported meat or meat products."—[Official Report, 9 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 445W.]

There is a problem, and as I develop my speech, I shall show the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken no meaningful action whatever.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I was astonished by what the Minister said just now in his intervention. Many years ago, I regularly did business with American companies and travelled to America. Some 10 or 15 years ago, it was a matter of routine that the Americans asked one to declare both in documentary evidence and in person at the airport whether one was carrying any foodstuffs or plant materials. They have sniffer dogs at their airports. The Minister must whisk through the VIP lounge and never see ordinary people.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

My hon. Friend makes her point very well and explains the reason why I asked the Minister whether he was travelling as a private individual. I, too, travel to the United States of America, and I do so at least once year. I am very much aware of the measures that that country takes to ensure that visitors do not import any disease through meat or meat products, and I admire it for what it does. I have also had the good fortune to travel to New Zealand and Australia. In New Zealand, they spray the plane. Elsewhere, one has to take off one's shoes. I know that visitors to New Zealand and Australia who have come from a farm or had an address at a farm have been put through checks to the 10th degree. Sniffer dogs can almost tell whether one has eaten an apple on the plane, never mind whether one has brought one into the country.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I, too, have been to the United States and Australia. Indeed, I have worked in both countries and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I know how strict their controls are. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if the Minister will not take notice of us, he should take notice of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)? On Second Reading, he said:

"As a regular traveller to the United States, I know how vigorously one is questioned there about any products that one is taking into the country. We have no such procedures".—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 620.]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman probably does not go through the VIP lounge and must do what Opposition Members have to do.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

I, too, have been to America—we have reached the moment when we all say where we have been on our holidays. I had to hand over chewed bits of carrot and apple that small children had been eating on the journey. I was delighted to be able to do that. However, the questions that we are asked on entry to the United States are a formality; 11 September is testament to the fact that security in their airports is not as good as ours.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I was in America on 11 September because one of our children lives in Hoboken. We were on top of the twin towers on the previous Saturday evening. Internal flights in America have poorer security, but that does not apply to international flights. When people enter the USA, they put the fear of God into you, for good reason. When people enter the United Kingdom, the opposite happens. I shall consider that contrast in more detail later when I deal with some of the measures that the Government have introduced, which have proved useless.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

My hon. Friend probably knows that the 14 investigations at Heathrow found five tonnes of illegally imported meat. In every example that was drawn to the airport authorities' attention, illegally imported meat had been brought into the country. In some cases, blood was pouring out of suitcases. The authorities would have investigated more cases if they had the money and the facilities. We should debate such matters this afternoon instead of considering ways in which to cull more of our creatures.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and he is right. There appears to be no co-ordination in the effort against illegal imports.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is an exaggeration.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I shall ignore that point and get on with my speech.

The Government received another warning about the danger of illegal imports. On 11 March, two weeks after the first outbreak of foot and mouth, Clive Lawrence, director of Ciel Logistics wrote to the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Ciel Logistics is approved to collect and recover consignments from airline warehouses and take them through the port health border inspection post. In his letter, Mr. Lawrence highlights the fact that the Ministry and Customs and Excise had long suspected that products were being illegally imported as passenger baggage, but did not have the resources to check. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made that point. The letter states:

"The issue had to be addressed when baggage handlers at Heathrow refused to handle the suitcases due to the smell and the blood coming out of the bags. Inspections carried out on Nigerian flights on the 7th, 8th and 11th May resulted in 600 kgs of detained foodstuffs."

Mr. Lawrence continues:

"On one flight from Nigeria on 15th May, a check resulted in 2500 kgs being detained from passenger luggage. It contained various bush meats and a large quantity of maggot infested fish both wet and dry. We also recovered one whole dead deer freshly slaughtered in a suitcase."

The mind boggles.

Mr. Lawrence did not receive a reply from the then Minister for some time. In a recent parliamentary answer, the Under-Secretary referred to "improved publicity" to ensure that travellers are aware of import restrictions, and claimed that

"at least 20 per cent."—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1085W.]

of legal meat imports are being subjected to physical checks. That may be because of the imports from Belgium that were stopped recently. I believe that two or three consignments were stopped because of the checks on legal imports.

As I said earlier, I do not believe that travellers who enter the country are informed that they should not bring in any animal or plant produce, nor are they questioned or required to fill in any forms to say that they are not doing so.

When we come into the arrivals section as ordinary travellers, there are, to the best of my knowledge— I checked when I last went abroad—no big notices telling us what we should or should not bring in. The only evidence of "improved publicity" that I could find in my local airport, Manchester—one of the most successful and best run in the United Kingdom—was one small, peeling poster that had been placed in the departure area rather than in arrivals. That is quite extraordinary and pathetic. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline the precise action taken since February to eliminate illegal imports.

The animal origin legislation is based on EU directive 97/98. The Miscellaneous Products of Animal Origin (Import Conditions) Regulations 1999 were made on 26 January 1999, laid before Parliament on 3 February and came into force in the United Kingdom on 1 March that year. Any product of animal origin arriving at a United Kingdom port or any other European port needed to be inspected for port health clearance before being allowed free circulation in the Community, yet Her Majesty's Customs and Excise continues to claim that it does not have the resources to continue to target the flights that more commonly carry illegal imports. That must be looked at, because the dangers are inherently greater from some parts of the world than from others.

Mr. Lawrence also has proof of the fact that the meats are often contaminated. His company found that one consignment was smuggled through in December 2000 as a cargo of vegetables and undeclared to customs. It was investigated and found to contain 15 dead monkeys and some tortoise legs. Laboratory checks showed a risk of Ebola contamination. Fortunately, that consignment was found, but it is generally acknowledged that the majority of luggage goes unchecked.

I wonder whether the Minister has seen the video prepared by the National Pig Association, which highlights the dangers facing this country from Ebola contamination. Although we are talking about animal health today, in cases such as that it is clear that plant health and human health are also implicated. If Ebola and other viruses about which our doctors know virtually nothing are imported, the effects will be far greater than the devastating effects of the recent foot and mouth outbreak.

On 4 December 2001, the Minister responded to a written parliamentary question about the additional biosecurity measures that have been implemented to check imports since February. He stated:

"Adequate measures are already in place to control legally presented imports of meat and meat products."

That may well be true; I have mentioned recent finds of legally imported meat of a cheap or substandard nature coming into the country. I wonder whether those checks would also have applied to the chicken imported from Thailand and elsewhere in the far east—reported on the front page of, I think, yesterday's Daily Express—that had been contaminated by pork and was full of water. That chicken was being used by the catering industry. Very strict checks and conditions should be placed on the catering industry and others to prevent the importation of such cheap substandard produce. We have been talking about legally presented imports, but does the Minister choose to disregard those meat imports that are not legally presented? That would appear to be the case from the lack of action taken by the Government.

The Minister's written reply continued:

"Port health authorities and local authorities are requested to undertake checks at port of entry and at premises of destination to ensure that products not eligible for trade are detected."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 261-62W.]

Will the Minister clarify the divisions of responsibility for food import checks? He says that port health authorities and local authorities are requested to undertake checks, yet the Food Standards Agency also holds responsibility. Will he confirm the exact role it plays in import checks? Will he consider giving that Government agency, which has gained cross-party support for its vigilant attitude to food safety, full overall responsibility, or should a new body be formed to take responsibility for checking for illegal imports?

The National Farmers Union has written to Members, stating that the range of different agencies involved and the undoubted practical problems associated with enforcement are putting the United Kingdom livestock sector under continued threat. Who could argue with that?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Is not the FSA a responsibility of the Department of Health? That is another example of a lack of joined-up government.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

My hon. Friend is right. The FSA relates to health, but it also relates to animal health. My point is that there is no joined-up government; it is absolutely disjointed. Various bodies hold various responsibilities—there appears to be no coherent policy whatever. I genuinely believe that the Government must urgently address that matter.

The NFU also questions whether the Government have shown sufficient commitment on the vital issue of illegal imports. Although the union acknowledges that the United Kingdom may never be able to achieve 100 per cent. protection from the import of animal disease

"much more can and must be done to reduce the risk of a re-run of this year's hugely damaging and costly events."

The Minister has told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that, in his view,

"the risks of a further outbreak remain very high"

and we all agree that there may very well be cases before the outbreak is definitely over.

Why, then, are the Government considering legislation that I believe to be hasty and insensitive to the needs of the farming community and that allows the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to plan for future outbreaks? Why do not the Government take preventive action and consider eradicating the possibility of further epidemics by removing the very source of disease through stronger food import controls?

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Lady makes the strong point that, as well as introducing new measures to control future outbreaks, the Bill ought to reduce the likelihood of outbreaks or the rate at which they develop. No doubt she will support my new clauses 9 and 10.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will support new clause 1, as one good turn deserves another. The point of tabling my new clause is to return us once again to everything that this country has gone through since February and the cost, not just to taxpayers, but to farmers, their families, animals, DEFRA officials and veterinary surgeons. The answer is prevention, which is the first issue we should consider. Through tabling the new clause, I seek from the Minister an indication that the Government are serious.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Is the hon. Lady saying that the Animal Health Act 1981, which gives powers regarding the control of imports, is insufficient? If so, why has she not tabled a new clause to that effect?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am saying that, even if the Act were sufficient, the powers are not being used. I have tabled a new clause that would make the Minister responsible produce an annual report outlining precisely the actions taken. It is a spur to make the Government solve the problem more quickly.

Whatever mechanism is used, action should be taken. The new clause may not be perfect, but it is an honest attempt to raise what I believe to be the most important issue facing the agriculture community and, indeed, people living in the United Kingdom.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Nothing in new clause 1, or indeed new clause 4, would strengthen powers relating to animal health. What we seek is a commitment from the Government to be more open in their measures to crack down on illegal meat imports and deal with the concerns of those in the farming industry, who often describe in anecdotal terms what is happening in this country. Surely, if the Bill seeks to penalise farmers for poor biosecurity, we should seek from the Government a similar undertaking to be as open and honest as possible in all their efforts to ensure that both illegal and legal meat imports are of the highest quality.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

That is a sound point. We look to the Government to take the necessary action. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I would have liked the new clause to go much further—but we must be realistic and appreciate that, in the numbers game, it is hardly likely that the Government will accept this modest proposal. I am trying to give them an opportunity to accept it, to demonstrate their acceptance by what they do from now on, and to place in the House a record of what they have done. If by any chance they feel that they have not the necessary powers, they should bear in mind that, as the hon. Gentleman hinted, they could have introduced them in the Bill. They have introduced enough draconian and sweeping powers that run contrary to natural justice. I am amazed that they have not put first things first on this occasion.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I will. I must make some progress after that, but I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is to be my ally.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Not on this occasion.

The hon. Lady welcomed and endorsed the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that illegal meat imports should be of the highest quality. Can she tell us how we can attain such an elusive goal?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I think the hon. Gentleman jests. He knows quite well that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did not mean that at all.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

He said it.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

If he said it, no doubt he will wish to correct the impression that he gave. I know the hon. Member for Ceredigion—I know the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) as well, of course—and that is not a view that he would ever express or espouse. I shall rush to his defence, and pull out my trusty sword. [Interruption.] There will be no blood on the carpet this afternoon; that would not do. I fear that you are about to rule us out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I had better get on.

As I have said, new clause 1 is very modest. An annual review of import controls would ensure that the situation remained under constant appraisal, and—a more urgent requirement—that local authorities and central Government adopted a joined-up and collective approach to import checks. I urge the Government to consider the proposal carefully, and then to implement an annual review with immediate effect. It would cost them nothing apart from a lot of good will, and they would do much good in the process.

On 14 June, the Netherlands banned the import of pigs and fresh pigmeat from Spain after an outbreak of swine fever. That move by Dutch officials strengthened action already taken by the European Commission, which at the time banned live exports from the region of the country affected. Why could the United Kingdom not adopt a similar approach to defend our shores from a repeat infection of animal diseases that have such catastrophic consequences for farmers in rural areas, for our economy and, indeed, for our international reputation?

We believe that it should be Government policy to defend the high standards of British agriculture, especially those that underpin Britain's exemplary record on animal welfare. Food imports that do not match the standards required of British farmers by law must not be allowed to undercut British produce, and thus undermine British standards.

I urge the Government to ban unfair agriculture imports—not, I hasten to add, imports that are unfair in terms of pricing, but those that have not reached the quality that we expect our farmers to produce. The Government have repeatedly refused to go along that route.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is illegal.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The Minister says that it is illegal. That means that we have imported legally the chicken breasts that I mentioned earlier that were on the front page of the Daily Express.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

There is a misconception. I have heard it before. A proposal to ban imports that do not meet our standards would be illegal. All imports into this country have to meet the same standards that are applied in relation to the EU: for example, standards on slaughterhouses. It is true that some products and production methods in the United Kingdom are higher than those standards. There are various reasons for that and various choices, but all imported meat has to meet those EU standards. In that case, they are legal. A proposal to ban them would be illegal.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The recent outbreak started in February. If the Government had been the French Government, they would have immediately stuck two fingers in the air—[Interruption.] It may cost them a lot of money, but I bet that our producers will not receive compensation for the lack of business and the terrible difficulties that they have faced because of the French ban on British beef. If foot and mouth had been imported into France, as it was into this country, the French would have immediately, not knowing what the source was—the UK Government do not yet know—ceased the import of meat and meat products from countries where there was endemic foot and mouth. Consumers and farming communities in the UK would have liked that sort of action in order to protect animal health and human health in the UK.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Is not the fallacy in the Minister's argument illustrated by the fact that recently five plants in China have been licensed by the EU to export chicken meat to Europe, yet they have not been properly or fully inspected by EU inspectors? There is no way of knowing whether those meat products will meet the standards required in this country. Whatever the theory may be, in practice those products are coming in and do not meet our standards.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally strong point that cannot be refuted. It is disgraceful that there are double standards. What the EU says is not necessarily carried out. I urge those in the catering industry and in supermarket chains, which hold such power over the sale and processing of food, to recall what my hon. Friend has said—not to buy products from those plants and instead to buy from plants in the UK, where the birds have been raised to a good standard of husbandry.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

The hon. Lady may be intrigued to know that, during its visit to Brussels and to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, the Select Committee on Agriculture took up that point. Representatives of third-world countries regarded the demands of the EU to inspect as somewhat protectionist, so there is a balance to be reached. It is not as clear-cut as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) alleges. A degree of checking goes on. It can always be improved, but the position is not that clear cut.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am not in a position to know whether the plants that he knows about have been inspected properly. I am not so concerned about whether China believes that we are trying to protect our market. If we are, we are doing so for good reasons of animal husbandry and for the quality of the food produced.

I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his travels. I understand that the Select Committee will be going even further afield in due course. No doubt in the Tea Room he will tell me of his experiences. As he travels, not as an ordinary person, but as a member of a Select Committee, I hope that he will take the opportunity to go around every airport, open his eyes and look at what other countries do. If he goes to New Zealand, or even perhaps South Africa and the United States, that will be a very good experience for him. What he sees will bear out everything that I have said.

I think that I have spoken for far too long—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hear, hear? Everyone has been asking me to give way and I have been very generous. If I had not given way, Members would have been critical. I apologise if I have spoken for too long, but I heartily recommend the new clause. It is not necessarily perfect. It does not necessarily go far enough but it puts down a solid marker as to what the Government might do to bring immediate improvement to the dreadful situation that faces the UK as a result of the importation of illegal meat and meat products.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

In health policy, whether it is about human or animal health, the essence is to prevent rather than to cure. Any health policy should include measures to prevent the disease, rather than deal with the symptoms. That is a positive way forward. As a result, I support new clause 4.

It is important that we take this issue forward. The terrible events of foot and mouth over the summer show that we must do something to make controls on imports much tighter. We do not yet know how foot and mouth came into this country. There are three inquiries on the go but they have not published their reports yet. The most important one in relation to this issue is the inquiry about lessons to be learned, which is chaired by Dr. Iain Anderson. I believe that it starts tomorrow and will publish within six months of starting, but its terms of reference are important:

"To make recommendations for the way in which Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak, in the light of the lessons identified from the handling of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain.

In its first recommendation, the Devon inquiry made the same point: the lesson to be learned is about the protection of this country from the invasion of disease. That recommendation said:

"We therefore find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary be the subject of new legislation. It is important that new powers are implemented properly at ports and airports with the increase in staffing that that implies."

Another inquiry also supported that view. Following the 1967 outbreak, the Northumberland inquiry recommended that we should tighten and have greater security on import controls at ports and airports to stop disease coming in. The Government have chosen to introduce the Bill before any of the inquiries that are examining the 2001 outbreak report, but in the light of recommendations from those other notable reports, it is right that new clause 4 should be included in the legislation.

We are not sure where the FMD outbreak came from. It is highly likely—but it is only speculation—that it came from the importation of illegal meat that entered the food chain, possibly because certain farmers did not observe the recommendations on the use of swill. As we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), other countries appear to have tighter controls, and we have rehearsed the reports of holiday entries into north America, which has greater questioning, monitoring and controls. According to the hon. Lady, it seems that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee may have the opportunity to visit New Zealand, and it would look carefully at the import controls in place in Auckland should it do so.

We do not seem to have those import controls at our ports and airports and it is right to put them into legislation. However, to do so, we need more resources. The current officials of the port animal health teams do not have sufficient resources to carry out the checks that would be necessary. It is right that we should put the resources in. One can always call for more resources, but if we are seeking to improve our biosecurity, they will be necessary. At the moment, through the Bill and other measures, we ask farmers to look to biosecurity when there is an outbreak of disease, whether of classical swine fever or FMD.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady's remarks, but I am puzzled on one point. It is clear that new measures will require new resources, but why does new clause 4 not contain a recommendation to that effect?

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

The new clause would provide for an annual report, and it would automatically follow that better import controls could not be instituted without resources. If we are to have good national biosecurity, we need to put the resources in. The Minister has rightly said that we need better awareness among the travelling public. However, the problem lies not with the naive travelling public, but with those people who deliberately import meat illegally. The odd traveller who has a deer or a tortoise in his suitcase is something that we might want to check, but we do not need the new measures for him. The problem is those people who are deliberately engaging in illegal trade and bringing substandard food products into this country.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says, but she cannot be allowed to get away with asserting that we should be worried only about those people who, to paraphrase her remarks, are in it commercially. We have heard many stories of people bringing large quantities of meat into Heathrow in private suitcases, and they presumably do not do so on spec but have a destination for it. The problem goes further than that. What should be done about the countless number of much smaller items such as ham sandwiches and other consumer items that are brought in? [Interruption.] Before the hon. Lady seeks to ridicule that question, I assure her that if she tried to take such items into Australia or the US she would not get past the first post. We should take the same care in this country.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

We need a risk assessment. We cannot absolutely eradicate all risk of people bringing in the last little bit of a ham sandwich tucked into their pockets. In the examples that we have heard about, of suitcases going round Heathrow with blood dripping from them, the system has caught up with the travellers responsible and prevented such illegal importation. What we need to do now is to provide more resources, and an annual report, to help to tackle the problem of people who import illegally as a commercial business, in the way that Customs and Excise tackle the illegal importation of alcohol and tobacco products. We need a proportionate response—that phrase was much used in Committee—and I am much more concerned about larger quantities of meat that might enter the food chain than about the naive traveller with his accidentally imported bit of ham sandwich.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the conclusions of the Department's scientists that the outbreak of swine fever in the late summer and early autumn of last year was caused by the illegal importation of a pig product, assumed to be a pork pie or a ham sandwich. The consequences for the pig industry in East Anglia were devastating and that is why we cannot ignore that relatively small problem.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

We are not sure how the swine fever outbreak started, although there has been much speculation. We must use better targeting—

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

May I answer the first intervention before I do so? We have to target resources, but my concern is that we need more systematic and rigorous controls at the point of entry so that we can catch people who import, illegally and for commercial purposes, meat that will enter the human food chain. We have already caught many of the other offenders.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I draw the hon. Lady's attention to a report published today by the Health and Safety Executive. It is called "Reducing risks, protecting people". On page 67, under the heading

"Comparison of risks against costs",

it says:

"In comparing costs against risks the Health and Safety Executive, when regulating, will be governed by the principle that there should be a transparent bias on the side of health and safety . . . There is a need to err on the side of safety in the computation of health and safety costs".

For duty holders,

"the test of 'gross disproportion'"

should be seen in that light.

Is not that evidence that the Government recognise that the potential costs of getting it wrong are so huge that it is worth a bit of investment—a favourite word of the Government—"up-front" to ensure that we get it right?

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

There will always be some level of risk, especially on food issues. We seek to improve the biosecurity of the nation through the Bill, but we cannot have a 100 per cent. risk-free situation and say that nothing will ever break through the barrier that we are trying to erect. There is always a cost to set against every benefit. I am arguing for greater and more targeted resources and an annual report, because it is obvious that the present measures have failed us in the past.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The debate is slightly off target, because it is not important that we decide today what constitutes the greatest risk to animal health, be it a ham sandwich or an illegal cargo of Brazilian meat entering via the Republic of Ireland. What we need to decide is whether it is right and proper that the Government should tell us annually what steps they have taken to crack down on such offences. It is on that basis that we could hold the Government to account. We need that open accountability and auditing of the Government's work. The hon. Lady is answering the points well, but the debate is not concentrating on the crucial issue.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

I give great thanks to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. This is a sub-debate which does not go to the heart of the matter. The real point is that we want an annual report and more targeted resources. More information should be given to the travelling public, but we want the Bill to improve control measures at ports and airports and to strengthen biosecurity.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Most hon. Members have received correspondence from dismayed farmers and people in the agriculture industry, expressing much the same sentiments as have been heard in the past hour. Many people involved in this exercise recognise that we need stronger and better regulation of food imports. As has been pointed out, the new clauses offer a mechanism for keeping matters under constant and vigilant review.

People who work at our ports and airports would welcome having the matter raised regularly, as that would ensure that they were given the support needed to do their jobs effectively. Financial support is important, but so, for instance, are proper notices and leaflets. They would bring the matter to people's attention before they disembark in this country, and they represent a cheap way to remind people to take care.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

That is an important point. Some options are simple and cheap. For example, people checking in luggage at airports are asked whether they packed the bag themselves. Similarly, a few simple questions when people return to the country would remind them of the portion of pork pie or sandwich that they have in their possession. They do not bring such material in deliberately, but an appropriate question and the correct signage could be helpful.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I agree. That would command the support of most people. However, some ports have better facilities than others. Early on in the foot and mouth crisis, I spent five or six weeks submitting requests to visit ports to look at their facilities. Eventually, it was agreed that I could visit Felixstowe.

Felixstowe has impressive facilities for checking imports. Refrigeration units allow refrigerated containers to be checked, and a computerised system checks containers' provenance. In addition, the port has many expert staff, who do admirable work. Trading standards officers, the port health authority and the Customs and Excise work together as they check containers. That was impressive.

I wonder, however, whether I was allowed to see Felixstowe because it would make me think that other ports' facilities were equally impressive. I suspect that they are not. People who deliberately try to introduce illegal meats are unlikely to bring them through the port at which there is the greatest likelihood that they will be caught. They are more likely to go for the weakest link in the chain of security around the country.

We need to ensure that all airports and seaports have the proper facilities. Improving security arrangements at one port will only put more pressure on other ports and other forms of entry. I hope that the Government will recognise that part of the war against foot and mouth disease and other diseases involves improving ports' facilities. Officials' ability to do their work properly needs to be reviewed regularly.

I was interested to read recently that European legislation in the new year will try to make the whole of Europe a fortress against third-country imports. A clear problem at Felixstowe involved imports from European countries which had originally been part of third-country imports into those countries. Officials' ability to check those imports was insignificant.

It is a weakness in the system that imports from Thailand, Brazil, South America and Asia, for instance, can go to other European countries before being passed on to Britain. Such imports are subject to very little checking. I do not know what input Britain has had into the discussions of the forthcoming European legislation, but it is a major problem. Being an island, Britain has more ability to protect itself than other countries. I hope that we have contributed to discussion of the introduction of that legislation and made sure that we do not suffer from third-country imports that pass through another European country.

The new clauses have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The proposals that they contain do not go much beyond what the Government were doing anyway. If there had been regular reviews or reports after the 1967 outbreak, some of the measures that we now believe to be necessary might have been introduced earlier. If those matters had been raised in a debate or report, we might have been alerted beforehand to some of the problems at the heart of this year's foot and mouth crisis.

If things like the movement of animals—and especially of sheep—the growth of market traders, and the conditions in markets had featured in previous annual reports, we might not have had to face some of the problems encountered this year.

The new clauses are based on common sense. If the Government are undertaking regular reports and reviews, there is no reason why—given their new-found transparency and openness about the actions that they are taking—they should not publish their findings and present them to Parliament. A proper annual review could take into account the new information arising from the inquiries that are in hand. It would allow the House to adapt to new circumstances and to ensure that new forms of security and defence were established. In that way, we could avoid subjecting the country to more disease than might reasonably be expected.

I hope that even if he cannot support the new clauses, the Minister will support the desire expressed in them for openness and transparency so that a regular review is not just seen by a Department but laid before Parliament. That would ensure that we are vigilant in future, bearing in mind the enormous cost of foot and mouth for the country and the way in which it has ravaged our rural economy. Producing an annual review and report would be an inexpensive and reasonable way of doing that, and I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I congratulate the official Opposition on catching us up with regard to new clause 1. If they had got a move on in Committee, we might have had this debate then. I remember that the new clause was first down in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). However, as an altruistic soul, I do not claim ownership. I am looking forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. There is a unanimity of purpose in dealing with imports and, more particularly, improving co-ordination of the way in which we deal with them.

In a sense, I am pleased that the official Opposition are not aiming to strengthen existing legislation on controlling imports. I have talked to the National Farmers Union, and have been led to believe that the Animal Health Act 1981 is sufficiently strong to control imports of illegal and unacceptable foodstuffs into the country. It is a question of co-ordinating and monitoring the situation and, as new clause 4 specifies, publishing a report of what is going on.

I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us what is happening. There is a need to tighten things up, although we might be 20 years or more too late, as the Northumberland report highlighted. It is amazing what people can find in the Northumberland report as worthy of prioritisation. When I look through it, I do not always find some of the things that it is said to have mentioned. It is a good report, but it is about a different outbreak at a different time. We can learn from it but we cannot treat it as tablets of stone and implement every recommendation as if things have not moved on, because they have.

So many organisations are involved in controlling imports that we must consider the issue carefully. They include Customs and Excise, the Home Office, the Food Standards Agency and local authorities. Two-tier systems—or three-tier, like mine—have district environmental health officers and county council trading standards officers and, last but not least, the port health authorities.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman praying in aid the excellent work of the trading standards officers in Gloucestershire county council. However, I recall that only yesterday, in Westminster Hall, he was advocating abolishing Gloucestershire county council.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that that is why I am calling for unitary authorities. In that way, we might have some real co-ordination, with different officers working in the same way. I am in no way being derogatory about the excellent work they do, but rationalising the services makes sense. These proposals are about improving co-ordination and making sure that people work together.

The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) hit the nail on the head, which he does more often than not. We are not simply talking about the main ports of entry. Not a lot of people know this, but I have in my constituency a port called Sharpness. On a busy week, about 10 ships come in to it. I am loth to remind my hon. Friend the Minister, but we had an immediate rapport about this when I came to this House. My hon. Friend told me that he had managed to negotiate an improvement in the herring quota for my constituency. The only problem was that although I have a port in my constituency, I do not have a herring fleet, and I put him right later on. It appeared in Punch, and is a legitimate source of interest between us.

Sharpness is the epitome of the problem. It is a very small port, although its tonnage is growing. The idea is to have permanent people on the port side looking at every cargo that comes in. We have foodstuffs coming in, but nothing mainstream. New clause 4 puts forward ideas for improving that. Given that unity of purpose, my hon. Friend the Minister would be churlish, to put it mildly, if he did not allow us to consider ways in which to improve the situation. We can talk about that, in this place or the other place, and about how to use the existing legislation more effectively.

There is an issue here concerning our relationship with the European Union. I had the opportunity to speak on this matter about a month ago when we considered the potential of the European food standards agency. In many respects, our Food Standards Agency, introduced by a Labour Government, has set the trend for other countries within Europe and further afield. They regularly draw on the evidence of the Food Standards Agency to see what good work is being done. We cannot introduce the sort of measures that we want in isolation from Europe. Whatever our view of Europe, we must accept that much of our trade is there and that much of it will come through Europe, whether it is legal or—dare I say—illegal. We must work with other EU countries, and that should be done through the Food Standards Agency. Whether we are talking about our Food Standards Agency being at the forefront or working in tandem with the European agency, I do not mind.

If the Food Standards Agency is to be the lead agency, as looks highly likely, I accept that the Food Standards Agency should report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well as the Department of Health. That is one of the only recommendations that I made when looking at DEFRA's terms of reference. We can have that argument another time. How do we empower the Food Standards Agency, what do we expect it to do, how do we monitor its performance and how do we expect the other Government agencies and Departments to relate to it?

Finally, when we talk about farmers improving their biosecurity, there is a trade-off with the need to know that there is a so-called level playing field. It will be more level if farmers know that there is a regime that not only deals with imports but tells people what it does. Because there are various agencies trying hard to do what they can, it is never completely clear who is taking the lead and what they are doing.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to allay a lot of fears. The debate has been important; I am glad that it has come at the start of the Report stage rather than getting squeezed off the end, as happened before. This is an important point, and we will have done a great deal of good if we make sure that things are tightened up and we all know where we are going.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

Perhaps I might tempt the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to save the House further debate on this subject. I should be delighted if he would intervene to tell me whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposal. New clauses 1 and 4 focus centrally on the production of a report, and some cogent arguments have already been put by hon. Members in support of that idea. Would the Minister like to stop me going on for too long by telling me whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposal?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who—as ever—goes straight to the point. Obviously hon. Members want me to respond, but I cannot do so in an intervention. I can only say that I think that the case is being made well and I am very sympathetic in principle to the idea of the report as well as to the general principle of being open and transparent. However, I am not sure whether the Bill is the right vehicle for that, as the issue is one of imports—not animal health. However, I am prepared to take the proposals seriously and to consider whether we can do something along those lines.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. When he appeared before the Select Committee and we probed him, as many have done, as to why the measure had been so hastily and speedily introduced, he reminded us—including those of us who have served in the ministerial area that he occupies with such distinction—that legislative opportunities do not come often. However, there are precedents that might give him comfort as regards his worry that the Bill is not the right legislative vehicle: the exercise rewriting in plain English the UK tax laws resulted from Parliament agreeing, in a Finance Bill, that an important report be produced. That may offer the Minister a degree of comfort. That is one reason for the request in both new clauses that a report on action to deal with illegal imports, in the first instance, be laid before the House.

Westminster Hall offers us more opportunities to debate such reports, which would also enable the Select Committee to go through such matters. By the time the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will have resolved his internal struggle as to whether he will sign up to the proposal to produce such a report—whether enshrined in law, as I should prefer because that would guarantee that it was done, or undertaken outside the provisions of the Bill.

As other new clauses and amendments rightly point out, it is also important to develop a strategic approach towards not only foot and mouth but a range of potentially lethal and infectious diseases—as suggested in schedule 2—that threaten us in the United Kingdom. The proposed report would assist in the development of a biosecurity strategy to which all parties could make a contribution.

When the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke to his new clause, he talked about the Food Standards Agency. I do not think that is the right lead body: in essence, the issue relates to animal health and, as many hon. Members have already pointed out, it involves many governmental and non-governmental agencies. DEFRA would offer the best co-ordinating point for all those elements, so that each can make their contribution to the production of the report.

The report could also be developed as an action document for a wider biosecurity network. I have studied the information issued by DEFRA in its briefing: "The Animal Health Bill—frequently asked questions". The strategy for dealing with importation covers little more than one A4 page. Most of it describes various forms of publicity. The most far-sighted statement is:

"We are also looking at a wide range of other options to ensure the rules on imports are enforced effectively and efficiently. These include, for example, the possible use of sniffer dogs and x-ray machines."

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that much more is really going on, but why not deal with the problem rigorously by producing an annual public report? The Minister might have been on his way back from Brussels and thus unable to listen to "Farming Today" when a spokesman was talking about changes in EU legislation. Those changes may in due course be relevant, but we cannot wait until then. The spokesman referred to the areas where there are risk factors for foot and mouth alone: in Russia, the middle east, north Africa, Asia and south America. We could add to those factors the variants for the possible importation of suspect material: illegal immigrants, tourists, legitimate immigrants—one could go on, but this is neither the time nor the place for a debate on all those factors. Given the complexities, however, there is a real need for the Minister to sign up to the production of a report that could form part of a proper biosecurity strategy to deal with those problems.

We should not let people forget the foot and mouth outbreak. Although the previous one was in 1967, the cases of swine fever and other diseases show that it may not be long before there is another outbreak. It is better that we are rigorously prepared; the report would make a contribution to that.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

The Minister will be aware that, in Committee and during today's debate, I have drawn his attention to the first conclusion of Professor Mercer's inquiry into foot and mouth in Devon. It is an indictment of the Government that, in drawing up primary legislation, on Second Reading and in Committee, they flatly refused to address the urgent need to ensure that action is taken to deal with imports. We must do that if any lesson is to be learned from the recent foot and mouth outbreak.

In his evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister acknowledged:

"The legal imports were never responsible for this outbreak. We do not really know what has been responsible . . . it was probably some form of illegal import."

If that is his view, it beggars belief that—on the precautionary principle—the Government have included no provisions that address that problem. What is worse, when they were presented with reasonable amendments in Committee, they refused to accept them and voted against them. New clause 1 offers us the last sliver of a chance to extract from the Government a tangible piece of documentary evidence as to how they are dealing with a clearly perceived problem: the most likely cause—in the absence of other evidence—of the recent foot and mouth outbreak.

I support the new clause. However, umpteen glossy Government reports pass through the House, so I hope that, if the Minister is amenable to the suggestions and produces an annual report, he will not see it as a soft option. The report will need to give tangible and quantifiable evidence and to demonstrate year-on-year progress. It must be devoid of any of the usual spin doctor waffle—the matter is important and it deserves better treatment than that. The report will need to be statistically—

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Is this a persuasive case?

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I have a certain sneaking affection for the hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"]—and I have tried every course. On Second Reading, I went out of my way to say nice things about him. Throughout Committee, I read him interesting extracts from publications—but now there is no more Mrs. Nice Guy. I shall lay it on the line: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) correctly pointed out, we are talking about animal disease. Clearly, there is a read-across from our concerns about the danger that imports present and the spread of animal diseases in this country to harmful human diseases and human health risks.

As time goes by, there may well be communality between the procedures that are put in place to address both issues, but the Bill deals specifically with animal disease, and it is on that basis that the Minister should recognise that—although he accepted not a signal amendment in Committee from any party or, indeed, his own Back Benchers—now is his chance. Christmas is coming, and he should remember the lowing animals around the manger. Now is the time for the Minister to show the softer side of his nature and support new clause 1.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

At the start of what I hope will be a short contribution, may I clear up any confusion that may have been caused in Leicestershire because of my earlier remarks? Of course, I wanted to refer to legal meat imports. It is important to realise that legal and illegal meat imports present a risk to animal health. As has been rightly said, there is a public health issue as well. Certainly, all of us who are here to serve, to protect and to provide services to the public should be concerned when we hear of the cases involving Ebola-carrying monkeys.

I simply want to take this opportunity to encourage the Minister to accept either new clause 1 or new clause 4, because there is a great deal to be said for them. A bit of politicking has gone on, which is quite natural, and the Government have been accused of being rather lackadaisical in their attitude to illegal meat imports. However, when I met representatives of the county committee of the Farmers Union of Wales in my constituency last Friday, they told me that they were being asked to do an awful lot to improve and maintain biosecurity. They pointed out that they had to face the financial penalties for not reaching the Government's standards, and they simply said, "Ask the Government what they are doing for us." They wanted to know what the Government are doing to protect their industry and farming communities from illegal meat imports.

Legal and illegal meat imports involve an economic cost that affects how we try to get our local farmers to sell their produce successfully. The point that the farmers wanted me to get across—I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so—is that they want the Government to show clearly how they are checking meat imports, ensuring that higher public standards are meeting consumers' concerns and weeding out illegal meat imports.

The FUW would like an annual report to be published to show what percentage of meat imports are checked and at which locations those checks take place. I accept that those checks take place at large ports such as Felixstowe, but we also heard about the smaller ports such as that in the Stroud constituency, as well as Fishguard and Swansea, where such checks are not carried out regularly and where curious meat imports end up. South American beef is sent to the Republic of Ireland, somehow acquires EU status and is then imported into this country. We would like an annual report to explain how such things occur.

If the Minister does not accept either new clause, I hope that he will at least undertake to produce a report. If he does that, I would still commend new clause 4 to him. Despite the virtues of new clause 1, by which Conservative Members try to address similar aims, the advantage of new clause 4 to the Minister is that its terms are much more detailed and thorough. It states which agencies should be covered by an annual report and casts its net a little wider than just the narrow confines of the Bill. We seek a wider-ranging report on animal health issues that might be addressed not only by the Bill, but by the actions of other Government agencies and Departments—for example, the Food Standards Agency under the Department of Health.

There are great advantages in both new clauses, but new clause 4 has the added advantage that the National Assembly for Wales would receive a copy of the report. Two serious animal diseases—brucellosis and tuberculosis—are dealt with as animal health matters by the National Assembly, not by the Minister here. Plaid Cymru would like to amend the Bill and suggested some changes on Second Reading, although not in Committee because we did not get to that point. Under amendment No. 19—if we ever get there—we shall try to give the National Assembly greater powers to deal with animal health issues.

Indeed, the National Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has said that it wants such powers, but it wants to have them through secondary legislation, which is a slightly different way from the one I would advocate. All that has the virtue that the National Assembly should receive a copy of such an annual report and debate it, and it should be able to suggest any improvements to primary legislation that are needed to crack down on illegal meat imports.

I hope that the Minister will either undertake to produce such a report, or, even better, accept one of the new clauses. However, whatever happens, I hope that he will accept that the farming community and the public need to see an annual report from the Government in which they set out the steps that they are taking to ensure that there is no further outbreak of foot and mouth, or any other serious animal health problem, in this country. I hope that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that no such outbreak occurs and that they will be openly accountable.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred in his opening remarks to a point that I want to make. I endorse what he said about the pressure that is properly put on farmers to improve their biosecurity. The vast majority of farmers realise that more can be done, but probably those who realise what can be done have already done it—that is the nature of such things. However, the need for biosecurity is recognised and accepted by the industry.

Alongside that, the Government have been making noises during the past few months, if not years, about farmers taking increased responsibility—using insurance mechanisms or whatever—for the consequences of animal disease. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to start with that issue because it behoves the Government to do their bit to minimise the risks against which farmers must take their own biosecurity measures.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and other hon. Members have said, the advantage of an annual report is that it would give the House and others the opportunity to find out what was happening. In itself, it would solve nothing. In theory, an annual report could say that nothing had been done and that could go on year after year, but we all know that the reality is that such exposure of the actions taken, or not taken, would result in improvement.

It is worth making the point that when the House passed the Food Standards Act 1999, about which I spoke on behalf of the Opposition, we tried very hard to give the FSA the responsibility for monitoring the standards of imported food. I recognise that that issue relates to human health, rather than animal health, but, as several hon. Members have rightly said, there is a tremendous amount of conjunction between those two issues. Of course, some diseases affect humans and other animals.

I make the aside, but it is an important one, that if we are facing climate change and a gradual warming of this part of the world—most people now accept that that is happening—we shall be increasingly at risk of diseases that have not yet reached these shores. We are dealing not only with known problems, but with those that might arise in future. It is a great shame that the Government strongly resisted making the FSA responsible for import controls, for example.

I also want to refer briefly to the world trade in food. I readily accept that we are debating whether an annual report should be published on how we address the animal issues that relate to imported foods, but we need to return to the point about new legislation that the Minister made in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. Of course, the Minister is right to say that, strictly speaking, food can be moved freely in the European Union, but I remind him that there is a treaty article—it was 36, but it now has another number—that allows any Government to impose import controls for reasons of human or animal health or welfare. The power can therefore be used if necessary. The power's use is considered by the European Court of Justice, and France used it over BSE. As a result of decisions made at the European Council, the court decided that its use in that case went over the top.

In an intervention, I referred to food imports from China and the increasing amount of meat imports, including poultrymeat, that come from Brazil and Thailand. We therefore need to question whether the controls exercised by the EU on our behalf are sufficient. I hope that an annual report would be able to refer to the implementation of the European controls.

It has been argued that the developing world would see the introduction of certain standards as a trade barrier. Like most Conservative Members, I am in favour of free trade as long as it is fair trade. The non-governmental organisations that assist the developing world frequently use the term "fair trade", and I have no qualms about the concept. However, if standards are imposed in this country or in Europe, we cannot have fair trade if products that do not meet those standards are allowed into the marketplace. The Government or the Commission must either prevent such imports or provide public support to domestic producers to compensate them for the extra costs that would be imposed on them.

A couple of months ago, the Minister created agricultural headlines when he expressed his belief that subsidies were doomed and would go. I do not want to enter that debate now, but his view hardly suggests that the Government are willing to set out the compensatory approach that I have just described. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, we must recognise the importance of the famous level playing field for imports.

The two main apostles of the free market are the United States and Australia. Although we can argue about whether they are as white as white as they sometimes pretend, the fact is that their import controls on food products are extreme while the controls in this country are a joke. During the summer recess, I went to Australia with colleagues from both sides of the House and, when we arrived, our bags were searched and we had to take our shoes off.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That was because of foot and mouth.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Of course it was because of foot and mouth. However, we were struck by how seriously Australia took the issue. Accidentally or not, there was no way in which one was able to bring in any food product however small. Until and unless we adopt such policies in this country and throughout Europe, we shall continue to face the dangers associated with the import of foodstuffs.

When I referred to the outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia, the Minister said that his scientists had concluded that it was probably—the case cannot be absolutely proven—caused by an illegal import or an import of pigmeat in some form or other, probably a ham sandwich, from a country where the far-eastern strain of classical swine fever is endemic. As we do not allow pigmeat imports from any of those countries, the import of this product would have been illegal.

If the scientists are correct—I have no reason to doubt their findings—the word "probably" becomes terribly important. The precautionary principle applies and I am sure that the Minister, who is a reasonable man, will agree that "probably" is sufficient to justify precautionary measures.

Despite that case, I have seen no evidence that suggests that controls have been improved at our sea ports or airports. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong and will point to the range of measures that the Government have enforced since the veterinary report into swine fewer was produced to show that significant improvements have been made. I suspect that he will not be able to do that, and that reinforces the case for the publication of an annual report.

The Minister was impressive in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. The hon. Gentleman showed that he was open minded and, even if he cannot make a commitment in the next few minutes, I stress to him that we can make further progress on this matter in another place. I hope that he will undertake that this crucial issue will be considered there. No one has spoken in this debate against the proposal in the new clause, and I hope that he will appreciate that.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I have opposed the Bill since its introduction and the only redeeming feature in it would be the inclusion of new clause 1. The Bill is draconian and remains unamended. It is extremely worrying in every way.

When the Minister was in Brussels yesterday, he will have heard about the new vaccination testing that will allow the tests to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals. That means that vaccination will become a more effective tool in combating foot and mouth. Although there is no demand for a general prophylactic vaccination of all livestock, it could at least be used as a ring-fenced measure. However, for that to be viable, the tests would have to be fully validated and international rules for the trade in meat from treated animals would have to be changed. Perhaps that is what we should be debating today.

Mr. Byrne, the European Commissioner responsible for foot and mouth and food safety, made the point that he wanted all new proposals to focus on improvements in livestock management. He warned:

"This will require improved identification and traceability"

and would lead to more restrictions on animal movements. More resources could also be devoted to stopping illegal imports of contaminated meat.

If we adopted new clause 1 and could move away from the concept of slaughter, a huge part of the Bill would become obsolete. If we could focus on preventing the import of disease and not on the 5 million animals that were slaughtered, we would be doing something positive and not concentrating on passing a draconian Bill.

I have examined other parts of the Bill and hoped that science would throw light on them. It did, because one of my constituents was the first to be genotype-tested for scrapie. [Hon. Members: "Not the sheep?"] Mrs. Sue Farquhar will be grateful to hon. Members for pointing out that it was her flock of Shropshire sheep that were genotype-tested. She is from Hansnett farm in Canon Frome and, in an article in Farmers Weekly a few weeks ago, she and her husband advocated that all sheep owners should have their flocks scrapie tested. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that that was a positive suggestion.

However, Mrs. Farquhar rang me yesterday in some distress. The results that she had been promised would take two weeks to arrive came back four weeks later and 80 per cent. of them were wrong.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. We are wandering a little away from the point.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it were accepted, new clause 1 would be the only reason to support the Bill. If it is not accepted, we shall need to consider all the different reasons why the scrapie tests have been invalidated. That is why I may have strayed briefly from the point. However, I feel that if I cannot mention the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will have let down my constituent, but worse than that, I will have let down all livestock owners in the UK—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. That may be so, and I would hate it if the hon. Gentleman were to let down his constituent, but he really must confine his remarks to the new clause.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall return to the new clause and, in particular, to the point that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that they do not allow the importation of any new disease. Whether or not they decide to eradicate existing diseases is by the by, as you rightly pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I shall close, then, with the thought that the Bill's drafting and its draconian elements, and the fact that I have been unable to tell the Minister about scrapie, mean that it is essential that we support new clause 1, and I hope that Labour Members will do so.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

I shall start where my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) left off—with the difference between the Government's talk and their action. Just this morning, I was speaking to a leading figure in the pig industry, who said:

"The Government has done nothing that would give anyone any confidence that a new outbreak isn't incubating right now."

[Interruption.] I think that I heard the Minister say that it is not true. If it is not true, the Government are failing to communicate what they are doing, because that is the pig industry's impression. I have been in the House only a short time, and sitting on the Public Accounts Committee week after week, hearing tales of the Government getting things wrong, I have been particularly struck by the fact that one of the most important functions of Government is to identify and manage risks. The risk that we face from illegal animal imports, which new clause 1 does something to address, is extremely serious, and the Government failed even to mention it when introducing the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said.

This country has been exposed to the risk of many diseases from imported products over the years. We have had foot and mouth from Argentina, swine fever from Denmark and the Netherlands, enzootic bovine leukosis from Canada and maedi visna from Iceland, and I could go on. Indeed, my constituency was heavily affected by classical swine fever. Irrespective of whether new primary legislation is needed, what the Government are doing to co-ordinate the various agencies and to ensure that their powers are being properly used is exceptionally important.

As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out, many agencies are involved. Customs and Excise is responsible for controls on the international movement of all goods. Local authorities are responsible for inland checks on illegal food products, including those that have been illegally imported. Port health authorities are responsible for border checks on imported foods. The Meat Hygiene Service is responsible for enforcing hygiene controls on meat imported into licensed UK cutting plants. Again, I could go on. There is a perception, which is borne out by reality, that there is no, or at best insufficient, cohesion between those bodies.

The Government recognise that. I am told that an interdepartmental taskforce is reviewing the co-ordination of responsibilities. On Second Reading, the Minister referred to that, saying that he did not think that there was a need for primary legislation, but that

"DEFRA has been leading interdepartmental discussions"—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 666.]

with various agencies. That was a month ago, and I am not sure how much action has taken place since then. People want action and change, not simply talk.

The National Farmers Union acknowledges that, theoretically, the necessary legislative powers already exist. It goes on to say:

"However, we believe that there is an urgent need for a far more comprehensive review of the overall framework and resourcing of the UK's system of import controls to ensure their effective implementation.

Such a review should include a fundamental examination of the activity and responsibilities of central government, its agencies and local government in order to ensure coordinated activity and an effective import control regime".

It cannot be the case that we now have an effective import control regime, or we would not be spending so much time talking about the issue today. The regime cannot be effective when so many industry bodies are flagging up the fact that they think it is not.

The National Pig Association, which is of great interest to me because of the pig farming that is undertaken in my constituency, said:

"It is likely that both outbreaks"—

foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever—

"started as a result of illegal imports of meat. There is an urgent need for the Government to act to reduce the risk of further outbreaks of imported diseases."

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the Devon foot and mouth inquiry, which is, perhaps, one of the most important pieces of evidence that has come to light so far. It is the first independent, or at least quasi-independent, review of the crisis. Its conclusion is so important that I should like to make sure that it is all entered on to the record. In paragraph 1.1 of its preliminary findings, the inquiry says:

"While it is certain that the disease entered this county via sheep bought by a Devon dealer from Longtown market in Cumbria, how it entered Britain is still a matter of conjecture. What is clear is that food is different from other internationally traded commodities and must be treated as such. It is fundamental to our existence, perishable and climate sensitive. No country or region can hope to meet consumer demand entirely from within its own boundaries. All of which means that while food traded internationally and within national borders is inevitable, it requires sensitive handling and rigorous bio-security. It was suggested to the inquiry that import controls of meat and other livestock products at the points of entry are inadequate and below the standard in countries free from Foot and Mouth."

That is why the inquiry goes on, in its first finding, in paragraph 1.2, to conclude:

"We therefore find that methods of import control must be tightened to the highest international standards and if necessary be the subject of new legislation. It is important that new powers are implemented promptly at ports and airports with the increase in staffing that that implies."

I referred earlier to the report of the Health and Safety Executive, "Reducing Risks, Protecting People". If we were to approach the risk management of imported diseases and related health and safety issues in the same way that manufacturers approach safety in their plants, we would have what are known as hazard analysis critical control points, or HACCPs. Imports are an obvious critical point of entry for disease into UK agriculture, but when introducing the Bill, the Government did not, despite the recommendations of the Devon inquiry, which my hon. Friend pointed out, even mention them.

Earlier this week The Daily Telegraph reported that there has been a new outbreak of Ebola in west Africa. That is, of course, a matter for human as well as animal health. Ebola has a fatality rate of about 70 per cent. It is suspected, although no one knows for certain, that it is carried by bats and ground rodents. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), in the light of such reports it behoves the Government to examine seriously whether the resources devoted to controls at airports and ports of entry are adequate. Customs and Excise rakes in about £100 billion a year on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It beggars belief that if the risk of a disease entering the country were sufficiently high, it would not be worth spending a considerable proportion of that sum to increase the security and biosecurity of people in this country.

New clause 1 is a modest step in the right direction in that it at least places an onus on the Government to report back to the House on their actions. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will consider what has been said in this debate. On Second Reading, virtually every Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Member who spoke referred to the need for greater controls on imports. It is time that the Government took the issue much more seriously, and they could do so by accepting new clause 1.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

We have spent two hours on new clause 1, which, I accept, deals with an important issue. I am not at all complacent and recognise that preventing disease at the point of entry is a key issue, but it is not the only issue. There are three issues in disease control: preventing disease from getting here in the first place, which we have debated; controlling the spread of disease once it appears in the country; and, of course, eradicating the disease and the measures needed to do that. All those criteria are important.

I have differences, not necessarily with Members who have spoken this afternoon, but with people who try to present the issue of import control as the only method of controlling disease in this country. Some of them would be happy to have import control barriers and stop meat coming in from other countries. It is a myth that everything that comes from abroad is substandard; that is not the case, and no one in the House would suggest that. However, some Members have suggested that our import controls are substandard in comparison with other countries. There is no evidence of that; our import controls, procedures and methods are as good as, if not better than, those of any other European country.

Unlike a lot of Members, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) has been to see one of our border inspection posts, through which all third-country imports have to go. They are well run, efficient and well resourced; some are very modern indeed. That does not mean that we should not look at whether we should make them better and whether there is a case for strengthening border controls and inspections. The Department has been doing that; we have spent more money on publicity at points of entry so that people are aware of controls. We have had a cross-Department review as the issue is a multi-agency one, involving Customs and Excise, port health authorities and local authorities. The Food Standards Agency provides an overview, but it does not exercise regulatory control over the inspections. Our minds are certainly not closed to improvements and, if necessary, strengthened law and regulations. I have doubts about adding the new clauses to the Bill because the powers that we have at present can be changed by order. Parliamentary time is a precious resource; if regulations on import controls need to be changed, that can be done by order, so primary legislation is not necessarily required.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am dismayed—[Interruption.] Well, I shall probably be even more dismayed later. The Minister is introducing draconian and sweeping powers to deal with the spread of disease and its eradication, yet the Government have not done anything of any consequence—and he knows that they have not—about the importation of disease into the United Kingdom. We can gather from what he has said that nothing done so far has been in the least bit effective. In an intervention, he gave a different view from the one that he is giving now. Will he revert to type and accept the new clause? He could have done something about the problem in the Bill and taken action, but that has not happened.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Lady is again confusing the facts. The Bill deals with animal health, but import regulations deal with a different subject although, of course, if necessary, they can be changed. However, I come back to the point that allegations are just allegations; the evidence is not there. That does not mean that illegal imports are not coming into the country—the fact that we have been seizing them demonstrates that they have been coming in. There have been seizures of illegal commercial imports; the bush meat seizures at Heathrow airport are an example of Customs and Excise applying a risk assessment at points of entry and taking efficient action. Some of the people involved in the organised illegal bush meat trade have been sent to jail. I may be wrong, but that has never happened before, and it shows how seriously the Government treat illegal imports and demonstrates that action has to be taken.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that primary legislation was, in his view, almost certainly not necessary. However, the excellent new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friends, and new clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), are agnostic on the question of whether or not primary legislation is required; they merely require the Minister to report back to the House.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get to it, I shall answer his point later. I want to deal first with the myths and put things in perspective.

We are not out of sync with other countries, especially European ones, in the measures that we have taken to protect our consumers as well as animal and public health. I saw an interesting television programme about American border inspections. The Americans take that seriously, and I do not wish to imply otherwise, but the programme showed a guy searching luggage. He found some imported meat, including dead tropical rats, but because he could not find dead tropical rats in his guidebook he said that they must be all right, and allowed them into the country. That does not strike me as wonderful enforcement at the point of entry.

Let us put things in perspective. We need to look at enforcement. At the conference yesterday, I saw the presentation by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which hon. Members have mentioned. The person giving the presentation was also in the European Union foot and mouth disease group. The presentation showed the scale of the spread of foot and mouth and indicated that 2000-01 has been the worst year ever for international outbreaks, not just those in the UK. A survey of risk assessment by the group demonstrated that the UK was last in risk assessment, which proves that one should not be complacent about many of the issues.

We shall have to look at those issues, but they are not the only ones. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) rightly said that the Devon inquiry was the first one. As she said, we know that the disease came to Devon via sheep movements in the country but, incredibly, the report did not mention biosecurity measures to stop the spread of disease.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

Nobody participating in our debate or in the Bill's Committee stage has suggested that importation is the only thing that matters, although it is important, as the Minister will acknowledge. It would help to put things in perspective if he told us the total resource or financial commitment that the Government are making available towards preventing the importation of illegal food, and the number of people employed in that role.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is a multi-agency responsibility that goes beyond government, so I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but I am happy to try to get them for the hon. Gentleman, as I believe in being open and transparent. As has been said, having a report is not a bad thing so that people can see what is being done. From the Government's point of view, it is a good idea to demonstrate what is being done by giving the number of prosecutions and seizures. I am not against that principle. In fact, my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who tabled new clause 4, made a good case; a case was also made for clause 1. My hon. Friends tabled a similar amendment in Committee, so they have been thinking ahead.

To a certain extent, we already conduct a review. Under the Animal Health Act 1981, a report on expenditure incurred, prosecutions under the Act, and the incidence of disease in imported animals is produced every year. Of course, that report deals with imported animals so it is not quite the same as the report proposed in the new clauses. I recognise that, and I do not disagree with the very persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friends.

The question is whether it is legally possible to include such a clause in a Bill that does not concentrate on imports. That does not mean that we do not take the new clause seriously; we do. The issue is the nature of the Bill. I will consult the Department's lawyers and other Departments, as it is a cross-Government matter. The principle of an annual report is perfectly reasonable and fair. If a measure along the lines of the new clause can be arranged, whether it is introduced in the Bill or elsewhere, I am willing to press the case.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which warmed up a little towards the end, but having considered the matter and listened to the debate, in which virtually every speaker from both sides of the House supported the principle of an annual report, which the Minister himself accepted, I fear that I cannot accept his undertaking to introduce the measure in another form, for the simple reason that we know that there is tremendous pressure on legislative time.

Unless I can have a cast-iron guarantee that the measure will be introduced in the other place, I must press the motion to a Division. If the Minister can give me a cast-iron guarantee now that the measure will be introduced in the other House during the passage of the Bill, I shall accept what he says.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Lady knows that, because of the wording of both new clauses, I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee. I have given the House an undertaking that I am willing to consider ways in which we can advance the principle. That may well involve changes in the Bill, but I shall have to take advice on that, and I shall certainly do so.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Although the Minister accepts the principle of what we have been seeking, we want the measure itself. My original decision must therefore stand, and I must press the motion to a vote.

New Clause 5 — Officials: biosecurity

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that we shall be able to make progress, as there are many other new clauses and amendments that we would like to debate. The new clause, which deals with biosecurity in relation to officials, is extremely important and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it. The Bill as a whole introduces the concept of conditional payment in relation to compensation for slaughtered animals. In the first instance, it provides for 75 per cent. compensation, subject to the judgment that the biosecurity arrangements on the farm in question are suitable.

I believe that the judgment that is made in the Bill is contrary to natural justice. The Government seem to have tried to smear farmers by saying that they were responsible for the spread of the disease and that they breached biosecurity to such an extent that a penalty must be introduced in respect of compensation or compulsory purchase of slaughtered animals. In Committee, the Minister conceded that that charge could be levelled at only a very few people in the farming community. One must, therefore, ask rhetorically why the Bill does not specify 100 per cent. compensation for the majority of farmers, and 75 per cent. compensation for those whose biosecurity arrangements are found not to be satisfactory by the Minister or officials sent by him.

I recognise that compensation is the subject of several amendments that will be considered later, so I shall not mention the aspects with which they deal, but I must tell the Minister that the outbreak was under way for some considerable time before any biosecurity measures were introduced. Such measures were introduced very late in the day during the recent epidemic. Certainly, no specific advice was available at the outset to farmers or those in the rural community about how best they could stop the spread of disease. That may have been due to the lack of a workable contingency plan. The Minister said in Committee that such a plan was available—

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Absolutely.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

If that is the case, I would be grateful to see it. If such a plan was available, it is obvious that it was not in the least suitable for the sort of outbreak that occurred in this country. The disease obviously spread considerably faster than the Minister and his officials expected, perhaps because of delays in clamping down on animal movements in the first few days of the outbreak.

While farmers are being accused by implication in the compensation measures in the Bill, many cases have been brought to my attention in which breaches of biosecurity occurred in respect of DEFRA officials and people who were subcontracted to undertake duties on behalf of the Department, whether they were the so-called dirty vets, slaughtermen or other officials. In case the Minister accuses me of promoting myths, let me say that I do not believe that these stories are myths. There were many biosecurity lapses among officials. 4 pm

Farmers are keen to have good biosecurity. However, the Bill almost characterises them as initially having no biosecurity arrangements. We should treat farmers and officials equally. The Minister has agreed biosecurity arrangements, and I understand that Department officials who call on the farmers will go through the check list. If it is right for farmers to put those arrangements in place, those who work for the Department should also be liable for breaches of them. The new clause would redress the balance by ensuring that officials who act on the Minister's behalf are charged with the need to operate under strict biosecurity arrangements. If they are found to have failed and are convicted, an appropriate fine should be levied. New clause 5 provides for that.

There is little more to say about the provision, which simply introduces equity as between the farming community and Department officials. I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

The term "biosecurity" became common this year. When it was first used, few people understood it precisely. I forget the actual date in February when the outbreak began; it was imprinted on my mind once—I am sure that it remains imprinted on the Minister's. However, it is instructive to consider what was happening then. In my part of the world, we ran out of disinfectant in days. The strategic stores of disinfectant to facilitate biosecurity were not available. Yet we have been told that robust contingency plans were in place. They did not extend to disinfectant for extensive use.

Biosecurity became important, and the practices developed and the protocols were drawn up as we went along. Towards the end of the outbreak, biosecurity measures were considerably better than at the beginning. That betrays the lack of robustness in the contingency planning exercise. We had to make up the biosecurity as the epidemic took hold.

I cannot go on without referring to the Department's refusal to support Cornwall county council in establishing biosecurity on the Tamar bridge. It may have been a small measure, but it would have been effective in making people realise what biosecurity was about. It might not have prevented much infection, but it would have raised awareness and made people more conscious of the need for biosecurity. Nevertheless, it did not happen. I expect that we now have a new definition of biosecurity and I hope that agriculture will continue to improve on it. We will need to ensure that biosecurity is maintained.

I disagree violently with confusing penalties with fines. The idea of reducing compensation until farmers proved that they had taken the right biosecurity measures is wrong. The tiny minority who do not ensure that their biosecurity measures are appropriate should be fined. That should apply to anyone who is not making the required efforts to ensure that we get on top of any future disease outbreaks. After all, we fine those who walk dogs on paths and beaches from which they are banned. There is therefore no reason why farmers who have been convicted should not be subjected to fines. However, they should not be subjected to a summary reduction in compensation.

Instead of

"summary conviction to a fine",

officials who deliberately—that is unlikely—or through lack of forethought are found guilty of breaching biosecurity should be properly fined. If the Government do not like that idea, they could ensure that the officials receive only 75 per cent. of their salary and make them apply for the other 25 per cent. once they prove that they have not contravened biosecurity measures.

The point has been well made that everyone, including DEFRA and other Government officials, members of the public and farmers should ensure that they participate in the biosecurity plan. The measures should be properly enforced.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, in Committee, the Minister said:

"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"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 November 2001; c. 134.]

Does not that apply to officials? Should they not have an incentive for good biosecurity? Does not the new clause provide for that?

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

It would achieve that. If officials come before a court because they have contravened the regulations that they are there to enforce, they should suffer a penalty. Farmers should suffer a similar fate; their compensation should not be reduced arbitrarily. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If farmers are expected to ensure that they fulfil biosecurity regulations on pain of reduction in compensation, officials should recognise that they do not have special immunity and should be subjected to the same sort of penalties. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I do not have much sympathy with the new clause—apart from the point, which I have repeatedly made, that biosecurity covers everyone who has contact with livestock farms. I accept that that applies to DEFRA staff. It also applies to people who do business with livestock farms, for example, by delivering feed or collecting milk, and to farmers. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) was right to repeat the point that I made in Committee: we are not obliged to pay the 100 per cent. market rate for diseased animals.

We are considering infected premises and we are trying to give people an incentive to focus on biosecurity. We were surprised that the disease was not being spread by wind-borne infection, as we thought originally. It was spread in that way in 1967 and during the outbreak between then and now. The epidemiology showed that in 80 per cent. of cases the infection was locally spread through animal-to-animal contact, movement of people, machines and vehicles. That is serious.

Again, I put it on record that the majority of farmers were considerate and careful and took biosecurity seriously. Early in the outbreak, we wrote to farmers about biosecurity. Later, we sent a video to every livestock farmer. We applied the blue-box control scheme towards the end of the outbreak, when we had the resources to do that. We could not have done that at its height because the resources did not exist. Those biosecurity measures had a real impact on bringing the epidemic under control.

That is one of the issues that we are going to have to examine in relation to the lessons learned, but it appears that biosecurity as a disease-control measure was one of the key factors in bringing it under control. That is why we must take it seriously. It is certainly true that only a minority of farmers apply poor biosecurity, but every farmer can give examples of people they know in their area who do so. It does not take many people to spread the disease and to keep it going. That is why biosecurity is such a serious issue.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

It is well known that we are talking about only a tiny minority of people here. I call them passive delinquents, in that they often do not breach biosecurity regulations deliberately. Things just happen to them. Perhaps they do not take as much care as they should, but they do not do it deliberately, and I do not think that they should be so harshly dealt with.

In the light of the lessons that we have learned, are there now strategic stocks of disinfectant carefully stored throughout the country? That is the very material that will be required should any terrible occurrence need to be acted on quickly. One of the major lessons that we should have learned is that sufficient stocks should be strategically placed throughout the country.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My understanding is that there were always sufficient stocks. The issue was where they were located. When there was high demand in certain parts of the country, the commercial stocks were exhausted quite quickly. There was always plenty of disinfectant; it was just a question of getting it to the right places and meeting that demand. Of course, there is no problem anywhere at the moment, but we need to give some thought to the matter for the future in the light of lessons learned.

I cannot support the new clause, because it singles out DEFRA staff. I repeat that biosecurity requirements apply to everybody. We are not suggesting that we prosecute farmers who are in breach of biosecurity. We are saying that there will be an incentive in relation to compensation payments. Given that the majority of farmers will comply, and that we intend to go out to consultation about the procedures for the assessment, which I believe can be done very quickly, the vast majority of farmers are not going to be inconvenienced.

I agree with the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) that many of the breaches of biosecurity were passive, in that people just did not think about what they were doing. The Bill is an incentive for them to think about that a bit more. So far as our staff are concerned, there were many myths about foot and mouth and some people were always trying to find a scapegoat. It is similar to the question of animal imports; people said that all the problems were to do with imports, that if we could sort them out there would not be a problem, and that no one else was involved.

The theory was that all the problems were to do with DEFRA staff, and if it were not for them, there would not have been a problem, so people felt that they did not have to do anything about it. That was a minority view, of course, but one that is held in some quarters, and I reject it. We have made it clear to our staff that they have to follow good biosecurity. We do not need this new clause because our staff are given those instructions, and we expect them to abide by them.

When complaints were received, every one was investigated. Most of them were found to be untrue, and in many cases there was no evidence. When there was evidence, we did not hesitate to take action against the people responsible, and in the case of contractors, that included dismissing them.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

There appears to be a majority view outside, in the countryside and among members of the farming community, not so much that the Government are to blame for everything that went wrong but that the Government are putting them on trial. That is what is causing so much outrage and concern. That lies at the heart of our opposition to the Bill. The new clause is an attempt to shift the balance back a little in favour of the farming community, and to place some burdens of responsibility on DEFRA officials.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

But it does not; it seeks to criminalise DEFRA officials uniquely, which is one reason why I reject it.

The view that we are trying to blame farmers is a completely false perception, and it comes from some people who think that farmers played no role whatever in disease spread. We know that that is not so, although in many cases, they spread the disease inadvertently. The Government recognise that we have issues to examine. I, as a Minister, have never ducked responsibility or ducked criticism where it was due. We have to learn lessons from a range of issues over the course of the outbreak, but that applies to everybody, not just to DEFRA officials.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Would the Minister care to comment on an answer to a written question that I tabled a week ago, which shows a significant increase in the number of people keeping one farm animal, or one to five farm animals? Contrary to the myth that we have seen the death of the small farmer, there has been a significant increase in their numbers. All those problems need to be factored into how we control disease.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is absolutely right. Ironically, there seems to be a growth in small farms. Those figures include lifestyle farmers and part-time farmers. That raises a number of issues, including registration—do we know where all these animals are?—that we are going to have to address. I am sure that the independent inquiries are also going to have to address those issues.

It is not fair to single out DEFRA staff in this way. Most complaints against them were completely groundless. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) raised the famous issue of the overalls in the deep freeze. We have checked that out, and the farmer concerned is now saying that the overalls have nothing to do with DEFRA. As a matter of fact, he has some rather interesting theories about them. We have asked him if he will let us have the overalls, so that we can test them, but he has refused, saying that they are not in his deep freeze but in someone else's. So we have not quite got to the bottom of that.

I do not want to go into too much detail because the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is not here, so I shall write her a letter with all the details. There was another example of a vet who was said to be a "dirty vet". We checked that out and it was also untrue. A lot of claims are being made, but when we look into the details, they do not stand up to examination.

I want to make it clear that if there are breaches by our own staff—I accept that our staff have responsibilities, too—we shall not hesitate to take action. That being the case, the new clause is completely unnecessary.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The Minister has given a full response to the points raised during this short debate on biosecurity and officials. We would agree that biosecurity is a very important issue for everyone, and our objective in tabling the new clause was to point out that it was not just the farming community that had a responsibility in these matters. The Minister said that the officials and subcontractors who work for the Department are—or will be—under strict instructions as to what biosecurity arrangements should be in place. That assurance goes some way to addressing our concerns on this matter, and I am grateful to the Minister for that.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7 — Duty of Ministers to disposal of carcasses

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is not in his place at the moment, said that it might be more appropriate to refer to this Bill as the animal slaughter and disposal of carcases Bill, rather than the Animal Health Bill. That sounds, uncharacteristically, a rather crude and vulgar interpretation of the Bill. I have some sympathies with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that we often dress up in euphemisms of parliamentary language rather brutal and unsavoury facts.

New clause 7 comes to the heart of the matter of public health and of beating foot and mouth. Following Second Reading, the Standing Committee, and through the deliberations of the Select Committee and proposals put forward by various outside parties including the farming community and non-governmental organisations, there is no doubt that a common theme has been that the Bill has been pushed through with insufficient lessons learned from the current and previous foot and mouth outbreaks. There is a sense—not only on the Opposition, but on the Government Benches—that the Government have failed to established a public independent inquiry. Only through that would we learn real lessons.

Owing to the way in which the Bill is framed, we had to table amendments either to mitigate against the Minister acquiring unnecessary and, in some examples, inapplicable powers or to propose measures based on what happened on the ground during the foot and mouth outbreak. Given its nature, the Government's initial dithering, the failure of early measures and the subsequent spread of the disease, Ministers and officials were overwhelmed by events.

I have some sympathy with Ministers and officials in that the speed and extent of the outbreak and spread of the disease meant that the old MAFF organisation was overwhelmed. This is neither the time nor the place to go into that, but I hope that we shall learn lessons from it. A serious consequence was the unedifying spectacle in many areas of large numbers of slaughtered animals lying in fields, farm yards, close to human habitation and by roads and tracks over many, many days.

That was emotionally stressful for farmers and their families, and it was probably emotionally stressful for the vets and MAFF officials involved in the slaughter and the administration. Of course, it was also stressful for local people who had to move around what were, in effect, killing fields. Ultimately, it had a major impact on public opinion, and the Minister will be only too well aware of the great outrage and revulsion in Parliament.

The Minister knows that the failure to keep up with carcase disposals became a logistical nightmare and, as foot and mouth spread, the carcase backlog became even greater. Apart from the emotional upset caused by widespread scenes of unburied dead animals, increasingly they posed a health risk. We know from those recent experiences, which were graphically illustrated by accounts from hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Committee, that there was order, counter-order and disorder from MAFF and then DEFRA, overwhelmed by events.

Undoubtedly, there was serious confusion over the disposal of carcases: whether to bury or burn and whether they were to be buried or burned near to or far from the culling site. Thousands of carcases were transported many miles, and they appeared to be moved at random before being buried or disposed of with little consideration of the environmental impact. All those examples posed a major health problem and I would argue that they effectively lost the public relations war for MAFF.

The Minister made this clear in Committee:

"Slaughter is the most effective way of stopping virus production, for the reasons that I gave. As soon as the animal is dead, it stops producing the virus."

We still have no definitive proof that vaccination would have alleviated the spread or that it might be the answer for the future. From what the Minister has put on record, I understand that, in the event of another foot and mouth outbreak, slaughter will be the main method of preventing the disease from spreading.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I have not put that on record. I said that I would not want culling on the scale witnessed in this outbreak, and we must consider measures to prevent that. On vaccination, one outcome of the conference I attended yesterday is realistic proposals for greater use of vaccination, but that would take place alongside some culling. That would be reduced culling, but we still come back to this issue: if we are to cull, we must do so quickly and efficiently.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which probably reinforces what I am about to say. There are few lawyers in the Chamber, but, as we are aware, it is always best to know the answer to any question we are about to ask. Given our experiences, it is incumbent on the Minister and DEFRA to ensure that carcases are disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. As the hon. Gentleman said in Committee:

"Ideally, we want to remove carcases as quickly as possible".

However, he added that despite being desirable, the proposed 48-hour period was impractical.

The Minister's objections were based on the scale of the epidemic and the logistical problems, including manpower, equipment and vehicular movement:

"Such practical problems mean that an absolute commitment to a 48-hour target cannot be given. I do not dispute that that target is desirable."

Having said that, however, he used a get-out clause:

"I am not saying that some of those practical problems cannot be overcome. They will be dealt with in inquiries and in future contingency plans."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 November 2001; c. 62-3.]

So, disposal of carcases within 48 hours is desirable on every criterion, including disease spread prevention, public health and public sentiment.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My hon. Friend mentions a series of matters, including inquiries. Would it not help support the Minister's point of view if all those matters, instead of being kept behind closed doors, were subject to an inquiry in public, so that we would all know precisely what happened? If only we all knew what happened, that would help the Minister enormously in putting his case.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That point has been made from these Benches and, indeed, from the Government Benches on numerous occasions. In a sense, we are groping in the dark as we consider the Bill, but my line of argument in support of the new clause uses the evidence as provided by the Minister himself.

The problem is organisational and logistical, which is where MAFF-DEFRA so demonstrably failed during the recent outbreak. That is not only the conclusion of the Devon county council report, but what the public observed over several months, and farming communities in such areas had direct experience of it.

The organisational and logistical failure of MAFF-DEFRA was highlighted when the Prime Minister ordered the use of Army personnel, under the command of a solid but inspirational brigadier, to get a grip on the slaughter and disposal of carcases in Cumbria. The Minister will forgive me for saying that my party had recommended that to Ministers over previous weeks, but it was dismissed as largely irrelevant.

The Army provided leadership, organisation and planning, although it went in cold, and worked closely with local vets and MAFF officials, getting the problem under control, dealing with the carcase backlog and, as those events came to an end, disposing of slaughtered animals almost within the 48-hour time frame.

My colleagues and I have tabled the new clause because we believe that, for reasons of science, health and public sentiment, it is right and proper that the Minister should have a duty to ensure that the carcase of any animal slaughtered under the provisions of the Bill be disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. He agrees that that is desirable, but says it is impractical. We contend that the Prime Minister's decision to use the Army shows that, with leadership, organisational skills and the necessary resources, the desirable becomes the achievable.

The Minister can square the circle only by lobbying the Treasury and the Prime Minister to point out that, as the Minister said today, it is likely that there will be further outbreaks of foot and mouth or some other animal disease in the near future, possibly on the scale of the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Unfortunately we did not learn the lessons of the swine fever outbreak, which affected my constituency. If we do not learn the lessons of this outbreak—if, again, we do not allocate the necessary resources, establish the necessary organisation and set targets—we will, I am afraid, witness a repeat performance.

I urge the Minister to accept that our proposal is not just desirable, but achievable in practice.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I commend the new clause to the Minister for, dare I say, his own good.

I know exactly what the conversation will have been in the Department when the Minister was preparing to defend his side. His officials will have said "This is a difficult point, Minister, and of course you will be sympathetic, but we should advise you that, all things being taken together and in the round, there may be trouble. It would be much better if you said no. Of course we will try our best. We will do all that we can, and perhaps we will even achieve what we want to achieve—but it would be much better if you gave us the necessary elbow room. You can trust us. It will be absolutely OK." I know that the Minister does not want to rest on that; I am sure that he wants to move a stage further.

The point of placing a duty on the Minister is that it enables him to galvanise all at his command into achieving the desired end. It gives him a strength without which he clearly has serious difficulties, as we have seen during the past few years.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Would it also give the Minister a lever in respect of the Treasury, and the costs that might be involved in achieving that aim?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I will come to the Treasury in a moment. I think it needs a paragraph or two to itself.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

Is not my right hon. Friend's argument entirely compatible with the Government's approach in introducing performance indicators into every area of their activity—health, education and many other areas—and measuring objectively what they hope will be done?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Absolutely—but my right hon. Friend will have noted that the Government are less keen on such indicators when they would indicate the performance of Ministers.

I always want to help this Minister, as he knows. The proposed measure would help him to deal with the difficulty he has encountered with the Government machine in securing the full, fair public inquiry that I know he wants. The Minister has nothing to hide, and I am sure he has no intention of hiding anything; but it is extremely difficult for Conservative Members, or indeed members of any party in the House, to do anything if we do not have a report—not a report that would identify scapegoats, but a report simply detailing what has happened and what lessons should be learned. After all, we have had a number of reports of that kind, and in general they have been able to help future Ministers to conduct their affairs.

If the Minister accepted the new clause, he would be able to say to his colleagues, "If we had been more open about the whole affair, I would have been able to convince the House of the need for a different time limit and a different procedure, because Members would have had all the information they needed at their fingertips. Indeed, if we had not completed the inquiry, I could have promised that they would have the information."

I cannot speak for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I think that the new clause might have been withdrawn on the basis that further and better particulars might well lead them to take a different view; but they cannot do that in circumstances in which those further and better particulars will not emerge, because there is no mechanism whereby they should emerge. That means that we are bound to take only the evidence that we have ourselves, and seek to act on it. As I have said, giving way would grant the Minister greater power in his continuing argument with the rest of the Government, and a few notable colleagues, in favour of a comprehensive inquiry.

Another reason for my view that accepting the new clause would help the Minister was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). I am thinking of the Treasury. The Treasury has a job to do: it is not a nice job or an easy job, but it must be done. The difficulty with the Treasury and DEFRA, as with the Treasury and MAFF, is that the area of choice is very limited.

Quite properly, we are part of the European Union; quite properly, we have a common agricultural policy. The common agricultural policy could be greatly improved, and as part of the arrangements we will be able to improve it. The fact is, however, that the decisions—again, quite properly—are made jointly with us around a table. There is only a bit left for the Treasury to get its fingers on. Thank God there is only a bit left; otherwise, the farmers would have lost a lot more.

I think that some of my friends who are not as happy about the CAP as I am should explain to the farmers whether they would get anything at all if it were all decided by the British. That is one of the facts of life. Happily, however, most of the decisions are made by people around a table. We are part of that, but many of the others are more concerned with the interests of farmers.

Anyway, the bit left over is constantly under the eagle eye of the Treasury. The Treasury loves to look at that bit. That is why it has cut back on our flood defences. That is why the poor Minister had to admit to me the other day that less was being spent. He said that spending went up and down, but we were in the "down" phase at the moment, so things were rather difficult. Why did he have to explain that to me, at a time when my constituency—which contains 74 miles of coastline—is experiencing its worst-ever circumstances? Because the Treasury can only get its fingers on to the bit that is there—and those fingers creep out to grab whatever is around.

I want to help the Minister in this regard. If the House of Commons decides that there is a performance target—a duty or a requirement—the Treasury can huff and puff as much as it likes, but it must provide the means. I am keen for the House to get its fingers around the throat of the Treasury, because if it does not we have no hope of controlling the Executive.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I suppose my right hon. Friend would think that it meant nothing to the Treasury, but may I draw him a little nearer to the new clause? Its purpose is to avoid the horrific scenes of carcases lying rotting in fields, the terrible scenes of carnage that caused enormous problems to our image around the world and had a devastating effect on our tourism industry, which cost us many millions of pounds. My right hon. Friend may like to consider that, even though perhaps it is optimistic to think that the Treasury is capable of taking such issues into consideration.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

There is a problem with my hon. Friend's analysis. In looking at the consequences of such a new clause, the Treasury will think only of the narrow immediate expenditure. It will find it difficult to recognise that the new clause is intended to help the Treasury to defend the greater sum of resources available to it. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge cost that was paid because of the insufficient funding of the culling operation. The cost is one which we pay today. I happened to be in the United States when the televisions were filled with pictures of fires and the whole situation, but much worse were the photographs of the animals lying dead in piles. That did huge harm.

I remind the House of an experience that I had. It will help the Minister to deal not with large carcases, but with the smaller carcases of hens. I remember being faced with the problem of a number of nuns who were keeping hens and who had a salmonella difficulty. Of course, hon. Members can see immediately the public relations disaster of a whole lot of nuns seeking to protect their hens from the arrival of those who were going to kill them. That did not seem to me to be good news. In the end, we went early, even before they had begun to see the crime. We destroyed the hens before either nuns or journalists were up. I am not suggesting that it would be possible for the Minister to deal with a great mound as quickly as that, but in public relations terms, the quicker, the better. If it has to be done, it has to be done quickly. The hon. Gentleman admits that.

I hope that the Minister will understand that we press the new clause not out of antagonism to him or indeed to what was MAFF and is now, at least in part, DEFRA, but to give him the power that is necessary if he is to win battles within his Administration. Although I was a member of an Administration who by nature, support and backing were closer perhaps to rural areas than his, it was not always easy to win what I needed to win. Often I needed support. From time to time, the hon. Gentleman and his friends gave me that support by making it very difficult for people not to ante up the money. That is all we are doing today.

I hope that the Minister will take seriously the proposition that, by setting him a target, we enable him to set a target for the rest of the Government, achieve the resources necessary and deliver the necessary result. I hope that he or any future Minister will never face such an outbreak again, but the position needs to be put right. Otherwise, the cost to our national exchequer will be enormous and the damage to our farming community huge.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Bill is ill advised and ill timed. A touch of optimism is returning to the farming community. I hope that foot and mouth has been defeated, but the Bill again drives a wedge between the industry and the Government. Any co-operation that we would like to engender and encourage between the two seems to be ill fated.

MAFF set targets on slaughter and disposal. Those targets were not met because the disease completely overwhelmed the organisation that was in place. The Minister has told us that there was a national contingency plan but whatever it was, it was clearly not sufficient to deal with the disposal of the number of carcases that were on farms and in fields around farms.

There were three ways of disposing of those carcases—burial, burning or rendering. Clearly, rendering was the preferred method, because it took place in well controlled environments. Sometimes, however, carcases had to be transported through clean areas that had not had the disease. Rendering capacity was limited, so burning and burying had to be contemplated.

Lessons from the previous outbreak did not seem to have been learned, because the report on that outbreak said that on-farm burial was the favoured method of disposal. That had been accepted by the farming community.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the problems with on-farm burial—I am a Cumbrian MP so I know what I am talking about—was that often the water table was too high and it was impossible to bury the animals on the farm where the disease had broken out?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I accept that concern for the environment has increased since the 1967 outbreak, but instead of on-farm burial, it was decided to have mass burial and burning pits. The experience in my constituency was that concern for the environment was fairly minimal. One area on the Eppynt, an army range in my constituency, was designated and, until prompted by local farmers and villagers, no environmental assessment was even performed. However, one of the reasons given for not using on-farm burial was that an environmental assessment of each site would have to be carried out, which would be time-consuming and difficult to achieve given the resources available.

If the mass burial and burning sites were included in the national contingency plan or the local contingency plan, that was not thought through very well. The new clause would encourage the Minister to ensure that any contingency plan, and any lessons learned from the inquiries that are taking place, would put more emphasis on deciding how to deal with the number of carcases that are generated.

It was an upsetting time for the farming community. It was the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who mentioned killing fields, but it was often killing yards. The animals were brought in close to the farms to be slaughtered and the carcases remained there for many days. Families, including children, were trapped on the farms and had to live with the carcases close by, which was an horrific experience for all.

It is important that carcases are disposed of to prevent the spread of the disease. Although the animals produce no more virus when they are dead, the carcases can be torn apart by vermin, and the disease transported to other farms. The tourism industry also suffered because the animals were seen to be left unburied and when they were disposed of it was done in a way that deterred people from visiting areas that depend on tourism as well as agriculture for their livelihoods. I supported an amendment in Committee that was not framed as tightly and simply as the new clause, but the present proposal would help the Minister and it should be supported.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who made tremendous and well informed speeches. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) also made a passionate speech.

When the decision to cull was taken, the Minister will have thought, "I must cull, otherwise our export market will be lost." That is a proper commercial decision. It was not done for humane reasons. There are not 5 million fewer farm animals because the Minister had humane reasons for his decision. We know, however, that the Minister will not slaughter on that scale ever again, thanks to the developments in vaccination.

If the new clause has one purpose, it is to act as a brake on the Minister's decision-making process. Never again must carcases lie for nine days, as they did in Winforton in my constituency. Herefordshire relies heavily on its huge agricultural sector, and on tourism. Never again must we allow one market to be sacrificed so completely, and then watch with horror as another is taken down with it, leaving people in the countryside with virtually nothing.

The new clause would encourage the Minister to vaccinate first. The Bill closes the stable door long after the horse has bolted, and any efforts that we can add to ensure that the Minister vaccinates first will improve life in the countryside.

The new clause would mean that any future Minister facing a similar crisis would almost certainly be obliged to call in the Army at the earliest possible stage. That would naturally be part of any contingency plan, and would mean that some of the horrendous abuses of animal and human rights would be avoided. It would also prevent the horrendous mental damage suffered by people whose livestock were slaughtered.

The new clause would also prevent the terrible smell from pyres, which did so much damage to the tourism and agriculture industries, and to connecting businesses across the country. I therefore urge the Minister to change his mind and support the new clause.

Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde)

My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) speaks with great authority from his experience of dealing at constituency level with the tragic consequences of foot and mouth disease. I rise merely to emphasise to the Minister the importance of this new clause. The part of the Bill that it seeks to amend gives legal comfort to the Minister that he has the power, at his discretion and decision, to slaughter in the first place.

However, if the Minister is unable to agree to the provisions of the new clause, he must explain to the House why, given the lessons that have been learned and the findings of the two inquiries that are being held, he would not be able to dispose of carcases within the time scale that has been laid down. If he cannot explain that, it will be tantamount to an admission that, in another foot and mouth outbreak, he could not sustain the performance of disposal that was eventually achieved at the end of this outbreak as a result of the lessons that had been learned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), in his elegant speech, mentioned the Army's logistical input. Subsequent new clauses deal with the matter of a national strategy, which should incorporate the type of performance indicator and requirement contained in this new clause. In the interests of sending a powerful message to farmers that the Government have learned their lessons and that if—God forbid—there were to be another outbreak, it could be dealt with effectively, the Minister should agree to new clause 7. However, if he is fearful of accepting it, he must explain why he will not.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am happy to explain why there are problems with the new clause. I am not against the principle behind it, as I said in Committee. It is desirable to have targets for disposal, as the new clause suggests, but the question is whether circumstances could arise in which those targets could be met, and what the implications of that might be.

I shall explain that in a moment, but first I want to correct some of the statements that have been made. The first has to do with calling in the Army. I think that the independent inquiries will show that the Army was put on alert at the very beginning of the outbreak.

I have been in my post for some time, so I was around at the beginning of the outbreak—and perhaps that is an indication of my own performance. I remember that the Conservatives were calling for the Army to dispose of and remove carcases. That was never really an issue—there was no shortage of civil contractors to do that. The Army played an important role in the logistics and organisation, in making sure that the right thing was in the right place at the right time. As the epidemic spread, it was important to have that support, which was brought in when it was needed.

On the new clause, it is a case of not being able to win either way. During the epidemic, the Government were under pressure to kill animals as quickly as possible. That pressure came from farmers desperate to see the disease being stopped from spreading and those who did not have the disease but wanted to make sure that it was stopped from coming down the valley or moving down the county. Once an animal is killed, it stops producing the virus. The changes in the pH in the animal's body quickly neutralise the virus, and when the animals were killed they were also sprayed with disinfectant.

There was also enormous pressure to take the bodies away as quickly as possible. That is an understandable and reasonable reaction from people facing the epidemic. However, there were logistical problems, given that this was the biggest outbreak of its type that the world had ever seen, such as obtaining leakproof lorries and disposing of the animals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is right that people keep mentioning the Northumberland report, which recommended burial. It did, but things have moved on since then. Issues relating to the water table in Devon, in particular, meant that on-farm burial was often not an option, as was also the case in Cumbria. In addition, the BSE outbreak in the cattle herd since the Northumberland report was published led to a restriction on burying cattle over 30 months and they had to be burned or, preferably, rendered. However, we did not have the rendering capacity to deal with the number of animals affected.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave me some helpful support. I always appreciate a bit of encouragement. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about the procedures, given his long experience in Government. I suspect that some of the people who advise me advised him. They are probably giving me the same advice, on occasion. However, the reason I cannot accept the new clause is not that I disagree with the principles behind it. It is desirable to set a target. There are valid arguments for setting such indicators, and we may be able to look at that in the future.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned vaccination as an alternative. I have always been keen on vaccination and on a range of other options, which is why I strongly support the Bill. It will give us as wide a range of options as we need in dealing with all circumstances. We should not forget that the Bill also deals with vaccination, sampling and blood testing—all the criteria that should be applied to any type of disease control.

I am keen on getting these measures in place as quickly as possible. It can be argued that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but this was an outbreak like no other. We have to learn from that. I believe that we can learn lessons from the inquiries. I also genuinely believe that the structure of the inquiries is the right one. I am fairly relaxed about structure. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned a public inquiry; he had experience of the Phillips inquiry, which was a useful investigation which provided some useful information, but it took nearly three years.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

You set it up.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I accept that. It cost between £30 million and £40 million—about £10 million was spent on lawyers' fees. I am not altogether keen on that approach. I am much keener on an open process that is in the public domain and deals with the issues. I believe that our approach is the right one.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Does the Minister agree that, given the speed of policy changes—including EU policy—and the fact that none of the three inquiries has reported, he should not legislate until at least one of those inquiries has reported?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

No, because time is of the essence. I repeatthat the Bill contains nothing that pre-empts any recommendation from the inquiries. Indeed, nothing in the Bill should be taken as the Government's definitive future policy for dealing with any disease outbreak.

The hon. Member for Leominster is a strong advocate of vaccination, but some of the points that he made about new tests are not yet fully validated. The information is not yet available to us. I must correct him on one point: the culling programme was designed not to deal with trade issues, but to stop the spread of disease.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Does the Minister agree that the Phillips report was lengthy and costly because it related to BSE—a disease that was new to us—but that we know all about foot and mouth? There is not much more that we need to know about the disease; we need to concentrate on how it was effectively controlled and eradicated. That would take far less time and would cost much less.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Gentleman makes my case for inquiries that are short and to the point—exactly like those that have been set up. A full-blown judicial inquiry will go on for several years, so I much prefer the approach that we are taking. Nothing in the format of the inquiries is different from the Northumberland inquiry—there is no difference at all. People sometimes get hung up on definitions when they are talking about inquiries. I think we have chosen the right way: it will put all the information in the public domain, and will show us the lessons learned from the management of the epidemic, in the Anderson report, and the scientific questions—not only those relating to foot and mouth—that will be addressed by the Royal Society.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

The Minister is trying to help the House, but the matter is not new, and the inquiry need not be as complicated as the Phillips inquiry, so surely it would be possible to set up a single, more public inquiry with a clear date line and the resources to produce a report within that period. It would have been quite possible to do that. The reason why the Government failed to set up such an inquiry continues to escape me. Everyone would have been much happier because its workings and results would have been open—as the proceedings of the Government's inquiries do not seem to be, at least to the public.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The right hon. Gentleman should wait and see how the inquiries are set up. I understand that Dr. Anderson will shortly announce how he intends to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the process is more open and transparent than he thinks and that people will have the opportunity both to make their case and to see the outcome—it will all be in the public domain. Of course, we can argue over these points, but I believe that our approach is the right way to obtain the answers that we need as quickly as possible.

The reason why I cannot accept the new clause is that if we set up such a target, with all the unknowns and variables that I have described, it could have the perverse effect—certainly not intended by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—of discouraging rapid slaughter in some cases. If there is a target of 48 hours and it is difficult to meet that target—for whatever logistical reason—there would be a disincentive to slaughter as quickly as possible. If we are to use culling as part of disease control—we can argue about the alternatives to culling—the key is to carry it out as quickly as possible. The new clause would undermine that principle.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

We have held an interesting, short debate. My hon. Friends and I and Liberal Democrat Members are not especially convinced by the Minister's argument. In fact, I am not even sure that many Members on either side of the House are convinced of the general arguments in favour of the Bill. The Minister is a fair man, who is frequently left by his ministerial colleagues to bat alone, and he is only too aware that there is silence about the measure—at best—and some criticism. It is always difficult for Government supporters to criticise their own Government.

The debate has shown, first, that the Minister accepts that, in principle, he believes there should be a 48-hour target and, secondly, despite what the Minister has said, that most hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it would have been possible to have had a short, open and public debate on the lessons learned. Rather than looking for scapegoats, we are looking for practical lessons to learn.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

It has been announced that one of the three inquiries will take place shortly, but that will take six months. The great fear among farmers in Cumbria and all the tourism-related industries is that, if there were an outbreak of foot and mouth next February or March, it would decimate agriculture in Cumbria and destroy many of the tourism industries in that county. I support a broad range of measures that can be used to ensure that we do not get ourselves into the position that we faced with the original outbreak of the disease.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but this is pure Corporal Jones—people cry, "Don't panic," but that is exactly what the Government are doing. I have long experience of defence matters, and however appalling the Ministry of Defence has been at times, the one thing that it has learned from experience is that lessons have to be learned very quickly. In fact, the Minister wants a shotgun version of legislation to cover all kinds of contingencies because, frankly, neither first MAFF, nor now DEFRA knows what went on and has got the answers.

The majority opinion on both sides of the Chamber is that a short, sharp inquiry could have been held and that the organisational and logistical lessons could have been learned very much in accordance with the standard operating procedures that the MOD applied in Cumbria.

I hope that we have established that the Minister accepts the 48-hour target in principle. He is less sure in his rejection of the fact that we would like that target to be included in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I suspect that the issue may be taken up in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9 — Transport of animals destined for slaughter

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Bringing of animals to markets—

'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 8—

"8A Bringing of animals to markets

A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) he brings, or knowingly causes or permits to be brought, to market any animal which has been brought to a market in the previous 20 days.".'.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Parts of the Bill deal with the control of foot and mouth disease when an outbreak is under way, and other parts deal with minimising the risk of such outbreaks occurring in future. We are not certain how foot and mouth disease got into Britain, but it is widely accepted that its rapid and extensive spread was due to at least two factors.

The first factor was multiple movements, especially of sheep. Animals were transported in and out of markets and other premises several times in quick succession by dealers who tried to turn a quick profit by, for example, buying animals at one market and selling them at another a few days later.

The second aspect was the fact that animals travelled long distances to slaughter, which has become more common in the past few years. Long journeys to slaughter and multiple journeys in and out of markets risk spreading infectious animal diseases, and lead to poor welfare—the two are clearly connected. Long journeys are more stressful than short ones, and multiple journeys involve repeated loadings and unloadings, with animals frequently being mixed with unfamiliar animals. Both those consequences are regularly identified as major stresses for animals.

New clause 9 aims to tackle one of those problems by imposing a maximum limit of eight hours on the time it takes to transport animals to slaughter. The tendency for animals to be taken on much longer journeys to slaughter is greater than it was a few years ago, and it has arisen for a number of reasons. The first is the closure of many local abattoirs. In England, almost two thirds have closed in recent years, leaving us with about 300. Secondly, farmers and dealers drive animals past nearby abattoirs and take them to much more distant ones.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I seek clarification on what the eight-hour limit involves. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that eight hours in total is all that would be allowed, or is he saying that, if there were a break after eight hours, a further journey could be permitted? That is an important matter for those in the north of Scotland. Although the Bill does not at present apply to Scotland, if by some unfortunate chance subsequent amendments are passed, it may do so. The cumulative effect of those amendments and the hon. Gentleman's new clauses would lock out many people in the highlands and islands of Scotland from valuable markets.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

If the hon. Gentleman could contain his curiosity, I shall come to that point. I have a specific example that relates to the western isles.

A further point about abattoirs is that supermarkets too frequently insist on sourcing all their meat from just a few large industrial-scale abattoirs and often refuse to use local ones.

A maximum time limit of eight hours, as envisaged in new clause 9, would halt the worst of the long journeys. Indeed, I believe that the journeys should be much shorter than eight hours; animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm on which they were reared. Eight hours, however, is the shortest limit that the European Union allows member states to impose on slaughter journeys. The relevant EU provision authorises member states

"to provide for a maximum non-extendable journey time of eight hours for the transport of animals destined for slaughter, where the transport is carried out exclusively within their own territory".

We have spent some time in the debate looking back at the lessons, if there were any, of the foot and mouth outbreak in 1967. The world has moved on in many ways. For example, 34 years ago, there was an established network of local abattoirs, which we think might be connected to the fact that the disease was located substantially in just one region of the country. Hon. Members should bear that point in mind when considering whether to support the new clause.

The maximum eight-hour limit is in line with the EU directive and it would have more effect in preventing the causes of an epidemic and would not allow the previous culture to continue of getting the cheapest price for slaughter no matter the distance involved in getting the cattle, pigs, sheep or whatever to slaughter.

I draw a specific example to the attention of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). In September this year, several consignments of sheep were transported by sea from the Scottish islands to the west coast port of Oban. From there, they were taken by road all the way to Birmingham, not far from where I live, for slaughter. In the interests of animal welfare and health, those animals could and should have been slaughtered at an abattoir on the Scottish mainland. They should not have been brought on a very long journey to the midlands of England. Surely, such journeys cannot be allowed to continue for very much longer.

In the long term, the eight-hour limit that the new clause would introduce should be reduced further still. Of course, there is commercial anxiety in the farming community, which has endured one of its worst periods in decades, and the imposition of any new limit should not be economically damaging. Central Government could provide encouragement by giving short-term financial support, beginning, perhaps, with small, local abattoirs.

The EU directive, which is incorporated in UK law, is weak in several respects, and the new clause aims to strengthen it. For example, the directive allows calves in so-called higher standard vehicles to travel for a total of 18 hours with a one-hour stop mid-journey to give them water and, if necessary, feed. In its 1992 report on the transport of farm animals and pets, the European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee recommended that calves should travel for no more than eight hours before a break, which should last for at least three hours to allow them to drink to repletion.

Similarly, the RSPCA is very concerned about the provisions of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, which implements the EU directive, because it fails adequately to safeguard the welfare of transported animals. With poor welfare come stress, a predisposition towards infection and all the animal health problems that the Bill will tackle. The EU directive and the 1997 order need strengthening if animal welfare problems are to be avoided, and we need to press for a review of them. Many organisations have pressed for a review and highlighted the points that particularly need to be addressed.

There are unsatisfactory and inadequate practices in existing abattoirs that receive animals that have been transported on long journeys. Indeed, their practices generate those long journeys because they will only take animals of a certain age and species, and therefore of a certain market value. That unnecessarily increases pressure on the UK's shrinking network of abattoirs, to which I have referred, and can only serve to push up average journey times to slaughter even further.

We need licensing. We want to maximise journey times, but if we cannot monitor those journeys, the provision will be a dead letter on the statute book. We need to license all individuals involved in the transportation of live animals, and that should be a legal requirement. Transportation is an intrinsically stressful experience for farmed livestock. They are exposed to unfamiliar experiences, environments and animals, and can suffer physical discomfort and/or injury, as well as mental distress. The duration of the journey, the conditions on board, the handling during loading and unloading, the frequency of travel and the provision of water and feed can all have a stressful impact on animals, and the licensing of individuals involved in transportation will help us to monitor the implementation of the new clause.

Perhaps we can encourage improvement by fiscal means. Perhaps the subsidy received under the common agricultural policy should be dependent on observance at particular farms of agreed animal welfare standards, including limits on journey-to-slaughter times. Linked to that would be more detailed recording of individual farm animals, which would assist in tracing their journey to slaughter in the event of another outbreak of a farm animal disease such as foot and mouth. Farm animal welfare concerns such as a limit on journey-to-slaughter times should in any case be included in the so-called non-trade concerns of the World Trade Organisation. That would lead to negotiations on a global platform to raise the profile and legitimacy of these concerns.

Of course, the impact on farmers and consumers has to be considered whenever we in this place legislate to improve animal health and welfare. The new clause would have a very limited impact on consumers. I hope that DEFRA Ministers and representatives can enter into discussions with the five mega-supermarket chains to ensure that their corporate appetites do not distort the animal and public health-based reasoning that motivates the clause. Supermarket distribution networks should not be allowed to continue to dictate journey-to-slaughter times.

New clause 10 provides that, once an animal has been brought to market, it cannot be brought back to that market or taken to another one for 20 days. That would make an important contribution to stopping animals being taken in and out of markets in quick succession and would prevent the mass exposure of vulnerable animals. At the outset of the foot and mouth crisis, it became clear that many sheep were moved in quick succession in and out of markets and other premises as dealers tried to make small, rapid profits on them. For example, a dealer might buy animals at one market then, a few days later, sell them at another market hoping to make a small mark-up. Dealers make no contribution to farming in my estimation; they do not involve the animals in a genuine farming operation and simply trade them as commodities.

Multiple journeys played a major role in the rapid spread of foot and mouth and led to poor welfare, as animals were subject to frequent loading and unloading, mixed with unfamiliar animals and encountered other highly stressful circumstances. Such journeys have to be stopped as they can lead to serious problems and are not a necessary part of farming. New clause 10 would end the practice of animals being moved in and out of markets in quick succession and would not allow them to be brought to the original market or any other market in a 20-day period.

The provision would tackle a problem recognised on both sides of the House, and by all parts of the farming community, veterinary practitioners and others. It would prevent a current practice in British farming that accelerated the rapid spread of the disease earlier this year. In many cases, multiple journeys prevented the successful tracing of the origins of the disease. The number of times that animals were transported between markets, often in a single day, resulted in mass exposure to other fatigued and traumatised animals. The 20-day moratorium on market-to-market journeys provides sufficient time for a disease such as foot and mouth to show up in infected animals. Not only would it allow infected flocks and herds to be isolated, but it would allow local conditions to be assessed for compatibility with the spread of the disease, thus reducing the possibility of an indiscriminate cull, frequently referred to not only by Opposition Members but by Government Members, in a designated area.

Animal licences should be reviewed and revised to include the number of journeys that animals have undertaken in their life. Vulnerability and possible exposure to disease can then be assessed in the event of the outbreak of a farm animal disease such as foot and mouth. A reduction in the number of journeys between markets would result in long-term savings for farmers and a reintroduction of the abattoir in the local economy. Multiple journeys were born out of the drive to maximise profit per animal with such intensity and frequency that the inherent short-termism of that behaviour inevitably led to problems—and what a massive problem it eventually led to.

Reducing the frequency of journeys would make farm animals healthier, and indeed create a more viable acceptable and higher-value product. Members in the Chamber today and members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee who have come into contact with farmers and others agree that farm animal welfare is high on their list of priorities. The provision would allow them to make more concessions to farm animal welfare, such as space for animals when being transported, regular watering stops and standardised qualifications for those loading and unloading animals.

I regularly meet farmers in my constituency—I had a delegation from the National Farmers Union at my last advice session on Saturday. Although, fortunately, we in the midlands were largely unaffected by the disease, the farmers note that the Government did not introduce an immediate ban on all animal movements once the first case had been discovered in the abattoir in Essex. Had a 20-day moratorium on market-to-market journeys been in place, that infected animal would have been identified before it got to the abattoir, which would have reduced the exposure of other animals to foot and mouth disease.

We Labour Members are keen to ensure that in our policies and practices we deliver what we promised to the British people. Our manifesto commitment was to

"create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector within a thriving rural economy which advances environmental, health and animal welfare goals."

Those elements are not mutually exclusive, as local abattoirs have found to their cost.

A 20-day moratorium would restore some sanity and community considerations to a market that has been voracious in its consumption of animals for profit. It would also be vital insurance against another epidemic, and would buy the Government of the day—we hope that that would be decades away and that Labour would still be in power—some diagnostic breathing space, which was unavailable earlier this year. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister an encouraging response to both new clauses.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

New clauses 9 and 10 are important. My hon. Friend is right. If the aim is to stop disease spreading and to control and manage disease, the movement of animals is key. During the outbreak, a 20-day stop was put in place. My hon. Friend is also right about the long-distance movement of animals and the growth of livestock dealers. In the period between the introduction of the disease into this country and its identification, there were probably 1.3 million sheep movements, which spread the disease through the markets all the way down the west coast and into the west country.

Those are serious issues, which we must address. My hon. Friend is right to raise them, and he might take some encouragement from what I am about to say. On the transport of animals, there is currently an eight-hour limit within the UK. Under EU rules, longer journeys are permitted in a higher standard of vehicle. The long-distance movement of animals is not just a UK issue. The conditions for the movement of animals over long distances throughout the EU and across boundaries is an EU issue.

I was pleased to hear yesterday that Commissioner Byrne identified animal movements as one of the matters that the EU will have to address through the Council of Ministers as part of disease control. The place to consider time restrictions on the long-distance movement of animals is in the EU, because the limits must apply to all farmers, not just those in the UK. They must apply to the long-distance transport of live exports for slaughter from this country all the way down to Italy and Greece, which I find very hard to justify.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

Given that by 2004 an enlarged European Union may include 25 countries, and given that there are probably more farmers in Poland and Romania than in all the current 15 EU countries combined, will not the problem be even bigger in the future?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is absolutely right, which is all the more reason why we must address the problem now in terms of European directives. I assure my hon. Friend that that is what we will do and that we will press the matter in the Council of Ministers.

On the 20-day stop, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was again absolutely right. I not only accept his argument in relation to markets, but believe that we need to go further. Animals are moved around for a range of reasons. We need a package of measures dealing with a series of scenarios in which animals need to be stopped for disease-control purposes, which go beyond the issue of markets. There are also issues in relation to the practicalities of the livestock industry. In that respect, we must take into account some of the legitimate concerns of livestock farmers about quarantine stops, and we intend to do so. So, the other assurance that I can give him is that we take absolutely seriously the point that he made, but will deal with it in a package of measures that includes that point but also goes a bit further.

Candy Atherton (Labour, Falmouth and Camborne)

That is very welcome news. Can my hon. Friend give a timetable that tells us when the package of measures might be introduced? The package will be well received in my constituency and more widely.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Yes, I can. The 21-day stop is currently in place as a disease-control measure. We sympathise with livestock farmers in terms of some of the practicalities of the livestock trade. We want to address those issues, but we also want to put in place a package of measures in relation to stops, including markets and other scenarios, as part of a disease-control measure. We will start discussions with the agriculture and livestock sector immediately with a view to securing agreement on the matter some time in the new year.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

My purpose in tabling new clauses 9 and 10 was rooted in my belief that animal welfare and therefore animal health are seriously compromised both by the length of journey times and the number of journeys that individual animals make. The review this year of the European directive on transportation is indeed a good opportunity to reduce the maximum journey time to eight hours and I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said in that regard. The system of multiple journeys in the United Kingdom, which is often related to the involvement of dealers, must be reviewed without delay.

Animal welfare and animal health are twin themes and have been interwoven throughout this whole debate. They are part of the same issue. We need to reflect on that issue and tackle it as a Government. I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend said about the standstill proposals that he hopes to bring to the House at some future date. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11 — National Contingency Plan

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of the new clause is to require the Government to draw up, maintain and publish a national contingency plan for dealing with future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. There is widespread evidence that the Government and their agencies were wholly unprepared for the emergency that broke earlier this year. I have looked at the Government's published contingency plan, which is available on the internet. To say that it is rudimentary would be an understatement. It turns out to be very much what the Minister himself described as an outline strategy. It is our contention that an outline strategy is insufficient to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth, as we found in the course of this year. That might explain why the strategy was so hopelessly inadequate and had no identifiable bearing on the way the Government carried out their duties in the event of this year's outbreak. An outline strategy was a recipe for chaos and confusion, and I am afraid that that is precisely what we got.

The evidence of the public inquiry in Devon, which was chaired by Professor Mercer and was mentioned earlier, is especially revealing about the state of preparations in the Department. It reported:

"It was not obvious to us from the evidence received that MAFF was working to any form of coherent contingency plan. This, in spite of actual evidence that the Government had submitted such a plan to the European Union in 1993 and that some low level MAFF planning was proceeding in 1999. Lessons, which should have been learned from the outbreak in 1967, did not appear to have been implemented, and recommendations of the official report into that outbreak were ignored."

That point was supported by Mr. Alan Richardson, a retired vet who was involved with the 1967 outbreak and offered his services in Cumbria on the outbreak of the disease this year. He said that the lessons learned from the 1967 epidemic were set out in the report of the Northumberland committee, and that

"the public had every reason to suppose that its conclusions formed the basis of the contingency plan in place in January 2001."

It is curious that Ministers are at pains to point out that the circumstances have changed greatly since 1967. The Minister did so in an earlier debate. The Government have published a document called "Comparisons with 1967: How the 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth differs from the 1967 outbreak". The aim of the paper is not only to let them off the hook but to boast about how well they did in controlling the latest outbreak. That is incredible. It is one of the most unjustified pieces of self-congratulatory humbug that I have come across for a long time.

The Government have gone to enormous lengths to point out the differences between 1967 and today. One would therefore expect them to disagree with Mr. Alan Richardson's comments that the public had every reason to suppose that the conclusion of the Northumberland report formed the basis of the 2001 contingency plan. However, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 13 July, the Minister stated:

"The recommendations in 'The Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease', parts 1 and 2, published 7 March 1969 and 3 November 1969 (the Northumberland report) formed the basis of the Government's policy for keeping the disease out of the country, and of our contingency plans for fighting an outbreak of foot and mouth."—[Official Report, 13 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 686W.]

On the one hand, we are told that there are enormous differences between 1967 and now, and on the other, that the 1967 experience formed the basis for the contingency plan that was in place in 2001. We have a mess that is riddled with contradictions. That may help explain the subsequent problems. Alan Richardson reported for duty at the Carlisle office on 1 March. If a proper contingency plan had been in place, would he have said:

"At the Carlisle Office . . . there was inadequate office space and very few supplies of any kind . . . There was not a spare thermometer in the office . . . The organisation was completely overwhelmed and the bemused confusion among the staff of all ranks proclaimed that there had been no contingency planning at all. This situation persisted for some weeks"?

The evidence from Devon and Cumbria, from one end of the country to the other, clearly established that there was no effective contingency plan in place. We therefore entirely endorse the recommendation in the preliminary findings of the Mercer inquiry. It states that

"a National Contingency Plan . . . needs to be developed. It should identify the organisations that will be involved in response to Foot and Mouth in a County or Unitary authority area, and explain their responsibilities and the ways they will work together. It should be part of an emergency planning process that involves all the main players in its construction, testing and regular rehearsal."

For geographical equilibrium, I should say that we also support the first recommendation of the Shropshire county council inquiry. The Minister said that he had not seen it. That recommendation states:

"It is essential that a high level Foot and Mouth Contingency Plan is prepared by DEFRA to link in with Local Authority emergency plans in general and animal health and welfare contingency plans in particular."

Like the Mercer inquiry in Devon, the Shropshire inquiry found evidence of serious and avoidable flaws in the way the outbreak was handled. The inquiry heard about the

"lack of a consistent policy from MAFF on the culling of animals . . . a lack of communication"

from the local office,

"problems in having to deal with different veterinary regions",

and the

"frustration caused by the lack of communication from DEFRA on issues relating to the licensing and movement of animals".

I could go on, but time is pressing. The Minister really should have looked at the Shropshire county council report, and I recommend that he does so as soon as possible. He might learn some useful information from it.

From Devon to Cumbria to Shropshire we find that the problems on the ground were the same. They were avoidable problems that affected every area of the country in which foot and mouth broke out. If there had been a proper contingency plan, action would have been swifter, the damage could have been dramatically limited and the cost—in every sense—could have been dramatically reduced. If there had been a proper contingency plan, all animal movements would have stopped as soon as the outbreak was officially reported, the Army would have been brought into play sooner, and we would not have had the dithering and confusion over the benefits or otherwise of vaccination which characterised much of the debate earlier in the year.

In the light of the terrible experience suffered by rural communities, businesses and families, the massive cost to our economy which will be counted for months if not years to come, and the tragedy for animal welfare, I have to ask the House whether an outline strategy is really enough. The Minister has asserted that, despite all the differences between 1967 and now, the Northumberland report forms the basis of the Government's policy for foot and mouth disease.

Recommendation 5 of the report states:

"A comprehensive plan should be in readiness for the mobilisation of resources within and outside the Ministry . . . in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease."

In other words, it recommends a contingency plan. That is what the new clause would achieve, and I commend it to the House.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I do not want to hold the House up, but may I ask one small question of the Minister? I hope that, with all this review of national contingency plans, some thought will be given to whether there was merit in having a slaughter at all. The Minister will be aware that foot and mouth is rather like flu, in that it lasts a short period of time, and does no long-term damage to animals or to those who consume them.

The real problem is one of export and of massive over-production in the European Union. Instead of thinking of new slaughter policies, it would be infinitely better if the Government and their colleagues in the European Union could find a way of dealing with the massive problem of over-production, which is getting worse and will become infinitely worse with the extension of the European Union. As an Opposition Back Bencher, it seems to me that neither the Government nor anyone else are willing to look at the issue of over-production. It is a nightmare, not a matter to be laughed at or scorned. It is eating up massive amounts of money, and we should at least consider it in the long term.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who I know has a long-standing interest in animal welfare. I do not disagree with his point about production numbers, and about the drivers associated with the common agricultural policy, which in some cases can add to the over-production. Those issues must be addressed.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need to consider all alternative methods in relation to disease control, which means looking into alternatives to large-scale culling of the kind that we witnessed. I expect that the inquiries that will take place will find that the strategy that was applied was probably the only strategy that would have brought the disease under control in this outbreak. But that does not mean that we should not think of alternatives, which would also be part of a contingency approach.

I do not dispute that we should have contingency plans, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the suggestion that foot and mouth disease is like flu to the animals affected. That is just not true. It has severe welfare consequences, particularly for pigs and cattle, and it is a horrible disease that may cause genuine suffering for those animals. Even in sheep, which do not show the symptoms as much as cattle and pigs, it can lead to severe mortality rates in young animals, and to spontaneous abortion. It can also leave the animals sickly and weakened. Foot and mouth is a farm animal welfare issue; it is a disease. We must take its control seriously for farm animal welfare reasons, let alone all the others.

On the new clause, of course it is important that we have contingency plans, but it is no surprise that the existing one is based on the Northumberland plan. That involved the most thorough review, although issues have changed and time has moved on.

It is wrong to suggest that the contingency plan was not exercised, because regular exercises did take place. Indeed, a regional office that was involved in an exercise rang round to check the availability of supplies needed to deal with a foot and mouth outbreak, which was a cause of the myth that the disease arrived in the country before it did. The exercise was part of keeping the contingency plan up to date and ensuring that people were familiar with it.

It is fair to say that the scale of the outbreak went beyond that for which the contingency plan was set up. There was no experience of such an outbreak in our country or, for that matter, in any other country, so there are serious issues to address. That forms part of the inquiries and there are lessons to be learned: we must introduce an amended and updated contingency plan, which brings me back to the point that the Bill gives us more flexibility and a wider range of options to include in a contingency proposal.

I accept that, these days, it is important for contingency plans to be put in the public domain and people should have the chance to comment on them. The existing contingency plan, which has been made public, as the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, was designed to deal with operational issues. It did not deal with disease control policies, which are a different issue. That is a difference in respect of the contingency plan to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I have no objection to pulling together the lessons that will emerge from the inquiries, making them public, having a public consultation, producing an updated and revised contingency plan and ensuring that there is public involvement, but we do not need to include all that in the Bill. The Phillips report charged the Government with ensuring that contingency plans are in place to meet a range of issues, and that is what we have done.

For example, a later contingency plan dealing with the risk of BSE in sheep has been published. I put it in the public domain and ensured that it was available for public comment, although it is unfortunate that the press jumped on the bits that they found most interesting and appeared not to have read the rest. Contingency plans need to be updated and reviewed regularly and it is reasonable that they are put in the public domain for comment, but I give the assurance that there is no need for the new clause.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

The Minister makes helpful remarks. Throughout, he disagrees with nothing, but he agrees with nothing as well. We are always tempted to believe him, but we do not trust the Government, so we shall press the new clause to a vote.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, there is a well established convention of the House called the Sewel procedure, which has been exercised some 28 times in the two and a half years since the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. If the House intends to legislate on areas that were devolved under that Act, the Scottish Parliament has to have a debate on a so-called Sewel motion to transfer those areas to this place. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 would have the effect of amending the Scotland Act 1998 and taking back to this place subjects that were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Sewel procedure was introduced as a protection against anti-Scottish elements in this place reversing devolution.

The Tory party may say one thing in Scotland and something entirely different here. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say whether the Scottish Parliament has exercised the Sewel motion? Has there been any communication or consultation with the Scottish Parliament, or are amendments Nos. 21 and 22 a back-stairs attempt to take away powers devolved under the Scotland Act?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

We are not going to reach the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but will now move on to Third Reading.

Order for Third Reading read.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a detailed debate in Committee and on Report. I sometimes felt that it was not altogether focused and earlier thought that we had spent two hours on some other Bill, but all the principal issues have been covered nevertheless. Hon. Members have made some sensible, reasonable and constructive suggestions and comments.

Concerns have been raised about the timing of the Bill, but I repeat that the epidemic is not over yet. The Government are not complacent: we still think that the risks are comparatively high and, although they will diminish proportionately as time passes, we will not drop our guard. It is important that the Bill contain measures to increase the range of options available to fight disease, and to ensure that any option that is used is applied efficiently and without the undue delay that can allow disease to spread and jeopardise a great many people.

I recognise that there is a need for consultation on all aspects of the Bill, but it is not true that the consultation has been insufficient and rushed. For example, there has been extensive consultation about the part of the Bill dealing with scrapie. It was made clear in that consultation that the Government would bring forward compulsory measures at some stage, and that is what we are doing.

Also, we are engaging with the industry to sort out details of the time scale of the national scrapie plan. We very much welcome those negotiations, in which industry representatives have been very helpful and constructive, as they have all along.

In addition, I discussed the Bill with the foot and mouth disease stakeholders group set up by the Department, which used to meet every week at one stage of the outbreak. It includes representatives from every species organisation in this country, and everyone involved in the livestock sector is represented in the group. I was able to have a long discussion with the group about the Bill and its details, and I also had further discussions with industry organisations. Therefore, there has been a lot of consultation and discussion about the Bill.

The House might be interested to know that the stakeholder group has been so successful that the Government propose to retain it and to form it into an animal health group. That will mean that the livestock industry will be permanently involved in consultation with the Department on all issues of animal disease. The proposal has been very much welcomed by members of that group.

The Government also propose to be open and transparent in our implementation of the measures. In Committee, I gave a detailed commitment to bring forward wide-ranging consultation on key provisions in the Bill in the new year. My officials are working on that at present. That consultation will include the criteria governing the use of new slaughter powers and the implementation of the scrapie provisions that I mentioned earlier.

It has been suggested that we should wait for the results of the independent inquiries before introducing disease- control measures. However, I think that the matter is too important. I repeat that the Bill contains nothing that precludes the findings of the independent inquiries, or to suggest that the Government prefer one disease control measure over another.

I am anxious that we have as wide a range of options as possible. No one wants there to be culling on the scale evident in this epidemic, given all the associated problems that went with it. I repeat that I suspect that the inquiries will probably conclude that there was no other option but to deal with outbreak as we did—that is, by implementing the culling programme. However, new technology is on the horizon, and changes in the role of vaccination will give us a wider range of options.

I remind the House that the international conference will have to consider matters such as trade rules, as they place a restraint on vaccination. Again, the aim is to achieve as wide a range of options as possible.

I welcome the scrutiny that the Bill has had. It also received detailed pre-scrutiny by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was a useful experience.

I agreed in Committee to consider a number of useful suggestions arising from amendments such as the time scale of the appeal period in which farmers can make representations about the disease risk assessment and the level of the adjusted compensation award. I intend to take those issues forward, along with points raised by my hon. Friends today. We might include those as part of our consultation on the implementation of the powers in the Bill. If appropriate, I am prepared to ensure that amendments are brought forward when the Bill reaches another place.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The Minister mentioned the Select Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. However, I think that he will accept that the Bill was put together and has gone through at a fair lick. The one legislative body that has not had the chance to scrutinise the Bill so far is the National Assembly for Wales. If it brings forward any amendments or suggestions between the Bill leaving this House and being debated in another place, will the Minister confirm that he will consider them and that he will involve the assembly in the consultation?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I will ensure that the National Assembly is involved in the consultation because it will be as wide as possible. We have been in close touch with our colleagues in the National Assembly in relation to putting the Bill together. However, I refute the point that the Bill has been rushed. We are still in a serious situation—the epidemic is not yet over. We need to consider that, and the sooner these measures are in place, I believe, the better it will be. We will arrange consultation on the aspects that I have mentioned as quickly as possible.

Much of the focus has been on slaughter, which is understandable. People are concerned about their animals being slaughtered. There are also the issues of pet farm animals and sanctuaries, which we want to address. If we are to use slaughter, whether as part of a wider strategy or on its own—the options are open—it must be done quickly and effectively. The quicker we do it, the fewer animals will be culled. Part of the reasoning is that if we are to use a culling policy, we should minimise it to minimise the number of animals affected.

I emphasise that the Bill is not just about powers to slaughter animals. We should get away from that idea. It also provides powers to enter premises for the purposes of testing, sampling or conducting a vaccination programme, should those options be appropriate. Some Members who have spoken are in favour of vaccination as an option; measures in the Bill strengthen the position on vaccination, so I hope that we will have their support.

We want to ensure that in the appeal process, sensitive issues such as pet farm animals are taken into account. However, the Bill does not take away the right of appeal on slaughter. People will still have the right to appeal to the divisional veterinary manager. It is my intention to publish the criteria on which that will be based. I intend to clarify the process with farming representatives and other interested groups during the consultation process in the new year.

I am surprised to see some reports suggesting that the Bill will give us powers to kill horses, dogs, cats, goldfish and hamsters. It will not. I made it very clear in Committee that the criteria in the Bill apply to susceptible animals. [Interruption.] We cannot kill anything we like. The position is defined in the Animal Health Act 1981 and it can only be changed by order. I cannot imagine circumstances in which it would be changed.

We are also taking a new approach to compensation on affected premises. I make no apologies for that. We have had a very good debate on it. I accept that only a minority of people are concerned, but I do not see why the rights of the majority should be put at risk because of the actions of a minority. The proposed measures are proportionate and balanced. We intend to take them forward.

The scrapie proposals have been generally welcomed. The vast majority of people in the sheep industry believe that scrapie eradication is a sensible and desirable objective. We want to bring that forward. We are obtaining good co-operation, and I have made it clear to the industry that the powers are enabling and that it is unlikely that the compulsory element in the national scrapie programme would be needed until some years down the line, as part of the agreed discussion on that plan.

I welcome the debate: in general, it was sensible and constructive—although perhaps rather long at times. We might have moved faster, although I certainly do not criticise the involvement of Opposition Members. However, I have a serious point to make. If they are still thinking of opposing the Bill, they should consider what they are opposing: the opportunity to bring in a range of options—including strengthening the vaccination option, and taking blood tests and samples. They will be undermining the rights of the majority who are put at risk by the actions of a minority. They will be undermining the Government's speed of action in response to such outbreaks. That response would reduce the number of culled animals—surely that is everyone's objective.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

In a moment.

Hon. Members who oppose the Bill would also be opposing measures to impose sanctions against people who bring about deliberate infection. Opposition to the measure would mean opposing the introduction of the national scrapie plan. That eradication programme is good for consumers and for the sheep industry, and has been generally welcomed.

I cannot believe that the Opposition want to oppose all those objectives; nor can I believe that they have failed to realise that, during the Bill's proceedings, I have given a series of undertakings to address the reasonable concerns expressed by organisations outside the House. That will form part of a public consultation in the new year.

When the Bill is finalised, the current provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981 will be better, more transparent and flexible, and will take into account a wider range of circumstances.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not present for the Third Reading to support her hard- working Minister.

I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to today's debates and to the Standing Committee: they deserve particular congratulations. I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and our esteemed colleague, the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). For my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), it was their first experience as members of a Standing Committee—[Hon. Members: "It did not show."] Indeed. They acquitted themselves with great distinction. Sadly, they have also learned that it is one thing to win the arguments, but another to win the vote.

Particular praise is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on whom much of the responsibility for opposing the Bill has fallen. She led her team with her customary vigour and thoughtfulness.

When the Bill began, it was bad. We can welcome some of it, but all in all it was a bad Bill and it remains a bad Bill. It is greatly to be regretted that, despite all our debates, nothing substantial has happened to alter that.

Anxieties about the Bill have brought together some strange bedfellows. Throughout, although the Minister sounded conciliatory, he was in fact unyielding. For the most part, he brushed aside the objections of animal welfare groups, environmental bodies, veterinary surgeons, farmers' representatives and other outside bodies. In doing so he has reinforced the growing feeling that this is an arrogant Government who are intolerant of criticism, closed to other people's views and careless of civil liberties.

Throughout these proceedings we have tried to stand up for the rights of individuals and for fair treatment. We have sought to persuade the Government that many of the new powers that they seek in the Bill are unreasonable, unfair and illiberal. On every occasion, the Government have rejected our arguments. It is wrong in principle for the state to assume new powers without seeking to balance them with adequate rights of representation for ordinary citizens. That is the way of totalitarianism.

I have said before that written into the heart of the Bill is an assumption that farmers were to blame for the foot and mouth outbreak. That is the basic premise on which the Bill rests, and it is untrue. From that starting point, Ministers have proceeded to seek to justify overturning the normal burden of proof in the compensation arrangements, assuming powers to enter property and slaughter livestock as they see fit, denying adequate rights of appeal, and suborning to their will, under threat of imprisonment, anyone who happens to be around at the time, regardless of any moral, ethical, religious or physical objection. They have refused to acknowledge the inadequacy of their own scientific advice, the risk that their actions may have caused to biosecurity or the bungling incompetence of their own procedures.

Something is clearly very wrong when a Government decide to push through legislation under the heading, "animal health" and then ride roughshod over the concerns of vets. Any legislation demands for its effectiveness the compliance of the people on whom it has an impact; the Bill certainly demands the compliance of the veterinary profession. It might be thought that the Government would pause when a senior vet can publicly say:

"If this Bill is passed I will do everything in my power to stop the veterinary profession taking any part in its implementation."

When the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons writes to a national newspaper to express the

"increasing level of serious concern"

among its members on the grounds of ethics and the use of "unsupported scientific judgments", it might be thought that the Government would stop.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Of course, I saw that letter, but I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has had no contact with DEFRA and has raised no objections to the Bill.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

If the Government had carried out a proper consultation exercise, they would have had plenty of contact with the college and the Minister would be better informed, so the Government carry on. Laws only work by consent. Laws that do not command consent rely on coercion, and coercion, as well as being objectionable, does not work.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am aware of the shortage of time, but I shall give way.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, when I raised the moral dilemma of vets being asked to do something against their better judgment, the Minister replied:

"If they do not want to work for the Ministry, they do not have to. We are not dragooning vets against their principles."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 December 2001; c. 218.]

In other words, the veterinary principles did not matter.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

My hon. Friend makes a very disturbing point, but it merely confirms what I have said—Ministers are riding roughshod over the opinions of professional people whose good will is needed if the Bill is to be in any way a success.

If the Government had taken the trouble to consult before rushing to legislate, many of the problems might have been avoided, but they are seeking to push through the Bill having consulted no one but their own advisers on large parts of it. If the Government had waited to hear the outcome of their own inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak, they might have been able to produce more proportionate legislation. If the Government had decided to hold a full, independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak and waited to legislate on the basis of its findings, they would have done the right thing.

The Prime Minister is shortly due to receive a petition signed by well over 100,000 people, demanding a public inquiry.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Two hundred thousand.

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

My hon. Friend says that there are 200,000 signatures. Organisations as diverse as the Countryside Alliance and Friends of the Earth have demanded such an inquiry. Conservatives have called for a full public inquiry into the origins and handling of the disease since March this year, but it is important to recognise that not only Conservatives have done so.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

No, I do not have the time.

The public, national and regional newspapers and magazines, animal rights and environmental groups and farmers are all demanding a public inquiry. Even the Liberal Democrats are demanding a public inquiry and yet the Government have consistently set their face against such an inquiry. Why?

We are told that this is a listening Government. Why are the listening Government deaf to the demands for an independent public inquiry into the terrible impact of foot and mouth disease, which has cost the country billions of pounds, caused misery to families and businesses across the country, caused millions of healthy animals to be slaughtered and left a legacy of economic hardship that will take years to overcome?

What have the Government got to hide? Is the truth so very shameful? Just who is calling the shots? We know that, when asked about an independent inquiry on 3 April, the Minister for the Environment, said:

"Unquestionably there will be one this time, to ascertain the cause and how it happened, and the way we can prevent it happening again. We will want to know how the disease got such a hold."

That perfectly decent and reasonable commitment was immediately repudiated by Downing street. Not for the first time, the Minister for the Environment was left hanging out to dry. What has the Prime Minister got to hide from a full public inquiry?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am sorry, but I am not giving way.

The Government's refusal to hold an independent inquiry kicks away the last strut of respectability from the Bill. It is not only foolish, hasty, badly drafted, misdirected, excessive and offensive, but it lacks moral justification. If it becomes law, I have every reason to expect that it will quickly become the subject of at least one legal challenge.

We in this House can only hope that the Bill will be substantially amended in the upper House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Ainsworth (Conservative, East Surrey)

I am sorry, but I will not give way to my hon. Friend.

Better still, the Government should withdraw the Bill altogether and come back with proposals that are proportionate, reasonable and based on considered opinion and recognise the meaning of justice.

Huw Edwards (Labour, Monmouth)

It has been a pleasure and an honour to serve on the Standing Committee and to listen to the arguments. I have no doubt that all the Committee's members have experience of representing constituencies where foot and mouth was a serious problem. It certainly was in my constituency of Monmouth, which can be said to be contiguous with the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who were also on the Committee. In fact, some farmers in my constituency believe that foot and mouth came from the hon. Gentleman's constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

The Bill is an important emergency measure. There are times of crisis, such as BSE and foot and mouth, when the Government have to introduce emergency measures. It would have been wrong to wait for one or two years for inquiries to report and to make recommendations before the Government acted. We all hope and pray that there will not be another outbreak of foot and mouth in next few months but, if there were to be one, can one imagine the criticism that would be levelled if the Government had introduced no measures whatever following the outbreak of 2001 and if they did not have the opportunity to vaccinate and to pay compensation for vaccination?

There has been a strong debate in my constituency, but the local farmers who were most directly affected by foot and mouth believe that the culling policy, though distressing, was necessary. It was necessary to get ahead of the disease. They were frustrated at the delays that took place in other parts of the country. For example, farmers in my area criticised the delays that occurred nearby such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the greater good of defeating the disease, the one or two objectors behaved in rather selfish manner in that they probably exacerbated the situation by allowing the disease to spread? We ended up with more animals being culled as a result of their selfishness.

Huw Edwards (Labour, Monmouth)

My hon. Friend has represented her constituency very well on this matter. Concern was expressed in my constituency that the culling process was halted for one reason or another, including the delays caused by ministerial officials. Nobody can deny that. It was a catastrophic event that overwhelmed the whole country.

It is absolutely necessary to fill the legal loopholes in the Animal Health Act 1981. It is important that we will now have greater incentives to ensure that biosecurity measures are taken. It is to the great credit of the farming community that there has been no further outbreak for some time now. We were absolutely delighted when Wales was declared free of the disease last week. The meat export trade is resuming, and I hope that it will resume in my part of Wales as soon as possible.

We do not want to be overwhelmed by such an event again, but many lessons have to be learned. We must ensure that livestock travels shorter distances. I listened with interest to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about the long distances over which much livestock is transported. In south-east Wales we have no major abattoir facility, and much of the livestock in the area is transported unnecessarily long distances. I wish that the farming infrastructure in my area had received greater investment. We need to reopen and modernise our livestock markets and invest in abattoir capacity.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Does my hon. Friend recall that the running down of this country's abattoirs mostly occurred in the 10 years before the 1997 election? Closures have continued, but at a much slower rate.

Huw Edwards (Labour, Monmouth)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There has, however, been a further rundown in recent years, and we need to arrest that trend. We need to use bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency to invest in those areas. I wish that we could have objective 1 funding in Monmouthshire to ensure the provision of more abattoir capacity, but we are outside the objective 1 area, so we are unable to invest in the economic development of an industry that has suffered most in recent years. I would be the first to admit that my constituency is relatively affluent, but its farming community has suffered badly in recent years.

We need greater investment in meat processing facilities, and we need new livestock markets. There is great controversy in my constituency because Monmouth livestock market is fairly run down and does not have as much trade as it should have. Abergavenny market is in need of investment and there is a debate about the creation of a new, modern livestock market that will serve not only Monmouthshire but south-east Wales and beyond, over the border into England.

The Minister has conducted proceedings on the Bill in his usual expert way. Not every farmer in Monmouthshire will agree with his policies, any more than they agree with my approach on every aspect of agriculture, but there is no doubt that he is dedicated to farming. His tremendous expertise is acknowledged on both sides of the House.

May I put one point to my hon. Friend? Recently, I attended a meeting of farmers in my constituency in the Cross Ash area, which was very badly affected by foot and mouth. I thought that they might be a little hostile because of the events of the past few months, but they were quite welcoming and hoped that I would take up a particular cause about which they are concerned—the payment of slaughter premiums. Many were not paid the premium although they believe that they are entitled to it. I shall write to my hon. Friend on behalf of Mr. Probert, Mr. Williams, Mr. Sevenoaks and a number of other farmers in my constituency. I sincerely hope that he will be able to consider their case, which I believe to be very strong. I assure him that I will be very happy to talk about the matter in the Lobby tonight.

Malcolm Bruce (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

We are 26 minutes from the end of the proceedings on the Bill in this House. It is interesting that the Minister has consistently said that plenty of time and thoughtful discussion have been devoted to it, but the Committee debated only six of its clauses in six sittings and returned the Bill to the House completely unamended. It does not look like a Bill that has gone through effective consultation. That is particularly disappointing when one considers that, according to the reports that I have read and the accounts of my hon. Friend the Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), the atmosphere in the Committee was constructive and engaging. The Under-Secretary is a constructive and engaging Minister, but the fact remains that he has not accepted a single amendment or undertaken fully to introduce any amendments before the Bill completes its final stages.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Gentleman may have missed what I said about that. A number of issues came up in Committee, and I gave undertakings that I would consider the best way forward which, of course, involves taking advice and looking at legal aspects. I said that, if appropriate, certain provisions that we discussed in Committee which, I conceded, I was willing to look at, could be added to the Bill in another place. There is work to be done on that. We have consulted widely with a range of bodies. To be fair to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, although it has not approached me directly, it went to the Department to discuss the issues with the chief veterinary officer. It has not raised objections to the Bill.

Malcolm Bruce (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I appreciate the Minister's intervention, which was characteristic of his style and, I am sure, is backed by many good intentions. However, at the end of the day, one can only judge the Bill on what it says when it completes its passage through the House. In January, we may be back here with a Bill that has been altered; the Minister will then be able to say, "I have been vindicated." However, until he has said that, he can hardly be surprised if we consistently take the view that the Bill is not acceptable in its present form and should be opposed. If our roles were reversed, I do not think that he would expect any opposition party to behave any differently at this stage and in these circumstances.

The Minister made specific mention of the scrapie provisions and we should be clear that, in fact, the Bill was supposed to deal with scrapie. There was agreement that the voluntary scrapie plan was not working fast enough and that legislation was needed. All parties in the House and all those trying to eliminate scrapie support that. Obviously, there are concerns about rare breeds and questions need to be asked, but that could have been dealt with amicably and constructively in Committee. In reality, reference to scrapie in the Bill consists of one line in the main body of the Bill and one schedule. The rest of the contents have been plucked from the air and that has given rise to contention. The fundamental problem is not the scrapie provisions, but all the other provisions.

The Minister said that he would consult. Here we are on Third Reading, and he is going to consult. We hoped that the consultation would have taken place first and helped to inform the shape and structure of the Bill. That is what consultation ought to do; it should not take place after the event. Although there has been constitutional adjustment in recent years so that Ministers' words in Hansard can be used in the legal interpretation of an Act, as the Minister well knows, the first thing that any court will look at is what the Act itself says; it is difficult to add the qualifications of Ministers unless the court interprets them as effectively part of the legislation. The Minister is reasonable and is behaving in a reasonable way, but his reasons for not accepting amendments may not be persuasive in the courts at the end of the day.

The Minister has not succeeded in persuading me or my colleagues of the emergency nature of the Bill. He kept saying—and it is obviously true—that we are not yet at the end of the foot and mouth outbreak. I would like to think that we are close to that. In Scotland and in Wales, technically, we are; in England we soon will be, we hope. Most of us believe that the possibility of a flare-up at this late stage is the Minister's only justification for forcing through the Bill in the time scale. However, there is not an overwhelmingly convincing argument for doing so. After all, southern Scotland was affected by foot and mouth, yet the Scottish Executive did not take DEFRA's view that emergency legislation was needed. I understand that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation but, unlike DEFRA, will do so after they have consulted the farmers, not before. They will endeavour to take account of their experience and the views of farmers' organisations in Scotland before they introduce legislation in the Scottish Parliament. That approach is commendable and would have been much more acceptable to the House if it had been adopted by DEFRA.

With the end of the outbreak, we are looking for the re-establishment of export markets. I asked the Minister about that at Question Time today. Farmers in my part of Scotland and sheep farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom would like to think that getting those export markets back in the face of obstructive behaviour by France, which is a vital export market, was more important to Ministers than steamrollering the Bill through Parliament. Ministers should devote all their time and energy to a constructive commitment to farmers.

The Government have not amended the Bill at all, in spite of strong arguments well supported from various quarters. Those arguments were not party politically motivated, but motivated by a genuine concern to end confrontation between Government and farmers and to secure co-operation, so that together we can stop diseases occurring and spreading. To do that, the Government need everybody on side, not the threat of powerful criminal legislation and powers which, if executed, most people would find offensive and contrary to civil liberties. I am not convinced by the Government's claim that the Bill does not contravene the European convention on human rights.

On that basis, my colleagues and I will support other hon. Members who find the Bill unacceptable. We will vote against it, and we will not support it until it has been properly amended in another place.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can all say how things should have been, but we would all be severely criticised by the farming community and the general public if, as a result of the horrendous outbreak during the spring and summer, we had taken no action to deal more effectively and speedily with another potential outbreak in the future. We still face a risk. If the disease flared up again into a major outbreak, heaven forfend, and we had taken no action, we would look extremely stupid—

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

And have been irresponsible.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

Indeed. We recognised in the summer that speed and efficiency were essential in dealing with the outbreak. It is important that we have the ability to fight the disease. We had the worst-ever outbreak of foot and mouth and we need effective weapons to fight it. The Bill strengthens our options. Many felt that vaccination was an option that could have been deployed last time, but for various reasons it was not.

Widespread concern has been expressed about the Bill and its timing. As the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) mentioned, many people have called for a public inquiry. I, too, have expressed my view that there should have been one. However, other public inquiries have taken years to report, in which case we might not have been able to enact the Bill for another five or six years, until the results of the inquiry had been published, whereas the Anderson inquiry will report within six months.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

At the time of the last Conservative Government, when an even greater disaster on a grander scale in every sense occurred, does my hon. Friend recall whether there were calls from the Conservative party for a public inquiry?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Double standards!

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

The silence was a little deafening, and it was a case of double standards, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said.

Concern has also been expressed about the scope of the Bill. Much of that concern is based on misinformation. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the Bill does not apply to all animals, such as goldfish, guinea pigs, pot-bellied pigs, which I called pot-bellied sheep in Committee, cats, dogs or horses. It is clear that the Bill relates only to animals that are susceptible to foot and mouth and other animal diseases. There has been much misinformation about the scope of the Bill. In the same way, misinformation has been propagated about the appeals procedure and the right to judicial review.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

I am afraid not. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) had little time to speak, and neither have I.

There has been a lot of misinformation about the Bill, which has caused concern that might not have been engendered if hon. Members on both sides of the House had been a little more honest.

The Government have taken the opportunity to listen during the scrutiny process. Many issues have been raised and my hon. Friend the Minister has responded very positively. I emphasise the key provisions on consultation, new protocols and new guidelines for vets, as well as new criteria on rights of appeal and on the slaughter power. I have two questions in that context. First, my hon. Friend said that the consultation would occur in the new year. Will he give us a tighter time scale on how long the consultation will last? Secondly, how do people other than stakeholders feed into that consultation? For instance, how do farmers in the Forest of Dean and others there who wanted to object fit in?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is worth saying for the record that it was she and other hon. Members who convinced me to introduce the protocol on which we will be consulting. Of course, we will put the information on the DEFRA website, contact hon. Members who have expressed an interest and make the consultation public to the local press.

Diana Organ (Labour, Forest of Dean)

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments.

My hon. Friend and the Government have been listening to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) about the transportation of animals and the maximum time of eight hours. We recognise that the issue of resubmission to market within 20 days, which also arose earlier, is not only an animal welfare matter, but one of the measures that we can put in place to fight disease. I think that we have made progress. The Government have been listening to concerns and looking at the way forward on making the Bill better, perhaps with the insertion of provisions in another place to strengthen it.

Admittedly, the Bill was considered for a short time in Committee, although I understand that no objection was made about having three days of sittings and that nobody called for further days. We gained from the pre-legislative scrutiny that was undertaken. This is a useful model that helps hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider the effects of legislation before it goes into Second Reading and Committee. I commend the process as a model that we can use in respect of other measures.

Obviously, all of us are looking forward to the reports of the three inquiries—especially that of Professor Anderson. The lessons to be learned from the devastating outbreak that occurred will be most important for all of us. I hope that the measures in the Bill, which may be amended in another place, are a means of answering the lessons that will identified and will help us to fight this terrible disease in future, so that we do not have to suffer again the misery, destruction and distress that we went through this summer.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I shall be brief, as I realise that other hon. Members want to contribute.

The Bill is disproportionate and will almost certainly be challenged under the European convention on human rights. I look forward to seeing it challenged in such a way. The Minister has taken unto himself in the Bill powers that he already has under the 1981 Act regarding the slaughter of diseased animals. He is putting on to the statute book additional powers for slaughter and powers that allow Department officials to come on to people's premises in respect of contiguous culls. I am not talking about animals that are clearly showing clinical signs of disease. I have no opposition at all to such animals being slaughtered out immediately and disposed of as quickly as possible, but the question of how a contiguous cull is identified and expedited is one of the big problems in terms of our experience during the past few months. It was in relation to the contiguous cull that the Government fouled up—and they did so in a big way.

People's rights—they had them until the Minister produced the Bill—should be respected. The measure is not about controlling animal disease. The Department uses computer modelling to identify the farms, but cannot even find them on an Ordnance Survey map. The Government need to sort out the mess before introducing measures that give the Minister additional powers.

Hon. Members from all parties have pointed out that the Minister is prepared to take the Bill through without accepting any amendments, even Labour amendments. In Committee, Labour Members tabled reasonable amendments and voted against them under duress. That is astonishing and nonsensical. The measure is not about animal health, but Government power. I hope that it will be challenged in the courts as soon as possible.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

I shall be brief. We all agree that we cannot deal with a future outbreak of foot and mouth in the same way as we have tackled the current outbreak, especially in my constituency, which is in Cumbria and has suffered enormously. I feel tremendous sadness for farmers whose animals have been slaughtered and for those whose animals have not been culled but who have suffered all the associated pressures and stress, such as not being to able to move from their farms.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), but I want to enlarge on her points. Prevention is a key element in the fight against foot and mouth. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we need continued vigilance and the tightest biosecurity. However, as I said earlier, we also need to ensure that security at our ports and airports is as tight as possible.

I support the Bill because it allows us to deal with the epidemic through a different approach, which may include vaccination. Several farmers in my constituency would view that favourably.

As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said, scrapie formed the basis of the Bill. That was discussed and debated at length in Committee, but not on Report. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider traceability and identification for sheep? Will he propose a scheme for that? If so, will he consider the superb model in my constituency? The successful British Cattle Movement Service deals with the traceability of cattle. I hope that my hon. Friend will examine it and use it as a model for the future.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I shall be brief. Farmers' incomes have fallen by 72 per cent. since 1975 and 40 per cent. of farmers are on family credit and working families tax credit. We have experienced the worst period in the history of agriculture and 5 million animals have been slaughtered. Yet the Government introduce a Bill that will force people not only to lose 25 per cent. of their compensation but to pay to appeal. The Bill will penalise farmers who practise proper biosecurity but will not punish those who deliberately infect. They will be allowed to keep 75 per cent. of their compensation.

This is a Bill of shame. The part relating to scrapie is based on extremely difficult science. Codon 136—which is involved in the testing for the valene codon—is extremely difficult to identify, and in 80 per cent. of the tests carried out on sheep in my constituency, the tests were incorrect. We have evidence for that. I hope that, when the Minister considers the time frame for the scrapie plan, he will consider the testing methods to be used. It is difficult to find anything good to say about such a punishing Bill. If there is one word that sums up my feelings, it is rage.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) spoke of the dangers of hindsight. This is a remarkable Bill in that it is the first example of perfect foresight. It is perfect because not one amendment was deemed necessary during the passage of the Bill—because of the inadequate time that it has had in Committee and now on the Floor of the House. It demonstrates foresight because it comes before the Government's inquiries have produced what they think is necessary to control foot and mouth disease.

This is a first: 19 pages of legislative perfection. But it is just not true. The Bill is not needed; it contains nothing on the important issues about improving liaison with the Environment Agency and the Department of Health concerning disposal techniques. All that the Bill will do is make the contiguous cull easier. The contiguous cull is still a matter of deep controversy in the farming community in my constituency. I am thinking of Nicola and Andrew Morris, who have produced compelling evidence that 85 per cent. of the animals slaughtered in this epidemic had no symptoms of foot and mouth disease. We are making a controversial policy easier.

The Minister is introducing a Bill that is premature, draconian and unwanted. Yet again, this House is going to have to look to another place to do the real business of a democracy and improve a piece of legislation.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

This was a poor Bill when it was first introduced. It remains a poor Bill as it is unamended, and it does not deserve support. The Minister has been emollient tonight on many issues, but it is not good enough to suggest that amendments may be tabled, or that undertakings may be given, in another place. This House is the representative body for England—and Wales, still. I may not agree with that, but it is. It is important that those amendments should come before this body so that we can discuss them here and with our constituents, whom we are here to represent.

The Government have taken a soft option with this Bill. They had difficulties with the contiguous cull, and with dealing with other aspects of foot and mouth. They have sought to legislate their way out of the situation—as is always their first instinct when they have difficulties—rather than discussing the way forward with the farming communities. The Department that could not get the difference between sheep's and cows' brains right, and could not map out Wales correctly in relation to the contiguous cull, does not deserve to hold these draconian powers.

Finally, it is a travesty that the Bill was introduced without discussion with the National Assembly for Wales. That flies in the face of the undertakings and the protocol that exist between the Government and the National Assembly. It is not right that the National Assembly did not know about the Bill until First Reading. I am talking about the Assembly rather than the Minister's friends in the Administration. It is important to underline the difference between the two. The Bill does not deserve the support of the House, and I hope that it will be voted down.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The powers in the Bill have been discussed a great deal. Every time the Minister hears something reasonable from the Opposition, he shakes his head. All we have to do is look at what section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981 says about the animals that can be killed, and what section 87 says about the ways in which those animals can be defined and those powers can be extended. The Minister talks about the fact that that would require an order—big deal! That requires a rubber stamp and takes 90 minutes. The combination of sections 32 and 87 of the 1981 Act and this Bill will mean that the Minister can kill whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without giving any reason for doing so.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Without paying for it.

Richard Bacon (Conservative, South Norfolk)

The second problem with the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) says, is the question of compensation. The people in the farming community in this country are burning, and they are bleeding. Total income from farming has gone down from £5 billion five years ago to less than £2 billion. The income of the average farmer is £5,000 or less, and it is a disgrace that the Government are making farmers pay penalties, in many cases for the mistakes of the Department.

The third problem is human rights. The front page of the Bill says that the

"provisions of the Animal Health Bill are compatible with the Convention"

on human rights. What a ludicrous statement! The Bill is plainly incompatible with article 6, which provides for the right to a fair trial, and with article 8, which provides for the right to respect for private and family life.

The fourth problem is illegal imports. The Minister said that he was minded to listen to us, but he would not accept our reasonable new clause, which required no more of him than simply to return to the House once a year to report what has been going on. He took absolutely no notice.

The problem is that the Bill's real agenda is to make legal what was done that was illegal, namely killing 5 million animals of which 4 million were healthy—

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.