---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, I think that this is the first time in my years in this House that I have been able to say that it is good to follow my noble kinsman. It was our common ancestor who bribed his parliamentary colleagues in Scotland with huge amounts of Queen Anne's money in order to sign the Act of Union. It sounds as though my noble kinsman is trying to put matters right. I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her well-earned appointment. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to his position on the Front Bench and wish him well, although I do not envy his task. I declare my interests as a partner, with my husband, in our small farm and as a specialist cheese maker. The Queen, in her speech, made only two references to matters rural by saying: "My Government are committed to achieving sustainable development and supporting rural services. Legislation will be brought forward to ensure the better management and protection of the natural environment and to provide support for rural communities". As those are very vague aspirations, I propose to confine myself to some narrow points. The Minister knows of my interest in the links between pesticide exposure and human ill health from his previous incarnation with the MoD. I am also concerned about aspects of animal health and, in particular, the regulations that purport to promote or protect animal and often human health. In reality, I am concerned about the quality of the science that underpins many of these regulations. I must confess that when I first started, some 13 years ago now, to question Her Majesty's Government about the use of organophosphates in sheep dips, I trusted the system that we were, and are, told relies on rigorous testing, peer review, licensing by independent committees and post-marketing surveillance. I soon found that there is no independent testing. "Rigorous testing" means tests performed by the manufacturers and relies on data produced only for laboratory quality, active ingredients. No tests are performed on the trade products which contain emulsifiers and surfactants designed to increase the effectiveness of a biocide. No tests are performed on the breakdown products which develop after use. For example, the breakdown products of diazinon, the most common active ingredient in sheep dips, are known to be more toxic than the original chemical, but I understand that no tests are required for them. At one stage phenolic disinfectants were added to sheep dips. I am reliably informed that not only are they highly toxic in themselves, but also that they enhance the ill-effects on humans exposed to diazinon. Incidentally, Lister, who discovered its disinfectant properties, died from phenol poisoning. For many of the biocides there are huge gaps in the safety data. Effects on the immune, endocrine, reproductive and nervous systems are frequently absent from the data. Post-marketing surveillance is solely reliant on individuals reporting adverse effects either to the licensing authority or to the manufacturers. Neither of these is an effective way of detecting any of the harmful effects of long-term, low-level exposure to these products. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides seems to draw its conclusions on the likely effects of reported incidents in the absence of any medical or toxicological data which might provide evidence of a causal link. It is hardly surprising that only rarely do they find a cause-and-effect link. This is a far from satisfactory state of affairs. If we are to go on using toxic chemicals as quick fixes for undesirable flora and fauna, we do need to know what we are doing to vulnerable humans. I am particularly concerned about the increasingly reported subtle effects on human foetuses and infants. I would ask the Minister to note that while professional users of sheep dips and agricultural sprays are required to be trained and achieve certificates of competence in the use of toxic chemicals, parents of young children are able to purchase organophosphate hair lotions to kill head lice on their children and diazinon flea collars for their cats and dogs over the counter, and to use them without training or supervision. Not all users will read meticulously the instructions or warnings printed on the packaging before using a product. Anyone who watches children and their pets will know that their tendency is to cuddle an animal by wrapping their arms around its neck and burying their face in the fur. Many children sleep with their pets in or on the bed. I would be really grateful to the noble Lord if he would explain to me just why it is that when professional use is rightly so rigorously regulated, diazinon is still allowed for flea collars. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is well aware of the concerns that surround this product, including the effects on the behaviour of children. The noble Lord may not be so aware of my interest in animal health, in particular in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, foot and mouth disease and bovine tuberculosis. The thread that links current regulations surrounding these diseases is, to my mind, the poor science on which decisions are based. We have still not had a proper analysis of the overall effects of policies relating to the 2001 UK foot and mouth epidemic. We see people on the Science Advisory Council who are assessing their own FMD policies; we see people on the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee promoting their own research results. The TSE regulations of 2004 that require sheep of specific genetic make-up to be slaughtered seem to have totally ignored the fact that if you narrow the genetic pool, you breed out many desirable traits. Many of the breeders who voluntarily joined the scrapie eradication scheme are now reporting poor conformation, lack of mothering instinct, and reduced hardiness and fecundity in their remaining sheep. I submit that, in their anxiety to prove a point, the scientists have, in this instance, gone a step too far. I ask the Minister to conduct a really independent review of these reports—by which I mean no one connected with SEAC—and to reverse, or seek derogation from, the original decisions, which I acknowledge emanate from the EU, before it is too late and the wonderful diversity of the British flock is lost. I recognise that Defra may be coming to the view that some action needs to be taken to eliminate bovine TB in badgers. This is a complex and emotive subject, but it is clear that methods of dealing rapidly and humanely with diseased badger populations must be an integral aspect of control methods. I know that the number of qualified scientists in any particular field is limited. I know that there are few individuals at the top of their specialism who are prepared to devote the time and effort necessary to serve on the many scientific advisory committees the Government need as part of their decision-making progress. There must, however, be some means by which we can avoid putting the so-called independent experts into positions where they are in judgment upon their own actions, whether it be in the field of policy or licensing. The disastrous policies advised by the mathematical modellers during the FMD epidemic are a case in point. The scientific impartiality, which is so essential for open and honest debate, is not achieved by appointing two of the main proponents of the extensive slaughter that took place during the 2001 FMD epidemic as members of the Science Advisory Council. The outcome is predictable—without the aid of mathematical modelling. There is no suggestion that the policies used in 2001 should be subjected to detailed analysis and, for management of future FMD epidemics, there is undue emphasis on modelling and a stubborn insistence that the pre-emptive killing of healthy animals should remain an option for disease control. In addition, there appears to be reluctance, perhaps based on ignorance, to embrace advances that have been made in the rapid and accurate diagnosis of foot and mouth disease, vaccination strategies and the differentiation of vaccinated animals from infected animals. An ancient and important principle of justice requires that no one shall be a judge in his own cause—nemo judex in causa sua. This principle has been ignored on far too many occasions, not only by Defra, but also by the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. I warn the Minister and his noble friends that I shall not let the matter rest. I note the absence from the Queen's Speech of the long awaited animal welfare Bill. Does this mean that it has been pushed out by the vast amount of business propagated by the Home Office? If not, I look forward to its progress through both Houses. The United Kingdom has an excellent animal welfare record compared with conditions in most other countries—a record of which we can be justifiably proud. There are some serious loopholes, however, which need to be closed—sadly, often concerning domestic animals. As the law stands, regulating authorities are often unable to act until it is too late. Inspectors need to be able to caution and advise animal owners who may not realise the suffering that their actions are causing or are likely to cause. As a specialist food producer, I am interested in the Government's commitment to sustainable development and to supporting rural services. As well as making and selling goat cheeses and milk to our local community from our farm shop, we sell home-reared free-range pork—the pigs drink the whey from the cheese-making as part of their diet—and Black Welsh mountain lamb. After the widespread closures of small abattoirs a few years ago, we are left with just one medium-sized, family-run abattoir in the whole of Worcestershire. I see that there are now further proposals to protect public health by the imposition of yet more regulation on these businesses. If this happens, it is likely that our abattoir will close. The implications of this are that small businesses such as ours will have to cease trading. For welfare and food quality reasons, we are not prepared to transport our animals over large distances in search of an abattoir that will cater for our few animals with specialist needs. Will the Minister kindly tell the House what consideration is given to the knock-on effects of regulation such as that proposed for the abattoirs, and to alternative provision for small producers who provide a valuable service to their own communities? If these businesses are to survive, it is vital that the infrastructure that enables them to operate remains intact. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in his winding-up speech and to future debates on matters rural.