FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

HC Deb 06 November 2002 vol 392 cc307-34

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 3, at end insert—

"( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c.22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act)

before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert— (2A) The Secretary of State shall give priority to a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected."

4.45 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this we may discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu and sub-amendment (i).

Mr. Morley

The House has discussed the Bill in detail. I said that as a result of pertinent points raised in Committee we would give further consideration to amendments, especially in the other place.

Significant changes have been made to the Bill. We accepted some of them as a result of discussions in the course of the parliamentary process, and I want to pay tribute to my colleague, Lord Whitty, who did a good job in dealing with the Bill in the House of Lords. Other changes result from commitments that we gave in Committee to consider certain aspects in further detail so that we could be more transparent. We also wanted to reassure hon. Members and reflect their reasonable concerns.

Amendment No. 1 deals with vaccination. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in her statement that we accept the recommendations of the Anderson and Follett reports that vaccination should have a more prominent role in the decision-tree process of the measures that we would apply to combat any disease outbreak. That commitment has been given. It is also recognised in our revised interim contingency plan, which is being made public today. It is part of a developing contingency plan arising from discussions with the industry.

Although we understand the reason behind the amendment, we cannot accept it. As we made clear in our response to the reports, we will, ideally, want to use a vaccinate-to-live strategy if emergency vaccination is used. There may, however, be scenarios in which, following the appropriate veterinary and scientific advice, culling of non-infected premises is deemed more appropriate than vaccination. We do not want that advice to be restricted artificially in terms of the most appropriate disease control methods that could be applied.

It is also important to stress that European Union legislation requires slaughter of livestock on premises that have an epidemiological link to infected premises. For example, in some circumstances slaughter will not be the last resort, and we would want to stamp out an immediate outbreak by culling, as identified in the Royal Society and Anderson reports. The amendment therefore runs contrary to EU law. It is unworkable and we cannot accept it, even though we are not necessarily against the reason behind it.

We have offered a Government amendment in lieu. It has been carefully drafted to address concerns about the role of vaccination in future disease outbreaks. It sets out explicitly on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State must consider the most appropriate means of preventing the spread of the disease. In particular, the Secretary of State must consider whether vaccination is more appropriate in the circumstances. It is not entirely dissimilar to the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I hope they recognise that we understand the reasoning behind their amendment. Although our amendment reflects concerns about restrictions, we are not against the general principle of recognising the changes in the Government's response and our acceptance of the recommendations in the Follett and Anderson reports. We want to emphasise that by putting it on the face of the Bill. Our approach also reflects the inquiry reports and recent European developments, which have underlined the need for vaccination to play a higher profile in future disease outbreaks. The Government response to the inquiry sets out our strategy for taking those recommendations forward.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the Minister explain the difference between what he now proposes to put on the face of the Bill and what de facto took place during the foot and mouth debacle? Back Benchers understood that Ministers were considering vaccination at various points.

Mr. Morley

That is true. We were considering vaccination at a number of points. Traditional methods of dealing with an outbreak on that scale, which were based on the inquiry into the 1967 outbreak, were based on mass culling. What is different about our response to the Anderson and Royal Society reports is that vaccination, which was on the periphery of the responses—we had not resolved many of the issues within the food industry or the agricultural, food and livestock sectors—had not been pushed up the order of priority as regards decision making. It was a specialist application, to be used in certain circumstances, and was considered on a number of occasions, as the hon. Gentleman rightly states.

The Anderson and Royal Society reports made it clear that stamping out should be the initial response, but that vaccination should go further up the agenda: it should be considered right away, in the appropriate circumstances and the appropriate way, as a tool for controlling disease outbreaks. It is a different response, compared with previous contingency plans. That is reflected in our revised contingency plan and in what I am saying today about accepting the concerns about vaccination by putting it on the face of the Bill, which will allow us to take into account a range of options for what method is applied. Vaccination will, however, be more prominent in the decision-making process.

Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

Is it not true that in April 2001 the Government's advisers said that a large number of cattle in the north of England should be vaccinated, but the National Farmers Union, in the shape of Ben Gill, wrecked that decision? He insisted on laying down impossible conditions that could not be met. If the Bill becomes an Act, will it withstand any future wrecking tactics of the NFU?

Mr. Morley

In Cumbria, our scientific advisory group made a unanimous recommendation that vaccination should be used on cattle, more in relation to disposal than as a disease-control measure. Due to the nature and spread of the disease, the advantage of vaccination would have been to reduce the number of cattle killed and, therefore, the need to dispose of them. There is no denying that there was significant disagreement within the farming sector; concerns were also expressed in the food industry. We are trying to look forward rather than back. What is clear to me, as I have said, is that it is difficult to decide the role of vaccination, where to use it and the priority that it should have in disease-control strategies and response in the midst of one of the world's biggest epidemics. It is difficult to get that agreement. It is much better to debate that matter now, have proper contingency arrangements and reflect the change both in the Government's response to the independent inquiries and on the face of the Bill.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the problem is that there has to be some consensus about the actions that have to be taken? We all know what went wrong last time—there was a great deal of disagreement over policy and actions among farmers. How does he anticipate that we shall be able to reach a stage at which we at least share an understanding of the policy options? As he says, that cannot be done in the midst of an outbreak; it has to be done now, and we have to build that consensus. Is that what the Government are talking about?

Mr. Morley

I do not want to go into great detail about the various strategies, as that would divert attention from the amendments. However, I am happy to answer interventions from hon. Members on that point. There are still many issues in relation to vaccination that need to be resolved. It is not a simple matter. There are issues such as tests and acceptance by the livestock industry and the food and farming industry, but we want to engage all the stakeholders in discussions on the matter. There is a recommendation from the independent reports that vaccination be considered more prominently as a response. We are not being asked to use vaccination as a response in all circumstances. One of the problems with amendment No. 1 is that we need some flexibility, but we accept that vaccination must move up the agenda and that we must address and resolve a range of issues.

Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems during the epidemic was that there were announcements by the Government, but a long period elapsed before anything happened in the countryside to implement the announcements? There was a great deal of doubt and public agonising by the Government about which course of action to take. Professor Sir Brian Follett said that the contingency plan should outline clearly to all the stakeholders the various options and actions, but should culminate in parliamentary approval of a contingency plan. Would not that be the way of answering the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who seems to have disappeared? Farmers should know what the various scenarios are and the responses to them. It is not good enough to put the contingency plan on the website. We need to have sight of it and debate it publicly.

Mr. Morley

I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Part of our interim contingency plan is a decision tree, as it is called. One can see clearly the various circumstances and the decisions that one might take about whether or not to vaccinate and what sort of vaccination one might use—suppressive, preventive or ring vaccination. A range of issues and applications is clearly laid out in a decision tree.

We are still in the process of engaging stakeholders in the development of interim strategies, so that we can have a proper contingency plan in place, probably early in the new year. We very much welcome the scrutiny of bodies such as the Select Committee in the development of a plan, so that it is open and transparent and people understand the reasoning behind it and the options available.

We are, of course, developing a whole animal health strategy. We are discussing foot and mouth, but the Bill deals with animal health. Inevitably, a great deal of attention will be focused on foot and mouth, but we must think ahead as well. We need adequate contingency plans for a range of exotic diseases, some of which may represent an increased threat because of changes in climate and the spread of insect vectors, for example. The Bill is designed to cope with that and give us the flexibility that we will need in future.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

I am grateful to the Minister, and apologise for the fact that I was not present when he started speaking. Does he recall that he told us in Committee: I want to make it clear to the Committee that vaccinate and slaughter is not an option that I personally support"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 December 2001; col. 171.] and went on to explain how he preferred the option of vaccinating animals so that they could continue to live? Is that still his view, and will it influence the outcome of the consultations to which he referred?

Mr. Morley

The hon. Lady played a prominent part in Committee and she is welcome to intervene. The Secretary of State made it clear in her statement today that, generally speaking, if we are going to use emergency vaccination our preference would be a vaccinate-to-live policy. There may be circumstances in which a vaccinate-to-kill-later policy was necessary. That is dealt with in the Bill in relation to compensation, for example, and we accepted some amendments on that. However, I can confirm categorically to the hon. Lady that our preference is for a policy of vaccinate to live.

I have made it clear why we cannot accept the point made in the Liberal Democrat amendments. However, I am sure that we are not very far apart in our reasoning. We have given an important commitment and I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will accept that.

5 pm

We accept Lords amendment No. 3, which deals with the use of the word "immaterial". We are happy to accept the clarification that it provides. The provision in question enables the Secretary of State, where it is necessary to do so, to use a power to limit the spread of an outbreak and deal with it quickly. Our aim will be to use that power where we believe that it would reduce the total number—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the Minister that the Lords amendment to which he is speaking is in a separate group. At the moment, we are discussing Lords amendment No. 1, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu, and sub-amendment (i).

Mr. Morley

Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am used to dealing with amendments together in Committee and on Report. I do have much more to add.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

I think that I was the only Labour Back Bencher who spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. One of the reasons why I contributed was that it was vague as to whether the Government had the right compulsorily to vaccinate. Does the Bill before us clear that issue up?

Mr. Morley

The Bill makes the situation clear: the right to vaccinate always existed under the Animal Health Act 1981, but the Bill makes it easier to apply vaccination, as well as culling and serology, more quickly and efficiently.

There has been much concentration on the Bill in terms of culling—we had the same discussion in Committee—but the issues remain the same. The Bill does not focus entirely on culling. It is designed also to give the powers necessary for speedy entry into and application of vaccination and serology. Those powers are equally important in any application of disease control measures. Indeed, the different emphasis might mean that they become more important, which is a very strong argument for the Bill.

Andrew George (St. Ives)

I seek the Minister's advice on the consumption of vaccinated meat. What assessment has his Department and the Food Standards Agency made of that issue? Is the Department clear about how much, if any, vaccinated meat is coming into the country?

Mr. Morley

We are certainly aware that some vaccinated meat is coming into the country, but vaccines are used in the livestock industry for all sorts of things. As is made clear in the Government's formal written response to the independent inquiries, we certainly believe that there is no reason why vaccinated meat, in this case in relation to foot and mouth disease, should not be placed on the market. There is no safety reason why that should not happen.

I ask the House to disagree with the amendment, but I hope that it will accept that we have recognised the arguments behind it and tried to give some reassurance by allowing in the Bill for the fact that the issue of vaccination will certainly be considered more prominently in future, along with a range of options, bearing in mind the proper scientific and veterinary advice and the fact that there are still some issues to resolve before we can successfully use it on a large scale.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

I welcome the fact that the Minister has been ready to listen to all the discussions that occurred in Committee, in the House and during the progress of the Bill in the other place. His tabling of an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment demonstrates that the Government are ready to listen. I understand the Minister's confusion about speaking to the other groups of amendments, but in those, too, the Government have demonstrated that they are ready to listen to the arguments that have been put forward here, in Committee and, particularly, in the other place, by granting a number of concessions on some of the important matters that were raised.

I understand much of what the Minister said about Lords amendment No. 1. None the less, we shall argue the case in favour of the amendment. The first groups of amendments—including those relating to slaughter, to which the Minister referred a moment ago—bring us to the heart of all that we found wrong with the Bill when it left the House of Commons. Its name is the Animal Health Bill, but as my noble Friend Baroness Byford so memorably said on Second Reading, it would have been better to call it the "Animal Death Bill".

The Bill was originally introduced to allow the Government to kill animals, whether or not there was a real need to do so and whether or not farmers were prepared to allow it to happen, and to give those farmers unfair compensation for the cull once it had happened. The groups of amendments in this first, one-and-a-half hour debate are designed to correct the Bill's asymmetrical imbalance in favour of death, and to create a Bill that is, wherever possible, in favour of life—a true Animal Health Bill. This remains a bad Bill, but, thanks to these amendments and to the others that we shall debate later, it is a slightly less bad Bill than it was when it left here. We therefore welcome the Government's readiness to accept their Lordships' amendments, which, if time allows, we shall debate later.

The amendments in the first group relate to the vaccinate-to-live policy. Rather than accepting them, the Government are seeking to water them down. The Minister justified that by suggesting that, under EU law, vaccination on farms that had epidemiological connections with farms that were being culled out could not be allowed. I am certain that that is true, and I would not for a second question the Minister's understanding of EU law; I am sure that he is a great expert on it. However, many of the contiguous culls that took place during the crisis two years ago did not involve farms that were epidemiologically connected with farms being culled out. Rather, those farms simply happened to be next door to them. According to my understanding of the matter—I am ready to be corrected—EU law would allow vaccination on neighbouring farms.

What animal lover could have failed to be affected by the devastating images of the pyres of perfectly healthy animals, just two years ago? Who would not wish to find a way of avoiding that happening again? The unamended Lords amendment offers a means of doing exactly that. The Royal Society's report, which was published in July and to which the Government have rushed out their response today, acknowledges that fact. I remind the House that the report states: It is clear that the long-term solution is to develop a vaccine against FMD (and other diseases such as classical swine fever) that confers lifelong sterile immunity against all strains of the virus. An international research effort is required to develop such a vaccine. On short-term planning, it states: Given recent advances in vaccine science and improved trading regulations, emergency vaccines should now be considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any outbreak of FMD. This means 'vaccination to live' rather than vaccination to prevent spread and then culling. The Royal Society is, therefore, perfectly clear on the matter. In the National Farmers' Union's response to that report, its president, Mr. Ben Gill, said: The NFU supports the report's recommendation that emergency vaccination should be considered as an option alongside the slaughter of infected animals and dangerous contacts as part of an overall control strategy during any future FMD outbreak. The Royal Society, the Follett report and the NFU support the principle of vaccination becoming part of the hierarchy of weapons at the Secretary of State's disposal in the event of another outbreak.

It might be informative to glance at the way in which Uruguay tackled foot and mouth disease in 2001, to see what can be done using vaccination without subsequent slaughter. Uruguay vaccinated 10 million cattle and eradicated the disease within 15 weeks. Only 7,000 animals were slaughtered, compared with the millions that were culled here, and the human impact was therefore absolutely minimal. The Minister might be keen to hear that the total cost to the Uruguay Government—vaccines, disinfection and compensation to farmers—totalled some $13.6 million, which is a tiny amount compared with what we had to spend here. So, there is a huge amount to be said for vaccination.

Of course I accept that scientists have begun to understand some of the questions surrounding the effectiveness of vaccination only in the past few months. For that reason, I pay particular tribute to Cross-Bencher Lord Moran, whose determined efforts ensured that the Bill's over-hasty progress through the other place was delayed so that it could be informed by the Royal Society and other reports as well as by those scientific advances. It is curious to think back to the Minister and his colleagues in the other place arguing that the Bill must go through terribly quickly as it was terribly important. Here we are, discussing their response to the Royal Society report on the same day as we consider Lords amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Martlew

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his party opposed the Royal Society report and wanted a public inquiry, whose results we would not have had for at least three years?

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We were certainly not opposed to the Royal Society report or the Follett report. We would indeed have welcomed a public inquiry in addition to the Royal Society report, although we understand that the Government did not want that—plainly, it would have been extremely embarrassing for them—and that they used their self-defence mechanism to avoid such an inquiry. However, to suggest that a public inquiry was an alternative to the Royal Society report is quite wrong.

It is curious to think of the Government trying to rush the Bill through the House and the other place, despite the fact that they knew that these two vital reports were due in the summer. The Government wanted the Bill to become law in advance of the reports becoming known.

Mr. Morley

rose—

Mr. Gray

The Minister wants to correct me.

Mr. Morley

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When we introduced the Bill, the epidemic had only recently stopped. In all honesty, many people, including us, thought it likely that there would be further outbreaks, and it was important that we had a range of measures to deal with that. Of course, one can never tell when an outbreak might occur. I am glad that there have been no further outbreaks, but we cannot be complacent. I have to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman sounds very complacent.

Mr. Gray

I am astonished to hear the Minister suggest that my remarks are complacent. I would like to think that his Department had contingency plans in place and that, had there been another small outbreak during that period, it could have dealt with that a great deal more effectively than last time, which was an absolute shambles. Let us hope that the Department has learned a few lessons without any new legislation. I am also astonished that he thought it very likely that there would be more outbreaks. I heard no public announcement from the Department that further outbreaks were very likely, but the Minister has now said that.

Paul Flynn

rose—

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene.

Paul Flynn

The disease was contained in Uruguay, France, the Netherlands and Ireland, but not here. That was because of the excessive number of animal movements following the first infection. More than I million animals were exposed, as animals travelled to at least six markets. Is it not vital that the Bill is passed as quickly as possible, so that the farming industry is protected not just from another foot and mouth outbreak, but from he possible outbreak of many other diseases such as blue tongue virus, vesicular stomatitis and swine vesicular disease? The limitations on animal movements are crucial.

Mr. Gray

I entirely sympathise with the point about animal movements, and I think that Members on both sides of the House would seek always to restrict animal movements as much as possible, and find ways to use local abattoirs and to sell meat locally, but the truth is that the large buyers of meat buy from across the nation. Of course, a religious cull for certain purposes was the biggest single reason for the movement of elderly ewes that occurred immediately before the main outbreak.

I have heard the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Murphy) several times on the issue. Of course we agree—[Interruption.] Halal meat is the answer. Most of the old ewes that were brought down to Devon from the north were used for halal meat in Birmingham.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is making squeaking noises from a sedentary position, but halal meat was the main reason.

If I may, I shall return to the main point of today's discussion—Lords amendment No. 1, which has the specific purpose of dealing with vaccination. It would not be right for me to allow hon. Members to ramble on about other matters, as it is important to focus on the particular issue. I was making the point that the Government tried to rush the Bill through the House—it was introduced to this place 12 months ago—and that I am glad of the delay, which has allowed us to consider the outcome of the two reports. The science on vaccination is developing all the time.

For example, tests to differentiate between vaccinated animals and those that are infected are now fully available to us. That allowed the OIE—the Office Internationale d'Epizootic—to reduce the time for a return to disease-free status from 12 months to six. It happened very recently, and it allowed the EU temporary committee's draft report in September to advocate emergency vaccination as a tool of first resort.

5.15 pm

I presume that the EU foot and mouth disease directive, due to be published shortly, will also endorse emergency vaccination as the primary means of control, but if there is no similar presumption in favour of vaccination in the United Kingdom we will be at an immediate competitive disadvantage compared with EU countries where vaccination is preferred. Both the EU report and the directive will doubtless recognise the advances and validation of NSP-free vaccines and the differential tests, and make provision to deal with FMD in line with the new OIE ruling. As the Minister has acknowledged, and as was acknowledged in the earlier statement, the Department is also moving towards being broadly in favour of a degree of vaccination. I welcome that.

We all accept that there are potential problems with vaccination. An obvious practical difficulty with mass vaccination is the large number of animals involved. The views of the international community, especially on meat exports from a vaccinated country, need further clarification and will doubtless also need further negotiation. At present, vaccination cannot be carried out very easily, which is a great worry. We must ensure that we preserve our disease-free status and the ability to export around the world.

As the Royal Society report notes, the effectiveness and durability of vaccines require much more work. The costs associated with mass vaccination should also be considered, although they are nothing in comparison with the costs of an extensive cull. I accept that there are downsides to vaccination, but at least the amendment offers the Government the opportunity to use it in the event of another outbreak.

The Minister seemed to suggest that the amendment would require the Government to use vaccination. It does not; it merely requires them to make it a priority—to put it at the top of their tree. Of course a contiguous cull would still be allowed. What we are saying is that, whereas in the old days the cull was the presumption, we want vaccination—at the very least, ring-fenced vaccination—to become the presumption.

Problems would be involved in moving to the next stage and making vaccination a more permanent prophylactic, but it should not be beyond the wit of man or the expertise of science to demonstrate to the world that vaccinating to live guarantees a disease-free herd. It is possible to differentiate between animals carrying antibodies as a result of infection and those carrying them as result of vaccination. I personally have been vaccinated against yellow fever, smallpox, measles and, no doubt, a variety of other diseases. That does not make me a global health pariah; on the contrary, it allows me to travel abroad with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and other such useful organisations. Surely the same principle can apply to vaccinated animals.

Moreover, as the Minister mentioned, the meat that we eat today comes from animals that have been vaccinated against all kinds of disease. The notion of vaccination is not necessarily a bad thing. The Food Safety Agency could quite reasonably reach an early conclusion on whether FMD-vaccinated beef is as good as non-vaccinated beef.

We believe that vaccination against FMD, both as a firebreak and potentially, in the longer term, as a more general prophylactic, has real possibilities for the future, although we accept that more work is needed on many aspects. The Lords amendment moves our thinking towards vaccination and away from slaughter in a way that we do not think is achieved by the Government's much weaker amendment to it. We are glad that the Government have moved some way in our direction, but we are disappointed that they cannot accept the Lords amendment. We believe that it truly changes an animal death Bill into what we all want it to be, an animal health Bill.

Mr. Martlew

It is a year since I spoke in the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) keeps talking about the outbreak being two years ago, but I remind the House that the week before we introduced the Bill a flock of sheep was killed in south Cumbria on suspicion of being infected, and that was just over a year ago. We must not forget how devastating the outbreak was—the millions of animals that were killed, the devastation on the farms, the crippling of the tourist industry in many parts of the country and the fact that we spent billions of pounds that could have been spent elsewhere. I am sure that we can all think of how we could have spent the money. To prove how serious it was, we should remember that the general election was postponed because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. So the politics of having another outbreak have to be taken into consideration.

In Cumbria, I was right in the middle of the argument about vaccination. The farmers were in favour of vaccination, but the National Farmers Union and the food industry were against it. The milk factory where I worked for 20 years was threatened with closure if we vaccinated. I do not accept the idea that if we have another outbreak and introduce a policy of vaccinate to live, we will not have these arguments again. We will still have a problem with the food industry as it will be frightened that consumers will be turned off a particular product if we have a policy of vaccinate to live.

A policy of vaccinate to kill is absolute nonsense. In December, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and I attended a conference in Brussels and listened to the Dutch agriculture Minister, who was still shell-shocked by the anger of the people of Holland having found out that 750,000 pigs there had been vaccinated and then all killed. The idea that we should have a policy of vaccinate to kill is nonsensical. An emergency policy of vaccinate to live still raises great worries, as we will have the same arguments with the farmers and the food industry. The way to go is to introduce routine vaccination that becomes part of the culture of farming, rather than being introduced in a crisis. The consumers will accept it. It must be a Europe-wide policy. In animal welfare terms, the benefits will be tremendous, but the spin off to other industries, including the tourist industries, of knowing that we can never go back to the devastation of last year will also be valuable.

When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during her statement, she gave me some assurance that the matter was being looked at, but if European Governments do not show real commitment to routine vaccination, industry will not spend billions of pounds on developing a vaccine, particularly if EU politics are not committed to using it.

We need guidance from the Government. I believe that a vaccine is not far away. When the Select Committee questioned members of the Follett committee, they expressed the same view. I remind the Minister that Britain persuaded the rest of the EU to stop the routine vaccination of animals, so it was done in the past.

I believe that false information has been disseminated about carrying animals. There is no evidence that an animal that has had the disease and recovered passes that disease on to other animals. If we look at the history of foot and mouth disease in this country, some animals who had had the disease must have escaped the cull and survived, but fortunately we have had no more outbreaks this year. I supported the Bill on Second Reading because it gave us the option of vaccination. I was quite impressed by the response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I would warn the Minister that the idea that in a crisis we can introduce a policy of vaccination to live will he fraught with the same dangers that we faced last time.

Mr. Curry

I understand the reasons why the Government introduced a Bill so rapidly after the epidemic, but it had a very punitive air, and its measures were draconian. The pause has helped, and it is now much more balanced. On vaccination, the Government have got the balance about right. The other place has gone too far—it has run a little ahead of the science. We must ensure that the Government retain the flexibility to apply measures appropriate to particular circumstances—probably a range of measures—without necessarily being predisposed towards a particular set of measures.

As far as vaccination is concerned, there are three crucial factors. First, we must have a vaccine that is polyvalent—that can deal with all the strains of foot and mouth disease. Secondly, there should be a field test to distinguish vaccinated animals from those that are genuinely infected. In the circumstances of an outbreak, there is no point in sending samples to laboratories and having to wait three days or so for the results. Finally, there is the requirement that international trade rules should deliver the acceptability of vaccinated product and, indeed, that the various people in the industry should accept it.

5.30 pm

Interestingly, in Holland—the Dutch experience did involve vaccination—all vaccinated animal product was destroyed: none of it went into the food chain. The National Farmers Union may have had concerns about vaccination and the possibility of a two-tier market opening up, but as the Minister said, the food industry also had hesitations about the acceptability of vaccinated product. It is all very well saying that all animals have been vaccinated and various steps have been taken—we know that that is so—but as certain other episodes have shown, consumer reaction does not necessarily follow what we would describe as logic. It is entirely for consumers to decide what they wish to buy.

Mr. Drew

As always, the right hon. Gentleman talks eminent good sense. Does he accept that one problem with having a vaccination policy in the midst of an outbreak is that, in effect, there would not be one policy? One might well choose ring-vaccination, but to ensure the most effective policy—and to ensure that animals were being vaccinated to live—it would almost certainly have to be linked to the prophylactic vaccination of virtually all other stock. What are the right hon. Gentleman's views on mixing policies during an outbreak?

Mr. Curry

There would inevitably be a mix. A great deal depends on how rapidly one gets to an outbreak before significant movement occurs. If such movement does occur, a vaccination strategy becomes difficult to apply because of the sheer problems of tracing. I am very doubtful about prophylactic vaccination. There have been instances right across the uplands of trying to count animals for the purpose of making claims on the support systems. It is very difficult indeed to get hold of every single sheep, so the answer is, "First, find your sheep." If it were felt that even just a handful of animals had not been caught by prophylactic vaccination, significant difficulties would arise in terms of regulation and marketing.

Why does not the Minister ask Sir Brian Follett to keep a watching brief on this issue? Why is not Sir Brian asked to make an annual report to the Department, and to Parliament, on where the science has taken us? The Department could then add an annexe, stating the policy implications of where we are in terms of vaccines. Very few Members are scientists, and we need someone to translate the science into sensible terms. Sir Brian did an outstanding job in the report; he has credibility, and he would be a good person to take on that task. That, combined with the policy implications and comments from the Food Standards Agency, would be an example of the joined-up government of which we hear a great deal, but see a good deal less.

The Liberal Democrat amendment adds a little in declamatory terms, but absolutely nothing of substance, and I hope that they will not press it to a vote. The sensible thing is for the House to accept the amendment as formulated by the Government—it strikes a sensible balance according to the current state of our knowledge—provided that they set in motion the machinery to ensure regular updating of knowledge, and that they draw the conclusions publicly, for us all to see.

Andrew George

I suppose that I should move amendment (i) in the name of my right hon. Friends and myself.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman may speak to the amendment; it will be moved formally later.

Andrew George

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for clarifying the issue, and I apologise for being out of order.

I welcome the efforts made by their lordships in amending the Bill. Some significant and comprehensive work was done in Committee and on Report in the House of Lords, and the Bill, as amended, is considerably better than when the Commons sent it to their lordships. I welcome the opportunity for their lordships to demonstrate that they can be an effective revising Chamber.

I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted some of the amendments originally tabled by my noble Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the House of Lords—for example, that on an annual report in respect of meat imports and the related regulations and surveillance. I also welcome the fact that the Government have shifted their position and are prepared to open their eyes to the opportunity of introducing an amendment that would at least allow a vaccination policy to be used if an outbreak occurs in future.

However, perhaps harping back to today's statement, some lessons should be learned, one of which is that the Government should not attempt to rush through such Bills and that they must provide themselves with a greater opportunity to request reports, such as the two on which we have just considered the Government response, before introducing legislation.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if ever a Bill would have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, this was it?

Andrew George

Absolutely. Although the Select Committee considered aspects of the foot and mouth outbreak and proposals in the Bill, the fact is that a number of important factors were not taken into account. The Bill has benefited from the delay as a result of considering the Anderson and Follett reports, and even the Government could not deny that. Among the lessons that need to be learned generally is the fact the Government need to reflect on the way in which they treat the industry. It is fundamentally important that the Government recognise that they must build a climate of trust between themselves and the industry in any future legislation or action that they take in relation to any future outbreak. What worries me about several of the Government's proposals is that the Bill is based on a lack of trust and forcing the Government's will on farmers.

I welcome the Minister's statement at the commencement of the debate that he is not against the general principle of our amendment, although he did not go on to argue specifically against the practice of our amendment. Is it a question of priority, or does he accept the principle that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be applied wherever possible and that wholesale farm slaughter should be used as a policy of last resort? If he fundamentally agrees with the principle that that policy should be applied, why will he not agree to its inclusion in the Bill? He did not answer that question.

Mr. Morley

rose—

Andrew George

I will happily give way to the Minister—perhaps he will have an answer.

Mr. Morley

First, amendment No. 1 is unnecessary, as the Government have tabled amendments to respond to the problem. Secondly, it states that vaccination should be the option of first resort, but EU law covering infected premises and dangerous contacts places on us an obligation to slaughter. The amendment is therefore technically flawed. It would enable a person to mount a legal challenge against the Government for implementing normal disease control methods.

Andrew George

I am grateful for that clarification. However, the amendment would not undermine the Government's ability to demonstrate that they had looked at a vaccinate-to-live policy properly. Government amendment (a) in lieu states that the Secretary of State must consider whether in relation to the occurrence treating animals with serum or vaccine is more appropriate". The Secretary of State might consider that problem, but dismiss very quickly employing treatment with serum or vaccine. That decision cannot be challenged at present. The aim of the amendment is to require the Government to be more specific. Despite claims to the contrary, it does not commit the Government to a vaccinate-to-live policy. It would require the Government to make every effort to ensure that the option had been considered properly. It would also require them to be able to show that they had considered the matter before another approach was adopted.

Mr. Drew

Who would decide whether the Government had made an appropriate evaluation of a vaccination or serum policy? Would it be the courts, or would an independent agency be established to make that adjudication? I am genuinely confused about how the proposal would work.

Andrew George

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he accepts the principle behind the amendment, his question suggests that he thinks that the Bill should be further amended to clarify the way in which the decision would be made. There are many opportunities for Parliament in that respect. If the Secretary of State had to demonstrate that proper consideration had been given to a vaccinate-to-live policy, it would be possible for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, for example, to give that decision proper scrutiny. Without that safeguard, the decisions could be made behind closed doors. We know that it is possible that the decision to use a slaughter policy rather than a vaccination policy could be made on the basis of what is convenient for the Department. The reasons for such a decision could be extraneous and not based on principle.

Mr. Martlew

Both of the reports that the House discussed earlier today accuse the Government of having a slow decision-making process, and identified it as a major problem in the most recent foot and mouth outbreak. The amendment would slow that process even further. Why change the Bill in a way that would make sure that that fault is still present when the next outbreak comes along?

Andrew George

I do not believe that the requirement to demonstrate that the Secretary of State has properly considered implementing a vaccinate-to-live policy would slow decision making. The Minister said that he agrees with the proposal in principle, but the hon. Gentleman implies that the Secretary of State should be given a way not to give proper consideration to the policy—he would not have to give full consideration to all the implications of the decision that is eventually made.

I cannot see how it will in practice delay the process, but it may result in better outcomes. Rather than arguing that it may delay a worse outcome, surely it would be better to allow for a proper process that might result in a better outcome with better and quicker control of the disease.

Mr. Curry

Is not the truth that the hon. Gentleman's amendment will not make the blindest bit of difference? There is no way for him to know the nature of the consideration that the Minister has given. In any foreseeable circumstances, it is inconceivable that a Minister would take a decision to slaughter without considering the alternatives, given the sort of public disquiet that that would inevitably raise. I am afraid that although the hon. Gentleman's amendment has a jolly political purpose, it has no practical or political substance at all.

Andrew George

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is inconceivable for Ministers to conclude that it would be better to use a slaughter policy rather than vaccinate if they have properly considered the issue, but during the last outbreak it was conceivable. One of the concerns throughout the outbreak and a reason why a lot of the processes were delayed was that many farmers did not feel that they had been properly represented or that the Government were on their side. It became conceivable that decisions were taken for reasons that were not directed towards the best possible outcome. If we want better and quicker outcomes in any future outbreak, we need transparency in the way in which Government processes work and the decision-making process operates.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly spoke about the impact on the retailing of vaccinated meat. No doubt next time that will be a matter for consideration.

This debate has given us an opportunity to bring forward some excellent proposals, such as the one put forward by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for an annual report to be made to Parliament and DEFRA on progress to identify a vaccine. I would be interested in the Under-Secretary's response to that proposal because I hope that we could take it forward.

I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily on this matter; I am sure that I have spoken for far too long and I know that many others wish to speak. However, Liberal Democrat Members believe that it is important to be more explicit in the Bill and to be clear that there is a decision-making stream. If the Under-Secretary agrees with the principle of the amendment, it should feature in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

May I give some support to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in supporting the amendment from the other place? I think that we would all like to support it, because it is the ideal for which we strive. Sadly, however, I have to side with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in challenging the practicality of the Lords amendment. The Government's amendment is a reasonable compromise between what we would like and what we can work with in practice, so I hope that my hon. Friend does not push this to a Division. If he does, I might be in a different Lobby from him, and that is rather a dangerous occupation for a Conservative Member of Parliament at present.

I am no great expert on the intricacies of vaccination, but the farming community would face difficulties if a system of prophylactic vaccination were introduced. As we have heard, it is virtually impossible—indeed, it is impossible—to ensure that all stock is collected and vaccinated. It is estimated that there are 30 million sheep in the United Kingdom, with 3 million or 4 million in my constituency. Even in normal circumstances it is virtually impossible to get all the sheep down from the fields for dipping.

5.45 pm

During the foot and mouth culling, I attended a number of culls, including one on some large open-range farms where several thousand ewes were slaughtered over a couple of days. Not a single ewe or lamb was left on the hills, but the next day another hundred came out of hiding to see where their colleagues had gone. It is sadly impossible to guarantee that all stock is slaughtered.

Mr. Martlew

I understand the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, but if the vast of majority of the flock is immunised we will not have a major outbreak, will we?

Mr. Atkinson

I am advised that that is not the case. I have been told that if a single animal is not vaccinated, it could travel through the firebreak and spread infection. We were talking about the Dutch experience—there were three quarters of a million pigs in one unit, so there was no problem getting to them and vaccinating them. The situation with sheep and hill cattle is very different. Hill cattle are extremely wild and are hard to round up, as we discovered during the foot and mouth cull. Wild deer are common in many parts of the United Kingdom now, and are potential carriers of foot and mouth—the Minister will threaten me if I am wrong—and there is no point having a prophylactic vaccination system if a large section of the animal population is not vaccinated.

Mr. Martlew

The reality is that we did not kill all the wild deer after the last outbreak, but we have not had any further outbreaks.

Mr. Atkinson

I accept that. I do not know the risks of foot and mouth being transmitted to the wild deer population, but in a fail-safe vaccination system we must consider the chance of wild animals moving within a vaccinated animal community. That possibility has not been properly addressed.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to avoid the unpleasant scenes that he and I witnessed at first hand, but that is a distant eventuality. We may one day achieve it, but in the meantime the Government amendment is the most practical compromise.

Mrs. Browning

Another aspect of the problem was touched on in Committee, but we did not get a definitive answer from the Minister. Any vaccination policy must deal with the question of the right to enter premises to enforce vaccination. That power needs to be looked at carefully.

Mr. Morley

It is in the Bill.

Mrs. Browning

I believe that the Minister is trying to help me, as he is usually helpful. However, a policy of prophylactic vaccination raises the question whether or not the Government will enforce it.

Mr. Atkinson

I agree entirely. How would we ensure that all animals were vaccinated? It would not be practical to test them to see whether a farmer was telling the truth. It would be pretty easy, however, for him to claim that all his animals were vaccinated, but not vaccinate them.

Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster)

I am afraid that my intervention will not be particularly helpful for my hon. Friend, but it is possible to vaccinate with a bolus that can be traced, so there is accountability.

Mr. Atkinson

I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct, but I mentioned that there were 30 million sheep in the UK, so he will recognise the size of the problem. Obviously, if a farmer was suspected of not vaccinating his flock, that could be checked. My hon. Friend surely cannot be considering random tests in a national flock of that size.

Will the Minister consider vaccination for rare breeds and species? There is certainly a case for prophylactic vaccination of herds of wild cattle, such as the Chillingham cattle in Northumberland, as their meat will never enter the food chain.

I have to say, reluctantly, that their lordships' amendments are too ambitious and that the compromise that we have been asked to support is correct.

Mr. Wiggin

I am in a quandary because I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I welcome the Lords amendment to a part of the Bill that initially gave the Minister the right to slaughter anything he felt like slaughtering. Indeed, the Minister defended that admirably in Committee, despite our protestations. However, the current emphasis on "vaccinate to live" is the right line to take. Vaccination is right. Unfortunately, the Government's amendment does not seem to put a strong emphasis on vaccination to live. Instead, they revert to previous arguments about what they would do to prevent the spread of disease. I have no objection to the Government wanting to prevent the spread of disease; that is entirely laudable and their right. However, they have missed the point of the Lords amendment: the vaccination policy puts the emphasis on the right to live.

The provision would make a difference because the vaccinate-to-live policy would apply to animals that were not infected or that had not been in contact with infected animals. The Lords amendment is sensible and helpful. The Government's proposals fail to incorporate the laudable parts of the Lords amendment, which is a great shame. Last year, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the state of Rio Grande du Sol in Brazil and all bovine animals in the region were vaccinated. Thirty days after completion of the programme, the European Commission lifted its previous ban on meat imports from the area.

Vaccination is getting better and better. It is laudable and offers the right way forward. The Government's proposals miss the point of a helpful amendment from the other place. I hope that the Minister will stop living in the nightmare of the past and that he will grasp the potential for more and better vaccination to live.

Mr. Drew

One point that has not yet been made is that one reason for keeping animals alive is to sell them. I am worried about whether there would be a market for vaccinated animals. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out, if we do not carry out prophylactic vaccination, there will be unvaccinated animals. Might not that problem undermine the proposal?

Mr. Wiggin

That is not a problem. We face problems with vaccination in our own lives every day. I have a one-year-old daughter and I am going through the MMR vaccine dilemma. We all have to live with such things. We are constantly told that the technology is improving. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no problem because foot and mouth disease would not pass into the food chain through vaccinated animals.

I hope that the Minister will bear my comments in mind and that, if the technology exists, he will implement the positive sentiment that he expressed in his speech and that the Government will not retreat behind a policy of slaughtering to prevent the spread of disease when they could be vaccinating against a threat from abroad, even if there was no threat in this country.

A vaccinate-to-live policy offers huge opportunities, and the Government are failing to grasp that helpful olive branch.

Mr. Morley

I welcome the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for St. Ives (Andrew George) to their new roles and responsibilities for their respective parties. There have been some useful and thoughtful contributions to the debate. Several Members spoke with some authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was a strong and consistent advocate of vaccination throughout the recent outbreak. Like many Members who spoke, he had firsthand experience of it. He pointed out that the Government's changing response was significant in dealing with some of the problems that arose during the outbreak, especially in Cumbria.

One claim that has come up time and again is that the Bill is all about culling. It is not. My hon. Friend is right to point that out. During the last outbreak, a minority of people objected strongly to the contiguous cull and there were many appeals to the district veterinary manager, many hundreds of which were upheld, according to circumstances.

If we moved to emergency vaccination, however, there would also be a minority of people who would not wave flags when they saw the vaccination teams coming down the road. A minority would vociferously resist vaccination for all sorts of reasons. My hon. Friend is right about that.

Mr. Drew

As I pointed out earlier, I am worried about how far it will be possible or practical to build a consensus. The farming industry is so differentiated that some people will vaccinate come what may, while others will do everything possible to avoid vaccination. What strategy does my hon. Friend anticipate to cope with those different forces?

Mr. Morley

My hon. Friend makes a good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to the disagreement about the vaccination strategy. That must he resolved both by addressing some of the technical issues that were raised by hon. Members and by engaging the food and livestock industries in the debate. Many of the problems can be resolved, but we must do so at present while we are developing animal health strategies and reviewing our contingency plans. We should deal with the issues in a cool and calculated way rather than in the middle of an epidemic.

Mr. Martlew

Are those negotiations taking place? Are the Government talking to the NFU and the food industry? Have there been any discussions about compensation if the value of meat and milk from vaccinated animals is less than it would be from those that had not been vaccinated?

Mr. Morley

We are talking to industry groups about all the issues: We set up a stakeholder group that was active throughout the epidemic and successfully gave all interested parties in the livestock industry the opportunity to discuss the issues with Ministers, the chief vet and Government scientists. My hon. Friend's last point is difficult for the Government to address, not least because it has been agreed to use vaccination in a range of cases. There is no reason that the vaccinated product should not go into the food chain. That was certainly agreed by the Food Standards Agency during the outbreak.

6 pm

Paul Flynn

Is not the objection to eating meat that has been subject to vaccination an irrational and unscientific one? The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that he had had a bumper bundle of vaccines. The difference is that no one is planning to eat him; even in the Conservative party, cannibalism has been ruled out. However, there is a feeling that many shoppers might object. During the foot and mouth epidemic, the result of the virtual collapse of the flow of meat from British farms was that more meat, much of which had already been vaccinated, was sucked in from overseas? Will the Department campaign to ensure that the fear of vaccinated meat is removed?

Mr. Morley

My hon. Friend is right. It is ironic that when vaccination was being considered during the epidemic, some of the product that came into this country to make up the shortfall was vaccinated. Consumers are not concerned about vaccination as long as it has been demonstrated to be safe, and as long as bodies such as the Food Standards Agency have looked into it in some detail.

Mr. Drew

Is my hon. Friend talking to the milk industry about the impact of vaccinating cattle for other diseases, as we may be faced with the same question in relation to bovine TB? Will he say something about that matter, as it will become an issue in addition to whether people eat the meat?

Mr. Morley

My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to develop a vaccine against TB and I hope that we make the breakthrough. We are committing resources to that and it is one of the criteria within the terms of reference of the independent scientific group. He is right that if we use vaccination, we must reassure people that its use is safe. That will be part of the vaccine development and I have no doubt that the issue will be addressed.

Mr. Wiggin

At the moment, TB vaccine is about 60 per cent. effective. What target is he looking for before the vaccine is introduced? I believe that £60 million has gone into TB research, of which £1.6 million has gone into bovine TB. What will the target be?

Mr. Morley

The vaccine certainly will need to be a lot more effective but a considerable amount of work is yet to be done. Scientists are confident that it is possible to develop a vaccine for bovine TB. The difficulty is the time scale. However, a vaccine is our avowed objective and we are proceeding with it.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that balance was important in terms of vaccination. That is where amendment No. 1 from the other place and the Liberal Democrat amendment are flawed, as they restrict the Government and are open to arguments of interpretation. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) wondered who would interpret and decide on these matters, but his answer was a little vague. That is exactly where one can start to get into difficulties.

I understood the point raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about Sir Brian Follett. We have set up a scientific advisory group chaired by the Department's new chief scientist. That gives us an opportunity to bring in a range of opinions on taking things forward. There should be periodic reports on progress, as we want to be as open and transparent as possible.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) are right that there are still issues to be resolved. The issue of vaccination is not simple and a range of criteria must be taken into account. They referred to hill sheep and the problem of getting them down and vaccinating them. There is also the risk of stress for the animals, which can have all sorts of problems.

Mr. Martlew

I understand my hon. Friend's comment about fell sheep, but is it not Government policy to tag them? Will we not have to keep a record of them? The animals will suffer stress then; I do not understand the difference.

Mr. Morley

I was talking about the practicality of vaccinating those sheep. All these issues can be addressed, but the Government are trying to strike a balance by recognising that there is an increased role for vaccination. We concede that there have been changes in technology that make the situation easier. Also, we recognise that there may be circumstances in which we want to use stamping-out policies as a first-strike response. By law, we have to do that with respect to infected premises and dangerous contacts.

The Liberal Democrat amendment calls for a vaccinate-to-live policy to be taken into account as a first issue. There may be circumstances where, as part of a disease control strategy, we may want to use a vaccinate-and-kill policy. For example, there might be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in an intensive pig unit. In such an outbreak, a considerable plume of virus will be downwind from the unit. There may be another unit, smack bang in that virus plume. That is more than a dangerous contact; it is almost certain that those pigs will develop the virus. That unit may have 10,000 or 20,000 pigs. In relation to disposal and humane culling, we want to control that outbreak. The best of way of doing that is to vaccinate the whole herd and then to cull in a controlled way. The amendment would take away that option.

Andrew George

The Under-Secretary has perhaps not read the amendment correctly. It does not discount that option. The fact that the amendment does not specifically list all of the options that might be considered does not mean that a vaccinate-to-kill policy cannot be pursued by the Secretary of State. On the question of to whom the evidence for the decision-making can be shown, I would regret any Department not wanting transparency in the decision-making process. Whether the evidence is shown or not, it is still open to legal challenge and the Secretary of State could still be challenged by a lawyer on behalf of a farmer.

Mr. Morley

We are open to legal challenge on a range of subjects at any time; that has cost a lot of people a lot of money in recent months and years. I do not dispute the reasonableness with which the hon. Gentleman has made his case, or that he genuinely recognises that there are circumstances in which we might want to take a different approach. However, once we start writing into legislation measures that we regard as flawed, we may find that there are many people who are not as reasonable or as helpful as who want him to challenge us.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Hexham recognised the balance that the Government are trying to strike by recognising that emergency vaccination has a role, but also that there may be a range of options and circumstances in which we take a different approach.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Hexham on rare breeds, of which Chillingham cattle is one. During the last outbreak, we sought and obtained permission to use vaccination for rare breeds and some rare zoo animals if the circumstances dictated that that should be the case. In relation to our detailed response to the Follett and the Anderson reports, we have made it clear that vaccination remains an option for breeds. If they are under threat, we can consider vaccination. However, use of vaccination in relation to disease control is a different issue.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made a very strong case for vaccination, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I strongly disagree with him, however, in relation to his comments about Lords amendment No. 1, with which we cannot agree. As I have emphasised, it is not that we do not agree with the principle. The Government are showing that we recognise the change in circumstances and technology and are responding to the recommendations in the two reports on the basis of the amendment that we have tabled. That has been recognised by the hon. Member for Hexham, who has first-hand experience of the epidemic in his area, and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who is a former Minister and current Chairman of the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster gives careful thought to their wise counsel.

In relation to the amendment, we are trying to respond to the debate in Committee. I accept the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives that we have moved a long way in relation to the original Bill. That reflects the reasonable points made by Members on both sides of the House, and the commitments that we gave in Committee and on Report that we would address them.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)

As my hon. Friend appreciates, I have been listening quietly to this debate. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made the point about involving Sir Brian Follett in the future with follow-up reports. My hon. Friend said that the answer is the science committee that he has set up, and that he is all in favour of transparency. Clearly, however, this matter will develop over time, and there is an issue of public confidence for the future. Will he comment a little on what information we will receive in the guise of transparency, and what information the public will receive?

Mr. Morley

First, on the contingency plans, we are making them public and involving a range of stakeholders in the debate and the formulation of those plans. Secondly, in relation to the scientific group, which, as I mentioned, has been set up, we will want to keep in touch with Sir Brian and with Dr. Anderson on the way in which these issues develop. We are also committed to bringing forward and developing the animal health strategy, on which we are consulting with a range of groups. We want all of the documents to be living documents, as we will come back periodically to review and revise them, and to make sure that they address the relevant points for which they are designed. Some exercises and tests will be necessary in relation to the contingency arrangements, too.

We therefore want to involve a range of experts, some of whom are outside the Department, in terms of their advice and involvement in the development of strategies and future plans. A huge amount of work is going on, and we propose to make public the progress on these issues and the time scales for reporting. That is also part of our commitment to transparency and openness.

Mr. Kidney

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. May I move the discussion on one stage further? One of his objections to the Lords amendment was that it could contravene European law. As we make discoveries, developments, explain matters, and develop policy, what would be the position in Europe? Would we be able to carry Europe with us in making similar changes?

Mr. Morley

I believe so. There has been a change in attitude from the EU and the Office Internationale d'Epizootic. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle joined me at the conference in Brussels that was cosponsored by the UK and Holland to look at the whole issue of foot and mouth disease. The experience that we had in the last outbreak has changed the thinking in all countries: it has also changed the thinking in relation to the international organisation and the European Union. Incidentally, that change makes the vaccination options easier: it addresses some of the issues and problems that we came across in the course of the last epidemic.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government have responded to the thrust of the arguments in terms of the role of vaccination, that the Lords amendment is flawed, and that we cannot accept it. I call on the House to support the Government.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day]

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 190.

Division No. 355]	[6:15 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Clelland, David
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)
Ainger, Nick	Coaker, Vernon
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Coffey, Ms Ann
Alexander, Douglas	Coleman, Iain
Allen, Graham	Colman, Tony
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)	Connarty, Michael
	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary	Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)
Atherton, Ms Candy	Cooper, Yvette
Austin, John	Cousins, Jim
Bailey, Adrian	Cox, Tom (Tooting)
Baird, Vera	Cranston, hon. Ross
Barnes, Harry	Cruddas, Jon
Barron, rh Kevin	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Battle, John	Cummings, John
Bayley, Hugh	Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Miss Anne	Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Benn, Hilary	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)
Bennett, Andrew	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Benton, Joe (Bootle)	Darling, rh Alistair
Berry, Roger	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Best, Harold	David, Wayne
Betts, Clive	Davidson, Ian
Blears, Ms Hazel	Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Blizzard, Bob	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Borrow, David	Dawson, Hilton
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)	Dhanda, Parmjit
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Dismore, Andrew
Bradshaw, Ben	Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Brennan, Kevin	Doran, Frank
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)
Bryant, Chris	Drew, David (Stroud)
Buck, Ms Karen	Drown, Ms Julia
Burden, Richard	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Burgon, Colin	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Burnham, Andy	Edwards, Huw
Byers, rh Stephen	Efford, Clive
Cairns, David	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Etherington, Bill
Caplin, Ivor	Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)
Caton, Martin	Fisher, Mark
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Challen, Colin	Flint, Caroline
Chaytor, David	Flynn, Paul (Newport W)
Clapham, Michael	Follett, Barbara
Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Foster, rh Derek
	Foster, Michael (Worcester)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)
Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)
	Foulkes, rh George

Francis, Dr. Hywel	Linton, Martin
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)	Llwyd, Elfyn
Gardiner, Barry	Love, Andrew
George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)	Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)
Gerrard, Neil	Luke, lain (Dundee E)
Gibson, Dr. Ian	McAvoy, Thomas
Gilroy, Linda	McCabe, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger	McCafferty, Chris
Goggins, Paul	McCartney, rh Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McDonagh, Siobhain
Grogan, John	MacDonald, Calum
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McDonnell, John
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	MacDougall, John
Hamilton, David (Midlothian)	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Hanson, David	McIsaac, Shona
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)	McKechin, Ann
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)	McKenna, Rosemary
	McNulty, Tony
Healey, John	Mactaggart, Fiona
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	McWalter, Tony
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Mahmood, Khalid
Hendrick, Mark	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hepburn, Stephen	Mallaber, Judy
Heppell, John	Mandelson, rh Peter
Heppell, John	Mandelson, rh Peter
Hermon, Lady	Mann, John (Bassetlaw)
Hesford, Stephen	Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia	Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)
Heyes, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hinchliffe, David	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hodge, Margaret	Martlew, Eric
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)	Meacher, rh Michael
Hoon, rh Geoffrey	Meale, Alan (Mansfield)
Hope, Phil (Corby)	Merron, Gillian
Hopkins, Kelvin	Michael, rh Alun
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)	Milburn, rh Alan
Howells, Dr. Kim	Miliband, David
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Mole, Chris
Humble, Mrs Joan	Morgan, Julie
Hurst, Alan (Braintree)	Morley, Elliot
Hutton rh John	Mullin, Chris
Iddon, Dr. Brian	Munn, Ms Meg
Ingram, rh Adam	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Irranca-Davies, Huw	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)
Jamieson, David	Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Jenkins, Brian	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Olner, Bill
	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Owen, Albert
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)	Perham, Linda
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Picking, Anne
Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)	Pickthall, Colin
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pond, Chris (Gravesham)
Keen, Alan (Feltham)	Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)
Keen, Ann (Brentford)	Pound, Stephen
Kemp, Fraser	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Khabra, Piara S.
Kidney, David	Prescott, rh John
Kilfoyle, Peter	Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)
King, Andy (Rugby)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)	Primarolo, rh Dawn
	Prosser, Gwyn
Knight, Jim (S Dorset)	Purchase, Ken
Kumar, Dr. Ashok	Purnell, James
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen	Quin, rh Joyce
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Quinn, Lawrie
Laxton, Bob (Derby N)	Rammell, Bill
Lazarowicz, Mark	Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
Lepper, David	Raynsford, rh Nick
Leslie, Christopher	Reed, Andy (Loughborough)
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)	Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)
Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)	Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)
	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)	Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)
	Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)
Rooney, Terry	Tipping, Paddy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Trickett, Jon
Roy, Frank (Motherwell)	Truswell, Paul
Ruane, Chris	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Ruddock, Joan	Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)
	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Salter, Martin	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Sarwar, Mohammad	Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)
Savidge, Malcolm	Vis, Dr. Rudi
Sawford, Phil	Walley, Ms Joan
Sedgemore, Brian	Ward, Claire
Sheerman, Barry	Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Sheridan, Jim	Watts, David
Shipley, Ms Debra	White, Brian
Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Singh, Marsha	Wicks, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis	Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)
Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Wilson, Brian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Winnick, David
Soley, Clive	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Spellar, rh John
Squire, Rachel	Wood, Mike (Batley)
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis	Woodward, Shaun
Steinberg, Gerry	Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)
	Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Stinchcombe, Paul	Wright, David (Telford)
Stoate, Dr. Howard	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin	Wyatt, Derek
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Tami, Mark (Alyn)	Charlotte Atkins and
Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)	Mr. Phil Willis
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)
Allan, Richard	Carmichael, Alistair
Amess, David	Cash, William
Ancram, rh Michael	Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Arbuthnot, rh James
Bacon, Richard	Chope, Christopher
Baker, Norman	Clappison, James
Baldry, Tony	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Barker, Gregory	Collins, Tim
Baron, John (Billericay)	Cotter, Brian
Barrett, John	Cran, James (Beverley)
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Beith, rh A. J.	Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)
Bellingham, Henry
Bercow, John	Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Beresford, Sir Paul
Boswell, Tim	Djanogly, Jonathan
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)	Dodds, Nigel
	Donaldson, Jeffrey M
Brady, Graham	Dorrell, rh Stephen
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)	Doughty, Sue
Brooke, Mrs Annette L.	Duncan, Alan (Rutland)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Duncan Smith, rh Iain
Bruce, Malcolm	Evans, Nigel
Burnett, John	Fabricant, Michael
Burns, Simon	Flook, Adrian
Burnside, David	Forth rh Eric
Burstow, Paul	Foster, Don (Bath)
Burt, Alistair	Fox, Dr. Liam
Butterfill, John	Gale, Roger (N Thanet)
Cable, Dr. Vincent	Garnier, hon. Edward
Calton, Mrs Patsy	George, Andrew (St. Ives)
Cameron, David	Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Gidley, Sandra	Page, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Paice, James
Goodman, Paul	Paterson, Owen
Gray, James (N Wilts)	Portillo, rh Michael
Grayling, Chris	Prisk, Mark (Hertford)
Green, Damian (Ashford)	Pugh, Dr. John
Green, Matthew (Ludlow)	Randall, John
Greenway, John	Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)
Grieve, Dominic	Rendel, David
Gummer, rh John	Robathan, Andrew
Hancock, Mike	Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)
	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Harvey, Nick	Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)
Hayes, John (S Holland)	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Heath, David	Roe, Mrs Marion
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hendry, Charles	Sanders, Adrian
Hoban, Mark (Fareham)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Hogg, rh Douglas	Selous, Andrew
Horam, John (Orpington)	Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Simmonds, Mark
Hunter, Andrew	Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)
Jack, rh Michael	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Jenkin, Bernard	Soames, Nicholas
Johnson, Boris (Henley)	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Spicer, Sir Michael
Keetch, Paul	Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)	Spring, Richard
	Stanley, rh Sir John
Key, Robert (Salisbury)	Steen, Anthony
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Streeter, Gary
Kirkwood, Archy	Stunell, Andrew
Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)	Swayne, Desmond
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Swire, Hugo (E Devon)
Lamb, Norman	Syms, Robert
Lansley, Andrew	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Laws, David (Yeovil)	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Leigh, Edward	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Letwin, rh Oliver	Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)
Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Liddell-Grainger, Ian	Thurso, John
Lidington, David	Tonge, Dr. Jenny
Lillev, rh Peter	Tredinnick, David
	Trend, Michael
Loughton, Tim	Trimble, rh David
Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)	Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)
MacKay, rh Andrew	Tyrie, Andrew
Maclean, rh David	Viggers, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick	Walter, Robert
Malins, Humfrey	Waterson, Nigel
Maples, John	Watkinson, Angela
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)	Webb, Steve (Northavon)
	Wiggin, Bill
Mates, Michael	Wilkinson, John
Maude, rh Francis	Willetts, David
Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
May, Mrs Theresa	Willis, Phil
Mercer, Patrick	Winterton, Ann (Congleton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)	Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Murrison, Dr. Andrew	Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Norman, Archie	Young, rh Sir George
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Younger-Ross, Richard
Oaten, Mark (Winchester)
Öpik, Lembit	Tellers for the Noes:
Osborne, George (Tatton)	Mr. David Wilshire and
Ottaway, Richard	Mr. Mark Francois

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12 agreed to [some with Special Entry].