§ 7. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West)How many animals have been culled in (a) England and (b) Wales as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; and how many of the carcases were disposed of in each country. [4674]
§ The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)In round figures, some 2.84 million animals have been slaughtered in England and almost 326,000 in Wales. Just over 2.9 million carcases were disposed of in England and 224,000 in Wales. I can provide try hon. Friend with a more precise breakdown of those figures in writing if he wishes.
§ Kevin BrennanI thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the topographical nature of Wales and the lack of rendering facilities make it particularly difficult to dispose of large numbers of carcases within Wales? Do not the figures show the 1296 benefit of Wales being a devolved nation within the United Kingdom, rather than following the selfish separatist agenda of the nationalists?
§ Margaret BeckettMy hon. Friend is entirely right—it is one of the many areas in which the benefits of devolution are demonstrable. I entirely take his point about the different circumstances and conditions that apply in Wales and it is right that it is Welsh people and the Welsh Assembly who have been able to take the decisions in that respect.
§ Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)Bearing it in mind that millions of animals were slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, why have the Government set their face against holding a full, independent and public inquiry into its cause and handling? Such an inquiry has been called for by every rural organisation, without exception. The outbreak has cost taxpayers almost £2 billion. Surely, they have a right to learn the truth and to be told how the Government propose to prevent infection from being reimported into the United Kingdom in the near future.
§ Margaret BeckettThe hon. Lady refers to a cost to the economy of almost £2 billion. That figure is correct, but it contrasts slightly with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who suggested that the Government had not been prepared to spend any money to assist the industry.
The thrust of the hon. Lady's question, however, was about inquiries. Of course, there is a general demand for public inquiries. Whenever anybody wants an inquiry into anything, everybody always says that they want a full public inquiry. It is only very rarely, however, that people define what they mean by that term. I say to her, as I have said repeatedly in the House, that the definition is very specific, as she will know. Indeed, the arrangements for a full public inquiry are so substantial that a Prime Minister's decision is required even to establish one. That means that they tend to be extremely time consuming and costly.
The Government have proposed an inquiry structure with three separate and independent components, which means that a dedicated group of scientists will, as scientists—
§ Mrs. WintertonNot good enough.
§ Margaret BeckettThe Royal Society, conducting a scientific investigation, is not good enough? That is absolute rubbish, and it shows the posturing and stupidity of the Opposition.
Scientists are carrying out the scientific inquiry and an independent person is carrying out the inquiry into what specifically happened in the outbreak and what can be learned for good or ill. There is a separate process, which is not clouding its discussion and decisions with consideration of what specifically happened, but looking to the future. Indeed, it is looking to the questions asked by the hon. Member for East Surrey a moment ago—the future of farming and agriculture in the United Kingdom, how can they be prosperous and how can we have a prosperous rural economy. Three separate issues are being handled separately and everyone will be acting 1297 independently. The whole inquiry will report long before any public inquiry would have done so. That seems much better than the Opposition's posturing.