Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Jones (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 17 October 2007. It occurred during Opposition day on Foot and Mouth/Bluetongue.


Foot and Mouth/Bluetongue

I am pleased to contribute to this debate, particularly since I represent one of the foremost lamb-producing areas of the country. The Vale of Clwyd and the surrounding hills are renowned for the quality of produce and the very brand ““Welsh lamb”” is a byword for excellence. Farmers know their business; they know their animals; they know the land they work on. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) pointed out, it is they who are largely responsible for the landscape that we see today. My constituents were devastated by the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 and it has taken a long time for their fortunes to improve. One can only imagine the devastation that the events of 3 August and what followed have wrought on them. It could not have come at a worse time. Most of the trade in Welsh lamb is conducted during August to December, which is the livestock farmer's harvest period. The export trade this year and possibly for next has been destroyed, with the consequent glut causing lamb prices to collapse. Indeed, at Ruthin market two weeks ago, one of my constituents obtained, after costs, 36p a head for his ewes. The devastating effect on the industry can scarcely be overstated. I believe that everyone recognises that the fault lies in incompetent supervision of the Pirbright facility. There can be no question but that any facility whose sole function is to contain a dangerous virus that allows that virus to escape into the environment must necessarily be viewed as negligent—or even worse. Perhaps, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested, there is strict liability under the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher. The Secretary of State's assertion that pure economic loss cannot be addressed could well be wrong. The fact is that this Government, to their shame, regarded the outbreak of foot and mouth disease as a suitable vehicle for establishing themselves with a reputation for competence in the run-up to the election that they believed was fast approaching. [Interruption.] That is perfectly obvious, despite the pained expressions emanating from the Secretary of State. It is perfectly obvious that that was the Government's modus operandi from the moment that the disease became apparent.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c879-80 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Inspections Diseases Disease control Foot and mouth disease Livestock Standards Laboratories Bluetongue disease
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk