Aujeszky's Disease (Hansard, 18 July 1985)

§ 10. Mr. Freud
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid in compensation to pig farmers for losses incurred because of Aujeszky's disease in each of the last three years; what is the aggregate loss to farmers; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Jopling
About £25.3 million has been paid to owners in compensation for slaughter of pigs affected with the disease—£21.5 million was paid in 1983, £3.4 million in 1984 and £350,000 so far this year. In addition, I understand that Pig Disease Eradication Fund Ltd. paid about £3.7 million for disruption costs. It is not possible to give a total figure for farmers' losses in the campaign.

§ Mr. Freud
I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he show some sympathy to the industry, which tried to follow his philosophy of helping itself, only to find that the costs were vastly in excess of the estimates? Is it right for the Government to escape completely from the consequences of what the Standing Committee called at least a failure of communications, and at worst maladministration?

§ Mr. Jopling
The hon. Gentleman will recall that this scheme was started at the express wish of the industry, and it was on the absolute understanding that it was to be producer-financed. As the hon. Gentleman has been honest enough to acknowledge, the figure of £6 million was an estimate. I remind him that my Department has already contributed more than £3 million in veterinary and administrative resources and in laboratory testing. I remind him as well that the Select Committee, in paragraph 23 of its report, said: it does not appear that MAFF has any contractual obligations to bail out the industry".

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Is my right hon. Friend aware that although no Standing Committee has reported on this matter, contrary to what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) has said, the Select Committee on Agriculture has done so? Does my right hon. Friend accept the obligation which the House knows falls upon him and the recommendations of that Select Committee report? Does he not have a statutory duty to take an effective interest in the prevention of animal disease in this country for the benefit of the nation as a whole, not just of agricultural producers? If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can get £50 million a year to reduce the rates burden, cannot my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food get a few more million pounds to help to put the eradication fund back into solvency?

§ Mr. Jopling
The Select Committee report makes it clear that it does not appear that MAFF has any contractual obligations to bail out the industry". Estimates were made, and it was made clear that one could not be precise about how much this disease would cost. I am bound to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend, although he may know it already, that the fund's overdraft of £14 million has been made a good deal higher because of the just short of £4 million of extra costs represented by consequential losses, which were paid out by the fund against my Department's advice. I do not believe that, in spite of the Select Committee's report, there is a duty on my Department to bail out in this case.

§ Mr. Haynes
Is the Minister aware that I get the distinct impression that he is standing at the Dispatch Box bragging about how much the Government are paying in compensation? What sort of effort are the Government, especially the Minister, making to stamp out the disease? That is what my farmers want to know. Let us hear about it.

§ Mr. Jopling
I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the matter. Since the scheme began in March 1983, 500 herds, including 420,000 pigs, have been slaughtered. Since June 1984, only 17 cases have been confirmed, compared with 92 in May 1983 at the height of the campaign. There are likely to be a few remaining foci of infection, and the efforts of the state veterinary services are geared to identifying those few remaining cases.

§ Mr. Key
Does my right hon. Friend agree that pig farmers are not financial experts, that the sum is modest compared with the rest of the agriculture budget, and that he is setting a dangerous precedent if he says that the Government will not be responsible for parts of the agricultural sector, if farmers have agreed otherwise, even if there is a risk of disease? One can, in particular, foresee antibiotic problems in fish farming.

§ Mr. Jopling
In this case we had a scheme to deal with a disease, on which the industry placed high priority. The scheme was embarked upon at the specific request of the industry, on the absolute understanding that it was to be producer-financed and that Government money would not be involved. In spite of that, my Department has spent more than £3 million monitoring the programme. That is an extremely generous sum.

Mr. Mark Hughes
Does the Minister accept that to hide behind the absence of a contractural obligation is unacceptable to the farmers, that animal health is his responsibility, and that ultimately he must pay for the good health of our pig population?

§ Mr. Jopling
I do not accept that. The industry said that it wanted to operate the scheme and would finance it. We said that the cost would be at least £6 million, and it has cost more than that. We made it clear that estimating how much it would cost was an unpredictable science. We should not pay any more towards the scheme on top of the £3 million.