Animal Health (Hansard, 8 February 1990)

§ 7. Mr. Speller
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to compensate farmers at 100 per cent. of the market value for beasts which he requires to be slaughtered on animal health grounds.

§ Mr. Maclean
Different levels of compensation are payable according to the disease control measure concerned. In some cases, an owner may receive more than the value of the slaughtered animal. I keep all aspects of my compensation policy under constant review.

§ Mr. Speller
Does my hon. Friend agree that at a time when farm incomes are falling and the green pound is grossly overvalued in Britain, we should at least compensate farmers, if only to avoid the remote possibility of people seeking to evade the law, thus spreading the disease problems that we already have?

§ Mr. Maclean
I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have great sympathy for farmers whose cows suffer from bovine spongiform encephalopathy, particularly farmers who have more than one animal affected by it. The mechanism for preventing BSE from getting into the food chain is not 998 compensation, which is intended to help farmers suffering financial loss. We protect the food chain by the host of other measures that we take, particularly the offals ban.

§ Mr. Martlew
Will the Minister extend the compensation scheme to sheep suffering from scrapie? Under the present system a sheep suffering from scrapie is slaughtered, its head is cut off and condemned and the rest of the carcase goes to the butcher. Is it not a fact that BSE has been caused by the scrapie virus?

§ Mr. Maclean
No, Sir. Scrapie has been well known and recorded for the past 250 years. It is present in many other countries. There has been no risk to human health whatever. I keep all aspects of my compensation policy under review, but this is not a matter which I am currently considering.

§ Mr. Neale
Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no evidence that the National Farmers Union has encouraged its members, or the Minister, to avoid public health requirements? Does he accept that in the lead contamination incident, which affects part of the west country, innocent farmers may suffer financial hardship as a result of the blanket application of such precautions? Will he make sure that in future he supplies sufficient resources for such incidents, so that hardship is minimised?

§ Mr. Maclean
Of course, we want to minimise hardship to farmers or others who suffer through no fault of their own. The restrictions that my Department put in place in the lead in feed incident in the west country were based on the best scientific advice and were intended to protect the human food chain. Where we had information that feed may have been given to farmers, we applied restrictions. As soon as we had information that human health was not in jeopardy, we removed those restrictions.

§ Mr. Ron Davies
Why is the Minister so obstinate in rejecting the demands from hon. Members of all parties for 100 per cent. compensation for BSE? As he knows that it is impossible to find a farmer, a vet or a local authority inspector who will deny that BSE-infected animals are entering the food chain, will he now reconsider his decision? If he introduces 100 per cent. compensation, at least he can start to deal with the problem of clinically infected animals. If he is then prepared to accept the recommendation of the Tyrrell committee to introduce random sampling of all bovine brains, at least the public will have some idea of the extent of the epidemic, or does he simply not want the public to know?

§ Mr. Maclean
That last remark is outrageous. The hon. Gentleman is right to advance an argument for farmers receiving more compensation because they have suffered financial loss, but that argument is totally separate from protecting the human food chain. It is not right to suggest that BSE-infected animals are getting into the food chain, because we have taken all preventive measures. The recent record of the British Veterinary Association states: But, there was no evidence that the current compensation level was encouraging farmers to shed off animals for slaughter and inclusion in the food chain. I keep my compensation policy under review and I am concerned about financial loss for farmers. However, our compensation policy has nothing to do with protecting the human food chain. We have other measures to do that.

§ Mr. Hague
I accept many of my hon. Friend's arguments, but does he at least accept the principle that no farmer should be worse off because of reporting a suspected instance of BSE? Is he confident that 50 per cent. compensation is sufficient to ensure that and will he consider whether a higher percentage many be necessary?

§ Mr. Maclean
Of couse, I reaffirm that I keep my compensation policy under review. There is nothing to deter a farmer from reporting a suspected case because, as everyone should know, if we destroy an animal and later discover from veterinary analysis that it does not have BSE, we pay 100 per cent. compensation in any case.