Agricultural Shows: Biosecurity (Hansard, 23 May 2002)

§ The Earl of Onslow
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether regulations on biosecurity, including those applying to cow-pats, will impose any limitations on agricultural shows planned for this year.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, the veterinary advice to government is that livestock shows pose a small but significant risk of the transmission of foot and mouth and other notifiable diseases. The biosecurity conditions attached to the shows' licence are designed to minimise that risk. The Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations and other stakeholders have played a positive role in the development of the biosecurity conditions, which are intended to cause the minimum limitation on livestock shows this year.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading out the Answer that he gave to a Written Question asked by my noble friend Lady Byford. If we have foot and mouth disease in this country, there should be no cattle shows. If we do not have foot and mouth disease in this country, it is impossible to spread it. So why do we impose terrible damage on agricultural shows—several of which are unable to allow sheep, cattle or pigs to be present? Why do we have this ridiculous rule? Either we have foot and mouth disease, in which case there should be no shows; or we do not and there should be no silly regulations.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, in view of the devastation of British agriculture during the past few months—the past year—that is an irresponsible attitude. It would not be sensible for the House to support it. I recognise that I have given the same Answer to other noble Lords, because the same position applies.
If there were another outbreak of foot and mouth or, indeed, any other notifiable disease, we know that the mingling of animals, and transmission from people who have handled animals to other animals, present the highest risk. That means that shows are a risk for the spread of the disease. Any responsible government and organiser of a show will observe the kind of biosecurity arrangements that we propose.
The noble Earl is a little out of date. Under the previous rules, several organisers found it difficult to hold shows earlier this year. The vast majority of shows will go ahead—as from a couple of weeks ago, for sheep as well as for cattle.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, in view of the new rules concerning farm animals at agricultural shows, will the Government insist that all footpaths crossing farmland where livestock graze should be closed with immediate effect?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, if I may say so, that is atypically illogical of the noble Baroness. The restriction on shows where livestock is shown—which may host thousands of people—is that animals are not to be handled and that the possibility is minimised of disease from what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, delicately referred to in his Question as cow-pats, being transmitted to other animals. The situation with ramblers is entirely different. The risk is absolutely minimal; there is not a single case of the transfer of the 880 disease due to walkers. It is only when people who handle animals then handle other animals that there is a risk of the spread of the disease. In view of the enormous damage done to parts of the rural economy by the closure of footpaths during the early part of the epidemic last year, it is not sensible for the Government to restrict access to farms when the risk is so minimal.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the cost to individual shows, such as the Royal Bath and West Show, which he will visit next week and which will spend about £70,000 on biosecurity measures alone? Does he therefore understand the frustration that the rules appear to be interpreted differently in different parts of the country by his department? For example, the Royal Bath and West will have to scoop up cow-pats and cover the area with sawdust, but its organisers say that other shows will not have to do the same. Will the Minister ensure that the interpretation of the rules is fair and equal?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, there is a slight problem of differential interpretation—possibly by officials but also by show organisers themselves. The rules regarding cow-pats relate only to the area where the public move if livestock are moved across those paths. Of itself, that is not a huge expense. Indeed, most shows would undertake that to the best of their ability in any case—regulations or no regulations. There are additional costs, which may be significant for large shows, but for the vast majority of shows the conditions can and are being met now that the post-15th May rules are known.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a fundamental fallacy underlies the Question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow? He presumes that having foot and mouth disease in the country, and knowing that you have, are contemporaneous events and that there is therefore no need for precautionary measures. I should have thought that the most cursory analysis of the most recent outbreak—when we now know that there was unreported disease in the country for at least four weeks—would suggest that a precautionary approach is in order.

§ Lord Whitty
Absolutely, my Lords. It is one of the great lessons of the outbreak that we must take precautions all the time. We are not returning to the situation that prevailed with movements or biosecurity before the latest outbreak. Many diseases may, in one way or another, break out in the country. We must ensure maximum observance of the rules, but minimum restriction in how those rules are applied to shows and to other movements.

§ Lord Glentoran
My Lords, does the Minister agree that those organisers of shows who have successfully staged them despite considerable difficulties deserve our congratulations and support? Furthermore, the 881 same should apply to the owners of livestock who have fought through the red tape and successfully brought their livestock to shows.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am entirely willing to endorse the noble Lord's remarks. In the early part of the year it still appeared that many of those shows would not take place, or would do so only under severe restrictions. I am glad to say that many shows have now been held successfully and I congratulate both the organisers and those who have shown at them.

§ Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that we are now treating the agricultural economy and the country as though we have a permanent foot and mouth epidemic? Are the regulations, which so hinder agricultural shows, permanent or temporary?

§ Lord Whitty
No, my Lords. The noble Lord, who follows these matters carefully, will note that the restrictions on movements, markets and shows have been progressively relaxed as the disease status has altered. However, in view of the devastation caused by the disease, both we and other European governments will be wise to recognise that some restriction on movement is necessary in all circumstances—in peacetime, as it were—to ensure that undetected disease does not spread in the devastating way that the foot and mouth epidemic spread.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, to some of us, it appears odd that any spokesman for his department should be so irrational as to accuse my noble friend Lady Trumpington of illogicality? That is a classic case of a rather grubby pot calling a brand new kettle black.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, speaking as a grubby pot, I must say that I prefaced my remarks about the question asked by the noble Baroness by expressing surprise. I thought that, for once, she had been slightly illogical. Normally, the House would not expect that of her, but on this occasion, there was a certain lack of logic in her intervention.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I could not possibly disagree with that.

§ Earl Ferrers
My Lords, will the Minister explain exactly what regulations apply to cow-pats?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, part of the biosecurity regulations relates to the areas across which livestock might move and in which the public also move. The noble Earl may wish me to read them out, but I think 882 that that would strain the tolerance of the House. The regulations relate to those public areas and only those areas.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, before we move to the next Question—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I am in order. There is plenty of time.
I have a simple question for the Minister. Does his department believe that there is residual foot and mouth disease in the country, as implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, it was clear from the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that she was not implying anything of the sort. She said that experience had taught us in a devastating way that we could not assume that there was no disease—foot and mouth disease or any other—in the country simply because it had not been reported. We must, therefore, take precautionary measures.
In the Government's view, the country is FMD-free and has been for the period required by the international community. However, if there is unreported FMD in this country or other countries, the disease can spread. We must have some controls relating to the areas where the risk of the occurrence of the disease is highest.