Animal Carcasses: Hygienic Disposal

HL Deb 15 May 1991 vol 528 cc1707-38

8.59 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to help those who are experiencing increasing difficulty in the hygienic disposal of farm and equine animal carcasses.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Wednesday, 27th March I asked a similar question, but it was a Starred Question. Unfortunately, the time allocated for Questions had run out and we were given only a measly three-and-a-half minutes. We were stopped by the Leader of the House before many of your Lordships who had travelled long distances had the opportunity to ask important questions.

I felt that this vital question of carcass disposal should be debated fully and I sincerely hope that tonight the Government will be able to give your Lordships and the country some satisfactory answers. Anxiety is growing and I have heard pleas for help from Scotland, Wales and England. I hope that the Minister will also be able to tell us about the current situation in Northern Ireland, which should not be forgotten just because it is across the water. I know that Northern Ireland has a considerable problem of dumping.

Earlier this year at the AGM of the National Pony Society, the growing problem of fallen ponies was brought up. One of the members, a pony and sheep breeder from Aberdeenshire, said that the problem must be addressed with urgency. I gave the undertaking that I would raise the matter in your Lordships' House. A few weeks ago I was telephoned by the secretary of the Highland Pony Society, which is graced by having as its patron Her Majesty the Queen. The secretary told me of the horror that old, ill or disabled ponies might be sent abroad for slaughter, suffering on the way. That might happen because of the expense of having them put down humanely at home and the problem of disposing of the carcasses. It could come about if minimum standards are eradicated in 1992. I sincerely hope that they will not be.

Many people are working hard to stop the export of live equines for slaughter, but unless we have stricter standards for export, adequate knackers and safe, hygienic disposal facilities, the future could look bleak and dangerous.

In recent years there has been a severe decline in the value of meat, bonemeal and tallow which has adversely affected the profitability of rendering. In consequence, instead of paying for abattoir and knacker waste, vendors are now making collection charges. Those charges have substantially lowered the profitability of the knackering sector. Furthermore, knackers have had to face the additional problem of falling prices for hides, meat and pet food. BSE is also a major factor. Bonemeal from specified offals from bovine carcasses cannot be used as a feed and at present is disposed of in landfill sites. Collection charges for specified offals are therefore higher— about £90 per tonne as compared with £60 per tonne for other abattoir waste. In practice, in many cases all bovine offal from knackers incurs the higher collection charge. Knackers and some hunts have had to pass on those charges in order to cover their own basic costs. Some farmers say that, if that happens, they will put a charge on the hunt for riding over their land. All those problems could not have come at a worse time for farmers.

At present government policy is to remind farmers of their legal obligation to dispose of fallen stock in a suitable manner. That is the very worrying and serious crux of the matter: an existing service is diminishing with disastrous results. Unless satisfactory and safe disposal is organised there could be a serious public health problem.

I tried to secure a debate which would be held earlier in the day because this is an important subject. Many people do not realise the urgency with which Britain should approach the subject. We are talking of about 5,500 tonnes of carcasses a week in the United Kingdom, not including Northern Ireland. One million animal carcasses are not going through knackeries and are shallow buried. What will happen if more knackers close down? Should not fallen stock, which is classed as high risk, be in a different section from clean offal? Is it not a separate category which should be treated differently? Surely all dirty offal should be disposed of and burnt. I who use animal feeds for animals hope that it is clean and uncontaminated. To me the idea of feeding animal to animal is distasteful. The housewife wants the assurance that all food is safe and clean.

Last year in the hot weather there was a disaster when many chickens died. I believe that about 30 tonnes of chickens were buried. Some time later a disposal expert was called to the farm because the fermenting rotten chickens had risen to the surface having made a cesspool of decomposed chicken bodies. Had someone fallen into the pit, think what a terrible end they might have had. Do we want that kind of thing happening to our lovely countryside and contaminating our water supplies? If there are millions of rotting bodies, some with living viruses, what might happen to future generations? What might happen if the viruses mutate?

This matter is very worrying to farmers and equine owners. If the improper disposal of dead animals were to constitute a statutory nuisance district councils could take action under the Public Health Act 1936, under which the penalties range up to a fine of £2,000 plus £50 a day. That is serious money.

I have been asked, and I ask the question myself: if horses do not suffer from bovine spongiform encephalopathy why the problem of getting rid of their carcasses? The reason is that there are vast numbers of fallen cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens, all of which get various infectious diseases. Compared with their numbers, the numbers of fallen horses are small so, if the knackers disappear because of the EC regulations, horse owners suffer too.

I should like to sum up the current situation. Over the past 12 to 18 months there have been immense financial pressures on the UK knacker and rendering industries and on many stock farmers. From a situation in which customers such as farmers and slaughterhouses might have been paid for waste or animal carcasses they are now being charged for removal of animal material.

A number of factors have led to this situation. There has been a marked fall in world hide and skin prices. Lack of demand for leather and skin products is claimed to be a major contributory factor. Tallow prices have fallen considerably. In 1985 the lowest recorded tallow price was £211 a tonne for grade IV material whereas today prices stand at about £130 a tonne. The use of substitute oils is being blamed for that price drop.

BSE has directly affected the UK rendering, knacker and slaughtering business. Specified offals from all cattle carcasses must be disposed of separately. Not only does that cost more in itself but the incidence of BSE in the UK has affected the market for all material manufactured from animal by-products.

European Community Directive 90/667/EEC was adopted at the EC Agricultural Council on 27th November 1990. It harmonises the arrangements for the processing and disposal of animal waste in the community. It designates animal waste as either high risk or low risk to human and animal health and lays down requirements for its processing and disposal. For the time being the knacker trade, which is almost unique to the United Kingdom, will be allowed to continue. However, its function is under review. What then? Can we have some assurances for the future? I hope that the Minister will give an answer.

Because of the cost of disposing of specified offals and the declining markets and prices for animal by-products, the knacker trade can no longer pay farmers for fallen stock. Indeed, the situation is becoming quite the reverse. Knackers are having to charge for their services. In many instances even that has failed to keep them in business. With a significant decline in the knacker service farmers and horse owners are being forced to look at other methods of disposal.

The first of these is the transport of live animals. Where animals are not already dead there may be a temptation to transport live animals to the slaughterhouse in order to avoid the cost and difficulty of disposal. That would be a retrograde step in terms of animal welfare, but undoubtedly some farmers may see it as their only option.

The second option is burning. Some farmers have set up on-farm incinerators or have the use of local incineration facilities. At present only pig units can justify the expense of installing on-farm incinerators. Even so, they are often less than satisfactory. Few public incineration plants exist in the United Kingdom which farmers can use, so that also is not a practical option in many cases. Where slaughterhouses and knackers have applied to build incineration facilities plans have usually been strongly opposed by local residents. Good planning is needed.

The third option is burying. In the past many farms always disposed of stock in this way, particularly in the more remote areas. However, an escalation in the number of dead-pits and the potential to contaminate water courses is cause for concern. Responsible farmers seek advice from river authorities often only to be told that they cannot bury carcasses on their land. In the case of larger animals such as horses or cattle it may be very difficult to bury a complete carcass.

The fourth option for disposal is collection by renderers. That would seem a sensible solution. However, at the moment renderers are geared up to collect material from central points where there is a continued, steady supply— for example, from slaughterhouses. Few companies would be prepared to set up a farm-to-farm collection service. I should like to ask the Minister whether a collection service could be exempt from VAT. That might help.

The final option is dumping. Some farmers faced with a disposal problem will dump the carcasses of dead animals off their land. That is an irresponsible attitude. However, when ear tags are removed it may be difficult, if not impossible, to trace the culprit. It may be possible for farmers to take small animals such as pigs and sheep to household waste sites with the agreement of the local authority but there are very good public health reasons why that should not be encouraged. Can the Minister say who is responsible for a dumped animal on somebody else's land?

There is a need for government to assist in co-ordinating disposal facilities throughout the UK. The best solution seems to be either through a network of incineration facilities and/or by establishing a contracted collection service. In addition, sound advice needs to be available to farmers and equine owners wishing to bury or burn carcasses on their own farms. Advice and facilities need to be forthcoming for people who do not have their own land. They may rent a field and the animal in it— for example, a horse— dies.

Veterinary surgeons can perform on-farm slaughter and the rendering companies can provide a collection service. However, to date it is only the knacker who, as well as being a licensed slaughterman, can take the carcass. Whoever has the task of collecting casualty stock must take on the task also of humanely destroying an animal on the farm if it has not already died. In addition, more formal training must be given to farmers and stockmen in humane destruction methods. It is not realistic to assume that the veterinary surgeons will be able to attend every single animal requiring destruction; and veterinary services are very expensive.

The ultimate aim should be to establish a regional or district system which ensures that old, sick or injured stock is destroyed as quickly and humanely as possible, and the carcasses removed and dealt with without undue delay. There will always be unfit and fallen stock. But the market for the products from these animals will rise and fall. When it is unprofitable, many individual businesses will cease to exist— generally the smaller companies. The large operators remaining might well be able to cope but their geographical location means that they may not be able to provide the local service that is needed. To leave the task of disposal of unfit and fallen stock purely to market farces would therefore seem unwise both in terms of animal welfare and public health.

The Humane Slaughter Association is developing a concept of a mobile slaughter facility— for instance, bringing the slaughterhouse to the farm when it is needed. A few basic units can be found in Northern Europe, but no facilities exist in the United Kingdom. There are also a few mobile units in the United States of America. I am told that the welfare of the animals is exceptionally good. However, the standard of hygiene would have to be improved before being acceptable in the UK.

I ask the Minister this question: what do the Government think of such units? I also ask the noble Baroness about the practicability of item 30 in a draft publication from the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, P95/3(91), entitled Guidance on Animal Carcass Incineration Processes. It reads: Animal carcasses should be incinerated as soon as possible after arising. Unless animal carcasses are incinerated within 12 hours of the death of the animal, they should be stored in a refrigerated storage area". How can a hill farmer, or for that matter most average farmers or horse owners, have such facilities available?

I am told that research is being undertaken to try to neutralise the agent of the BSE virus. That is welcome news. What progress has there been? The virus seems to be complicated, taking about eight years to develop.

In an Unstarred Question debate I have no right of reply. I should like therefore to thank all noble Lords who will take part in the debate. I am sure that your Lordships' contributions will be both interesting and revealing. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will come up with some trump cards to help with positive solutions. We must find ways to enable animal owners and those people providing safe disposal of carcasses to perform their duty in a way which is viable for the animal owners, humane for the animals, safe for the environment and provides a living for the people dealing with the carcasses. Unless ways to provide those services are found, the whole matter may well go underground in more ways than one with disastrous results such as anthrax or plague for future generations. I thank noble Lords for their support.

9.20 p.m.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for bringing forward this topic for debate. The disposal of fallen animals is of considerable importance to the livestock industry and in particular to horse owners. It is an aspect of everyday life that few people realise exists. It is only when the system goes wrong or ceases to function that the wider population begins to take note and has a greater appreciation of the role of the disposal of fallen animals. The noble Baroness has clearly delineated many of the problems that occur when the system goes wrong.

The problem is causing public concern and hardship to the livestock owner. There is also a specific human health consideration to which I shall return. The issue poses many problems. First, the law is clear that the owner of the livestock is responsible for its disposal should it die or need to be destroyed. In general the knacker has dealt effectively with fallen animals. He has visited the premises and if necessary destroyed the animal and removed the carcass. Subsequently he has used the carcass in a variety of ways— for pet food, for rendering and for bonemeal subsequently to be fed to high-yielding ruminants such as cows. The carcass may also be salvaged for its hide, and the hooves used for glue and so forth.

The alternative to the knacker was the deep burial of carcasses. Although that procedure is feasible in respect of smaller animals such as sheep and small pigs, it is difficult in respect of larger ruminants such as cattle and horses. In some parts of the country it is almost impossible to bury an animal because of the terrain. In parts of Wales where I have been carrying out work there is approximately two centimetres of soil on top of rock and it is impossible to dig a hole to bury a sheep.

The advantage of the knacker was that some financial compensation was paid to the livestock owner as a result of the collection of the carcass. The amount depended on how valuable the carcass was for subsequent usage, whether it might be fed to pets or rendered down. There is no legal requirement for fallen animals to be handled by knackermen. Legal requirements are applied to them in respect of health regulations, especially having regard to the pollution of waterways and rivers. The National Rivers Authority has a say in deciding where animals can be buried because of the possibility of pollution. Although the knacker has no legal responsibility to collect animals he has played an important role throughout the years.

Much has changed since what appeared to be the halcyon days in respect of fallen animals. The advent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy means that meat and bonemeal in particular which derive from several sources including knackermen is banned from being used as a ruminant supplement. Hence the major profit motive in the knackeries has fallen. Consequently, some have gone out of business while others have considered it unnecessary to compensate the owner of the dead animal but instead to impose a charge for the collection or the destruction of the animal should that be necessary on humane grounds. Indeed, even official slaughter houses now levy a charge for the disposal of some offal, amounting, as the noble Baroness said, to about £90 per tonne. That is an entirely different situation to what pertained two or three years ago. It has caused the closure of several knackery businesses. I am informed by friends in Scotland that major closures have taken place there and that very few knackeries are operating to take fallen animals of any kind.

In my own part of the country— East Anglia— we are not too badly off. There are approximately 20 licensed knackers. However, one has closed and another is proposing to close. That has caused hardship to the many horse owners in the region. Previously, the dead horse was sent off for pet meat or was rendered down. It is now being charged for by the knackers. The cost of the destruction of a horse, its removal from the owner's premises and disposal elsewhere varies from £20 to £200 per animal. That is a considerable hardship for many of the teenage ladies who seem to be particularly keen to ride horses these days.

I am told that there are many examples of carcasses being dumped outside a knackery in the dead of night awaiting its opening in the morning. Even worse, live animals are tethered outside waiting to be destroyed. Their ear tags or system of identification have often been removed. Clearly, that sort of animal welfare is not to be condoned.

We must accept the legal position that the owner of an animal bears responsibility for its disposal if it dies. Nevertheless, there is a case for further serious consideration of how the present situation may be dealt with. The noble Baroness referred to an EC directive which proposes important provisions for further disposal of animal waste in the Community and the division of that material into high and low risk material. I understand that there is a provision whereby there will be a review of the knackery trade permitted until 31st December 1992. That is very welcome because hitherto there has been a well functioning disposal system in this country which has been the envy of many countries overseas.

I have mentioned the question of human health with respect to the disposal of fallen animals. In certain parts of the country which are densely populated by sheep— namely, central Wales and the west coast of Scotland— a disease known as human hydatid disease is a recognised health problem. It is a parasitic infection of the dog which is transmissible to sheep. I shall not bore your Lordships with further details of its lifecycle. However, the disease affects children primarily but can persist into adult life and, indeed, can be life threatening.

The lack of adequate disposal of carcasses of sheep in those parts of the country, largely for want of adequate compensation by knackers, or the inability to bury them because the terrain is too rocky is almost certain to increase the problem of hydatid disease. It provides the focus for dogs to scavenge on the hillside and become infected from the carcasses that contain the parasite.

There is every likelihood that the disease will increase in prevalence. Indeed, today I attended a medical conference where evidence was presented to indicate that that is taking place. Although I must declare a passing interest in the matter, I understand that the programme in Central Wales, which worked so well in controlling the disease, is to be terminated in September. If that is so, and if the question of fallen animals is not soon resolved, it may mean that more cases of this preventable disease will arise. One hopes not, and one hopes that further action will be taken, especially by the Welsh Office.

I return to the question of fallen animals and to the overall problem. It is one of seriousness and I hope that the debate will bring forward a positive result on how to handle it. It is a problem of specific concern to many owners of horses and livestock. And, dare I say, I hope that we are not flogging a dead horse by bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister.

9.31 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence in finally bringing this debate before the House. Those of us who are present understand that it is an important subject and one that must be dealt with shortly.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, dealt in detail with the decline in the knackers' trade. Therefore I shall discard that part of my remarks. It is obvious that the new government regulations following the BSE scare and the EC directive 90/667 to which the noble Baroness referred, between them changed the whole scene in regard to the disposal of fallen animals.

As vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers I share the institution's concern that the present facilities and policies may not enable us to meet those very different standards being demanded. The institution is specifically concerned about I he availability of processing plants capable of meeting the requirements for high risk material. I understand that in the directive all fallen stock is regarded as high risk, including stillborn and unborn animals.

I asked a Question on an earlier occasion and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, answered that there are at present 110 knackers in the United Kingdom. However, the noble Baroness did not say, and I should now like to ask, whether those are all capable of dealing with high risk material.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me; I wrote to her after she asked her Question in the House. I believe I gave her a full explanation.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, the noble Baroness is mistaken. She gave me the total number but did not say how many were capable of dealing with high risk material. That is a small point which I am sure can be answered.

The other question related to whether the geographic spread was such that each farming area has access to at least one processing plant. As the noble baroness, Lady Masham, said, that is very important. I should like also to know what will happen after 1995. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said 1992; my understanding was that the Government had achieved an extension to 1995 and perhaps that matter could be cleared up also.

The institution believes that if there are only small numbers of high risk processing plants, the competent authorities may come under increasing pressure to permit large-scale burial and burning. The directive allows for burial or burning on the farm when other means of disposal are not available. But there are obvious dangers if these practices become widespread especially if the work is not monitored. There is a real danger of pollution which could become a public health hazard especially if water courses are affected. I am very glad to know that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is to speak. Perhaps he will give us his views on that matter.

As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said, on upland farms and other areas where the soil cover is thin, burying is not an option at all. The National Farmers Union draws attention to the fact that in most other, but not all, European countries the need for government help in disposing of fallen stock is recognised. They take action to ensure that there is a network of rendering sites available. When necessary, financial help ensures that the industry remains viable. It is in the interests of us all that our Government should look at the possibility of doing likewise. I understand that the countries which are best at this policy are Germany, France and the Netherlands.

At a time when the farming industry is under considerable pressure it is obvious that the extra cost of disposing of fallen stock to approved centres cannot be absorbed in many cases and alternative and possibly unsafe uses will be found. Clearly, that is a problem which must be tackled. Any threat to public health is a responsibility of the Government and cannot be left to market forces. That will not do.

9.36 p.m.

Baroness Wharton

My Lords, when my noble friend Lady Masham of Eton raised this subject originally as a Starred Question, I telephoned a local knackerman who deals mostly with horses. I also telephoned a vet who uses the knackerman when he is called out to destroy a horse or other animal. Both knew that there was a difficulty within the knackering and rendering industry and that fallen animals were being dumped as a direct result of BSE. As yet there was no evidence to show that BSE, with its attendant problems, could be right there on their own doorstep. That was what they believed then.

The situation has changed. In addition to charging owners who then pay upwards of £90 a tonne for the disposal of the offal, there are also the knackerman's transport costs. Since the knacker's yard I refer to is situated in the Guildford area, it costs this particular knackerman a further £60 to ship the offal to Canterbury to renderers who are now simply acting as waste disposal agents. All the knackerman is left to sell is the meat off the bone and that to a diminishing market. In fact his business has fallen by 75 per cent.

However, without the help of the knackerman, how is the vet going to remove the carcass of a horse or other animal he has destroyed? He will now have to tell the owner that there will be a disposal charge. I am not for one moment suggesting that caring owners will refuse to pay for the removal of much-loved animals. Of course they will pay. It is invariably a question of how much. There may be those who choose a cheaper option to rid themselves of old, sick or lame horses in a live state in order to get them off the premises, possibly not knowing that the same animals could be packed into lorries and pushed through the back door to the Continent as live meat. Let us not forget that this is an all too possible situation after 1992. I am sure that your Lordships would not like to see that happen.

The other worry is the prospect of neglect meted out to those horses which graze on fields both around our cities or nearby countryside. The fields are invariably rubbish-strewn. Because these horses too have no commercial value at the end of their lives, and instead will now have to incur a substantial disposal charge, what is to stop some owners from abandoning them? Surely that raises difficulties for the animal welfare agencies. My main emphasis so far has been on the welfare of horses, but obviously the concern is for all animals which for one reason or another should be put down but instead are kept alive, possibly to find themselves pushed around the markets and accidentally into the food chain.

There is another problem which has already been referred to by my noble friend. If animals end up being dumped on waste ground, not only will they become a health hazard but they will now have to be removed and disposed of by the local authority, with all the ensuing costs that that involves for the community charge payer. Usually all identification marks are removed and it becomes a local authority problem and not the responsibility of the unidentified owner.

The knacker man and the vet are linked to the rendering industry. The question facing them all is how to rid themselves of fallen animals given the breakdown of the system.

I suggest that the Government consider a major increase in the number of incinerators which can take up the fallen stock. It is for these reasons that I have been in correspondence with Mr. Hoskin of Evans Universal, who has advised me that the design, construction and operation of incinerators and cremators is now covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which came into effect for these products on 1st April 1991. The Secretary of State's guidance (PG 5/3/91) dealing with animal carcass processes under one tonne an hour gives guidance as to the minimum requirements for these units. Therefore incinerators complying with these requirements will be closely controlled, using the latest technology with very low emissions to atmosphere and water courses. The ash produced— approximately 5 per cent. of the original carcass weight— can be disposed to a local landfill site without any difficulty.

Anybody wishing to install an incinerator must obtain a licence from the local waste regulation authority. Before a licence is issued it must be shown that the installation proposed can meet the requirements of the Secretary of State's guidance and must also show that planning permission has been granted. This procedure is a four-way negotiation between the installer and the authorities. Six months would not be unusual.

The requirements of the local environmental health officers can usually be satisfied by the installation of the correct equipment. It is the granting of planning permission which can delay or even cancel any proposal for an incinerator installation. There is nothing new in this. I am told that many companies in the United Kingdom have installed units for the disposal of animal carcasses. However, at the risk of repeating myself, progress usually grinds to a halt due to planning permission being refused for one reason or another. These companies operate on a commercial basis and the charges vary depending on the distance a carcass has to be transported and the quantity involved. The cost would probably be in the region of £200 to £300 per tonne basis.

The latest technology incorporating environmental safeguards is available. Freezer wagons are used for the transport of offal to incinerator plants and if not disposed of straightaway, the offal is stored in a chiller room, thus eliminating all odour problems.

With Government encouragement, sensible planning policies and easier access to incineration plants for those who need them, this surely has to be the way forward.

9.43 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, most of the problems have already been dealt with so I have only two queries. First, can my noble friend give a guide, perhaps through examples, of when a farmer has broken the law by not collecting a carcass? Merely to say, "When the carcass becomes a health or environmental risk" is not much help to the working farmer. Let us live in the real world or, perhaps I should say, very sadly, a dead one. Secondly, does my noble friend accept that unless steps are taken to bring charges back to what they were a year or so ago— probably by grants towards disposal arrangements, as mentioned by a previous speaker— carcasses will be left in the field or dumped in hedges?

I have already picked up sheep in one of my spinneys by the side of the road. It is quite useless to say that a farmer should pay £6 for the removal of a dead sheep or £50 for a dead bullock. Of course he should— he should be responsible for his stock, as my noble friend said, in death as in life. However, since purchasing that animal, the agricultural industry has been plunged into deep recession — I would say virtual bankruptcy— and the needs of wife and children should come before picking up the collection of dead sheep and bullocks.

Cannot the Government and the public realise that this is merely the tip of a horrid iceberg? This is just one small result of a bankrupt farming industry. Unless matters improve, much worse horrors will occur. In Australia today they do not bother to go out and shoot their starving sheep; they cannot afford to do so. The sheep are just left to die. I speak with deep sadness and experience as my daughter lives in Australia.

I have not minced my words. I only hope my noble friend appreciates that what is happening to farming depresses me greatly. I have been in farming all my life, and I find it desperately sad. The inability to dispose of dead animals will continue unless action is taken. It is merely a warning of much worse things to come.

9.45 p.m.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo

My Lords, along with other speakers, I should like to say that we are most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for again raising this matter in the House. A Question was asked here and in another place on 27th March and, without in any way wishing to be discourteous to the noble Baroness who will reply, I suspect that the answer today will be the same. However, I hope that the Minister can be a little more forthcoming.

We all recognise that there is a problem in the disposal of fallen farm animals. The Government are funding research into possible ways of deactivating the agent causing BSE. Moreover, success has been achieved in Brussels over the European Council directive on the disposal of animal waste, which would otherwise have seen the end of our knacker industry. I should perhaps point out at this stage that the EC directive only gives some extension to the present disposal system and does not safeguard it for the long-term future.

We have already heard about the number of knackermen and slaughterers that there are in this country. But it may be worth drawing attention to the pet and small animal crematoriums. I know that they are not directly relevant to the Question before the House tonight. However, I believe that they produce a very worthwhile service to the veterinary industry and to the individual person who wishes to dispose of what could be called a farm animal, a dog or something similar. Those establishments appear to be coping extremely well. They provide a very good refrigeration and transport system with which the vets to whom I have spoken are well satisfied. They do not appear to be suffering from the same economic problems which the knackermen and slaughtermen are currently facing.

As we have heard, to a large extent, the problems are brought about by BSE, coupled with the fall in the price of feed protein which has meant that there is, allegedly, no market for meat and bonemeal. However, it may be worth pointing out that both meat and bonemeal have a value as organic fertiliser as they are 7 per cent. nitrogen and 14 per cent. phosphate. The problems, coupled with the fall in demand for animal hides for glue tallol, meat for pet foods, and many other products, have led to knackermen and slaughtermen charging for collections which are not always at economic rates and also to the widespread closure of slaughter houses.

Because of those economic pressures, the knock-on effect is leading to open farm site burial, as happens in the case of foot and mouth disease and as recently happened in Northern Ireland following a major outbreak of fowl pest. However, there are farms which do not have suitable burial sites, such as pig and chicken units which have large livestock mortality rates and often a small amount of land. Other options available, as we have already heard, include landfill sites where a health hazard could occur unless there are carful safeguards. Many cases of dumping are now being reported. There was a recent report in Northern Ireland of over 100 cattle being dumped with their name tags removed from their ears. No one could identify to whom they belonged. It is becoming a major problem. Animals are being dumped at the roadside. There was a report in the West Country of animal carcasses being dumped down mineshafts, in water courses and on other farmers' land. Those are irresponsible actions. There will be repercussions. Farming and animal husbandry will receive a bad name.

Our generation is in danger of leaving burial mounds of animal carcasses and atomic waste as we take ourselves off elsewhere through the crematorium doors. It is worth drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is reported in Northern Ireland that Lisburn By-Products has recently started up its own collection and rendering service. Unfortunately until now the use of that service has been limited as the charges are uneconomic. However, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, a junior Northern Ireland Minister, has urged farmers to use it. Presumably there must be government support, even in Northern Ireland.

As I pointed out earlier, a number of profitable by-products result from fallen animals. They could balance the financial equation and make the service more attractive to farmers and others who have to dispose of farm animals, including horses. We have to go down the road of incineration or rendering. I support the rendering solution as do other European countries. Germany, France and Holland have set up an effective and cost-efficient collection and rendering organisation. We too should do that. We should link it with the existing slaughterhouse organisation. At the same time, the Government need to maintain the economic viability of the rendering process, if necessary with financial support.

I have one question to ask the Minister. Do the Government propose to support the plan put forward by Waste Care Company of Coleshill which was reportedly discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Federation of Freshmeat Wholesalers for the placing of automatic conveyer belt-fed incinerators at up to four strategic sites? Is that proposal being followed or is it dead? I welcome what the Government are doing, but there is an even greater need now to become more actively engaged in what is or could be a serious health problem in the future.

9.53 p.m.

Lord Boardman

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this subject. As she rightly says, it raises an important issue and one which concerns us all. I shall confine my remarks to my experience in my county of Northamptonshire. I believe the turning point on this issue was BSE. Before BSE there was a convenient system which suited all parties concerned. Apart from the supply to the knackers, the main business of collecting fallen stock fell to the local hunt — the Pytchley in my case. An arrangement was entered into between the farmers, over whose land one rode, and the hunt. The stock was promptly collected and taken to the kennels where it was dealt with. The surplus over that required by the hounds was dealt with by the hunt servants. It was sold to the rendering industry. A small profit was made by the hunt servants who declared it for tax purposes. I say that in case it is thought that that was not done.

That was a convenient arrangement. It suited the farmers. There was prompt collection, at some considerable cost to the hunt. It collected fallen sheep, bullocks and horses from all around the countryside. It was a cost that the hunt was prepared and happy to pay in order to retain the farmers' goodwill.

Then came BSE and the whole situation changed. Instead of the renderers being prepared to pay for the offal which they could collect from the kennels, they required a charge. The charge started at £20 a tonne, then very quickly, by monthly jumps, it increased to £30 a tonne, £40 a tonne and today I gather that it is about £100 a tonne. It may give some measure of the financial seriousness if I quote to the House an example in which I should declare an interest. I am chairman of the finance committee of the Pytchley hunt. On average, 10 tonnes of offal, bones and other matter have to be collected from the kennels every week. It varies, of course; during the lambing season it is considerably more and at other times it is considerably less. If there is 10 tonnes a week to be collected and if the renderers charge £100 a tonne to collect it, it does not take a skilled mathematician to work out the cost per year. Some economies can be made, but they are limited.

It has been felt essential to continue that arrangement in the interests of farmers and the environment. In the instance which I quoted, most of the farmers have voluntarily made a contribution towards the costs but there is still a heavy charge which falls upon the hunt. The hunt has been happy to bear it in the interests of the farmer, of goodwill and of the environment until a more permanent solution can be found, but it must be found quickly. If it is not, then the burden falling upon the hunt and the countryside will be quite impossible for them to continue to bear.

For that reason, I believe that the Government must consider their responsibility in the matter. If the present system of collection being operated in the part of the country to which I referred continues, the financial burden cannot continue much longer. If the system were stopped, then the alternative of burying follows, with all the consequences to which my noble friend referred and to which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will no doubt refer. Then there could be dumping on someone else's property to which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley referred. The hygiene consequences on the environment and the countryside will be grave.

The Minister, Mr. Gummer, wrote some time ago summarising the situation in a way which I must say I found not entirely satisfactory, as I told my noble friend. I believe that I am fair in saying that it suggested roughly that this was the responsibility of the farmers and that they must deal with it. If they dealt with it in any way that was not hygienic they would be prosecuted. That is fine, but how do they deal with it practically? My noble friend asked how one deals with sheep which are brought up on hillsides with three inches of soil. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked how one deals with a pony which drops dead in the rented paddock at the back of the house. The consequences are much more serious than was suggested or implied in the letter from the Minister.

I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some encouragement to us. Certainly as concerns those for whom I have a small responsibility, it is our wish to try to continue to deal with the fallen stock properly for as long as we can afford to. However, that course has a limited life. Unless my noble friend is able to give an assurance that the problem will be dealt with soon, the consequences for the environment could be serious.

10 p.m.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has rendered a considerable service to the House by bringing this matter before us today. In what I hope is a brief speech I must say that this is a matter of considerable worry to the National Rivers Authority. Last week the board of the NRA paid a brief but instructive visit to the Seale Hayne faculty farm near Exeter. In a peculiarly graphic way that farm illustrates the changes that have confronted the livestock sector over the past 30 years, and some of the problems that face the agricultural industry. In 1960 the farm had about 256 head of livestock and eight workers. On the week we visited the farm, there were 2,133 head of livestock of one kind or another and four workers.

The matter we are discussing is a major environmental problem that requires the most careful management. The quantity of stock on the farm that was visited illustrates the scale of the problem with which we are confronted in many parts of the country. Reference has already been made to the high intensity of sheep rearing in the uplands. That is certainly the case in my part of Wales. While we have always been used to seeing the occasional dead sheep lying in streams or on the mountainside, undoubtedly the problem has increased considerably.

It is not easy for farmers to dispose of dead animals. Again Seale Hayne farm illustrates that problem all too well as the water table is only just below the surface of the bottom land. It is quite impossible to bury stock there. The high ground comprises a thin coating of soil on rock. While it may be possible to bury the occasional sheep there, one needs a pretty big and carefully prepared hole to bury cattle safely and successfully. There have been cases of animals being disposed of by streams or in hedges deep in the woods. Such cases have been mentioned in the debate today. I heard of one case of two cattle which had had their ears removed being left in a lay-by close to the main road outside Exeter.

I know that the great majority of farmers are far too responsible to follow that kind of practice. However, at almost every recent meeting of the National Farmers Union of England and Wales in every county of England and Wales, and no doubt in Scotland and Northern Ireland too, this matter has been discussed. Farmers everywhere have rightly expressed their anxiety about the problem.

Reference has been made in many speeches to the legal responsibility for removing dead animals. That is perfectly clear when the animal is identified and is still on someone's land. However, there are a number of unanswered questions in this respect. Who is responsible for removing an animal from the river bank, from the roadside, or from a field if the animal does not belong to the owner of the field? This is a matter of concern to the National Rivers Authority. We in the authority are not clear at the moment whether we are responsible for having to remove animals from the river bank or whether that is the local authority's responsibility. Who is to pay the bill for such operations?

At the present time very real problems confront us in this regard. Noble Lords have explained why these problems have arisen and have referred to the costs involved in producing efficient incineration services and in getting stock disposed of. I do not pretend to have an immediate answer to offer to my noble friend who is to reply to the debate. I am all too conscious of the huge range of problems which flood in upon MAFF at the present time. However, my noble friend should be left in no doubt that this is an extremely serious problem. It cannot simply be left to guidelines issued to farmers who face a host of problems. The Ministry will have to give a lead in finding solutions to this problem.

10.4 p.m.

Lord Walpole

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Masham for raising this matter and for her amazing amount of research which has made most of my speech totally irrelevant. I say that rather cynically. However, I wish to discuss the disposal of fallen farm stock in the context of East Anglia.

It is sad when a pony dies. It is also to a farmer very sad when stock dies. It is a loss. It is a sentimental loss as well as a financial one.

To take the history of the matter, we have now disposed of the knacker. He was the chap whom one used to ring up and occasionally a cheque would come back, which was always delightful. But, as your Lordships know, we are now no longer chandling tallow, we do not make glue out of the hoof and horn, the Italians do not make handbags for us to carry around, we do not paint our cottages as they do in South Norfolk and North Suffolk by mixing whitewash with blood and I thank my noble friend Lord Allenby for suggesting that perhaps at least the bonemeal could be put on our roses. As your Lordships can see, what with rendering disappearing, the problems with BSE and not recirculating flesh, the knacker has had it.

Three or four years ago, having discovered that the knacker had had it, or had had his day, and was not prepared to remove animals whether he paid us, we turned to the hunt. The hunt at that time was pleased to pick up animals, but not pay for them. But if the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, looks at his books correctly, he will find that it is better to dispose of all his problems of knackering and buy Pal meat for dogs for his hounds. It will probably be cheaper. My hounds have, unfortunately, discovered that one, so we cannot dispose of things there.

However, living on an arable farm, or a farm that probably has more acres devoted to growing crops than to growing grass, until 1992—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will forgive me for saying so—I am going to dig a hole in the safest possible place and bury the animals up. After that, I shall have to ask him whether I am doing it in the right place. I think that is correct. The noble Baroness will undoubtedly tell me that in 1992 I shall be in trouble because I shall be standing in my farmyard with a dead animal and before long someone will attempt to prosecute me under the 1906 Dogs Act.

As regards the size of the problem and I obtained these figures from the Ministry, so the Minister need not quote them back to me— if you run a unit of pigs of 150 sows and take the progeny onto fattening, what you are likely to lose on average is six-and-a-half tonnes of flesh to be disposed of every year. I suspect — the next newsletter on sheep has not yet come out — that the equivalent would be an 800 ewe flock of sheep.

The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, of £200 to £300 per tonne for getting rid of this unwanted flesh is pushing the farmer very much indeed. Incidentally, it has been pointed out— but it must be reiterated— that in the old days the hide and offal often paid for the slaughtering of proper animals, fat animals going to market. Of course, the farmer now has the cost of slaughtering taken off the cheque which he is given for his animals.

However, having said that— which probably reiterates what has been said already— I discovered from my friendly ADAS adviser that it is possible to put in some pits. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will not like these because they are open bottomed and have rings of concrete. You pour the animals in, you get a culture medium which you add to it and the things digest themselves away. This is cheaper than incineration. But I am extremely concerned about these pits. The obvious place to have them is well away form any water course, well away from any house, well away from any dwelling of any sort or anywhere that might be dangerous. Incidentally, I ask the Minister whether there is any grant payable on such a pit. It is not the cost of digging the pit; it is the cost of the security and of keeping people out. The Farm Inspector Dissolves might perhaps be a future Agatha Christie novel.

I have merely written down here that I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply as to whether she would like those digestive pits to be an alternative to the much more expensive way of doing things by incineration. Perhaps she will also tell me whether she would be kind enough to pay me a grant, not specifically to dig a hole, because I have had to do that anyway, but because I have to keep people away from the hole at all costs as they would not only put their unwanted cows, cats and mothers-in-law down it, but as I do not particularly want everyone to know where it is.

10.10 p.m.

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for putting down this important Question today. It has attracted a good deal of publicity and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear that point in mind when she replies. The advantage of coming some way down the list of speakers is that others who are better informed than oneself and have a greater command of language can make most of one's points on one's behalf, so I have been happily casting sheets of my speech on to the other end of the Bench and it has become shorter as the debate has progressed.

However, I have a little first-hand experience of the matter. When I was 18, I worked as whipper-in to a hunt in Dorset where my duties included driving around the farms collecting carcasses, and skinning and rendering. Your Lordships' House is rightly said to have an expert on every subject that you can name and some that you cannot. Well, my Lords, I am the resident knacker. Having performed the less fragrant tasks that the job entails and as a former master of hounds, I can testify, as my noble friend Lord Boardman has already done, to the huge and vital role that the hunts fulfil be they foxhounds, staghounds, beagles, harriers or mink hounds, in collecting and rendering the carcasses from the farms and passing on the bones, skins and offal.

It is important to remind the Government that hunts do not need to perform that role. It is easier by far for hunts to feed concentrates, as they do in America— not quite the "Pal" that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, suggested, but much less labour-intensive than the existing method. The goodwill of the farming community towards hunting, again mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boardman, is not, as some would claim, solely dependent on their continuing to pick up flesh. If that were so, the hunts would hardly be as welcome as they are in arable country where there is no livestock to collect.

However, the current situation has made many farmers more aware of the value of the service that hunts have provided at no cost and are striving to continue to provide, but the stopgap situation that currently prevails cannot continue. The hunts cannot indefinitely carry the burden of the vastly increased costs of collecting and rendering while being unable to sell on offal, and with the falling price of skins. Over the past year, the enormous increase in dead livestock coming into the kennels, caused by increasing costs of collection imposed by knackers, and the closing down of some knackers' businesses, as already mentioned, imposes too great a cost on farmers already hit, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, by falling livestock prices, and too great a cost on the hunts.

I welcome the Government's decision to exempt the smaller incinerators from inspection and authorisation requirements, but I ask my noble friend whether the Government could facilitate in some way the granting of planning permits, which are at present so difficult to obtain, and lower the cost of licensing for the larger incinerators. The 50 kg per hour incinerators do not fit the bill.

I am also led to believe that there is no reason why the meat and bonemeal from specified offals from bovine carcasses, currently restricted because of BSE, could not be used as fertiliser as they are rich in nitrogen. Lifting that unnecessary restriction would create a market for offal which would allow the system to flow again as it did before. The free market so beloved by the Government is currently restricted by regulation, so the long-term solution must be to allow it to work as it used to.

The Government must get to grips with the problem in the way that other European Community countries have done. Neither the farmers nor the hunts can continue indefinitely as at present. The sight of carcasses lying in the fields and on the sides of roads is unacceptable in a civilised society, apart from the health hazards. We look to the Government today for positive plans, not procrastination.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Palmer

My Lords, as so many speeches this evening have been in the same tone let us hope that by the end of this debate we shall have got the message through to the Government.

My noble friend Lady Masham of Ilion deserves the heartfelt thanks of your Lordships' House for asking this Question as the disposal of animal and equine carcasses— and we must not forget fish and fowl— is one of the most serious problems facing our countryside today.

I must declare an interest. In the first instance, I try to farm and have 240 head of cattle. Secondly, I am the landlord of a pack of foxhound kennels where kennel staff in years gone by removed 475 tonnes of animal carcasses from the countryside each year. Thirdly, like the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft— although he was a professional and I was an amateur — I have been fortunate enough to have had a thorough training in the skinning of casualty animals. So now there are two knackermen in your Lordships' House.

I have for some time been concerned as to how we deal with the problem. Having made inquiries I am appalled at how serious the problem is and how much more serious it will become. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, mentioned that this is the tip of the iceberg. We must cut off that tip as soon as possible.

We are talking about 195,000 tonnes of material per annum, produced by 1.4 million casualty animals. Of that tonnage 44 per cent. comes from cattle, 34 per cent. from pigs, 22 per cent. from sheep; horses and ponies account for the remaining 2 per cent. By region, Scotland, needless to say, produces the most material, accounting for 13 per cent. of the total UK tonnage.

Why, we must ask, has my noble friend raised this Question? The answer is simple. If only the solution were as easy.

Ever since Professor Lacey's outburst on the scares of BSE, the knackering and rendering industries, as many of your Lordships have mentioned, have been turned upside down and inside out causing heavy bankruptcies and huge redundancies. On average, over the past year, the industries collected 92 per cent. fewer sheep, 49 per cent. fewer pigs, 45 per cent. fewer older, cattle and 40 per cent. fewer calves. Within the next 12 months there may well be fewer than half the current number of knackers in business. Already there are no knackers in parts of Cumbria, Dumfriesshire, Fife and the Lothians, which creates a serious problem in itself.

Many noble Lords have mentioned the cases of animals being dumped at the side of the road. I sympathise fully with the farmers who take their dead cattle and dump them outside slaughterhouses at the dead of night. It is bad enough for a farmer to lose a cow, a calf or a sheep, but then to have to pay to have it taken away adds insult to injury.

Long gone are the days of casualty stock having any value. Ten years ago the value was as much as £20 per tonne. Many of your Lordships have mentioned charge; of £90 a tonne to have casualty stock removed today. In my part of Scotland the cost is £120 a tonne whereas this time last year we received £3 a tonne.

With beef farmers going out of business at an average: rate of over 20 per week over the past decade due to the intensely difficult farming scenario and with farm incomes at their lowest level since the war, the Government must once and for all tackle this issue with great urgency, sensitivity and care. I implore the Minister and her department to find an urgent solution to this very grave problem.

Of course, in some parts of the country burial is an option. However, in the long term do we really want 1.4 million graves littering the countryside every year? That is 14 million graves in 10 years. Burials will be well nigh impossible to police and could cause severe health problems to our already overstretched water supplies. One can also envisage carelessly dug graves which encourage rodents, foxes, disease and smell. I remind noble Lords that we are talking about 1.4 million animals each year.

As in other EC countries, in particular Germany, France and Holland, the Government must give financial help to the knackering business if we are to live in a hygienic countryside rather than in the middle of an animal burial ground.

I beg the Government to act now before it is too late and to consider running a safe and hygienic subsidised knacker service for the well-being of the nation, and to the benefit of the countryside.

10.20 p.m.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She has highlighted a very substantial problem in the countryside. It is one which could become a serious environmental difficulty. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will have noted that the pleas come from all parts of the country. They have come from the far north, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of England. I am not sure what reply she will receive from Monmouth tomorrow; I hope that it will not be adverse.

In some areas it may be fairly easy to dig large holes, but in addition to water problems and rock, there will be increasing difficulties as suitable areas fill up. What are the vets in the towns to do with animals that they have had to destroy in their surgeries? My noble friend Lord Mancroft applied for the job of resident knacker. Perhaps I may apply for the job of stalker, as I have some expertise in skinning and cutting up deer.

Different situations apply in different parts of the country. On a West Highland deer forest, for instance, it is better to leave any dead animal because the flesh will soon be eaten by crows, buzzards, eagles, and even badgers and foxes. The bones will be eaten by deer and cattle. That leaves trace elements on the hills. Such trace elements are being steadily leached out of the surface of the ground or removed when the carcass of every animal is taken off the hill. The calcium in the bones is of value to the deer, in particular stags which have to grow a pair of horns every year.

At the other extreme, in areas where there is heavy density of animals and people, one cannot leave dead animals lying about. Several noble Lords have said that that is being done: it is unfortunate. I am told that in the circumstances one can use anaerobic digestion. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, spoke about disposal of animals. I am not well versed in the process. I believe that the principle is to exclude oxygen from the carcasses causing rapid breakdown of the body. In most areas, however, the best solution is undoubtedly incineration, as many noble Lords have said. The problems that arise from that method are cost and finding suitable sites. The public perception of such burning is smoke and the horrid smell which used to pervade the countryside when cattle with foot-and-mouth disease were being disposed of. That is now unnecessary. Smoke and smell can be eliminated as in modern human crematoria. The preferred fuel for those ovens is gas. The site therefore needs to be near a gas main.

One is still left with the problem of cost. By far the biggest item is the interest on the initial capital outlay for incineration. It seems scarcely necessary further to emphasise the financial state of the farming industry. Farmers should not be burdened with vast additional costs. The issue is an environmental and public health problem. It is one which could become severe. It seems not unreasonable to ask for suitable buildings and equipment to be set up by the Government and/or the European Community. Thereafter the system could be operated on a commercial basis. A proportion of the running costs could be set off by other operations making use of the surplus heat generated.

We in the Highlands have a further problem; we have many tonnes of dead farm fish. One day a Highland village was permeated by a terrible smell. The environmental health officer was called in. He discovered that a local fish hatchery was using a JCB to bury its dead fish. Unfortunately, the machine had cut into an old hole already filled with dead fish. For a time the dead fish were carted away to an old mine in Fife. However, that practice has been stopped and the fish are now disposed of in an in-fill site in central Scotland. That must be expensive in haulage costs alone and again it is unsatisfactory. The fish could well be burnt in the animal incinerators.

Perhaps I may tell a short story to illustrate the undesirability of burying dead animals. While digging forestry roads we unearthed some large and ancient bones. Naturally a halt was called. I found a large skull which no one present could identify. We thought that perhaps it was that of some prehistoric beast. The local museum was most interested in the find. However, a local vet eventually identified the skull as that of a horse which must have lain there for nearly 200 years. I ask my noble friend as a matter of urgency to ensure that something is done to remedy the problem of disposing of dead animals.

10.26 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, obviously as I am listed to speak second to last in the debate there is nothing left for me to say! I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for introducing the subject. She has put her finger on the problem, as we expect from her. Within this House she is regarded with great liking and respect, and also with a certain amount of fear. That is good for us all.

All noble Lords who have spoken have detailed the problems caused to the industry and the great change that has taken place. I remember the days when one was able to telephone the knacker to come out and lift an animal. If it were a cow he might pay a pound or two for it. He would take the animal away and the problem would be solved. I rang a relative who has a large number of cows to ask what disposal was costing him. He said that it cost him between £3,000 and £4,000 a year to pay the knacker to take the beasts away. In respect of a reasonably sized farm the amount would be about £1,000 per year. That is an enormous charge to an industry which is in poor financial shape.

Many other factors are entering the business of disposal. There is a hysteria in the public's perception of food and farming. The most telling example is that of hormones in beef production. On the instructions of the Commission the scientific committee sat to look into the problem. Due to the pressure of public opinion the European Parliament would not wait until the committee reported before banning the use of hormones. In fact, the committee reported that the hormones were natural and should not have been harmful.

Today, such problems are widespread. We have the example of mad cow disease— BSE. That is almost the same as scrapie in sheep, which has been known in Scotland for about 200 years. The favourite food of the thrifty Scot was sheep's head broth containing the sensitive part of the animal. While many Englishman believe that the Scots are mad, that is by no means proven.

The Government must tackle such a totally unscientific attitude. I am told that the BSE virus is killed at 135 degrees centigrade, though it is not killed at boiling point, which is the norm.

Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell the House what sort of work is taking place to disprove the fables. A sensible policy should be produced which would once more, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft said, allow us to use some forms of bonemeal on the land as fertiliser; and, indeed, to allow the pet food industry to buy the very large quantities which they used to buy and feed to a large number of pets until some idiot conducted a post-mortem on a cat and found that it may have contracted some form of BSE. However, the Government bear the responsibility to see that the information is correct and to pay for the necessary research.

The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, who was extremely amusing about his mother-in-law—

Lord Walpole

My Lord, with respect, my wife is sitting below the Bar and I was not referring to my mother-in-law but my neighbor's mother-in-law

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, that was very wise of the noble Lord. The digester is an idea which ADAS is promoting. That is a fairly expensive method but is much less expensive in the long run than incineration. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us whether the Government are considering assistance in their construction. I understand that they must be about 15 foot deep, 3 foot wide, covered, and probably locked to prevent the insertion of mothers-in-law! That is an expensive method but the Government could promote it to help solve the problem, which may worsen.

Our anxiety has been amply demonstrated this evening and I trust that the reply will demonstrate the anxiety of the Government.

10.31 p.m.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to repeat many of the points which have already been made this evening on this Unstarred Question. They have all been well and effectively made and I hope that the noble Baroness will not believe it remiss of me if I say that she has a fairly stiff mountain to climb this evening. The fact that I do not repeat the points does not mean that on this side of the House we are not fully aware of the problem and are not sympathetic to it. It has reached dimensions at which action must be taken. That has emerged clearly from the remarks made on all sides of the House this evening.

Until the Minister speaks, we assume that Her Majesty's Government's position on this matter is still as defined in a letter from the Minister of Agriculture to a Member of Parliament in another place dated 31st January 1991. It was widely circulated at the time and the noble Baroness sent a copy of the letter to me.

That letter, which was quoted in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, took the view, as the Minister said, that disposal was a problem for the market to solve. In order to get on the record the Minister's view at that time I should like to read the paragraph in which the market solution is advocated. It states: This is in my view largely a problem for the market to sort out, within the framework of national and Community controls which I believe are adequate and necessary to protect the environment and human and animal health. No responsible farmer should contemplate illegal disposal in order to avoid collection charges, and I am sure that Local Authorities, whose job it is to enforce these controls, would take the same attitude. My Department has stepped up its surveillance and State Veterinary Service staff have been instructed to liaise with Local Authority Environmental Health Departments as necessary". We acknowledge what the Minister is doing and has done. Indeed, in that letter he goes on to detail some of the work currently undertaken by his Ministry. The question which must be answered this evening is whether that is sufficient in view of the on-going incidence of BSE and the consequential ban on specified offals for use as feed.

Her Majesty's Government's policy is to remind farmers of their legal obligations to dispose of fallen stock in a suitable manner. We acknowledge that government-funded research is going on into various aspects of the problem. No doubt the Minister will tell us something of that when she replies. The Question has also recently received attention in another place. In Questions and Answers at column 387 on 7th May there are some illuminating replies. In one Answer the Minister stated that he will not prohibit breeding from the offspring of BSE affected cattle. We hope that that is the right decision.

On the problem of disposal, the Minister acknowledged that applications have been made for planning permission for incineration plants, and requests received for national policy guidance. Does MAFF propose giving guidance to local authorities, or is it proposed to rely on the state veterinary service? As we know, incineration is preferred to burial, and my best advice is that 90 per cent. of the disposals are by incineration. But if problems remain, especially financial problems of the kind detailed in many speeches this evening, will not the incidence of burials tend to increase? That raises the question of whether or not burials, when they do take place, are safe, particularly burials of BSE infected stock. For example, is there no risk of subsequent soil contamination from the burial of BSE infected animals?

I should like to ask the Minister also whether she will say that it remains the view of MAFF's veterinary officers that the likely cause of BSE infection was and is the use of certain offals in feedstuff which is now prohibited. Does Her Majesty's Government still rule out the introduction of some kind of system to assist with the problem? We would not rule out some form of insurance for the disposal of fallen animals, certainly for as long as present emergencies and prohibitions last. It might be possible, for example, to marry a levy system with an insurance fund, to which the Ministry could make a sizeable contribution. In that way there could be an injection of money into the solution of the problem, unless of course the Minister has a better solution to offer this evening.

That the problem will not go away is certain; that it is increasing is equally certain. We on this side look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say about it.

10.37 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)

My Lords, I apologise before I begin. I am suffering from the most terrible cold.

The Government are fully aware of the concerns of farmers, horse owners, slaughterhouse owners and others about the current difficulties being faced in the disposal of fallen animals and animal waste. This evening's debate confirms those concerns. Your Lordships have asked questions, but I have not heard many solutions offered, apart from government money.

The Minister's letter as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, stands its ground. Your Lordships will surely agree that it is the responsibility of all types of undertaking to find ways of handling the waste that they produce. Changes in the cost of by-product disposal is just one of the factors in the economics of the industry as a whole. The Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asks how the Government propose to help those who are having difficulty in the disposal of carcasses. "Help from the Government" is often another way of saying "money from the taxpayer". Yet it is worth remembering that the taxpayer is providing £800 million in subsidy to the livestock industry this year, up from £450 million last year.

My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is not alone. I know only too well what a difficult time this is for farmers and for the livestock sector in particular. We have increased the help we are giving, and those considerable sums of public money demonstrate the Government's commitment to the livestock industry.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether a carcass collection service might be exempted from VAT. That would amount to a subsidy from the taxpayer for the disposal of fallen animals, and it would be no easier for the Government to accept that principle than a direct subsidy.

My noble friend Lord Soulsby set out why the problems with carcass disposal have arisen. For the record, they have arisen principally from the very depressed market for the by-products of the rendering industry and for hides and skins. The result is that knackers are having to charge farmers for the removal of fallen and casualty animals. Clearly that represents an additional cost to farmers and horse owners.

Keeping minimum values for the transportation of live horses, which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, knows full well the Government fully support, has nothing to do with the subject that we are discussing this evening.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, it is very worrying. If the minimum standards go and the expense of getting rid of old and infirm horses rises, then some people may send them to the Continent for slaughter. So there is some relevance.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, there are too many "mays" in that sentence. The noble Baroness may accuse me of taking a hard line, but horse owners too have to accept that one way or another their animals will die and that the carcasses will need to be disposed of. The knacker's services are usually available at a price. Other possibilities may be hunt kennels or incineration. A veterinary surgeon will normally be able to advise, and the local waste disposal authority will also offer guidance on safe disposal and may be able to handle the disposal itself although it will charge a reasonable price for the service.

The knacker trade is in difficulties in this country for one simple reason. Farmers are not willing to pay the modest charges which knackers have had to impose to cover their costs. Some farmers would rather break the law than do so. It would be quite wrong for the Government to allow understandable concern about the situation to lead Ministers to take action which runs counter to their approach to the economy as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the situation in Northern Ireland. The position there has improved markedly in recent weeks since the major renderer there re-commenced handling a wider range of offals. I welcome that change. I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are continuing to keep a close eye on the situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to what happens in other EC countries. Other countries, apart from Ireland, do not have the same knacker trade as we do. The normal arrangement is for rendering plants to take fallen animals. Some member states give a local monopoly to individual rendering plants. In a few cases, notably in Germany, there may be an element of subsidy from the taxpayer if a rendering plant makes a loss. As I have made clear already, it would not be consistent with the Government's approach to waste management for the disposal system to be subsidised here.

The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, asked me what the Government were doing about the increasing number of cases involving the dumping of fallen animals. It is neither legal nor acceptable to dispose of animal carcasses in this way. The State Veterinary Service is monitoring the situation closely and liaising with local authorities who are responsible for enforcing controls. We expect them to use their powers fully if and when the need arises.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me about EC regulations forcing the closure of knackeries and what assurance there was for the future. Against the opposition of most member states the United Kingdom worked hard in Community negotiations to secure the continuation of the knacker trade. It was a major success to have achieved agreement for them to continue in operation until 1995 at least. Their future after that date depends on a review within the Community. We shall continue to press hard to secure arrangements which continue to meet our needs.

Returning to the United Kingdom the charges being imposed by knackers are variable. But typically they are of the order of up to £60 for an adult cow, £7 for a sheep, and £50 for a horse. It can cost the Ministry of Agriculture up to £350 to dispose completely of a cow that has had to be slaughtered under a disease control programme, so it will be apparent that they represent only a small proportion of the actual disposal cost.

I think I am right in saying that one of the scenarios put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, concerning BSE is faulty. I am not absolutely certain that I heard her correctly. I hope she will forgive me if I have misunderstood her. BSE is a notifiable disease and dumping would be a criminal offence. As we pay compensation for suspect BSE cases under which the farmer receives the full market value of up to a ceiling of around £600, it is highly unlikely that any BSE animals would ever be either dumped or get into the chain.

Some noble Lords referred to complaints that in some parts of the country no knackers are left to service the farmer. Of course we might argue that it is the result of farmers choosing to use other methods of disposal that has led to some knackers closing. But looking through the advertisements which I have before me— at this stage I feel like a worn out cow — from the local farming press around the country there seem to be knackers offering their services from all the regions.

I must say a few words about the 300 or so hunts in this country which feed to hounds carcass meat from fallen animals provided to them by farmers. They too have had to pay high charges for the collection of waste from the parts they do not use. But they have borne this additional cost with fortitude and continue to provide a very substantial outlet and indeed a valuable service in disposing of fallen stock.

My noble friend Lord Boardman will be interested to know that I am pleased to report that we have been able to meet the request from hunt kennels, farmers and others that there should be an exemption from the inspection and authorisation requirements of the Environmental Protection Act for the smaller incinerators. This will reduce the installation costs to those hunt kennels and farmers contemplating purchasing small scale incineration plants.

Lord Boardman

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The problem is that the exemption applies only to very small incinerators which are inadequate to cover the case I quoted of 10 tonnes a week.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, but he refers to a very large hunt. The smaller hunts are finding this a very useful provision. It is nice occasionally to have a kindly word from someone.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked for the Government's view on the proposal for a mobile slaughtering facility. This is unlikely to be cost effective because of the need, to protect consumers, for the whole carcass to be subjected to meat inspection. It is a better option to slaughter an animal on the farm and arrange to move it to the slaughter house under a veterinary certificate.

In answer to another question from the noble Baroness, whatever method of disposal is followed the arrangements must comply with legal requirements designed to protect the environment and avoid risks to human and animal health. It is the responsibility of local authorities to implement these requirements and my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have recently reminded them of the need to do so. The noble Baroness also asked about the responsibility for a dead animal found on one's land. The owner of the land has that responsibility and in default of taking action could also be responsible for any nuisance or pollution caused.

My noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned the responsibility for the removal of animals not identified and not owned by the land owner. I say again, the land owner is responsible. If the animal is in the river, the NRA is responsible; and, if it is beside the highway, the responsibility rests with the highway authority.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I hope that the Minister can answer the following question. If a cow or a bullock is dumped in your garden, are you responsible for it?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, yes you are; that is, unless there is an identification tag on it.

The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, will wish to note that the State Veterinary Service is monitoring the situation on the ground closely and, together with local authorities and water companies, is providing free advice on alternative methods of disposal which are principally burial or incineration. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell will be well aware that the Ministry has already published for consultation a draft code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water, following consultation with the National Rivers Authority. That has been available since January of this year. A final version will be available shortly to farmers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, spoke about incinerators. We are continuing to advise the planning and regulatory authorities about the importance of adequate disposal facilities and the need to take this into account, especially where planning permission is sought for animal carcass incinerators. In addition, the Planning and Compensation Bill will, when enacted, require county councils to draw up waste development plans in relation to waste disposal in their areas. That should ensure that they develop policies which take account of the place of incinerators in patterns of waste disposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, suggested that we should add to all the measures which have so far been taken by giving grants for disposal pits. Such pits may play a useful part in relation to the disposal of smaller carcasses. Indeed, many livestock producers already have them. But grants could only be considered for such pits if farmers' representatives accepted that it would be at the expense of the resources available for the existing farm waste grant schemes. That is something to think about before one starts on that line.

My noble friend Lord Soulsby and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked about high-risk waste. As I said, I wrote to the noble Baroness on the matter. I shall virtually quote from my letter to her. The position is as follows: Under the EC directive on the disposal and processing of animal waste which was adopted in November 1990, animal waste is either designated as high or low-risk waste. The definition of high-risk waste in the directive includes material coming from fallen animals, although we argued in Brussels that it ought to be classified as low-risk waste since our "notifiable" disease arrangement would have detected seriously diseased animals.

The directive stipulates that high-risk material must be sent to a rendering plant which is approved to

handle such material or that can be disposed of by burning or burial under certain conditions. In this country, animals which are slaughtered because of serious notifiable disease are incinerated or buried. A derogation also allows member states to permit the use of certain high-risk material, including fallen animals, to go to knackers' yards for use after sterilisation as pet food and to go to other outlets such as hunt kennels or for feeding to zoo or circus animals. I have the letter with me. I am sorry that the noble Baroness asked the question again.

I was also asked about the threat to humans from hydatid disease from unburied sheep on hills. The cycle of disease from dog to sheep can be broken by the adequate worming of dogs— I am nervous of saying this to my distinguished noble friend Lord Soulsby— and the risk to humans can be further reduced by appropriate hygienic practices in the home such as handwashing and avoiding the licking of faces by dogs.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I return to the Minister's letter for which I am grateful. I have read it many times, but it still did not answer the one question that I put again tonight which was: are all the 110 knackers yards in the United Kingdom suitable for dealing with high-risk waste?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the answer is yes.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I thank the Minister.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me whether all knackers were capable of handling high-risk material. In effect, yes, because the derogation which we secured provides for the handling of fallen animals. I hope that we have now cleared up that point.

In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, perhaps I may say that the Government are also committed to research and development in the field of animal waste disposal and are involved in a major study, costing nearly £500,000, to determine which rendering processes may be able to destroy pathogens which affect the value of rendered products.

The livestock industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission are undertaking and commissioning studies to investigate alternative methods of disposal, including ways of minimising the costs involved. We are in close touch with the MLC on those matters and have been encouraged by the interest shown from all sides of the industry in the recent seminars held by it on that topic.

The Government have also been involved with the UK Renderers Association in considering whether there are any useful alternatives to landfilling for meat and bonemeal derived from specified bovine offal which currently has no market outlet. Clearly any such uses could help to reduce the costs of removal of that offal from slaughterhouses and knackers and the level of charges currently being imposed by renderers.

The Department of Energy is also working closely with the UK Renderers Association— this is interesting— to see whether it is feasible to use rendered meat and bonemeal as a fuel and energy source which, if successful, might alleviate some of the current problems. The signs are encouraging on this aspect.

In addition, if rendering businesses can come up with imaginative ideas for recycling animal waste products, grants towards investments are available from the European Community under a scheme to encourage the marketing and processing of agricultural products.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about progress in the neutralisation of the agent causing BSE. The experiment is making good progress. Material has been prepared under a range of different rendering processes, and the process of measuring the presence of the BSE agent has begun. It is bound to be a number of years before definite results are available, but I hope not as long as the eight years mentioned by the noble Baroness.

Lastly, my noble friend Lord Mancroft asked about the use of meat and bonemeal from specified offal as a fertiliser. Small quantities of the material only are involved— some 25,000 tonnes per year— but for that to be a regular outlet it will be necessary to ensure that there is no risk that any BSE agent present would be a risk to animals using the land. The Government will need to assess carefully any possible risk on the basis of scientific advice.

While I must repeat that the responsibility for disposal of fallen animals remains that of the owners, I hope that I have made it clear that the Government fully recognise that a range of factors has combined to make the disposal of fallen animals more difficult and costly than it has been in the past. The Government are doing all they can to be as helpful as possible. In return, we urge all sides of the industry to increase the level of their co-operation so as to respond to this new unwelcome challenge.