§ 7.25 p.m.
§ Earl Howe rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order was made once it became clear to us that there were no other means by which we could ensure that geese and 864 ducks containing extremely high levels of lead on a holding in Billingsley, Bridgnorth, would not be put into the public food supply.
§ The background is that a private veterinary surgeon was consulted by the farmer of the holding following unexplained illness and death among his flocks of some 78 geese and 300 ducks. The veterinary surgeon sent one of the geese to the Ministry's veterinary investigation centre at Shrewsbury for a diagnosis. A post-mortem revealed that the liver of the goose contained almost 200 parts per million of lead. Noble Lords may find it helpful to know that that compares with the general statutory limit for lead in food of one part per million.
§ Staff from the state veterinary service visited the farm straightaway and discovered significant numbers of ducks and geese displaying clinical symptoms of lead poisoning. Indeed, lead pellets were actually discovered in the gizzards of some of the birds examined. The farmer concerned confirmed that his land lay in the path of a now defunct clay pigeon shoot. It was clear that affected ducks and geese had become ill as a result of picking up quantities of spent shot while feeding. Further samples taken from among affected birds revealed lead concentrations in liver and kidneys ranging from 100 to almost 400 parts per million.
§ It was clear to us that affected birds should not be put into the food chain—a view supported by the Department of Health. My officials therefore informed the local environmental health department of Bridgnorth District Council and went back to the farm to see whether the farmer would give his voluntary agreement to withhold affected birds from public supply. During the course of that visit, officials were also able to ascertain from the farmer that he had sold no ducks or geese for some months prior to the current incident. Inspection of the farmer's sales records confirmed that point.
§ In considering what action to take, the Ministry had three objectives. First and foremost, we were absolutely committed to ensuring that consumers were not exposed to food derived from contaminated birds. Our second objective was to provide advice on the welfare aspects of the case. And thirdly, we wished to do whatever we could to mitigate the effects of any marketing restrictions on the farmer's business.
§ Officials put it to the farmer that all birds not displaying clinical symptoms should immediately be moved off, and kept away from, the contaminated land. Those could then be considered for release into the food chain once they had spent a month on clean land and provided that they remained healthy during that time. An alternative suggestion was that all the internal organs from such birds should be removed as a pre-requisite for sale, obviating the need to move the birds to clean land. Ministry veterinary staff also told the farmer and his own veterinary surgeon that there was little possibility that birds displaying clinical symptoms of lead poisoning would recover. The advice given was that they should be humanely destroyed on welfare grounds.
§ I regret to say that the farmer felt unable to accept those options or the advice offered. Moreover, he 865 strongly implied that he intended to market birds from the affected flocks. In those circumstances, we had no option but to introduce statutory measures to ensure that consumers were not put at risk. An order made under Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, banning the movement off the affected holding of ducks and geese, plus any food or feed products made from those birds, was brought into force on 31st October.
§ I recognise, and am sympathetic to, the serious financial impact which that incident has had on the farmer concerned. We went to considerable lengths to try to mitigate the worst effects. But once the farmer had refused to co-operate in voluntary arrangements to protect consumers, we were left with no alternative but to take statutory action. The department is continuing to keep in close touch with the farmer in order to monitor developments and to provide welfare advice. We also stand ready to consider any management options, both for the short and longer term, and prospects for selling unaffected birds. We shall also be looking to lift our food protection restrictions just as soon as we can safely do so without compromising the safety of consumers. I commend the order to the House.
§ Moved, That the order laid before the House on 2nd November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the order so well. In view of the time we spent on the Agriculture Bill, I propose only to say that I understand that each time this matter arises—there is more than one clay pigeon shoot in the country—the Government will have to bring forward an order. For once that favours the negative resolution procedure to save the time of the House.
Earl HoweMy Lords, it depends whether in future incidents the farmer concerned complies voluntarily with the measures currently in force. The point here is that he was not prepared to do so.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.