| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
These bodies are extremely important to the working of the country. All three have an immense effect on the lives of the people of this country. If you remove the
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1370
I hear what the Minister says and I shall read it in Hansard. However, I suspect that this is not the last the noble Lord will hear of the matter in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Animal Welfare: Infectious Diseases
7.32 pm
Baroness Byford rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what improvements have been made in the management of infectious animal diseases.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to have secured this short debate and I thank all those who are going to participate for bringing their expertise and knowledge to these deliberations. I also thank the Minister for his continuous support of the industry. I declare my various interests, held in the Register of Members’ Interests, such as my honorary associate membership of both the Royal College and the BVA. I should add that our family no longer has livestock on the farm.
In my contribution today I shall cover bluetongue, avian flu, foot and mouth and bovine TB specifically, although I know that other speakers may wish to broaden the debate. I am well aware that the Government have no control over the midges that spread bluetongue or over the wild birds that carry avian flu to this country. However, I would be grateful to know of any extra checks that have been put in place following the flu outbreak on the Bernard Matthews complex to reduce the risk of disease brought into this country either by infected legally or illegally imported meat or by the movement of people or lorries.
Is the Minister satisfied that the Government’s emergency plans are sufficiently robust to deal with future outbreaks of bluetongue? I understand that in the United Kingdom vaccination of susceptible animals will be completely voluntary. How will the Government know which animals have or have not been vaccinated? What vaccines have been ordered and in what quantities? When will they be available?
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1371
Written Answers from another place that were published in Hansard on 20 November made some of the following points. The midges that carry bluetongue are likely to survive the winter; I say as an aside that I understand that they have cross-contaminated some of our UK midges. The virus lives in infected animals for eight weeks or so. Testing for the presence of the virus is concentrated in the protection zones, but it also covers animals that were moved from a protection zone before the registration was put in place plus any that appear to exhibit signs of bluetongue infection. Has the Minister any plans to introduce proactive rather than random testing in areas where midges might be present?
The BVA believes that any cost-sharing arrangements must provide the industry with an incentive for action. There should not be simply a flat levy on farmers; all interested parties should be encouraged to improve their practice. Cost sharing should surely reward those who achieve good animal health and welfare outcomes.
I turn now to the ongoing problem of bovine TB and refer directly to the House of Commons EFRA committee report. TB is a menace to cattle and badgers alike and continues to spread unabated. Figures published this week show that the number of fresh outbreaks of TB in cattle reached a new record for modern times of 4,137 in 2007. The incidence of TB—that is, the proportion of herds tested resulting in a breakdown—increased by 18 per cent on the previous year. Some 28,000-plus cattle were slaughtered as TB reactors, inconclusive reactors or dangerous contacts, and 6,532 farms were under TB restrictions in 2007 because of a TB incident. That TB outbreak is costing taxpayers more than £90 million, let alone the heartbreak to the farmers concerned.
A recent independent report published by the Royal Society suggested that 75 per cent of new TB outbreaks were caused by local effects in high-risk areas, the most significant of which is contact between badgers and cattle. Controls of the spread of TB by cattle movements have an important part to play, but TB will never be brought under control without tackling the reservoir of the disease in the badger population. The report highlights that the disease is now effectively out of control. Clearly something needs to be done urgently.
The Royal Society report recognised the need for a multifaceted approach to the problem. Vaccination, effective biosecurity arrangements at farm level, increased frequency of testing and a greater use of gamma interferon are recommended. The ISG report of 2007 acknowledged that the removal of infected badgers can have a beneficial effect on the instances of TB in cattle in parts of the country where there is a high incidence. The Minister will be well aware of the concerns expressed by dairy and beef farmers in the hot-spot areas, particularly those in the south and south-west, which is where I was this weekend.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1372
The Government’s record of managing outbreaks of foot and mouth leaves much to be desired. The 2001 epidemic, in which thousands of cattle and sheep were slaughtered, was a disgrace. The Government failed to address the original outbreak with the urgency that was needed and, as a result, the disease spread rapidly throughout areas of the country. The Government have learnt lessons from the three inquiries, although I am still unsure whether they are prepared to use vaccination rather than slaughter in the first instance should a new outbreak occur. We debated this subject at great length when we took through the Animal Health Bill.
The 2007 outbreak of foot and mouth at Pirbright was, from a management point of view, dealt with quickly, although I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the second outbreak was directly linked to the first and, if so, whether the management controls put in place at the time were found to be inadequate. Will he also tell us whether the decision to restrict movement and slaughter rather than vaccinate throughout the immediate area was prompted by a lack of vaccine or whether the Government simply chose not to use it? As the source was known, it seemed an ideal situation in which to use vaccination for the whole of Surrey in a controlled trial.
The government proposals for cost sharing for future animal diseases have been viewed with alarm. The Minister is no doubt aware of the difficult financial circumstances that threaten the survival of many livestock farmers. Indeed, the petition from the National Pig Association last week highlights the industry’s troubles. Farmers well understand that they have a responsibility to maintain strong biosecurity measures on their farms. Equally, they believe that the Government of the day should be robust in keeping out animal diseases from this country and should have strong, foolproof emergency measures in place.
A number of people have asked me how the cost-sharing position will work with regard to the devolved Administrations. In the event of, say, an outbreak of bluetongue that encompasses south Scotland or north Wales and Cumbria, will Defra’s costs be recovered throughout the UK or only from the farmers affected? If the scheme takes the form of an annual premium, will all UK farmers contribute or only those within England? That is not clear. Will the charges that are to be made be based on the inclusion of Defra’s management, administration and overhead costs as well? I assure the Minister that the livestock industry is not wholly opposed to cost recovery, but it would like to know exactly what it will be charged for.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that, at a time when we are experiencing a warmer climate, the chances are that new infectious diseases will be coming to these shores. It is against that background of changing climate that I wanted to introduce this short debate tonight, which I feel is very important. I greatly look forward to hearing other contributions and the Minister’s response to some of the questions that I have posed today.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1373
7.41 pm
Lord Krebs: My Lords, I shall speak on the subject of bovine tuberculosis. In so doing, I must declare an interest as the author of the 1997 report on this topic for the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has already mentioned that bovine TB is a persistent, costly and increasing problem for farmers in Britain. I will not repeat the figures that she gave. I want to focus particularly on the question of bovine TB and badgers.
The scientific evidence relating to bovine TB and the policy options available have been reviewed more than a dozen times in the past decade, including in my 1997 review. Those reviews show that the problem is intractable, the science is incomplete and the experts disagree—they may be said to be like ferrets in a sack. However, some facts are beyond dispute. First, there is no reasonable doubt that badgers are part—I emphasise, only part—of the problem. They harbour the disease and transmit it to cattle. With that wildlife reservoir, as the noble Baroness said, the disease will be very hard to eliminate in cattle.
It may seem obvious that, if badgers are part of the problem, getting rid of them will be part of the solution. Unfortunately, however, it is not that simple. The culling trials that followed my 1997 report showed that small-scale culling in response to cases of TB actually makes things worse—by, it is estimated, about 27 per cent. Although the reason for that is not clear, it is possibly that culling encourages the movement of badgers and the immigration of new, diseased animals into the areas from which the previous residents have been removed. However, the trials showed that persistent, proactive culling on a large enough scale—what might be called a scorched-earth policy—can work. It was estimated that that could produce a reduction of as much as 25 per cent in herd breakdowns. We should recognise that scale is important in this, because around the edges of the removal area there is an increase in TB in cattle for the reasons that I have alluded to, such as the immigration of badgers. It is estimated that the minimum area for a net benefit, where removal at the middle outweighs the perturbation at the edges, is between 250 and 300 square kilometres. Even on that scale, culling badgers will not completely eliminate the disease.
Should the Government therefore initiate large-scale badger culling? The independent scientific group that oversaw the trials said no, the former Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, said yes, and the EFRA Select Committee in another place said perhaps.
Let us think for a moment what culling would mean. The Select Committee report suggests culling in TB hot spots—the areas mainly in the south-west and south Wales where the risk of TB is high and cattle are tested every year. The total surface area of those hot spots in England and Wales is about 34,500 square kilometres. If one were to undertake the culling of badgers in those places, that would translate into killing 170,000 badgers, which is well over half the British population. Even if culling were
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1374
What if the Government were to cull only in certain hot spots? Surely affected farmers in other hot spots would justifiably complain, “Why are we left to suffer?”. Killing half Britain’s badgers would probably be in breach of the Bern convention, and public support for it is not likely to be high. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed to work. In the Republic of Ireland, where there has been large-scale culling since 2002, the incidence of TB in cattle is reported in the Irish Farmers’ Journal to have risen by 15 per cent last year. Perhaps the short-term gains from culling do not last. Large-scale culling is risky in terms of public perception, legality and efficacy.
While the long-term solution must be a vaccine, let me end on a positive note for the short term. Although bovine TB is spreading, its net reproduction number—a measure of its rate of spread—is only just over the critical value. If that number can be brought down slightly, the disease will decrease instead of spreading. That could be achieved simply by a combination of more frequent testing and better husbandry, encouraged by offering incentives to keep badgers away from cattle, as is being trialled in Wales. Will the Minister consider adopting the Welsh approach and recognise that large-scale culling is not the answer?
7.47 pm
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I will not take up the question of TB, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, have already done so, but I shall repeat what the EFRA Select Committee in the other place said:
I agree with that comment. I hope the Minister can enlighten the House on what is in progress. He has heard me recommend before that further work be done on vaccines, especially on a vaccine for badgers.
Today I shall concentrate on exotic threats to our livestock. There are several; some affect the health of the human population while some affect that of the animal population, and there are others too. In safeguarding human health, antibiotic resistance has now become widespread as a pathogen in humans—but it is spreading widely in animals as well. As global trade increases, we cannot be complacent about the role that antibiotic resistance in our food animals might play in human health. In particular, there is a set of enzymes called the extended spectrum beta-lactamases, which are increasing at an enormous rate and produce dangerous levels of infections in food. An example is the recent report of imported chicken meat as a source of Escherichia coli, producing ESBLs. Were that to be eaten in an undercooked state by humans, serious bowel disorders might result.
What monitoring procedures are in place to detect these potentially dangerous pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics? I am concerned particularly by the potential for entry by exotic infections. As the
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1375
What exotic diseases are of immediate concern? Which diseases are hovering on the horizon, ready to come into this country in one way or another? One is African horse sickness, a devastating disease of equids and humans, which has spread widely in the United States and caused death in horses and humans. Another is West Nile fever, a serious disease of horses and humans. Bluetongue is already with us, and is poised to take off again as the winter disappears, the summer comes and midges become active again. I understand that a vaccine is ready for the control of bluetongue in sheep and cattle. We in the veterinary profession are concerned that, if it is to be administered solely on a voluntary basis by stockowners, a complete control of the vaccine programme might not be appropriate. There is also avian flu, which I shall not go into in detail.
What are the vaccination policies for these infections? What surveillance policies are in place? Surveillance must be robust. The Minister and the House have heard me on more than one occasion say that the price of freedom from disease is eternal vigilance to the disease potential of this country.
New technologies have been adapted in the United States to detect some of these infections, including a 60-minute identification of foot and mouth disease. Will the Minister enlighten the House on how the new technologies have been brought into play for the purpose of extending and improving vigilance towards diseases from exotic areas?
7.53 pm
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for introducing this appropriate topic. I declare my interest as a partner with my husband in our small mixed farm in Worcestershire and as an honorary associate of both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
I offer the Minister my assurance that any criticism that I make of Defra will be on my understanding that its staff are operating under almost impossible financial and manpower constraints, caused in large part by legacies about which we all know. On that basis, I hope that he will accept that I am trying to be constructive.
It is essential that the new-look Defra leadership is strong and that the appointed leaders are allowed to function without having to endure the constant interference that has become a pattern in recent years. In the field of animal health, with its often rapid advances in scientific knowledge, there needs to be a clear decision-making sequence. I am unconvinced that diluting the process by consultation with numerous stakeholder groups makes for effective decisions. Department and agency heads are selected for their knowledge, experience and wisdom. They
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1376
The acceptance of decisions depends much more on the communication of clear, concise and reasoned instructions, based on real expert opinion, than on imprecise and sometimes unreasonable directions given with little clear practical understanding of how they will be implemented. I would appreciate documents that are short and simple to read, which give useful illustrations instead of pretty pictures and which adequately define the technical terms that we must understand.
What is happening on the prevention front? The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned exotic diseases. Meat illegally imported into the UK poses a high risk of exotic diseases. How has Defra helped to reduce the risk? In the past two years, it has reduced from 11 to nine the number of specialist sniffer dogs at ports of entry, while spending nearly £1 million on items such as pens and toothbrushes, T-shirts and banners, television and newspaper advertisements, and posters. There have been only 11 successful prosecutions since 2003. By contrast, Australia has 75 sniffer dogs and an average of 50 successful prosecutions a year. Will the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the deterrent effect of spending so much on advertising and junk gifts compared with that of highly publicised successful prosecutions? What are the purchase and running costs of each sniffer dog and handler? Have leaflets in appropriate languages, advising prospective passengers not to bring meat and meat products into the UK, ever been distributed with airline tickets?
The considerable number of people and vehicle movements from potentially infected food and animal production units on the European continent to the UK must be a cause for concern. Australia and New Zealand are rigorous in their determination that no diseases should be imported from abroad. They require all incoming passengers to certify that they have not been on farms for a specific period or, if they have, to undergo disinfection procedures. Could we not do something like this, especially when we know that there has been person or vehicle contact with possible sources of disease? Compared with the huge financial costs of an outbreak of disease, these simple measures would appear to be cost effective. Does the Minister agree that they are worth considering? If they have already been considered, what were the reasons for rejection?
The farming community’s recent experiences with potentially disastrous outbreaks of infectious diseases have made it vigilant. Its action, and that of Defra officials, has limited the spread of disease—everybody here should be congratulated on their response to the most recent outbreak. There have been major improvements in the speed and accuracy of laboratory diagnosis in recent years, but this is still hampered by shortcomings in clinical diagnosis. It is essential that peer-reviewed knowledge is rapidly incorporated into protocols; for example, up-to-date peer-reviewed information on foot and mouth disease has not yet been incorporated into the protocol for
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1377
When disease appears, we need to know precisely what action must be taken. We all need to know when and where vaccination is to be used before an outbreak occurs. Furthermore, we must work with our European partners to ensure that directives are updated so that trade issues do not stand in the way of scientific advances when disease strikes. Effective contingency protocols work best when they are based on accurate science, have been practised and involve only a small chain of well informed command.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |