Ministers defeated on farm jab policy

Lord Peyton says Defra has 'an addiction to slaughter'

Demands for priority to go to vaccinating animals in a future foot-and-mouth outbreak have caused defeat for the government in the House of Lords.

With ministers trying to strengthen their powers to deal with a future outbreak, peers voted by 171 to 123 to change the Animal Health Bill to give priority to vaccination rather than slaughter of uninfected animals.

The government says it cannot accept the change, which would restrict its options in dealing with future foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks.

Later, the Lords inflicted a second defeat, this time over calls for more prominence to go to disease detection measures when slaughter was being considered.

'Bloodbath condemned'

The vaccination amendment was moved on Tuesday by the crossbencher the Countess of Mar, who urged the government to write "a little humanity" into the bill.

Lady Mar criticised the "bloodbath" which had followed last year's epidemic.

"It would be politic to begin (the bill) with a statement that doesn't give the impression that it gives a permit to kill every animal in sight," she said.

No outbreak is the same and we cannot afford to be rigidly scripted on what action might be required

National Farmers' Union

Among the bill's fiercest critics was the Conservative Lord Peyton, who accused the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) of having "an addiction to slaughter".

Agriculture Minister Lord Whitty had argued the option of vaccination as a first resort already existed in law and therefore did not need to be spelled out in the new proposals.

"Whatever policy you take to prevent the spread of the disease, stamping out disease in the first places does require and will continue to require the destruction of diseased stock," he said.

Lord Whitty was worried the amendment could prevent that action.

And he stressed it could take two years before a vaccination policy could be implemented effectively.

A spokesman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said jabs could not be used in some cases, such as if a new strain was discovered which was not covered by vaccines.

Flexibility plea

Ministers are set to try to overturn the defeats in the Commons before the end of the Parliamentary session on 7 November.

The National Farmer's Union said vaccination for animals to live should be an option in future outbreaks but might not always be appropriate.

An NFU spokeswoman said: "No outbreak is the same and we cannot afford to be rigidly scripted on what action might be required."

The government's team of vets needed flexibility to make judgements on whether the slaughter of animals that could pass on the disease was needed, added the spokeswoman.

'Pause for thought'

After the vaccination vote, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Livsey said the public overwhelmingly backed the stress on vaccination.

"This victory will ensure that vaccination of healthy animals in a major outbreak of FMD will end the dreadful scenes of animal slaughter that so defaced the countryside in 2001," said Lord Livsey.

Conservative shadow rural affairs secretary David Lidington said the Lords had given ministers time to think again.

"It's wrong for ministers to try to ram through this new law when Parliament has not even had a chance to debate the reports into foot-and-mouth that the government itself commissioned," said Mr Lidington.