§ Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ 3.42 p.m.
§ Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)Although this attractive Bill went through all its previous stages in two and three-quarter minutes, it must not be assumed that there are not some questions that we should like to ask the Minister. The most important point with which we are faced is that we should appreciate that this Bill is a method of saving feedingstuffs and enables us to 1669 produce certain types of meat more quickly. There is more than one substance that we can consider for this purpose. There are at least two, and possibly more, types of antibiotics that are being used.
First, I should like to ask the Minister whether aureomycin is now being manufactured in this country, and whether he could give us some details. How soon may farmers expect to get feed containing aureomycin products, which seem to be more agreeable in their effects on some animals than penicillin products? I should also like to know whether there has been any research into whether any of these antibiotics are suitable for the rearing of calves, as well as pigs and poultry.
During the Second Reading we had warnings from hon. Members who have special knowledge and who are interested in farming, that we should be particularly careful to see that none of these penicillin products are fed to calves because ruminating animals are seriously affected by them. I should like to ask the Minister of Health if he has any knowledge whether this is true of the other antibiotic, aureomycin, and, in any event, whether some further research cannot be conducted in this country on that point, which is of some importance, and of interest to us all.
Those are the two specific questions I wanted to put to the Minister. I remember, eight years ago, speaking on an allied subject, when I made my maiden speech. I spoke on nutrition and the position of our people with reference to future world food supplies. What I said then has proved to be true, especially the point that all countries which must import a large proportion of their food will have to look to their own land to grow more food as quickly as possible. The days are rapidly disappearing when the United States and the western coast of Europe could take 80 or 90 per cent. of all available food supplies and use them for themselves, and that is all the more reason why we should give this tiny Bill its Third Reading.
I hope that we shall have as much research and information available to us as possible, and that farmers will be told that it would be well to use these sorts of things, but. when using them, to remember that they must not neglect any 1670 of the old, normal sanitary methods of looking after their animals, because the use of antibiotics does not mean that their animals can be protected if they are kept in bad condition.
§ 3.47 p.m.
§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod)I should like to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stress) and to commend this small Bill to the House. As the House knows, it fulfils two purposes. The first is to extend the provisions of the 1947 Act, and the substance that we have particularly in mind is the one known as I.N.A.H. The position is that draft Regulations have been sent to the interested parties, but formal consultations with the Medical Research Council have to be carried out when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, and I am not able to prophesy precisely when the Regulations will be laid, although I hope that it will not be longer than in a week or two.
On Second Reading we had a useful discussion on Clause 2, which is a venture into a new field. It is right that we should express a certain amount of concern to see that we are taking all the necessary precautions when we allow antibiotics to be used in feedingstuffs. The fact that Amendments were not put down for the Committee and Report stages indicates that the House, in general, is satisfied that we have taken the right precautions.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, dealt with aureomycin on Second Reading, and he gave some most interesting statistics in regard to its efficiency relative to penicillin. The position is that it now seems more likely that aureomycin will be available earlier for use in this field than it did when this Bill was given a Second Reading. Provided that the Ministers responsible are satisfied, after the necessary consultations, that it will be suitable so to use it, and provided, also, that we have regard to our first duty, which is to ensure that there are sufficient antibiotics for therapeutic purposes, there is no reason why, much earlier than we thought, aureomycin, or some form of aureomycin, should not play its part.
The hon. Member also raised a most interesting point with regard to the possibly extended field in which Regulations 1671 under Clause 2 of this Bill might work. The position there is exactly as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture indicated on Second Reading. Investigations in this field are going on all the time and, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, it is a new and widening field, and there is no knowing where it may end. I am sure that it is right on the whole, because we are dealing with drugs which often have effects which are not apparent at first sight, to move rather cautiously in this field, but the general position remains exactly as it was stated on Second Reading.
I should like to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of losing no opportunity to make experiments and developments which may lead to an increase in our food supplies. This is a small but, I am certain, a useful Bill. We had a helpful discussion on Second Reading, and I am quite certain that the Bill goes forward with the good will of both sides of the House.
§ Question put, and agreed to
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.