§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)I am glad that we have been given an opportunity—it has been the only one—to debate the effects of the radiation ban on sheep movements since it was announced on 20 June. It is incredible that the Secretary of State for Wales has not made a statement on the Floor of the House in the five weeks since the ban came into force. It is equally incredible that the Secretary of State for Wales has not been to Gwynedd or those parts of Clwyd or Powys that have been affected by the ban, although he has attended many meetings in Wales. If he had visited those areas, he would have known of the feeling of the farmers, as we do.
Hon. Members who represent the area and have had meetings with farmers, the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union, know full well the depth of concern. If it had not been for tonight's debate, which we have been fortunate to have, we would have left the House of Commons for the three-month recess without having aired the subject that is causing great concern not only in our part of Wales but in Cumbria and the south of Scotland.
I deliberately ensured that the title of the matter I requested for debate tonight was broad enough to allow hon. Members from Cumbria and the south of Scotland who wished to take part to do so. I know that the matter is of great concern to them also.
I congratulate the Government on their sudden awakening this week to the seriousness of the matter, and on today's announcement. We wonder whether it would have happened had there not been pressure this week from farmers who took part in the Royal Welsh Show, and without the focus that today's debate has provided for people to concentrate their minds.
I shall refer to the details of the announcement earlier today of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a written reply and the comments made on it. First, I wish to place on record my dissatisfaction that the contents of the Minister's reply were available for press conferences in Wales at 4 o'clock this afternoon when they were not available to hon. Members. That is an abuse of the House and a discourtesy to hon. Members. It makes it difficult for the House to do its work properly.
In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) today, the Welsh Office said that material was available in the Library. I checked a few moments ago, and the material is still not available. That is not good enough from both the Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The sheep sector in my county of Gwynedd is extremely important. It is the fundamental part of the agricultural scene. It is as critical to Gwynedd as the dairy sector is to Dyfed and the grain sector is to East Anglia. The farms in my area are largely family units, which often have a breadline economy. It is not the sort of economy of the large barley barons in other parts of these islands. It is interesting to note that a greater proportion of the agricultural fraternity receives family income supplement than does any other sector in Gwynedd. That shows how near the bone the industry frequently operates.
The months of June and July are critical months for the sheep sector. That is the time when the cash comes in to pay the bills—or it should. That is the crisis that people 737 have faced this year. As a result of the ban, the money has not come in. That is the time when farmers receive compensation for their sleepless nights during the critical lambing season in January and February. Many farmers have no other source of funds. They have no other income to sustain their families.
The Chernobyl accident was a tragedy of many dimensions. It has sown the seeds of early death for thousands of people in Soviet Russia. One must keep things in perspective. It has caused economic and health problems of an enormous dimension in many parts of Europe. No one would argue that the sheep problems in Gwynedd, Cumbria and the south of Scotland are more than a small problem compared with the enormous problems in other areas. None the less, they are major problems for the families whose livelihoods depend on the sheep sector.
The incident brings home the enormous dangers of the nuclear world in which we live, for there are no barriers to the cloud-borne radiation, and the rain falls where it will. The rain that fell during the weekend of 2 and 3 May in Wales, especially north Wales, caused a growth in radiation levels, and that led to the ban on the movement of some 900,000 lambs in north Wales. The ban has hit 4,000 farmers.
I am not criticising the Government for taking safety precautions. It is essential that everyone is aware that safety is of paramount importance. It is necessary for the public good. It is necessary that people, especially customers who buy lamb not only in these islands but abroad, know that the lamb on sale is clean lamb and is not affected by radiation.
The press statement issued by the Welsh Office on 7 May is a little ironic. Referring to radioactivity levels, it stated:
They present no threat to human or animal health, and although it is at present inadvisable to drink fresh rainwater over long periods, it is entirely safe to drink other water and milk".There is a certain complacency that, with hindsight, is perhaps regrettable.A balance must be struck between avoiding panic and fostering complacency. I accept that it is not always easy to strike that balance. I accept also that, although the 1,000 bq/kg level is not a dangerous amount to eat, it was right to raise an alert when that level was discovered. I have been eating lamb in the meantime, as have many other people. We should have confidence in our products. None the less, questions must be answered. The safety mechanism had to be brought in. It is necessary for the good name of Welsh lamb that the world outside should have total confidence in it. We need, however, to learn as much as possible from the tragic experience in recent weeks.
If the ban was necessary, it is important to accept that in no way was its introduction the farmers' fault. They had no control over the fact that the ban was imposed, yet they are the ones who are in danger of suffering enormous losses, as are certain other services relating to agriculture, such as abattoirs, butchers, hauliers and auctioneers. If the ban was introduced as a necessary measure, why was it introduced in a chaotic and haphazard manner? I think that that is the genuine feeling in the industry, and it certainly is in my constituency.
738 Some difficulties must be cleared up. Will the Under-Secretary of State assure us that there have been no readings of radioactive caesium greater than 1,000 bq/kg in any meat slaughtered before 26 April? It is important that confirmation is given. It has been feared that radioactivity caused by factors other than the Chernobyl incident is being measured. The Irish sea near north Wales has recently been described as the most radioactive sea in the world. Sellafield is involved. It is ironic that south Scotland, Cumbria and north Wales are near that sea. There are two nuclear power plants in Gwynedd. The question is whether radioactivity has been measured in meat killed before the Chernobyl incident. That point must be nailed down firmly.
Why were no readings on radioactivity in lamb taken in north Wales before 2 June? In Cumbria, lambs had been tested on, I believe, 14 May and were found to have levels in excess of 1,000 bq/kg. It only takes three or four days for those readings to be analysed. Was the Welsh Office waiting for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take readings in Cumbria before taking any initiatives on lamb? Did not the Ministry tell the Welsh Office, or was the Welsh Office supposed to be carrying out the inquiry itself but had not bothered to do so? The delay of between a fortnight and three weeks is incomprehensible in the sort of climate that led to the ban.
Why was there no more consultation in the weeks before 20 June with local authorities and those who were supposed to be in charge of civil defence? If there is no consultation on such an issue, what on earth is the point in having local civil defence functions? The Gwynedd public protection committee met on the Thursday, the day before the ban was announced, but no information had been given to it.
Why have no proper facilities for the monitoring of radioactivity been available? The nearest facility for monitoring carcases, other than the ad hoc facilities at the nuclear power stations and the university, is in Preston. Why is there no equipment available to monitor radioactivity in live animals without slaughtering? I understand that now, at last, one unit is available in north Wales and that animals can be put through and instant readings are produced. If such equipment had been brought in much sooner it would have saved a lot of heartache. We would have got results much sooner and statistical samples of greater accuracy would have been available.
Having decided to implement the ban on 20 June, very little information was available. The statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, and repeated by the Secretary of State for Wales, was very difficult to understand, especially the last sentence where it said:
the Government will be prepared to discuss cases of compensation for severe loss in particular circumstances to specific farmers."—[Official Report, 20 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1321.]It will be interesting to know whether, in the light of today's announcement, the Government have rethought that statement and that we are not talking about "severe loss" now but about all losses. That is fundamental to our understanding of the position. I would like the Minister to clarify that.There was a meeting on 26 June, the week after the announcement, in Caernarfon with representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union and the Welsh Office. It was not possible for Welsh Office 739 staff to tell farmers what sort of information they should be keeping and recording on which they could then base claims. I hope that as the claims come in, when the forms are available in three weeks, as I understand they will be, no claims will be rejected because information was not kept at that time. Farmers were begging the Government to give some explanation as to what information was needed and no substantial reply was forthcoming from officers of the Welsh Office. I understand that the same was true in England with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in Scotland with the Scottish Office. As a result, farmers did not know what was going to happen. They knew that there, was no cash coming in from sales, there was great uncertainty, there was destabilisation of the industry and that was worrying the bank managers to whom the farmers were turning for loans to keep them going. That destabilisation was partly because of the lack of information available over the first three or four weeks of the crisis.
Until today there had been no certainty as to who would get compensation and what the basis and procedure would be. It is totally inexcusable and complacent to leave farmers in the lurch. Last weekend at Caernarfon and at Llangefni I found farmers who were seething at the situation. At last the message got through. If we look at one example given to me by a farmer from Anglesey who telephoned on Sunday morning, we get a feeling of the loss. He has about 1,000 lambs which he thinks will soon become too fat to be graded. He estimates a loss of as much as £20 for each lamb. That is a total loss of £20,000 for that one farmer. That sort of money is not easily available to farmers in Gwynedd. The resources they have are the capital assets of their farms such as the animals. The animals also represent the potential working capital on which farmers are totally dependent if they are to get any sort of cash flow.
That one example brought home to me the magnitude of the loss faced by those people. Many of them are facing the loss of a lifetime's work. Farmers were rightly concerned as to whether each farmer would be compensated for individual loss on a case by case basis. They were concerned as to whether the confidence of the bank managers would be ensured to secure loans. They were anxious to ensure that there was confidence in the future of the industry and that markets would not be lost as a result of the radioactivity.
They were concerned that payment should be made to enable sheep to be moved from hills to the lower pastures and that there would be a mechanism for that. I understand that today's announcement does give some lead on that matter, although it is far from clear as to how the mechanism will work. The farmers particularly wanted a maximisation of information to be forthcoming.
The lack of information throughout that period has stood out and added .to the aggravation farmers feel, in particular over the lack of detail about the compensation schemes. They wanted the scheme to take into account the long-term losses to the industry and to meet the short-term cash-flow questions. There may appear to be a contradiction in those aims, but both are essential to the farmers. They wanted the scheme to compensate for losses to the store trade, and for compensation to be available to make up for the loss of grading as lambs grew too fat and quality suffered. They wanted compensation for the cost of the extra fodder needed while holding lambs during the ban on movement. They wanted interest payments arising 740 from their failure to get their cash in on time, and to be able to claim compensation for an interim period, if the long-term effects were not altogether clear.
For five weeks farmers were unable to get any clarification from the Government. Last week the problem became particularly acute because, until then, during the first two or three weeks it was possible to let things ride in the hope that lambs would not grow too fat and that perhaps no more than 10 per cent. would pass their grader with a loss of quality or not be graded. But as the weeks passed, the crisis hit home. Moreover, readings of radioactivity over 1,000 bq/kg persisted, when it had been expected that that would disappear much more quickly. That continues to cause considerable worry. There was uncertainty about compensation and the impending problems caused by the period of the ban running into the time when the store sales should take place and, when, traditionally in Wales, sheep are brought down from the mountains to the lowlands for wintering. There was a danger that they could not move from the mountains, but there would be no fodder for them on the mountains. That is why there has been an upsurge of feeling on this matter during the past 10 days.
I welcome today's compensation package, but why on earth was it not possible to announce it sooner? It would have saved many farmers who have been sick to death with considerable worry over the past five weeks. A great deal of detail still remains to be worked out. In a written answer today the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food states:
So far as compensation is concerned, the Government recognise that farmers who were prevented by the restrictions from marketing finished lambs at the usual time may have a higher proportion than normal rejected for variable premium because they will have become over-fat by the time they are eventually able to be sold; and that these animals may also attract lower than average prices in the markets. Where such losses have been sustained and can be substantiated, the Government will be prepared to meet them."— [Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 494.]How are farmers expected to substantiate their claims? On what information are they expected to do that? Farmers will expect the Minister to spell that out in the debate. Will they depend on last year's grading patterns? Will those facts and figures be acceptable? Without that information the scheme is meaningless to farmers. The Minister must spell that out.Will interest payments on the additional loans incurred by farmers be met by the Government under the provisions of today's announcement? Is the compensation cash-limited or will all substantiated cases be fully met? Will interim payments be made for farmers with cash-flow problems who may take a long time to prepare detailed answers? Will compensation be payable to cover any significant drop in the market prices caused by a glut when the ban is finally removed? Will there be help for abattoirs, hauliers, auctioneers and other associated services, which have suffered losses and may suffer even greater losses? How long will claims take to be processed and how will the bureaucratic delay be minimised? It seems that there will be a bureaucratic delay and, if farmers have had to wait three weeks for the forms, they cannot afford to wait much longer to get the forms processed and for the money to come in.
Can the Minister confirm that he has ruled out the possibility of buying up lambs, whether for slaughter or otherwise? What compensation will be paid to farmers 741 whose sheep have, for the past five weeks, been eating the grass and hay that was meant to be fodder for later in the year? Farmers will incur greater fodder costs because they will have to make up the deficiency. The answers to those questions are not clear from today's statement, but the farmers need answers to them very soon if the statement is to be meaningful.
May I deal with some other general problems that must be tackled. What is the position on radioactivity in fodder? If there is a level of more than 500 bq/kg in dry matter silage, is it safe to use? What tests have been made? Has the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service been asked to monitor the effect of radioactivity in fodder fed to cows? What will be the effect on milk? This must be known, especially since readings of that level have already been taken in Wales.
A parliamentary answer of 15 July showed that in the Arfon and Dwyfor areas of my constituency there were no readings in excess of 1,000 bq/kg for lambs in any of the 102 samples taken. On 16 and 18 July, further readings all showed levels below 1,000 bq/kg, so why are Arfon and Dwyfor still within the restricted area?
Why were not more samples taken more rapidly? Do we now have the capability of taking as many samples as necessary, and do we have the equipment and personnel to ensure that if this happens again we shall not get into a similar mess? What studies are being made into the genetic effects of the radiation? It will have a long-term effect. Serious questions are raised which would affect compensation, and the Minister must answer them. If there are ewes on the mountains with radiation levels of more than 2,000 bq now, and it takes three months for the level of radiation to fall by half, the serious implications are that the level will be 600 bq only by the middle of winter. How will the Government handle those sheep? There is no answer to that question in today's statement.
On the long-term prospects for the industry, will the Government undertake to put money into promoting lamb, which is so important to my area?
The effects of the Chernobyl tragedy have reached Gwynedd, Cumbria and the south of Scotland. We can imagine how much worse it would have been if there had been a similar accident at Trawsfynydd, Wylfa or the other nuclear power stations in Britain. We can imagine how much worse yet it would be if there was a nuclear war. I will not go down that road, but those who say that it would be survivable leave open many questions. There must be a much more open approach to the nuclear industry. Farmers and the entire community must be taken into the confidence of Government, with full information being made available. In six to nine months' time, there should be a review of how the events of this recent period was handled and, if necessary, a formal inquiry into the handling of the matter by different Government agencies.
What is important now is to obtain compensation for those farmers, who face destitution unless they get it. They must know how much they will get, how they will get it and how quickly they will get it. I hope that the Minister will answer many of my questions tonight.
§ Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn)I am greatly in accord with much of what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said. This is a timely debate, and for my 742 constituents the most important debate that we have had this year, because they have suffered greatly. It can be said with common consent that the farmers of Anglesey have been hit the hardest of all by the ban. We are talking about small farmers whose livelihoods have been put at risk because of the ban. If some malign influence had been at work to find a time which would have had the most detrimental effect upon farmers, it would have chosen this month, for it is during this month that Anglesey farmers take their lambs to market. That has caused the most terrible problems for them. My hon. Friend the Minister will know of this, as I have constantly reminded my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the situation.
What has caused particular concern for the farmers of Anglesey is the initial statements from the Government about lambs not being ready for market, as though this was a matter that would not have a particularly serious effect upon some farmers. That may have been true in respect of some sheep farmers in some parts of the United Kingdom who were subject to the ban, but it was certainly not true of the sheep farmers of Anglesey who, as I have indicated, were at that very moment expecting to be able to take their lambs to market. At that time, upon the imposition of the ban, farmers were telling me that they were expecting to take their lambs to market that week and for 200 lambs at about £40 a head, that has occasioned a loss of £8,000 or more. That is a lot of money to a small sheep farmer. With the normal expenditure that has to be met at this time, and with banks breathing down their necks and the absence of a reasonable expectation of income from the sale of lambs, their finances have been thrown into turmoil.
It is right to place on record that it is not just a question of compensation; it is also a question of the pride of farmers. They have spent many months rearing these lambs and take a pride in the way they are reared, with the expectation of going to market and achieving good prices in return for all the husbandry that has been put into the rearing; but that has been thrown into jeopardy.
Farming is a profession, a fact that we should acknowledge, and that too has been put into difficulty. South of the A5 on Anglesey and west of the Amlwch to Llangefni line has now been taken out of the ban, but there remains the eastern side of the island within the ban. That is the side where there have been the highest readings of becquerels per kilo in lambs. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales repeatedly whether it is possible now, with all the monitoring that has taken place, to project precisely when that eastern side of the island can come out of the ban. It is not good enough merely to extend the ban with no certainty of when those farmers will know they can take their lambs to market. A trend must surely now be established with the diminution and dissipation of the radiocaesium levels for people to know with a fair degree of certainty when the ban might be lifted.
§ Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) might have a point, of course. We live next to the Irish sea, which is radioactive, but the effects may not simply be the effects of Chernobyl; I sincerely hope that they are, but, since there has been a marked absence of sampling techniques hitherto, I do not 743 think that we can with certainty say that at a particular time we will he able to lift the ban. I hope that we can, but I do not think that there is any certainty.
§ Mr. BestI know that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to be mischievous, but there is a great danger of interpreting more from the problems than is actually there. Having looked at this carefully, I am satisfied that the presence of nuclear power stations has had no effect on this crisis and that it is entirely due to Chernobyl. To promote any other idea without its being based on any evidence does grave damage not only to the nuclear power industry but to the farmers and to the Welsh lamb industry. I know that that would be the furthest thing from the hon. Gentleman's mind.
I pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, because he has assiduously taken the problem on board and has investigated it fully. After I had met in my house both farmers' unions and the butchers —and they told me that it was a unique event that the two farmers' unions and the butchers should come together and speak with one voice—I went to Bala for a meeting on 1 July with all the secretaries of the farmers' unions for the whole of the area affected and then came to the House of Commons. I left my right hon. Friend a four-page letter, and that evening he was good enough to discuss the subject with me for an hour and a half. During that discussion I asked him to meet the farmers to discuss the question of compensation.
A great deal of harm occurred because the farmers did not know whether they would even have an opportunity to make representations about compensation. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend met the farmers' unions on 7 July. They came away feeling that they had been able to put their case to him.
I accept the paramount need to protect the public health, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, but I fear that there may have been an over-reaction, as the hon. Gentleman demonstrated by the press release to which he referred. When it is known that one could eat lamb containing 1,000 bq/kg every day for a year and have a total ingestion of radiocaesium of less than half the dosage of one X-ray, the matter begins to come into perspective.
There must be constant monitoring, and I hope that the results of such monitoring will be made available. I agree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that the public must be satisfied that the radiocaesium levels are due entirely to the tragedy of Chernobyl and have nothing to do with the nuclear power industry in this country. It is a coincidence that the ban was imposed in areas where nuclear power stations were sited. Any fears that the public have must be assuaged, and that can be done only by constant monitoring.
Let us consider the losses sustained by the farmers. There is the reduced variable premium, of about 20p per kilo, and on a 16-kilo lamb that comes to £3.20. For a farmer with many lambs to take to market, that represents a great deal of money. There are also the rejects of lambs that are over-fat. That means a loss of about 70p per kilo, which on a 16-kilo lamb is £11.20. There is also the loss of haymaking for winter forage. A farmer in my constituency will have to buy in 80 tonnes of hay at £60 a tonne, representing a loss to him of £4,800.
The Minister should announce not only whether interest will he paid on the loans made necessary and the compensation payments, whenever they are made, but 744 whether the fact that those losses have been sustained over a period of weeks will be taken in account so that the interest payments will be backdated to the time from when the loss was sustained.
Nothing has been said about losses sustained by butchers. I am sufficient of a realist to think it unlikely that butchers will receive any compensation. But a butcher in my constituency reckons that he has been losing about £800 a week as a result of the ban.
Following the natural concern that people expressed and their reluctance to buy Welsh lamb, I am pleased to note that not only have lamb prices been holding up in the markets — a development that might not have been expected—but that there is a good indication that the general public has not been put off Welsh lamb.
I welcome yesterday's statement about compensation. I regret that it was not possible to make it earlier. I fully understand the anger and concern of my farmers about the absence of any conclusive statement about compensation. One accepts entirely that the final basis for compensation could not have been worked out, but a statement could have been made that spelt out the kind of compensation that might be payable. The written answer of today says:
the Government recognise that farmers who were prevented by the restrictions from marketing finished lambs at the usual time may have a higher proportion than normal rejected for variable premium … Where such losses have been sustained and can be substantiated, the Government will be prepared to meet them.I hope that the written answer means what it says—that all losses that can be substantiated will be met — and that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that.Furthermore, what is meant by substantiation? 'What records will have to be shown? I asked for guidance from the Welsh Office from the very beginning so that farmers could be told by the Welsh Office what records they needed to keep and what documentary evidence would be necessary for the computation of compensation. Sadly, that advice has not been forthcoming. I hope that it will be forthcoming tonight.
The written answer also says that where it is found necessary to continue the restrictions, hopefully it will be overcome by enabling the movement of store lambs and draft and cull ewes off the holdings. The farmers' unions have also drawn the Government's attention to the fact that some of the farmers concerned are already faced with additional expenditure. We know that.
I am also glad to see that the written answer says that urgent discussions will be held
with the unions about these problems and also about what compensation might be appropriate to cover the direct losses which the farmers concerned may thereby incur."—[Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 494.]However, the statement contains nothing about the cash flow problems that farmers who are still under the ban are being faced with now. That is the gravest crisis. One can compute the losses for the farmers who are able to take their lambs to market. It seems that they will be paid compensation. I hope that that will be made clear tonight However, I have been pressing consistently, but so far without success, for some form of interim payment for those farmers who are still under the ban, especially if no sign can be given of when the ban might be lifted. Those farmers are suffering severe cash flow problems, because they are trying to pay for items which would normally be paid for by the income from the sale of the lambs. I hope 745 that something can be done for those farmers, otherwise they will be driven into bankruptcy. If something is not done to assist them, small sheep farmers in Wales will have to go out of business.The percentage of over-fat lambs that are being rejected is far higher than I had been led to believe. Between 5 and 10 per cent. and sometimes as much as 14 per cent. of Anglesey lambs going to market are being rejected because they are over-fat. I have here a sheaf of letters from farmers which tell a harrowing story of the losses that they have sustained. One letter is a brief note setting out a few details of 100 lambs sold to Halal. Five were not graded; they were over-fat and will realise 146p a kilo, approximately £27. The 95 graded lambs will realise approximately 185p a kilo. Multiplied by 18 kilos a lamb, that is approximately £33. With a subsidy of approximately 33p a kilo, worth approximately £6, the total value is £39. That is £39 compared with £27, or a loss for the over-fat lambs of £12. Some 154 lambs were sold previously at an average price of £43.
This is an immensely grave problem. It has been fully recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I pay tribute to him for what he has done to try to help the farmers. There has, however, to be instant help now. We have got beyond talking about compensation. It must now start flowing by way of interim payments to farmers who are facing uncertainty and possible bankruptcy because they continue to be in the ban and have no knowledge of when it may be lifted.
§ Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor)I shall not speak for long, because some hon. Members present are more seriously affected than am I and my constituents. The livestock industry, and especially the sheep industry are, like me, worried for the affected farmers.
Farmers who have had the movement of lambs restricted because of the Chernobyl disaster must receive adequate compensation for losses from that man-made disaster. Sheep producers in north Wales, Cumbria and southern Scotland are the innocent victims. It is clear from what the Minister said today that he is beginning to think in terms of more suitable compensation. The problem with the statement, however, is that it does not spell out in anything like enough detail how he will tackle the problem.
Will all farmers whose normal marketing pattern has been disrupted be compensated? Will all lambs which genuinely fail to qualify for variable premium as a result of over-fatness be compensated for? All such lambs should have the sale price made up, by variable premium, to the guide price at the time that they would have been marketed, not now. Lamb prices slide throughout June and July. There is a tremendous drop which must be taken into account if farmers are to be compensated adequately. Will account be taken of the overall effect on farm cash flow, especially if farmers have to borrow to sustain themselves through a whole month of no sales? Will compensation take account of interest payments which arise through lack of sales?
A farmer might have had 200 lambs to sell at £40 in mid-June. Their value would have fallen to £30 by mid-July. If he had had a stop on all of his movements, he would have lost £2,000. That is a substantial sum of money. If he was running an overdraft of £10,000 on the 746 assumption that he would sell his lambs in mid-June for £8,000, he would have only a £2,000 overdraft by the middle of July. Those are serious figures which the farming community in the affected areas must assess.
Compensation must be paid soon. Interim payments are essential. But we do not know on what basis the record keeping of the farmers concerned will have to be judged. It is essential that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office take a realistic view if farmers in the affected areas were not instructed to keep records. Indeed, if they sell lambs on live weight rather than dead weight, those farmers will be in a difficult position on record keeping. Those who sell on dead weight will have better records, particularly if they have been selling on dead weight in the previous year.
We must look at 1986 overall. Lambs have been produced late due to the season and they have come on to the market far later in 1986 than they did in 1985 and previous years. That has tended to distort the marketing pattern anyway.
Will the Secretary of State consider assistance for abattoirs which have been having a rough time, not only in those areas where there have been restrictions on lambs, but also outside the restricted areas. In the south-west of England, North Devon Meat has virtually gone under recently and has had to be rescued by Hillsdown Holdings. That has this very week caused the FMC abattoir in my constituency to close because FMC is owned by Hillsdown Holdings and they are obviously having a rationalisation programme.
§ Dr. MarekFMC has been having a rationalisation programme for some time and it would not be fair to blame that on the problems caused by the Chernobyl disaster.
§ Mr. LivseyI understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to that, but I was merely pointing out that there is a crisis in the meat industry anyway and that has been compounded by the effects of the Chernobyl disaster in the effected areas. In other words, matters are becoming somewhat worse for the industry.
Those areas that are affected, whether they be in Wales, Cumbria or Scotland, to some extent produce store lambs, particularly the upland areas. If the levels of contamination in terms of bq/kg, continue at high levels, they will shortly be evident in lambs sold in the store season. The Secretary of State and the Minister should come up with answers for the marketing of store lambs in the near future.
In some coastal areas of north Wales — I do not know the position in Cumbria or southern Scotland—where silage making took place in mid-May, there is some evidence of contamination of silage. We have the opportunity not to feed that contaminated silage. If there is serious contamination of silage, is the Minister prepared to run a scheme so that the silage is not used for feed, and replacement fodder is brought into those areas? Farmers could be compensated accordingly.
§ Mr. John Corrie (Cunninghame, North)I thank the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for raising this debate. It is appropriate that it should be held on the day when the Minister has announced compensation. I look forward to hearing more about that in future.
747 I hope that hon. Members from Wales will not mind if another Member from a Celtic fringe takes part in the debate. This matter has affected me personally and I have to declare a personal interest in the debate. My farm in the south-west of Scotland is in the worst affected area and we have a large number of lambs running on the farm that should have been marketed some time ago. The Ministry vets were there yesterday checking on our annual dipping, and when we examined the lambs we found that something like 80 per cent. are now far too fat for the market and will suffer a severe drop in price when the time comes to sell.
In an area close to my farm where the ban has been lifted, lambs ready for killing on 23 June at a weight of 1 kg would have made £49.30. They were sold in Stranraer market on Monday and made £29.50. That is simply the price of the lamb, but they have lost the premium payment and, as has been said, they have had a month of extra grazing, and bank interest has to be paid. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to ask the banks to take the pressure off farmers within the next week or two. They must know that compensation is coming forward and that the farmers have the capital asset of the lambs for which finance will come in in the near future. It would be an enormous help if something could be said to the major banks.
We are moving into another problem area in that there are many breeding sales, not only of old ewes but of lambs, coming off. In hill areas, certainly in the south of Scotland, farms cannot keep the lambs any longer and they will have to be shifted. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about breeding animals and whether it will be possible to sell them.
There is a strange situation in my constituency in that on the Island of Arran, 17 miles off the coast, there are extremely high readings, and yet on the Mull of Kintyre on the west side and on the east side of the mainland there are no significant readings. There is a nuclear power station on the east side and no lambs in that area have been affected. Arran has been dramatically affected and the farmers there have to get their lambs off the island because they do not have grazing for them. That means that over the next few weeks the animals will have to be slaughtered or moved off the island. They have just been brought down from the hills and, as other hon. Members have said, when that happens lambs eat into the winter grazing.
We have found in Scotland that the smaller the lamb the higher the reading. Is it necessary to go to the lower weights when carrying out these tests? After all, we are worried about lambs coming forward at marketable weight for killing, and if we continue to test the very small lambs, while they are growing it will stretch the time that farmers are affected. Those lambs will never reach the market because they would not be sent there at that age. I suggest that a weight of something like 22 kg should be the cut-off point and that no lamb below that weight should be tested.
Another of our problems is that we have no base norm from which to work. I do not know about the situation in Wales, but we certainly have hard granite mountains on Arran and in Scotland. There is no doubt that those emit a natural high background radiation all the time. I assume that never in the past have we had to do tests of this kind to see whether sheep or cattle running on that sort of ground have a different starting norm on the Becquerel readings during their lifetime. I hope that in future some work can he carried out along those lines.
748 For the next year or more, will we continue to conduct monitoring tests? I also wonder whether the residue has any effect on breeding sheep. Will it have a long-standing effect on our breeding stock? I understand that in Scotland tests have been conducted on hay and silage and that the readings are extremely low, something like 300–40() bq/kg, so it would appear that that will not be a difficult problem for Scotland. Farmers are having a tough time and in many ways this is the last straw and has broken the camel's back.
We had a viciously bad winter last year, preceded by a viciously bad autumn and summer. We struggled through and came to a reasonably good spring, at long last. But then, this terrible affliction hit us. Many small farmers, and many bigger farmers, will not be farming this time next year because of this last blow.
I hope that the Government accept that this is not just another short-term problem. It will linger because of the store markets and the store lambs still to come. I hope that compensation will be stretched and not simply paid off. This was a horrendously unfortunate accident. It shows how far the rain clouds spread. It would be pointless for us to do away with the nuclear industry at home if we can suffer from an accident 1,600 miles away.
§ Mr. D. E. Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)Experience has taught us that radiation and pollution know no national boundaries, so we need international action to deal with such a crisis. I speak as someone who represents not only an area with a power station, but the people in the Snowdonia national park and a large part of the hill areas north and mid Wales—the area where the highest level of radiation in lambs has been registered.
The whole incident could have been handled differently by the Government. I do not criticise the local officials, who worked extremely hard, within the information available, to reassure farmers. I do not criticise Department officials in Cardiff, who have been helpful to me about all my queries. I direct criticism at the political level. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said.
I do not expect the Minister to respond to every query tonight. I am sure that he will do us the courtesy of writing to us during the recess, since we shall not have the opportunity to question him again for some time —unless he and his colleagues face the farmers in our constituencies. My hon. Friend set out the parameters. We are unanimous in our criticism of the way in which the problem was handled.
I first discovered the effects of Chernobyl indirectly from employees of the CEGB, who will remain anonymous. They provided me with the radiation levels that would have been monitored around the power station in my constituency during the weekend of high rainfall and the cloud.
I am no expert in radiation, although for 13 years I have represented a constituency in which there is a nuclear power station, so I have developed some expertise. It should have been clear to anyone knowing anything about radiation, radiobiology and the half-lives of isotopes that levels of radiation of 4,000 becquerels would be experienced. We should have known that such high levels would he registered within that time.
I admit that this was a new experience. It was new for the agriculture departments. We had never experienced 749 such an event before. We did not know the need to monitor such an accident. We had always assumed that nuclear accidents would affect only the immediate environs of the power station. We planned for that. We thought that small-scale gaseous discharges would be the main source of radioactive pollution.
It was on those bases that we established our "worst case" scenarios and plans. However, much more serious contamination was spread over a much wider area than we anticipated. I accept that at that stage we did not have the capability of monitoring, but that is a criticism of the way in which we approach the whole issue of the existence of a nuclear power industry and a military nuclear capability. When one has these capabilities, one should plan for the worst possible contingency, and that did not happen.
Given the kind of information that was emerging that weekend, and given our knowledge about radiation, we should have been able to foresee what would follow. Therefore, the Government should have been ready as soon as high levels of iodine and other nucleides were recorded. They should have been ready with a statement saying that if there were—and possibly there would be — readings above the now much reduced margins of alert — the factor of 10 which after Chernobyl was reduced in the levels of becquerels per kg in lamb, for example— we would be able to respond to them. We could have done so in two ways: first, by advising the public of the impact; and, secondly, by explaining the implications of certain becquerels. This is a complicated issue, but there is a need for far better education of the public of the reality of the risks involved in exposure to certain levels of radiation.
The problem is that we do not know exactly what we are talking about in terms of the impact on human health. We do not know how many additional incidents of leukaemia or cancer will be induced. We may be talking of only 20, 30, or 100 at the most, but the facts should be put clearly to the public so that people understand the implications. In a sense, the people of my area understand the technical language more than others because they Me close to a nuclear power station, but there is a need for the Government to explain the position much more clearly.
In a situation such as this, the Government should have been ready with a clear statement of their intention to compensate those in agriculture who were affected by the need to restrict. Had they done so, the whole situation would have been different. Had they said from the beginning that there might be a danger to the public and that a trigger level might be reached—in much the same way as they gave warnings about rainwater—the whole atmosphere would have been better.
I discussed this with farmers earlier. We talked about whether people would have panicked more and whether there would have been an over-reaction. I spoke to those farmers as individuals, in committees and at mass meetings in Llanrwst market. They all told me that they would have preferred to have been warned much earlier so that they could have planned. Had the Government indicated from the beginning that there would be compensation in the event of restriction, this crisis—which in a sense has been of the Government's own manufacture during the past six weeks—could have been avoided.
I say that with hindsight on the morning after the anouncement of a compensation scheme. But it still must 750 be said that this could have been handled very differently. There was a basis in law for the payment of compensation. I put this to the Secretary of State at one of my earlier meetings with him, because if a Government impose a safety limit that results in restrictions on agricultural activity, there is a clear responsibility on that Government to take on board the effects of the order that they have introduced. The case is as simple as that, and it could have been accepted.
We have not heard from the Secretary of State for Wales. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has the privilege of being the first Welsh Office Minister to speak on this subject in the House, and I congratulate him on achieving that honour. It illustrates the failure of the Welsh Office to make statements to Parliament on this subject, although, since the ban was first introduced, we have pestered for them. It was essential for the Government to come clean. If the wording from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had been different on the day when the ban had been introduced —if the Ministry had not talked about specific cases, specific circumstances and special hardship, or whatever the precise wording was —but had rather stated, "Where there is, within the designated area, a clear case for compensation, that compensation will be paid", life would have been much easier.
I wish to make a couple of points arising out of the present situation in my constituency and the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. I am worried about the potential length of the ban and the effect on the movement of store lambs. Readings were published yesterday from the Aberconwy and Meirionnydd districts. I suspect that I know the farms from which the samples have been taken. Of the samples, 19 are above the level of 1,000 bq/kg in total radiocaesium. That is serious and it suggests that the ban will be effective in those areas for months rather than weeks, to reformulate a quote from Lord Wilson.
It is important for the Department to tell people what are the implications of the present levels and when reductions will occur. I am not asking that the Minister should tell us the precise date when areas will be clear but he must tell us the implications of such levels.
With regard to the statement yesterday by the Minister, we want to know what "substantiated" means. What kind of returns are required? I pay tribute to the members of the farming unions in my constituency and elsewhere who have advised people in the absence of advice from the Minister and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. At the meetings that I have attended the ADAS people were in great difficulty because they did not have specific guidelines. They were not able to tell the farmers what was necessary. The Farmers Union of Wales issued a circular in which it called for—I am translating from Welsh, and as it is early in the morning I may slip up—the date and the number of lambs ready for market, the period for which the lambs had been kept back on the farm and the effect of this on the forage, silage and hay production. The reduction in the income compared with a similar period over the past three years.
Those were the guidelines which John Dyer James of the Farmers Union of Wales in Meirionnydd sent out to his members. The Department should have issued such guidelines straightaway when getting the farmers ready for the compensation applications. I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that the 751 level of differentiation on the variable premium should relate to the guide price at the time when these lambs would have been sold. If that is not done, there will be a serious additional loss.
It is important that the Ministry should spell out, as soon as possible, how it will devise arrangements to permit the movement of store lambs and draft and cull ewes. We are reaching a crisis point when there will have to be a mass movement of sheep out of these areas. The Minister must spell out how that will be dealt with.
What is meant by the extra expenditure which it was recognised in the Minister's statement has been incurred by some farmers? What will be the substance of the discussions with the unions about compensation which might be appropriate to cover, as stated in the Minister's statement,
direct losses which the farmers concerned may thereby incur." [Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 102, c. 494.]We need to know exactly how the Minister's statement is to be implemented in practice and the nature of the scheme on which the Department is working. The Department has had more than a month to consider these issues and proposals have been made to it directly. I made some proposals to the Minister's advisers on 20 June when I first met them following the imposition of the ban. Proposals were made on 25 June by the NFU in the area of Denbigh and Flint, part of which includes my constituency. Proposals were made—I relayed them—at the meeting at Llandrwst on 25 June. They were direct proposals from NFU and FUW members. Proposals were conveyed from an NFU meeting on 1 July, and from a further meeting of the FUW on 14 July. All these materials have been conveyed directly to the Department, including model schemes of compensation. It is a matter of regret that the Department was not able to respond earlier.There is an important lesson to be learnt from this experience. If we have a nuclear industry, we have a moral responsibility to cope with the effects of the industry. If we have a defence policy that is based upon a nuclear deterrent, we have a moral obligation to ensure that the basic industry of society is not damaged as a result of any prospect of nuclear fission. We have failed in that moral responsibility.
§ 2.6 am
§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West)First, I must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for having raised this important matter at this hour of the morning. It is a fortunate coincidence that the announcement of effective measures of compensation should have been made so shortly before the debate. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), who has fought valiantly for the interests of sheep farmers in his constituency and throughout north Wales.
The crisis has moved further along the coast to the east and it affects parts of my constituency and parts of the constituencies of my parliamentary neighbours. There is a serious problem, particularly that of cash flow. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn was right to lay stress on the need for interim payments to tide farmers over a awkward period.
I was rather disappointed when this issue arose during Welsh questions. It is wrong to say that it has not been 752 covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales because we rushed through Welsh questions so that he could—
§ Mr. D. E. ThomasWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Sir Anthony MeyerI would rather not give way because I want to bring my remarks to an end as quickly as I can.
The problem has extended geographically to the east and to those who are connected with agriculture, especially to abattoirs, as well as sheep farmers. One of the few EEC standard abbattoirs in the area is the St. Asaph abattoir at Waen, which is run by Mr. Dewi Jones. It has been hit seriously by the dramatic fall in the number of sheep coming forward and the prices which have been paid. I was rather dismayed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to imply when I raised this matter at Welsh questions that if I wanted to talk about others being compensated apart from sheep farmers it would be better if I shut up. Undoubtedly, hardship has been extended to butchers and many others. Substantial losses have been incurred and these clearly deserve to be treated seriously.
It is important that the Government make a contribution to promote the sale of lamb. They must convince the public that it is one of the most delicious forms of food and one of the easiest to cook, as well as being one of the most readily available.
§ 2.9 am
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson)I echo the words that have been uttered by several hon. Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for taking this opportunity to allow us to discuss the position of sheep farmers following the introduction of restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep in some parts of Britain. I welcome the participation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie), who has given us a salutary reminder that we are discussing a problem that is not confined to Wales. It is one which has affected many parts of the United Kingdom.
The restrictions were imposed as soon as there was evidence of radioactivity levels in sheepmeat high enough to cause concern should they enter the food chain. Ever since the Chernobyl radioactive cloud passed over this country, an intensive monitoring programme has taken place to ensure that there is no danger from eating food as a consequence of any contamination. We have not been slow. I say to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) that we were dealing with an entirely new position. We have a responsibility to strike the right balance to ensure that there was no unnecessary alarm through hasty and ill-informed information or misinformation.
Monitoring of meat samples taken in mid-May showed increasing levels of contamination when the results of the tests became available a few days later. Further tests to varify the results were undertaken on lambs which had yet to enter the food chain. Following consultation with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology a decision was taken on 20 June to impose the restrictions, using powers in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The effect of our action was to prevent any contaminated meat being on sale in the country's shops which might give rise to concern.
I should say to the hon. Member for Caernarfon that, in terms of the food chain, no samples have been found 753 above 1,000 becquerels. Our action was to prevent any contaminated meat on sale which might give rise to concern. In the circumstances, the action that the Government took was the most expedient that could have been taken. Monitoring of lamb in Wales proceeded alongside that in other parts of the United Kingdom and from the same time.
§ Mr. WigleyWill the hon. Gentleman address himself to the question that, although the samples that were taken in Cumbria on 14 May were found radioactive, no samples were taken in Wales until 2 June?
Mr. Robinson: We took samples at the first opportunity. We moved as swiftly as we could to get the results we needed. We do not believe that any action we took has delayed the decisions that it was necessary for us to take.
I turn to the important issue raised tonight—the views of the farmers. The action that the Government have taken in protecting the consumer has had the full backing of the agricultural industry. That is worth recording.
I am sure that the House will wish to acknowledge the co-operation that has been given in these difficult circumstances by the farmers' unions. This was made clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in his meeting with the farming unions on 7 July and again in his meetings with the NFU, the FUW and the Country Landowners Association at the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society show on Tuesday this week. I had the opportunity of listening to their representations on my visit to the show yesterday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) paid tribute to my right hon. Friend for his part in trying to resolve the difficult problems. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the hard work that he has done on behalf of his constituents in advocating their cause.
Those who represent the agricultural industry have made it clear that the difficulties that their members are experiencing are a direct consequence of the restrictions that were imposed. But never once had the decision to impose the restrictions been queried. The hon. Member for Caernarfon emphasised that.
The suggestions that the unions have made on how to deal with problems which farmers now face have been of great assistance to the Government in clarifying the action that is being taken to minimise any adverse consequences. They have helped my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to reach the decisions which were announced today.
I now turn to the question of the de-restriction of areas. Since the measures were first imposed, every effort has been made to reduce the areas affected. This initially covered 5,100 holdings in north Wales and some 2 million sheep. But we soon decided, on the basis of further test results, that that could be reduced. About 2,610 holdings are included in the areas de-restricted.
I am pleased to report that at midnight tonight—in the House's terms — a new order came into effect to release a further part of Anglesey, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency; part of the Conwy Valley; the coastal strip between Barmouth and Criccieth; part of Gwynedd between the A4085 and the B4418 roads; an area west of Corwen on the boundary between Gwynedd and Clwyd; and a small area north of Montgomery. That represents an additional 630 holdings in north Wales 754 containing some 180,000 sheep. Thus, to date well over half of those holdings and sheep originally affected in Wales have been released.
Much has been said about the availability of information. The farming community and the public at large have been kept fully informed of the results of our testing programme. Farmers whose sheep have been used for testing are informed of the results as quickly as possible. The test results have been published at regular intervals and copies placed in the Library of the House. No one would wish the restrictions on areas to be retained for one day longer than necessary. It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that we have amended the area in each of the past four weeks. We will, of course, continue to take every opportunity to contrive to do so, but this can only be done in a manner that is consistent with ensuring that it is safe to remove these restrictions. That has been our guideline all along.
We recognised from the outset that an over-rigid ban on the movement and slaughter of sheep would cause difficulties. That is another point which has been raised by more than one hon. Member. Accordingly, we have established a system whereby farmers can be issued a licence to move their sheep where, for example, the sheep need to be dipped. Farmers who have not already done so and who wish to obtain the necessary movement authority should apply to their local Welsh Office divisional agricultural offices which will consider each case on its merits. I pay tribute to the co-operation that we have received not only from farmers but from those who run livestock markets and slaughterhouses for their help in achieving the objective of the restrictions.
Perhaps the key issue in the debate has been compensation. I understand the strongly held views which have been put forward. The Government recognised at the outset that the restrictions would impose a burden on the farming community. Hon. Members will have welcomed the statement about the terms of compensation for losses that may be incurred, made today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Before we could make this announcement, we needed firm evidence about the precise nature of the problems posed by over-fat lambs in comparison with those prevailing in normal conditions. Close scrutiny of marketings from areas released from restrictions initially show little increase in the proportion of over-fat lambs being marketed. This is in part due to the lateness of the season and in part to the expert husbandry of affected farmers in retaining the quality of their stock under difficult conditions. The longer the restrictions apply, however, the greater the difficulties likely to be experienced. It is because of this that the Government have now acceped that farmers who were prevented by the restrictions from marketing finished lambs at the usual time may have a higher proportion than normal rejected for variable premium because they have become over-fat, and that these animals may also attract lower than average prices in the market. The Government will be prepared to meet such losses where they have been sustained and can be substantiated.
I should very much like to answer some of the points of detail as to how compensation will be managed, but I am not in a position to do so, for one very good reason — we have taken the decision that we shall consult urgently with the farmers' unions to hear from them how 755 they think this can best be done. The importance of doing that is illustrated by the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I have, of course, taken careful note of the points raised by the hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon. I assure them that we shall be coming forward with details as soon as we can.
We believe that that consultation is extremely important.
§ Mr. BestWill my hon. Friend assure the House that he will urgently take to his right hon. Friend the Minister the message that there is a need for some interim compensation for those farmers still remaining within the ban who are suffering such severe cash flow problems?
§ Mr. RobinsonI have listened to that point, which has been made by several hon. Members. I shall, of course, carry it back to my right hon. Friend.
The Government recognise also that farmers could face difficulties if it is found necessary to continue the restrictions to an extent which prevents them from moving store lambs and draft and cull ewes off their holdings at the normal time. We hope that it may prove possible to devise arrangements under which such movements could be permitted, subject to suitable restrictions to ensure that the animals concerned could not enter the food chain until it was wholly safe for them to do so. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this course is in every way preferable to a slaughter policy which has been urged in some quarters.
§ Mr. CorrieWhere the main market for the whole region happens to be in an affected area and breeding stock is coming in from surrounding areas, will that stock be able to go in to the market and then go back out again, or will the market be shut?
§ Mr. RobinsonI shall take note of that point and write to my hon. Friend with the details. It is an important point. Having talked about getting information right, I want to ensure that I do so.
The farmers' unions have drawn our attention to the fact that some of the farmers concerned are already being 756 faced with extra expenditure. We shall be holding urgent discussions with the unions about that problem and about what compensation might be appropriate to cover the direct losses which the farmers concerned may thereby incur.
No one would have wished these restrictions on the sheep farmer, but, faced with the effects of contamination on lambs in particular, there has been general agreement to the restrictions which the Government imposed to protect the public and to ensure that lamb in our shops is safe to eat. The farmers have accepted it. The public have responded to the security which our decision offered and the demand for lamb is now of such buoyancy that I am almost forced to observe, "The proof of the pudding really is in the eating."
Of course concerns have been expressed about the time taken to release areas, but the fact is that the area under restriction in Wales has by today's derestrictions been reduced by over half. I can assure the hon. Member For Caernarfon that we shall continue to test intensively in order to reduce the areas affected further as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have pledged to publish all information as it becomes available.
There have been some alarmist reports that continued restriction may be necessary for another six months. On the basis of the scientific advice now available, I can say that that seems unlikely.
We shall continue to listen to the views of the industry on how best to impart more flexibility into the controls we have imposed in order to lessen the strains experienced, especially by the producer of fat and store lambs on the hills.
One other point which concerns us, which we are looking into and which has been raised tonight is the difficulty of silage and the testing that needs to be done. I discussed that with the Farmers Union of Wales yesterday.
I believe that we have demonstrated by our announcements today our determination to do all we can to alleviate the immediate difficulties of the sheep farmer while this difficult situation persists.