HL Deb 27 March 2001 vol 624 cc119-35

4.11 p.m.

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place on foot and mouth disease. The Statement is as follows:

"I should like to update the House both on the latest position on the disease outbreak and on the range of actions the Government have been taking since I last informed the House on Wednesday, 21st March. I then want to outline what we know so far about the causes and spread of the outbreak, and to announce the measures we propose to take as a result.

"As at 1 p.m. today, there had been 668 confirmed cases in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland. Forty-two cases were confirmed yesterday. Out of a total UK livestock population of more than 55 million., 697,500 have now been authorised for slaughter and 423,000 have already been slaughtered. Outside the United Kingdom, there is one case in the Republic of Ireland, two cases in France and five cases in Holland.

"I made public last week the epidemiological studies I have received on the likely course of the disease. They differed in their detail, but they were all clear that this is an unprecedented outbreak which has not yet reached its peak. Our strategy remains focused on three key priorities: all animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on infected farms are to be culled within 24 hours of the infection report; all animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on contiguous farms are then to be culled within 48 hours; and we are concentrating our efforts in northern Cumbria on clearing all animals identified for slaughter in Solway, and on creating a 'firebreak' south of the worst affected area.

"Last Wednesday, I explained to the House what actions the Government were taking to speed up our response to the disease. I believe that we have taken the right actions and I shall spell out what effect they are already having.

"We have made full use of the resources of the Army. Some 780 soldiers are now deployed, at MAFF's request, helping with the logistic operations. These include 115 in Scotland and 50 in Wales, in addition to over 600 in England, of which 118 are in Cumbria and a further 72 in Devon. As well as the Army unit in our headquarters in London, there are Army HQs in Exeter, Worcester, Carlisle and Dumfries. Military liaison officers will he joining all major disease control centres. The Army's role is to enhance command and control, and to assist in the disposal process. Their presence allows us to free vets to concentrate on solely veterinary matters.

"Last week, I informed the House that we had put in place senior officials as directors of operations in Cumbria and Devon and were about to do so in Worcester. In addition to those three, we have since put in place further directors of operations in Stafford, Chelmsford, Gloucester, Leicester and Newcastle. These senior administrators have also taken over operational tasks from senior vets and allowed them to get on with their veterinary work.

"We are also bringing more and more vets into the front line. The total number of vets in the State Veterinary Service tackling the disease is now 1,235 and we are looking to increase this number still further. We are following up offers of assistance from the French and Spanish Governments. An appeal to its members by the British Veterinary Association has generated a large number of inquiries which are being pursued. Enhanced rates of pay for temporary vets were announced last week.

"Wherever possible, we have reduced the time between when a vet makes one inspection and when he or she can make the next one; where the disease risk is minimal, this turn-round time has been reduced to 24 hours. We have simplified the valuation arrangements—while at the same time safeguarding farmers' interests—by introducing a generous standard tariff. More than 95 per cent of confirmations now take place on clinical grounds; that is, without the need for laboratory tests. We have also revised protocols to allow vets in the field to make on-site judgments and to initiate slaughter.

"The key task is to reduce the time between the first report of the disease and the slaughter of the herd or flock. Our target remains that this should not exceed 24 hours. The epidemiological studies published last week confirmed that this is the single most important intervention in controlling the disease. We are achieving this in large parts of the country, including Devon in recent days. In Cumbria, the high density of infection and sheer number of cases, have meant that we are not yet achieving that target. Work is in hand to address this. Yesterday, I visited the two most affected areas of the country, Cumbria and Devon. I saw for myself the hard work being carried out by the State Veterinary Service, the Army and all the other parties involved. I also met with farmers and their leaders.

"There has been a good deal of speculation recently about the possible use of vaccination as an ingredient in our FMD control strategy. Vaccination can be used in two quite different ways. One approach is to use a national policy of vaccination as a protection mechanism against foot and mouth disease. That is not a policy adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission. It is, however, accepted that emergency vaccination can play a role in controlling an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, either to establish zones of protection between infected areas and the rest of the country, or to reduce the number of cases in disease hot spots. The Commission has already agreed to the possible temporary use of vaccination in such circumstances by the Dutch authorities.

"Vaccination is no easy option. It would be expected to delay full return to international trade, at least for the region affected, and would be likely to require tight additional controls, at least in the area concerned. We would need to consider, with the Commission, whether it was necessary in due course to slaughter vaccinated animals, with compensation, as part of a return to normal trading. The Government are considering whether to use vaccination. I have therefore authorised my representative in the EU Standing Veterinary Committee to seek a contingent decision permitting the use of vaccination during the present outbreak, so that it can be deployed immediately if we conclude that it is the right approach.

"We have done a great deal to help farmers financially. That includes full compensation for animals slaughtered on disease grounds, the provision of agrimonetary compensation and the preservation of CAP subsidy entitlements under EU rules on force majeure. In addition, last week I opened the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme as an outlet of last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of FMD-related movement restrictions. The scheme provides for the removal and disposal of animals, for which the Government will bear the costs. At 90 per cent of pre-outbreak market value, the tariffs for the animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The detailed payment rates are being placed today in the Libraries of both Houses. The estimated value to farmers of this optional scheme obviously depends on take-up, but is now likely to be in excess of £200 million.

"I shall turn now to what we know about the possible causes of the current outbreak, the spread of infection and the differences between this outbreak and the 1967 outbreak. It is likely that the source farm from which the outbreak subsequently spread was the fourth infected premises to be discovered at Heddon-on-the-Wall.

"Honourable Members will be aware of speculation that the practice of feeding swill to pigs was a cause or the cause of the outbreak. The farm in question at Heddon was licensed to feed swill to pigs. Epidemiological and other investigations continue. The House will understand if I do not comment on the specifics of the case.

"The subsequent spread of infection is traceable to some extent. Virus from the source farm spread to seven other farms in Tyne and Wear. Sheep from one of these farms were sent to Hexham market on 13th February. Sheep from the 13th February market at Hexham were sent to markets at Longtown and further dispersed from there over the period 14th–24th February. So within days, at a time when we were still unaware of the disease, infected sheep were criss-crossing the country in hundreds of separate movements, putting them into contact with other livestock.

"From Longtown market, sheep were sent to markets at Carlisle on 16th February; Welshpool on 19th February; to dealers at Highampton in Devon, Lockerbie in Dumfries and Galloway, Dearham in Cumbria and Nantwich in Cheshire; and indirectly to markets at Hatherleigh on 20th February, Hereford on 21st February, Northampton on 22nd February and Ross-on-Wye on 23rd February.

"While tracing movements of pigs from the index farm has proved relatively straightforward, tracking movements of sheep has proved more difficult and in some cases impossible. This is partly due to unrecorded sales of sheep, which it seems took place around the edges of the various livestock markets without passing through the markets' books.

"Over the past four weeks many comparisons have been drawn with the 1967 outbreak. The truth is that the two outbreaks are very different. The key differences between this outbreak and 1967 are the speed and geographical scale of the spread of infection, which result from a number of factors, and the species involved. Experts agree that the current outbreak is unprecedented internationally.

"First, time had elapsed before the infection at the probable source farm was disclosed. The suspicious lesions found on pigs at Heddon-on-the-Wall on 22nd February suggest that they had been incubating the disease for at least two and possibly up to three weeks. By 23rd February, when infection was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall, infected animals had already spread through markets and dealers to Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, Devon, Cheshire, Herefordshire and Northamptonshire.

"Linked to this, the second factor in the speed and scale of spread was the larger scale of animal movements nowadays compared to 1967, aided by a much improved network of roads and motorways.

"A third factor was the fact that the infection spread quickly to sheep, and then among sheep, which, because of the nature of sheep flocks and the way they are traded, made the course of the infection more difficult to trace. The 1967 outbreak was mainly in pigs and cattle. The strain of the virus we are currently dealing with does not manifest itself clearly in sheep, which makes detection difficult. Apparently healthy animals may be disease carriers.

"I am announcing four actions in response to this assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The first measure relates to pigswill. I am today proposing a ban on the use of swill feeding in this country.

"I accept that the arguments in favour and against allowing the practice are quite finely balanced. If the statutory conditions for feeding swill are complied with—heating at 100 degrees Centigrade for one hour—it does not present a risk of transmitting foot and mouth disease and other similar pathogens. Nor will banning swill feeding necessarily prevent the risk of illegal feeding of swill and catering waste to pigs, for example, possibly by owners of small numbers of pigs.

"However, I have concluded that the potential risk of swill feeding introducing disease to livestock farms where swill is not used—and to the wider community—is now greater than the benefits to the relatively small number of premises which continue to adopt this practice. That is why I am proposing an early ban. My department is today issuing a public consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the principle and detailed application of such a ban.

"Meanwhile, let me remind the owners of all pigs in the country, including pet pigs, to comply with the current law. It is illegal to feed untreated household waste or any other materials that may contain meat products.

"I am also issuing a second consultation document today containing a proposal to introduce a 20-day standstill period, after movement, for sheep, goats and cattle.

"There are rules on the identification and movement of pigs, including a general requirement that no pigs should be moved off premises within 20 days of any pigs moving on to those premises. If a similar requirement had been in place, and observed, in relation to sheep in particular, it is likely that the spread of the foot and mouth virus would have been significantly slowed down, making tracing and control of the infection easier.

"I am minded therefore to introduce legislation to require a 20-day standstill period for sheep, goats and cattle, subject to the views of interested parties. That is why I am launching a full consultation exercise today.

"Thirdly, we know that somehow infection has entered this country. One possible way is through illegal commercial imports of meat where contents have not been declared. There is clearly an issue here about carrier liability to which the Government will be giving careful thought. Another possibility is that infected produce may have come in as a personal import. Rules already exist to control such imports. The rules must be enforced effectively. I am coordinating action across government to ensure this happens. I will also be writing to Commissioner Byrne to stress that a consistent and tough approach needs to be taken across the EU.

"Lastly, once we are beyond the current difficulties, my department will be looking at a range of other issues surrounding the operation of the livestock sector to see if more may be done to minimise disease risks still further. This work will include the operation of markets—and in particular out-of-ring sales—and on the identification and tracing of pigs, sheep and goats.

"In all these matters I will be acting in close consultation with the devolved administrations.

"This has been a dreadful time for farmers and others directly affected by FMD. I believe that our policy of containment of the disease is the right one and that the massive logistical exercise required to implement it is being reinforced. We will succeed in eradicating this disease. In addition, I believe the measures that I have announced today will ensure we learn the lessons and minimise the risks of such a tragedy in the future".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.28 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is a very long Statement—it took the Minister some 16 minutes to read—and it would have been helpful if I had received a copy a little earlier. That is why—I hope that the House will forgive me—I was not in my place when the Minister started reading the Statement. It has come to us quite late on this occasion.

I again pay credit and give thanks to all those who are working to control and eradicate this dreadful disease. The number of cases has now risen to 668 and continues to rise. I suspect and hope that the Government will acknowledge that at the moment the disease is totally out of control, something that they have not admitted so far.

The new measures mentioned in the Statement—particularly as regards pigswill and the suggested 20-day standstill—are supported by the Opposition. However, as I understand the Statement, those steps will not be introduced straightaway but will follow a consultation period. Can the Minister say how long the consultation will take and how quickly the Government will act upon the findings?

As outlined in the Statement, the original outbreak is likely to have been caused by the illegal import of meat, either commercially or as a personal import. The Minister said that the Government are to tighten up on the procedures. What restrictions does the Minister envisage the Government imposing, presumably in conjunction with their overseas colleagues? It is not something which can be done by this country alone.

I turn to the question of vaccination. Although the Statement says clearly that vaccination is not a. policy adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission, it recognises that zonal management may be agreed if necessary but that that will be in an emergency. Do I take it, therefore, that if there is a move to vaccination the Government are admitting that the disease has got out of control and beyond control?

Fourthly, the Minister mentioned the welfare disposal scheme, which we support. Ninety per cent of the pre-outbreak market value is acceptable.

The Minister referred to the quick spread of the disease compared with the outbreak in 1967. While I accept that there is much more movement of animals than there was in those days, the Government's response was too slow initially and the disease spread too quickly. The Minister said that there was no blueprint. But after the episode in 1967 there was indeed a blueprint which suggested that two points were crucial: one was immediate slaughter; the other was burial. It is only in recent weeks that burial has become part of the Government's armoury. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. The ministry's scientific adviser said on the radio only last week that it would make a huge difference in bringing the disease under control if slaughter took place within 24 hours and disposal within the next 24 hours. But, according to government figures, 640,000 animals are waiting to be slaughtered, and in the past 24 hours only some 31,000 animals have been slaughtered. My maths is not enormously good, but at that rate it would take eight days to clear the backlog, let alone deal with any new cases. The Minister mentioned extra measures. What measures are the Government bringing in, first, to get rid of the backlog and, secondly, to anticipate future cases?

At the moment, I feel that we are "treading water backwards"—an expression that I have used to colleagues in Cumbria. This simply cannot go on. What extra resources are being provided? The Minister will remember that during the debate on the Statement on 11th March I raised the question of the extra vets that were needed and the extra use of hunt servants. I also referred to bringing in the Army. I was told at that stage that it was quite all right and that we had all the support that was necessary. Since then it has become clear that that was not true.

A target of 24 hours is important. But at present there is precious little progress in some areas. I was speaking only this morning to a farmer in Cumbria who said that a neighbouring farmer was suspicious on Sunday that his animals might have the disease but it took until Wednesday for the vet to confirm its presence. This simply cannot go on.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a number of other questions. Does the figure of 264,000 animals awaiting slaughter also include suspect cases, or is it the total figure for animals confirmed to be at risk of the disease?

There is a great deal of pressure from all quarters to consider vaccination. If the EU accepts that we can use vaccination, will that affect our chances of exporting animals in the future? Obviously, there has been a big export market, particularly for sheep, and this is hugely important to people who may be affected by such a move.

Finally, there is the question of people who are offering help. I heard of a vet who had offered help and whose offer was turned down. Who is deciding which people should be accepted and under what circumstances, be it vets or hunt servants? That is an important consideration.

We have been going through some very difficult times. We pay credit to those who are tackling these matters. Our sympathies go out to the many thousands of families who have been directly affected. It is bad enough seeing your livestock and your life's work destroyed before you. But the prospect is one of months and months before a return to normality. I am sure that the whole House shares my feeling. We look forward to the Minister's response.

4.35 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, from these Benches we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We welcome the four measures mentioned. The public, I believe, will particularly welcome the ban on pigswill. It has been a long time coming. People felt repugnance as they began to realise the extent to which cannibalism has been forced upon farm animals. In this country we are finally taking responsibility for the fact that animals should be fed on more suitable food.

Perhaps I may touch briefly on the fourth measure. Although the Government say that they will examine a whole range of issues surrounding the operation of the livestock sector, that seems slightly negative in tone. I hope that in view of the fact that, in one way or another, exports will be more difficult, particularly if vaccination is introduced, the positive side of the fourth measure will be much more heavily emphasised. I mention, for example—as we always do—the number of small abattoirs. I gather that a number of those who are presently trying to keep open such businesses may see them closed. We may have fewer than 350 by next year. If the Government accept that the small infrastructure that is left to the livestock industry should to be strengthened and supported so that we can have a local home market that works, the fourth measure is crucial and its tone needs to be positive.

I should like to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. She mentioned that we are making full use of the resources of the Army. However, I assume that there are further resources that could be drawn on should that be deemed necessary. I shall return to that point at the end of my remarks and the Minister will understand why.

The Minister mentioned a target of 24 hours between identifying the infection and the culling of affected animals. I repeat the question posed, although not so specifically, by the Conservative Front Bench: what is the target time between culling and disposal, and does it vary by region?

I return to an issue I raised last Tuesday during the debate on the Statement on foot and mouth and the rural economy. I asked the Minister about road closures, particularly in vulnerable areas. It seems that local authorities do not have the power to close minor roads; this is causing particular concern. Many national parks and AONBs are very vulnerable given that livestock strays on to minor roads because the roads are unfenced. Indeed, sheep are known to lie down on the tarmac because it is warm and dry. It may be that the Ministry of Agriculture did not feel that it was necessary to give local authorities the power to close minor roads, although the power was given to close footpaths and bridleways. I must draw the Minister's attention to a comment made by a MAFF vet, quoted today in the Independent: This is a popular tourist area and we get a lot of vehicle traffic through here. There's [also] farm traffic [which could have brought] foot-and-mouth in from other parts of Cumbria. If we can establish this was vehicle-related and there are no other adjacent cases, it would be the best possible result I understand what he means by "the best possible result", but the fact that MAFF is now considering more definitely the idea that the infection can be vehicle-borne means that the ability to close minor roads is critical. People in Nidderdale told me this morning that lorries from Cumbria are taking a short cut through the valley to reach Yorkshire; those in other places are equally concerned. I must mention Exmoor because of the red deer herd. If the disease gets into that herd, it will be impossible to eradicate. Similarly, people in the Quantocks are very worried; there are roads that are simply used as a short cut and other routes are available.

People involved in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks rely on stock widely grazing for reasons of character and biodiversity; and, indeed, for the few jobs that are left to them. I cannot emphasise enough that those concerned feel strongly that they need to have reasonable powers to enable them to close roads, where it seems necessary. No one wants to see blanket road closures because, obviously, the tourism industry would then be hard hit. Therefore, will the Minister urgently reconsider extending the MAFF order to this effect, which I gather would take only a matter of days? Otherwise, we may believe that we are safe because we have closed footpaths and bridleways, but that may be pointless if we have left open those routes that bring the biggest volume of movement through such areas.

4.40 p.m.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses from the Front Benches opposite for their general support for the measures that I have announced this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the timetable involved. I cannot give her a definitive answer on the timetable for the standstill for 20 days of movement of sheep and cattle. However. the noble Baroness will understand that the period of that consultation is, in some sense, academic because we have national controls on movements at present. No movements, other than those under licence, are permitted. I shall certainly seek to find that information for the noble Baroness. The time-scale will obviously form part of the consultation document. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not getting a copy of the Statement to her earlier. Perhaps I may tell her that I did not have it for a great deal of time myself, so I am sure she will understand what I mean as regards keeping it back.

As for the consultation on pigswill, I can tell the House that the period is, I believe, two weeks. Some animal welfare issues must be considered relating to the withdrawal of a method of feeding to which animals are accustomed; for example, over-night changes have to be factored into the process. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured to know that, at the beginning of the episode, we reinforced the inspection of the licensing of licensed pigswill premises to ensure that they were carrying on their operations in a way that would provide protection against the virus.

As I explained when repeating the Statement, we now feel able, the balance of risk having moved, to recommend an overall ban in line with two other European countries—namely, Luxembourg and Portugal. However, this is not territory that has not previously been considered. Similarly, it is not that we suddenly found that, as regulated, the practice is dangerous. The danger is rather analogous to the BSE danger about cross-contamination. policing, enforcement, and other such issues.

I understand the concern that we should put every necessary effort into this operation. Perhaps I may assure the House that, across government, that work is being mobilised. The noble Baroness asked me whether the figures as regards animals authorised for slaughter represented only confirmed cases. I can tell her that it is not only confirmed cases; it is also dangerous contact. We are certainly acting to a 24-hour timetable in that respect. The noble Baroness was right to work out an arithmetical calculation on getting rid of the backlog, but I have to point out to her that that assumes no ramping up of facilities. There has been an enormous ramping up of facilities, especially in Cumbria and in terms of landfill sites, which it is to be hoped will allow us to tackle the backlog in a much speedier time frame than the one suggested by the noble Baroness.

Perhaps I may make the position absolutely clear to the noble Baroness. If she looks back to previous Statements, she will see that it has never been a question of burial being ruled out in the past, and suddenly becoming available. It was always an option. However, as I have told the House previously, because of the potential contamination of water courses and the water table at present, as well as the large size of the herds and flocks with which we are dealing, it is a much more difficult option now than was the case in 1967. Moreover, in a post-BSE world, which was not the case in 1967, we also have to take into account the added issue about cattle—that is, cattle that may be over 30 months old.

The noble Baroness said that there was no blueprint. I have never suggested that there was no blueprint in this respect. Indeed, I am very aware of the Northumberland report, and its recommendations, that came about as a result of the 1967 outbreak. I believe I said that there was no blueprint for assessing what the pattern of that outbreak and epidemic would be when you have found one case of foot and mouth disease in the country. When repeating the Statement, I tried to spell out very clearly the reasons why this outbreak looks very different from that of 1967. That outbreak involved pigs and cattle and was identified much more quickly, but it did not involve the need to consider sheep—those "invisible carriers of disease", if I may put it that way—and their movements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me about vaccination. Yes, we are considering this option; and, of course, it would have an effect on exports in the future. That is why these decisions, the comparative effects of different policies as regards getting back to disease-free status and, therefore, the ability to export products, are all part of a finely-balanced process. The role of vaccination is one that must be carefully assessed.

I am sorry, but I cannot tell the noble Baroness who turned down the application of an individual vet, or why. The last time that I checked the position we had 1,200 vets, as opposed to 220 in the State Veterinary Service when we started. We are accepting help, whenever necessary. I should be most upset if there were improper grounds for turning down applications from people who wish to assist. If the noble Baroness has any evidence in that respect, I undertake to carry it forward and look into the matter. Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene?

Baroness Byford

Yes, my Lords. I wanted to know who makes the decision in these cases. It is not a matter of how many. Can the Minister say who makes the decision and at what level; for example, is it made at regional, local or national level? Indeed, what about the hunt servants? Someone must be making those decisions somewhere along the line.

Baroness Hayman

Yes, my Lords; someone is making those decisions. They are being made at a variety of levels, especially locally. However, I should like to hit on the head the idea that hunt servants are being turned down on ideological grounds. I checked this out earlier. We have been extremely grateful for the support from hunt servants in a variety of areas. I believe that a contingent of either 10 or 20—I am sorry, I cannot recall which—offered through the Countryside Alliance has moved into Carlisle to help with the cull in the area. Those offers of help are much appreciated and, indeed, are being accepted. There is the route through the British Veterinary Association, which opened up lines, and individual animal health offices are getting local offers from vets. However, when it is a case of private sector vets coming in, the noble Baroness will understand that they are able only to give a limited proportion of their time in the area. They are not as moveable a commodity as an American or an Australian vet who comes to this country for the duration of the operation and can, therefore, offer more help.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made some important points. She pointed out particularly that, in the midst of all this, we must also consider the long-term effects and the structure of the industry in the aftermath. As for roads, I can assure the noble Baroness that I recognise the worries that currently exist. As regards the legal position, I believe that the Minister has powers under the animal health Act to close roads for disease-control purposes, and that local authorities now have those powers under the amended foot and mouth disease order of 1983. However, there has not been veterinary advice that the risk is sufficient to justify invoking them. I believe that those concerned in areas like the Dartmoor National Park have issued guidance, rather than trying to invoke road closures. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point.

4.50 p.m.

Lord Boardman

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I have two questions. First, the disease was announced on a Monday. It was not until late on the Friday that the movement restrictions were introduced. In the interim many sheep were moved, for example from Devon to Northampton market. With hindsight is not that something that we regret very much? Secondly, if the disease arises from bonemeal or infected swill, to what extent are the carcasses of the sheep that have been killed liable to spread the infection when fed on by birds and other wildlife?

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, the noble Lord asked about the time frame for the movement restrictions. The disease was not announced on a Monday. On the Monday afternoon a suspect case was reported and restrictions were placed on the abattoir where it was reported. Noble Lords will be aware that every year a number of suspect cases are reported. The procedure I have mentioned is standard. It was confirmed the next day. We then issued a press release. I came to your Lordships' House on the Wednesday and announced that we had a case and the measures that had been taken.

At that time we still believed that we had a localised case in Essex with no further cases. As soon as the Heddon-on-the-Wall case was discovered, with the discovery of lesions that were more than 24 to 48 hours old—in practice they were three weeks old—internal movement restrictions were imposed. I must make clear that export licences were withdrawn administratively on the Tuesday and, legally, on the Wednesday. Action was taken. I am sure that the noble Lord has 20:20 hindsight. One can always make improvements. However, I believe that proportionate measures were taken. At that time some people claimed that there had been over-reaction.

As regards the sheep carcasses spreading infection, I repeat the veterinary advice that has been given all along; namely, that when animals are dead they stop exhaling the virus. The carcasses are treated with disinfectant. Rigor mortis sets in; pH levels are lowered. The infection could reside only in bone and bone marrow rather than in meat. Therefore, there is not a major risk of spread of disease from carcasses.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I declare an interest in that we have a farm with cattle, sheep and goats in an infected area. The Statement referred to cattle, sheep and pigs in terms of the pre-emptive cull. However, goats were not mentioned. I am receiving many telephone calls from people who keep goats who want to know what the position is. Will the noble Baroness please tell us what it is? I understand that goats are not being slaughtered as they are kept indoors and are carefully watched.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned veterinary and slaughtermen volunteers. It may he that they are not being turned down by MAFF but the message is not getting through to MAFF. I have received a number of letters on that subject after my comments last week. I hope that the Minister will consider establishing a central telephone number for volunteers to ring. I have heard of volunteers who are willing to go from Devon to anywhere and to work all the hours that God sends, and to work at the old rate, the Minister will be pleased to hear.

I understand that one of the objections to foot and mouth vaccine is that one cannot tell whether an animal has been vaccinated or has had the infection. I understand that there is a good American test which tests serum and will differentiate between the two cases. In view of the fact that our export industry will be totally decimated before the disease is finished, will the Minister please consider that test? If she wants information, I shall provide it.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I shall certainly pursue the idea of a central telephone number. There is, of course, a central helpline but I suspect that people may be encountering difficulties in being forwarded to relevant areas. I shall take the relevant details from the noble Countess.

She is absolutely right to say that one of the downsides of vaccination that has always been asserted is the difficulty of differentiating between antibodies that are present due to disease and those that are present due to vaccination. I understand that markers may be used to allow one to differentiate between the two cases. The Chief Scientific Adviser is taking that work forward.

As regards goats, I understand why some people are confused as the advice is not always as clear as I would wish. Before the end of the Session I may get the chance to clarify the position. As I understand the position, when infected premises are being "slaughtered out", goats are slaughtered. Dangerous contacts that are "slaughtered out" could include susceptible species such as goats, llama or alpaca. The three-kilometre cull in Cumbria concerned only sheep and pigs. The only ambiguity arises as regards contiguous premises where I understand that all susceptible livestock are subject to the measure. However, I hope that I shall be able to clarify that point quickly.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, although we welcome the level of compensation, will the value of an animal be based on its age before the outbreak or on its present age? I declare an interest as I have tenant farmers who have animals which they have not been able to move and whose value has fallen dramatically.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, value is assessed at pre-foot and mouth disease levels. That is obviously the most important factor for most people. There is a specific issue with regard to cattle over 30 months as, due to restrictions, some animals attain an age of over 30 months before they can be slaughtered. Therefore, they have a lesser value than they would have had at 29 months if they had entered the food chain at that point. The NFU has raised that issue with us and it is under consideration. However, I cannot give a policy answer on that today.

Baroness Mallalieu

My Lords, I suspect that the Minister is aware that there are real difficulties as regards welfare movement licence applications, particularly in the South West. Some animals are calving and lambing in wholly unsuitable places. Some sheep have run out of food and food cannot be taken to them. The applications are taking over a week to process. I understand that that is not through lack of effort on the part of those in the relevant departments but they are overwhelmed by the number of applications. There is considerable concern that applications under the welfare disposal scheme will take a similar length of time to process. Does the Minister accept that farmers are under pressure when they see their animals deteriorate? At the same time constant attempts to speed things up are not, apparently, meeting with a response. Is there some hope that those officials that are under pressure can be given extra help to cut process times?

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I recognise the problem to which my noble friend alludes. We are trying hard to draw separate streams of people to operate the different schemes that are being set in motion. In the past five weeks we have reorganised the whole of the livestock industry in this country. We have introduced completely new schemes in terms of licensing livestock to enter the food chain. That requires a whole stream of people to implement.

The short distance welfare movement scheme, the longer distance welfare movement scheme and the welfare disposal scheme comprise an enormous administrative task. It has not been possible to deal with them instantaneously because sometimes the same people are dealing with them. I understand that people have experienced frustrations in trying to access those schemes. We are trying to allocate extra resources to the schemes. Sometimes it is just a case of providing 20 new fax machines, as occurred in the Cambridge regional office at one point.

The welfare disposal scheme will be run through the intervention board. It is to be hoped, therefore, that it will not draw on the same resources and overburden the same people as the welfare licensing scheme. I recognise what the noble Baroness says and I shall look at the specific problems in the South West.

Lord Monro of Langholm

My Lords, I come from a List D firebreak farm. I am so glad that the Army is now in place. I wish that it had been there two weeks ago.

Will the Minister accept that the greatest worry of farmers is fear of the unknown? Can the Government speak with one voice on their slaughter policy? Will it be cattle or sheep? What is the disposal policy? When will it happen? Farmers do not know and cannot find out what their future, even a week ahead, holds.

Finally, the automatic valuation of a ewe with lamb is £90. It is not stated whether that includes one, two or three lambs. The valuation includes £40 for a lamb. Any lamb born this year is a lamb, so will we receive £40, plus £90 for the ewe? What is the new valuation? These matters are of crucial importance to farmers who are at present in a desperate situation.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I hope that the schedule which has been published may answer some of the noble Lord's questions. When I spoke to farmers' leaders in Exeter, they were comfortable with the rates being offered under the scheme. If there is a problem on the issues the noble Lord raises, I shall examine it.

I understand that farmers want certainty. However, we have to consider regionally sensitive policies which are appropriate to the area. Therefore in some areas one may be talking about a contiguous farm policy that deals with all animals. In other areas, there may be a three-kilometre policy which deals with sheep and pigs because the area is assessed on a veterinary basis as a source of infection.

Disposal will be whatever logistical advice—it is often Army advice—is the most appropriate in that area. It may be landfill, if that is possible, or movement to a large fire if that will be most effective.

We must ensure that individual farmers have individual certainty by giving them contact which is reliable and goes through the process with them. When two people were allocated to infected premises in Exeter, one of the roles of the Army was to stay with the farmer as his point of contact throughout the process from contact to eventual disposal.

Since we are talking of disposal, I can clarify for the noble Countess the situation concerning goats. I am not sure that it will be welcome clarity. The three-kilometre culls include sheep, pig and goats; infected premises and dangerous contacts include contiguous premises. Goats are treated in the same way as sheep.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Forest of Dean, which is an infected area, sheep have traditionally wandered loose, not only in the forest but on adjacent land? I must confess that that includes land which we farm. Is the noble Baroness aware that to our amazement those sheep remain at large and continue to invade adjacent land. They have not been culled or rounded up. Do not these free-ranging sheep constitute an obvious major risk of spreading infection and are they not a cause of frustration and despair to local farmers seeking to protect their animals? Why has not the situation been dealt with? It is a localised state of affairs, but I suspect that it could be replicated all over the country. How can farmers be expected to believe in the efficacy of government measures when this patent risk remains?

On another topic, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip said earlier, we have already had six Statements or debates on this crisis. What is to replace the scrutiny of the ongoing situation if Parliament is dissolved in the near future?

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I can come to the House of Lords if the noble Lord would like to come! I cannot answer that question. If Parliament is not sitting, I cannot report to it. While it is sitting, I shall continue to report to it whenever I can.

As regards the Forest of Dean, I do not know the veterinary assessment on the free-ranging sheep. I shall find out. Whether something is a patent risk has to be assessed locally on veterinary opinion and the risk either managed or dealt with. That is the approach we are taking. The noble Lord is concerned about this particular area. I shall follow up what he says and write to him.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Lord Vinson

My Lords—

Lord Carter

My Lords, there is plenty of time available. I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and then the noble Lord, Lord Vinson.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior

My Lords, the whole House and indeed the country will be grateful to hear that the process is being speeded up. The Minister must be aware of the severe criticism by the farming community over the handling of this matter. However, I know that my contacts in Cumbria will be grateful.

Will the noble Baroness agree that vaccination is not the immediate way forward? As soon as infection is diagnosed in a flock or herd, it is important that the animals are killed within a very short time. The vaccine is a more long-term protection—if one goes in that direction. It takes several days before protection is effective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will look closely at vaccination with all its implications.

It is now clear that a limited number of sheep dealers in the north of England have been responsible in many ways for this explosive outbreak through the not necessarily illicit but unauthorised movement of sheep bought and sold when official markets have closed. Will action be taken against those people who have caused so many problems, so much hardship and so much fear among livestock owners?

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, perhaps I may repeat what I said in the Statement. We shall look at the operation of markets, and particularly out-of-ring sales, identification and tracing as a longer-term follow-up.

The noble Lord is right about the downside of vaccination: it is not an alternative to speedy slaughter of diagnosed animals. From the beginning the chief vet set 24 hours as the target. That has been reinforced as the single most effective measure. However, these are not either/or issues. In some cases, in particular when one has cattle which are at present housed inside and will in time come outside to pasture land which may be infected, there may be a role for vaccination and time for vaccination to become effective to safeguard those cattle.

The general view is that vaccination of sheep is a difficult and not particularly effective measure. But a limited vaccination of cattle in some circumstances, in particular where animals have been housed for the winter, may be effective.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and previously as chairman of the Rural Development Commission. Perhaps I may put forward one suggestion to the Minister. If this plague gets out of hand, the national milk supply could become endangered. It may be sensible to consider vaccinating milk cows, mostly Friesians, and not subsequently cull them. They are all fully registered. There are now wonderful records of all of them. None needs to go into the export chain. It is pretty poor quality meat which is seldom exported anyway. Perhaps that concept can be considered; it may save the national milk supply.

Secondly, many small farmers are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Using their compensation for laying off long-serving staff will nibble away at their capital. I have two suggestions. First, the Government should consider reintroducing the redundancy rebate system to help with redundancy costs. Secondly, we should approach our European lords and masters to sec if an early retirement package can be introduced to compensate those people in the same way as early retirement packages for those in industries such as steel and coal.

I do not suppose that there is time for an answer, but I should be grateful if the Minister can take note of those points.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, our EC partners have been very helpful in providing support on issues such as force majeure, grazing on set-aside land, schemes that need state aid clearance and the possibility of an early retirement scheme, which the noble Lord rightly mentioned. That is being considered. I shall certainly consider the redundancy rebate argument, which has been mentioned before in your Lordships' House. We are working with the Department of Social Security on making jobseeker's allowance and the working families' tax credit more flexible. The noble Lord's point about the milk supply follows on from my response to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. Vaccination may be an option in some areas, possibly even without slaughter, although that has further consequences. It is one of the limited applications of vaccination at which we are looking.