HC Deb 13 December 2001 vol 376 cc1061-72

`In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 35. 35A Duty of Ministers to dispose of carcasses The Minister shall have a duty to dispose of the carcass of any animal slaughtered under the provisions of this Act within forty-eight hours of its slaughter.".'.—[Mr. Keith Simpson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is not in his place at the moment, said that it might be more appropriate to refer to this Bill as the animal slaughter and disposal of carcases Bill, rather than the Animal Health Bill. That sounds, uncharacteristically, a rather crude and vulgar interpretation of the Bill. I have some sympathies with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that we often dress up in euphemisms of parliamentary language rather brutal and unsavoury facts.

New clause 7 comes to the heart of the matter of public health and of beating foot and mouth. Following Second Reading, the Standing Committee, and through the deliberations of the Select Committee and proposals put forward by various outside parties including the farming community and non-governmental organisations, there is no doubt that a common theme has been that the Bill has been pushed through with insufficient lessons learned from the current and previous foot and mouth outbreaks. There is a sense—not only on the Opposition, but on the Government Benches—that the Government have failed to established a public independent inquiry. Only through that would we learn real lessons.

Owing to the way in which the Bill is framed, we had to table amendments either to mitigate against the Minister acquiring unnecessary and, in some examples, inapplicable powers or to propose measures based on what happened on the ground during the foot and mouth outbreak. Given its nature, the Government's initial dithering, the failure of early measures and the subsequent spread of the disease, Ministers and officials were overwhelmed by events.

I have some sympathy with Ministers and officials in that the speed and extent of the outbreak and spread of the disease meant that the old MAFF organisation was overwhelmed. This is neither the time nor the place to go into that, but I hope that we shall learn lessons from it. A serious consequence was the unedifying spectacle in many areas of large numbers of slaughtered animals lying in fields, farm yards, close to human habitation and by roads and tracks over many, many days.

That was emotionally stressful for farmers and their families, and it was probably emotionally stressful for the vets and MAFF officials involved in the slaughter and the administration. Of course, it was also stressful for local people who had to move around what were, in effect, killing fields. Ultimately, it had a major impact on public opinion, and the Minister will be only too well aware of the great outrage and revulsion in Parliament.

The Minister knows that the failure to keep up with carcase disposals became a logistical nightmare and, as foot and mouth spread, the carcase backlog became even greater. Apart from the emotional upset caused by widespread scenes of unburied dead animals, increasingly they posed a health risk. We know from those recent experiences, which were graphically illustrated by accounts from hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Committee, that there was order, counter-order and disorder from MAFF and then DEFRA, overwhelmed by events.

Undoubtedly, there was serious confusion over the disposal of carcases: whether to bury or burn and whether they were to be buried or burned near to or far from the culling site. Thousands of carcases were transported many miles, and they appeared to be moved at random before being buried or disposed of with little consideration of the environmental impact. All those examples posed a major health problem and I would argue that they effectively lost the public relations war for MAFF.

The Minister made this clear in Committee: Slaughter is the most effective way of stopping virus production, for the reasons that I gave. As soon as the animal is dead, it stops producing the virus. We still have no definitive proof that vaccination would have alleviated the spread or that it might be the answer for the future. From what the Minister has put on record, I understand that, in the event of another foot and mouth outbreak, slaughter will be the main method of preventing the disease from spreading.

Mr. Morley

I have not put that on record. I said that I would not want culling on the scale witnessed in this outbreak, and we must consider measures to prevent that. On vaccination, one outcome of the conference I attended yesterday is realistic proposals for greater use of vaccination, but that would take place alongside some culling. That would be reduced culling, but we still come back to this issue: if we are to cull, we must do so quickly and efficiently.

Mr. Simpson

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which probably reinforces what I am about to say. There are few lawyers in the Chamber, but, as we are aware, it is always best to know the answer to any question we are about to ask. Given our experiences, it is incumbent on the Minister and DEFRA to ensure that carcases are disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. As the hon. Gentleman said in Committee: Ideally, we want to remove carcases as quickly as possible". However, he added that despite being desirable, the proposed 48-hour period was impractical.

The Minister's objections were based on the scale of the epidemic and the logistical problems, including manpower, equipment and vehicular movement: Such practical problems mean that an absolute commitment to a 48-hour target cannot be given. I do not dispute that that target is desirable. Having said that, however, he used a get-out clause: I am not saying that some of those practical problems cannot be overcome. They will be dealt with in inquiries and in future contingency plans."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 November 2001; c. 62–3.] So, disposal of carcases within 48 hours is desirable on every criterion, including disease spread prevention, public health and public sentiment.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

My hon. Friend mentions a series of matters, including inquiries. Would it not help support the Minister's point of view if all those matters, instead of being kept behind closed doors, were subject to an inquiry in public, so that we would all know precisely what happened? If only we all knew what happened, that would help the Minister enormously in putting his case.

Mr. Simpson

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That point has been made from these Benches and, indeed, from the Government Benches on numerous occasions. In a sense, we are groping in the dark as we consider the Bill, but my line of argument in support of the new clause uses the evidence as provided by the Minister himself.

The problem is organisational and logistical, which is where MAFF-DEFRA so demonstrably failed during the recent outbreak. That is not only the conclusion of the Devon county council report, but what the public observed over several months, and farming communities in such areas had direct experience of it.

The organisational and logistical failure of MAFF-DEFRA was highlighted when the Prime Minister ordered the use of Army personnel, under the command of a solid but inspirational brigadier, to get a grip on the slaughter and disposal of carcases in Cumbria. The Minister will forgive me for saying that my party had recommended that to Ministers over previous weeks, but it was dismissed as largely irrelevant.

The Army provided leadership, organisation and planning, although it went in cold, and worked closely with local vets and MAFF officials, getting the problem under control, dealing with the carcase backlog and, as those events came to an end, disposing of slaughtered animals almost within the 48-hour time frame.

My colleagues and I have tabled the new clause because we believe that, for reasons of science, health and public sentiment, it is right and proper that the Minister should have a duty to ensure that the carcase of any animal slaughtered under the provisions of the Bill be disposed of within 48 hours of slaughter. He agrees that that is desirable, but says it is impractical. We contend that the Prime Minister's decision to use the Army shows that, with leadership, organisational skills and the necessary resources, the desirable becomes the achievable.

The Minister can square the circle only by lobbying the Treasury and the Prime Minister to point out that, as the Minister said today, it is likely that there will be further outbreaks of foot and mouth or some other animal disease in the near future, possibly on the scale of the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Unfortunately we did not learn the lessons of the swine fever outbreak, which affected my constituency. If we do not learn the lessons of this outbreak—if, again, we do not allocate the necessary resources, establish the necessary organisation and set targets—we will, I am afraid, witness a repeat performance.

I urge the Minister to accept that our proposal is not just desirable, but achievable in practice.

4.30 pm
Mr. Gummer

I commend the new clause to the Minister for, dare I say, his own good.

I know exactly what the conversation will have been in the Department when the Minister was preparing to defend his side. His officials will have said "This is a difficult point, Minister, and of course you will be sympathetic, but we should advise you that, all things being taken together and in the round, there may be trouble. It would be much better if you said no. Of course we will try our best. We will do all that we can, and perhaps we will even achieve what we want to achieve—but it would be much better if you gave us the necessary elbow room. You can trust us. It will be absolutely OK." I know that the Minister does not want to rest on that; I am sure that he wants to move a stage further.

The point of placing a duty on the Minister is that it enables him to galvanise all at his command into achieving the desired end. It gives him a strength without which he clearly has serious difficulties, as we have seen during the past few years.

Mr. Breed

Would it also give the Minister a lever in respect of the Treasury, and the costs that might be involved in achieving that aim?

Mr. Gummer

I will come to the Treasury in a moment. I think it needs a paragraph or two to itself.

Mr. Jack

Is not my right hon. Friend's argument entirely compatible with the Government's approach in introducing performance indicators into every area of their activity—health, education and many other areas—and measuring objectively what they hope will be done?

Mr. Gummer

Absolutely—but my right hon. Friend will have noted that the Government are less keen on such indicators when they would indicate the performance of Ministers.

I always want to help this Minister, as he knows. The proposed measure would help him to deal with the difficulty he has encountered with the Government machine in securing the full, fair public inquiry that I know he wants. The Minister has nothing to hide, and I am sure he has no intention of hiding anything; but it is extremely difficult for Conservative Members, or indeed members of any party in the House, to do anything if we do not have a report—not a report that would identify scapegoats, but a report simply detailing what has happened and what lessons should be learned. After all, we have had a number of reports of that kind, and in general they have been able to help future Ministers to conduct their affairs.

If the Minister accepted the new clause, he would be able to say to his colleagues, "If we had been more open about the whole affair, I would have been able to convince the House of the need for a different time limit and a different procedure, because Members would have had all the information they needed at their fingertips. Indeed, if we had not completed the inquiry, I could have promised that they would have the information."

I cannot speak for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I think that the new clause might have been withdrawn on the basis that further and better particulars might well lead them to take a different view; but they cannot do that in circumstances in which those further and better particulars will not emerge, because there is no mechanism whereby they should emerge. That means that we are bound to take only the evidence that we have ourselves, and seek to act on it. As I have said, giving way would grant the Minister greater power in his continuing argument with the rest of the Government, and a few notable colleagues, in favour of a comprehensive inquiry.

Another reason for my view that accepting the new clause would help the Minister was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). I am thinking of the Treasury. The Treasury has a job to do: it is not a nice job or an easy job, but it must be done. The difficulty with the Treasury and DEFRA, as with the Treasury and MAFF, is that the area of choice is very limited.

Quite properly, we are part of the European Union; quite properly, we have a common agricultural policy. The common agricultural policy could be greatly improved, and as part of the arrangements we will be able to improve it. The fact is, however, that the decisions—again, quite properly—are made jointly with us around a table. There is only a bit left for the Treasury to get its fingers on. Thank God there is only a bit left; otherwise, the farmers would have lost a lot more.

I think that some of my friends who are not as happy about the CAP as I am should explain to the farmers whether they would get anything at all if it were all decided by the British. That is one of the facts of life. Happily, however, most of the decisions are made by people around a table. We are part of that, but many of the others are more concerned with the interests of farmers.

Anyway, the bit left over is constantly under the eagle eye of the Treasury. The Treasury loves to look at that bit. That is why it has cut back on our flood defences. That is why the poor Minister had to admit to me the other day that less was being spent. He said that spending went up and down, but we were in the "down" phase at the moment, so things were rather difficult. Why did he have to explain that to me, at a time when my constituency—which contains 74 miles of coastline—is experiencing its worst-ever circumstances? Because the Treasury can only get its fingers on to the bit that is there—and those fingers creep out to grab whatever is around.

I want to help the Minister in this regard. If the House of Commons decides that there is a performance target—a duty or a requirement—the Treasury can huff and puff as much as it likes, but it must provide the means. I am keen for the House to get its fingers around the throat of the Treasury, because if it does not we have no hope of controlling the Executive.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth

I suppose my right hon. Friend would think that it meant nothing to the Treasury, but may I draw him a little nearer to the new clause? Its purpose is to avoid the horrific scenes of carcases lying rotting in fields, the terrible scenes of carnage that caused enormous problems to our image around the world and had a devastating effect on our tourism industry, which cost us many millions of pounds. My right hon. Friend may like to consider that, even though perhaps it is optimistic to think that the Treasury is capable of taking such issues into consideration.

Mr. Gummer

There is a problem with my hon. Friend's analysis. In looking at the consequences of such a new clause, the Treasury will think only of the narrow immediate expenditure. It will find it difficult to recognise that the new clause is intended to help the Treasury to defend the greater sum of resources available to it. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge cost that was paid because of the insufficient funding of the culling operation. The cost is one which we pay today. I happened to be in the United States when the televisions were filled with pictures of fires and the whole situation, but much worse were the photographs of the animals lying dead in piles. That did huge harm.

I remind the House of an experience that I had. It will help the Minister to deal not with large carcases, but with the smaller carcases of hens. I remember being faced with the problem of a number of nuns who were keeping hens and who had a salmonella difficulty. Of course, hon. Members can see immediately the public relations disaster of a whole lot of nuns seeking to protect their hens from the arrival of those who were going to kill them. That did not seem to me to be good news. In the end, we went early, even before they had begun to see the crime. We destroyed the hens before either nuns or journalists were up. I am not suggesting that it would be possible for the Minister to deal with a great mound as quickly as that, but in public relations terms, the quicker, the better. If it has to be done, it has to be done quickly. The hon. Gentleman admits that.

I hope that the Minister will understand that we press the new clause not out of antagonism to him or indeed to what was MAFF and is now, at least in part, DEFRA, but to give him the power that is necessary if he is to win battles within his Administration. Although I was a member of an Administration who by nature, support and backing were closer perhaps to rural areas than his, it was not always easy to win what I needed to win. Often I needed support. From time to time, the hon. Gentleman and his friends gave me that support by making it very difficult for people not to ante up the money. That is all we are doing today.

I hope that the Minister will take seriously the proposition that, by setting him a target, we enable him to set a target for the rest of the Government, achieve the resources necessary and deliver the necessary result. I hope that he or any future Minister will never face such an outbreak again, but the position needs to be put right. Otherwise, the cost to our national exchequer will be enormous and the damage to our farming community huge.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Bill is ill advised and ill timed. A touch of optimism is returning to the farming community. I hope that foot and mouth has been defeated, but the Bill again drives a wedge between the industry and the Government. Any co-operation that we would like to engender and encourage between the two seems to be ill fated.

MAFF set targets on slaughter and disposal. Those targets were not met because the disease completely overwhelmed the organisation that was in place. The Minister has told us that there was a national contingency plan but whatever it was, it was clearly not sufficient to deal with the disposal of the number of carcases that were on farms and in fields around farms.

4.45 pm

There were three ways of disposing of those carcases—burial, burning or rendering. Clearly, rendering was the preferred method, because it took place in well controlled environments. Sometimes, however, carcases had to be transported through clean areas that had not had the disease. Rendering capacity was limited, so burning and burying had to be contemplated.

Lessons from the previous outbreak did not seem to have been learned, because the report on that outbreak said that on-farm burial was the favoured method of disposal. That had been accepted by the farming community.

Tony Cunningham

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the problems with on-farm burial—I am a Cumbrian MP so I know what I am talking about—was that often the water table was too high and it was impossible to bury the animals on the farm where the disease had broken out?

Mr. Williams

I accept that concern for the environment has increased since the 1967 outbreak, but instead of on-farm burial, it was decided to have mass burial and burning pits. The experience in my constituency was that concern for the environment was fairly minimal. One area on the Eppynt, an army range in my constituency, was designated and, until prompted by local farmers and villagers, no environmental assessment was even performed. However, one of the reasons given for not using on-farm burial was that an environmental assessment of each site would have to be carried out, which would be time-consuming and difficult to achieve given the resources available.

If the mass burial and burning sites were included in the national contingency plan or the local contingency plan, that was not thought through very well. The new clause would encourage the Minister to ensure that any contingency plan, and any lessons learned from the inquiries that are taking place, would put more emphasis on deciding how to deal with the number of carcases that are generated.

It was an upsetting time for the farming community. It was the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who mentioned killing fields, but it was often killing yards. The animals were brought in close to the farms to be slaughtered and the carcases remained there for many days. Families, including children, were trapped on the farms and had to live with the carcases close by, which was an horrific experience for all.

It is important that carcases are disposed of to prevent the spread of the disease. Although the animals produce no more virus when they are dead, the carcases can be torn apart by vermin, and the disease transported to other farms. The tourism industry also suffered because the animals were seen to be left unburied and when they were disposed of it was done in a way that deterred people from visiting areas that depend on tourism as well as agriculture for their livelihoods. I supported an amendment in Committee that was not framed as tightly and simply as the new clause, but the present proposal would help the Minister and it should be supported.

Mr. Wiggin

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who made tremendous and well informed speeches. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) also made a passionate speech.

When the decision to cull was taken, the Minister will have thought, "I must cull, otherwise our export market will be lost." That is a proper commercial decision. It was not done for humane reasons. There are not 5 million fewer farm animals because the Minister had humane reasons for his decision. We know, however, that the Minister will not slaughter on that scale ever again, thanks to the developments in vaccination.

If the new clause has one purpose, it is to act as a brake on the Minister's decision-making process. Never again must carcases lie for nine days, as they did in Winforton in my constituency. Herefordshire relies heavily on its huge agricultural sector, and on tourism. Never again must we allow one market to be sacrificed so completely, and then watch with horror as another is taken down with it, leaving people in the countryside with virtually nothing.

The new clause would encourage the Minister to vaccinate first. The Bill closes the stable door long after the horse has bolted, and any efforts that we can add to ensure that the Minister vaccinates first will improve life in the countryside.

The new clause would mean that any future Minister facing a similar crisis would almost certainly be obliged to call in the Army at the earliest possible stage. That would naturally be part of any contingency plan, and would mean that some of the horrendous abuses of animal and human rights would be avoided. It would also prevent the horrendous mental damage suffered by people whose livestock were slaughtered.

The new clause would also prevent the terrible smell from pyres, which did so much damage to the tourism and agriculture industries, and to connecting businesses across the country. I therefore urge the Minister to change his mind and support the new clause.

Mr. Jack

My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) speaks with great authority from his experience of dealing at constituency level with the tragic consequences of foot and mouth disease. I rise merely to emphasise to the Minister the importance of this new clause. The part of the Bill that it seeks to amend gives legal comfort to the Minister that he has the power, at his discretion and decision, to slaughter in the first place.

However, if the Minister is unable to agree to the provisions of the new clause, he must explain to the House why, given the lessons that have been learned and the findings of the two inquiries that are being held, he would not be able to dispose of carcases within the time scale that has been laid down. If he cannot explain that, it will be tantamount to an admission that, in another foot and mouth outbreak, he could not sustain the performance of disposal that was eventually achieved at the end of this outbreak as a result of the lessons that had been learned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), in his elegant speech, mentioned the Army's logistical input. Subsequent new clauses deal with the matter of a national strategy, which should incorporate the type of performance indicator and requirement contained in this new clause. In the interests of sending a powerful message to farmers that the Government have learned their lessons and that if—God forbid—there were to be another outbreak, it could be dealt with effectively, the Minister should agree to new clause 7. However, if he is fearful of accepting it, he must explain why he will not.

Mr. Morley

I am happy to explain why there are problems with the new clause. I am not against the principle behind it, as I said in Committee. It is desirable to have targets for disposal, as the new clause suggests, but the question is whether circumstances could arise in which those targets could be met, and what the implications of that might be.

I shall explain that in a moment, but first I want to correct some of the statements that have been made. The first has to do with calling in the Army. I think that the independent inquiries will show that the Army was put on alert at the very beginning of the outbreak.

I have been in my post for some time, so I was around at the beginning of the outbreak—and perhaps that is an indication of my own performance. I remember that the Conservatives were calling for the Army to dispose of and remove carcases. That was never really an issue—there was no shortage of civil contractors to do that. The Army played an important role in the logistics and organisation, in making sure that the right thing was in the right place at the right time. As the epidemic spread, it was important to have that support, which was brought in when it was needed.

On the new clause, it is a case of not being able to win either way. During the epidemic, the Government were under pressure to kill animals as quickly as possible. That pressure came from farmers desperate to see the disease being stopped from spreading and those who did not have the disease but wanted to make sure that it was stopped from coming down the valley or moving down the county. Once an animal is killed, it stops producing the virus. The changes in the pH in the animal's body quickly neutralise the virus, and when the animals were killed they were also sprayed with disinfectant.

There was also enormous pressure to take the bodies away as quickly as possible. That is an understandable and reasonable reaction from people facing the epidemic. However, there were logistical problems, given that this was the biggest outbreak of its type that the world had ever seen, such as obtaining leakproof lorries and disposing of the animals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is right that people keep mentioning the Northumberland report, which recommended burial. It did, but things have moved on since then. Issues relating to the water table in Devon, in particular, meant that on-farm burial was often not an option, as was also the case in Cumbria. In addition, the BSE outbreak in the cattle herd since the Northumberland report was published led to a restriction on burying cattle over 30 months and they had to be burned or, preferably, rendered. However, we did not have the rendering capacity to deal with the number of animals affected.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave me some helpful support. I always appreciate a bit of encouragement. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about the procedures, given his long experience in Government. I suspect that some of the people who advise me advised him. They are probably giving me the same advice, on occasion. However, the reason I cannot accept the new clause is not that I disagree with the principles behind it. It is desirable to set a target. There are valid arguments for setting such indicators, and we may be able to look at that in the future.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned vaccination as an alternative. I have always been keen on vaccination and on a range of other options, which is why I strongly support the Bill. It will give us as wide a range of options as we need in dealing with all circumstances. We should not forget that the Bill also deals with vaccination, sampling and blood testing—all the criteria that should be applied to any type of disease control.

I am keen on getting these measures in place as quickly as possible. It can be argued that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but this was an outbreak like no other. We have to learn from that. I believe that we can learn lessons from the inquiries. I also genuinely believe that the structure of the inquiries is the right one. I am fairly relaxed about structure. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned a public inquiry; he had experience of the Phillips inquiry, which was a useful investigation which provided some useful information, but it took nearly three years.

Mrs. Ann Winterton

You set it up.

Mr. Morley

I accept that. It cost between £30 million and £40 million—about £10 million was spent on lawyers' fees. I am not altogether keen on that approach. I am much keener on an open process that is in the public domain and deals with the issues. I believe that our approach is the right one.

5 pm

Mr. Wiggin

Does the Minister agree that, given the speed of policy changes—including EU policy—and the fact that none of the three inquiries has reported, he should not legislate until at least one of those inquiries has reported?

Mr. Morley

No, because time is of the essence. I repeatthat the Bill contains nothing that pre-empts any recommendation from the inquiries. Indeed, nothing in the Bill should be taken as the Government's definitive future policy for dealing with any disease outbreak.

The hon. Member for Leominster is a strong advocate of vaccination, but some of the points that he made about new tests are not yet fully validated. The information is not yet available to us. I must correct him on one point: the culling programme was designed not to deal with trade issues, but to stop the spread of disease.

Mr. Breed

Does the Minister agree that the Phillips report was lengthy and costly because it related to BSE—a disease that was new to us—but that we know all about foot and mouth? There is not much more that we need to know about the disease; we need to concentrate on how it was effectively controlled and eradicated. That would take far less time and would cost much less.

Mr. Morley

The hon. Gentleman makes my case for inquiries that are short and to the point—exactly like those that have been set up. A full-blown judicial inquiry will go on for several years, so I much prefer the approach that we are taking. Nothing in the format of the inquiries is different from the Northumberland inquiry—there is no difference at all. People sometimes get hung up on definitions when they are talking about inquiries. I think we have chosen the right way: it will put all the information in the public domain, and will show us the lessons learned from the management of the epidemic, in the Anderson report, and the scientific questions—not only those relating to foot and mouth—that will be addressed by the Royal Society.

Mr. Gummer

The Minister is trying to help the House, but the matter is not new, and the inquiry need not be as complicated as the Phillips inquiry, so surely it would be possible to set up a single, more public inquiry with a clear date line and the resources to produce a report within that period. It would have been quite possible to do that. The reason why the Government failed to set up such an inquiry continues to escape me. Everyone would have been much happier because its workings and results would have been open—as the proceedings of the Government's inquiries do not seem to be, at least to the public.

Mr. Morley

The right hon. Gentleman should wait and see how the inquiries are set up. I understand that Dr. Anderson will shortly announce how he intends to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the process is more open and transparent than he thinks and that people will have the opportunity both to make their case and to see the outcome—it will all be in the public domain. Of course, we can argue over these points, but I believe that our approach is the right way to obtain the answers that we need as quickly as possible.

The reason why I cannot accept the new clause is that if we set up such a target, with all the unknowns and variables that I have described, it could have the perverse effect—certainly not intended by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—of discouraging rapid slaughter in some cases. If there is a target of 48 hours and it is difficult to meet that target—for whatever logistical reason—there would be a disincentive to slaughter as quickly as possible. If we are to use culling as part of disease control—we can argue about the alternatives to culling—the key is to carry it out as quickly as possible. The new clause would undermine that principle.

Mr. Keith Simpson

We have held an interesting, short debate. My hon. Friends and I and Liberal Democrat Members are not especially convinced by the Minister's argument. In fact, I am not even sure that many Members on either side of the House are convinced of the general arguments in favour of the Bill. The Minister is a fair man, who is frequently left by his ministerial colleagues to bat alone, and he is only too aware that there is silence about the measure—at best—and some criticism. It is always difficult for Government supporters to criticise their own Government.

The debate has shown, first, that the Minister accepts that, in principle, he believes there should be a 48-hour target and, secondly, despite what the Minister has said, that most hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it would have been possible to have had a short, open and public debate on the lessons learned. Rather than looking for scapegoats, we are looking for practical lessons to learn.

Tony Cunningham

It has been announced that one of the three inquiries will take place shortly, but that will take six months. The great fear among farmers in Cumbria and all the tourism-related industries is that, if there were an outbreak of foot and mouth next February or March, it would decimate agriculture in Cumbria and destroy many of the tourism industries in that county. I support a broad range of measures that can be used to ensure that we do not get ourselves into the position that we faced with the original outbreak of the disease.

Mr. Simpson

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but this is pure Corporal Jones—people cry, "Don't panic," but that is exactly what the Government are doing. I have long experience of defence matters, and however appalling the Ministry of Defence has been at times, the one thing that it has learned from experience is that lessons have to be learned very quickly. In fact, the Minister wants a shotgun version of legislation to cover all kinds of contingencies because, frankly, neither first MAFF, nor now DEFRA knows what went on and has got the answers.

The majority opinion on both sides of the Chamber is that a short, sharp inquiry could have been held and that the organisational and logistical lessons could have been learned very much in accordance with the standard operating procedures that the MOD applied in Cumbria.

I hope that we have established that the Minister accepts the 48-hour target in principle. He is less sure in his rejection of the fact that we would like that target to be included in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I suspect that the issue may be taken up in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to