| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 45. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has given a very detailed account of the loss of VI centres and of personnel in the State Veterinary Service. The losses have occurred over the past decade; they did not happen immediately. The effect has been to reduce our national capacity for surveillance of all types of disease.
The Veterinary Investigation Centre Network used to be the jewel in the crown of the state service, attracting some of the best people in the veterinary profession. The closure of so many facilities has had various consequences. Farmers wishing to send their animals to a centre, for example, have to contend with much greater distances, with return trips totalling perhaps more than 100 miles. Farmers are not always willing to do that. Farmers may also have to pay for post-mortem examinations, but, farmers being farmers, they may not wish to pay the heavy fees levied upon them.
In earlier days some remarkably poor decisions were taken. I do not charge the present Government with that. For example, I refer to a veterinary investigation centre that was situated next door to a veterinary school and a public health laboratory. I declare an interest as the dean of the school at the time. Yet despite the close association of those centres, the authorities decided to close down that facility and replace it with one in Bury St Edmunds which was not near any centre of excellence.
Similarly, the State Veterinary Service has been whittled down to the level indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. Some 200 or more members of that service have disappeared. One cannot maintain a service that is geared up to deal with an emergency situation. It would not be wise to determine the manpower that would be needed to deal with another outbreak of foot and mouth disease and try to maintain that as a standing force. That would not be realistic. We must rely on the private sector of the veterinary profession—I refer to the local veterinary inspector service—to help to deal with serious outbreaks of disease. The Royal Society of Edinburgh made a sensible proposal; namely, to create a corps of territorial reserve officers composed of retired people who have experience of dealing with foot and mouth disease and, indeed, many of the other diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. The Royal Society of Edinburgh indicated that those people might be paid a small retainer. They would be able to deal with outbreaks of those diseases. They could respond to such outbreaks as necessary but they would not be part of a permanent service.
The number of personnel in the Veterinary Investigation Service—that is now the Veterinary Laboratories Agency—has decreased. Being an agency, the VLA must generate funds; that is why it has to charge fees for diagnostic and investigation purposes. The number of personnel has been decreased due to a false sense of security. We have not had any serious outbreaks of disease in this country comparable to the foot and mouth outbreak. That has certainly not been the case as regards the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. I hope that we never do have such outbreaks but we must be aware that they are not very far away. We cannot compromise our situation by any further reduction in the number of personnel in either the State Veterinary Service or the VLA. Many people in the veterinary profession now realise that we have reached a point where numbers are below the critical level with the result that serious diseases entering the country will not be detected. I very much hope that the Minister will comment positively on that matter and that he will give an assurance that the Government will take it on board.
As regards Amendment No. 47, research needs to be conducted into the diseases mentioned in Schedule 2A. However, effective vaccines already exist for many of those diseases. We look forward to the global eradication of rinderpest due to a highly effective vaccine. However, were rinderpest to enter this country, we should first slaughter out the infected premises and then use a vaccine. It would be no use trying to vaccinate before that step was taken as rinderpest is a highly contagious disease. Although we need to carry out more work as regards vaccination, we should use that information with a degree of caution and not consider that vaccination is the total answer to the control of some of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the debate on Amendments Nos. 45 and 47 introduces a strong sense of dejà vu. Noble Lords may recall the Barnes report on market led research—the emphasis at that time was on market led research—that was issued in the early 1990s. That research was extremely elegantly described by the Minister at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—who said that if farmers want it they will pay for it, but if they will not pay for it they do not want it. I said at the time that the description seemed to me to apply much more to the oldest profession than to agricultural research. However, research was run down, as was the Veterinary Investigation Service, as we have just heard. I am sure that that was a factor in the lack of veterinary resources that were available to cope with the outbreak of disease last year.
I am rather puzzled by Amendment No. 47 on research which states:
- "The Minister shall fund research into levels of susceptibility to diseases listed in the inserted Schedule 2A . . . experienced within the United Kingdom since 1992".
- "The Minister shall collate research into the viability of permanent vaccination programmes against diseases listed in Schedule 2A".
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I hope that this will be my last intervention relative to Scotland. The Minister has a rather cavalier attitude to Scotland; namely, that everything will be all right on the night and that we do not need to worry what the Scottish Parliament will do and so on. However, as far as I am aware, the State Veterinary Service is still controlled by what was MAFF and is now DEFRA. That means that in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth in Scotland the front line troops are still controlled by the authorities in London, as was the case in last year's outbreak. One had to phone the nearest office in Ayr in connection with a foot and mouth outbreak in Dumfries. If anyone answered the phone, one's call was diverted to London. Will that still be the case in the future? Will the State Veterinary Service in Scotland be under the control of DEFRA, as appears to be the case in Wales? That takes some of the ground from under the Minister's feet when he said that that was a devolved matter that had nothing to do with him. He said that it should be left to the Scots.
However, as far as I can see, the Scots have no intention of introducing legislation on that matter in the next 12 months.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, were certainly well made. However, I wish to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Soulsby who said—he must be right here—that the costs of maintaining the State Veterinary Service at the level needed to deal with an emergency would be quite impractical. My noble friend suggested that perhaps retired vets could deal with an outbreak in the event of an emergency. However, perhaps my noble friend can explain why vets within the private sector who are still practising could not be brought in. I should have thought that their knowledge would be more up to date and more practical than that of retired vets.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are on Report. Questions could have been put while the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, was speaking, but we cannot enter into a debate. Anyway, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would never forgive me if I allowed the rules to be breached in his absence.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, made some valid points about manning. Many private vets still work for the State Veterinary Service—a point that has been made before. We need to make sure that the leadership in the State Veterinary Service is up to scratch and that they are able to command in a situation that requires a strong, firm, clear commander. That was one of the problems with the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
I support without exception the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We have been told a great deal about research. I am saddened that we are losing our best scientists—in the recent outbreak, Dr Paul Kitchiner, decided to go to Canada at a crucial moment—because the scientific community has been watered down so much.
I read an interesting paper the other day describing the politicisation of science. In order to obtain money, scientists have had to become political and to some extent bow to political masters in the type of research they do. They have also become commercialised, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned. In order to make an income they have to charge for their services. That can blight to some extent the way in which they consider and accept other people's research. That problem also became clear with foot and mouth disease.
I suspect that one of the reasons Pirbright would not even consider the American testing equipment was because it has some of its own lined up and does not want to lose its commercial edge. An overall review of the progress of our science is needed. The amendments
will help to some extent, but we need to consider outside the Bill what we are doing with animal science and indeed human science.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |