HC Deb 30 July 1959 vol 610 cc748-57

3.10 p.m.

Sir Gerald Wills (Bridgwater)

I am glad to have an opportunity to raise this matter, although the time in which to do so may have been a trifle attenuated. It is a matter which has caused much distress and financial loss to two of my constituents. It has also caused considerable anxiety among the farming community in my constituency and in the County of Somerset, and even in a wider area. To show the degree of that anxiety, I and my fellow Members of Parliament who represent Somerset constituencies have received telegrams from the National Farmers Union urging us to take all possible action about it.

The matter relates to an outbreak of a disease known as brucellosis melitensis in a herd of Jersey cows belonging to a young couple named Mr. and Mrs. Moon who are constituents of mine at Knaplock Farm. This is not a common disease but it is often a very severe one which causes abortion and grave deterioration in the condition of the affected animals. In this case it has caused the death of several. It can also be transmitted to human beings, when it is called Malta fever. Since 1940 there have been only about 61 cases of this disease and in that year the then Minister of Agriculture issued a Brucellosis Melitensis Order under which he was empowered, if he thought fit, to cause to be slaughtered any animal suffering from the disease and those animals which had been exposed to infection.

There was provision made in that Order for payment of compensation at the full market value for the animals so slaughtered. Compulsory slaughter was ordered in 41 cases and the policy of compulsory slaughter continued until November, 1956, save that since 1942 the only animals slaughtered were those with the disease.

After 1956 the Minister decided that slaughter was not justified and it was discontinued. Nevertheless, the Order was never rescinded and the discretion still lies in the Minister to order slaughter if he so wishes. I ought to point out to the House that although there were 41 outbreaks in the 16 years when slaughtering was compulsory, there have been no fewer than 21 outbreaks in the three years since slaughter has not been compulsory. That is to say, in the last three years there has been an average of seven outbreaks a year against an average of under three in the earlier years.

To return to the case of my constituents. They are a young couple who started from scratch. By hard work, by ploughing back their profits and by a lot of skill they had by 1957 built up a very fine pedigree herd of about 40 Jersey cattle valued at about £4,500. In November of that year, 1957, a series of abortions occurred in these cows, and the "vet" suspected this disease, brucellosis melitensis, and he sent specimens to the Ministry.

It was not until November, 1958, a year later, that the Ministry bacteriologist diagnosed and confirmed the disease. By then, there had been many abortions. I do not think that there had been a live calf born in the herd, and the condition of the cattle had greatly deteriorated. Various Ministry veterinary officers visited the farm, but it was not until February, 1959, that a Ministry veterinary officer examined the herd. Then, I think the examination was rather cursory. In any case, he gave no advice about the treatment of the animals or as to the future course of action to be pursued by the owners of them. It seemed to my constituents that he was really waiting for a decision about whether or not the slaughter policy would be invoked in this particular case.

At about this time, the case was first referred to me. I wrote to my right hon. Friend and urged that there should be a firm and early decision about slaughter. In my letter, I stressed that my constituents would face ruin if they lost their herd without compensation. I stressed also the danger to public health from the drinking of infected milk, the danger to individuals from contact with affected animals and the danger of the spread of the disease to other animals in the vicinity.

Towards the end of February, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied to me and expressed very kindly and very pleasantly his deep sympathy with the two people concerned, but he refused to make a slaughter order and thus give compensation on the ground that, although tests had confirmed that there was this disease in the herd, if the milk were heat-treated there would be no danger to public health. As regards the spread of infection to other herds, my hon. Friend said that it was theoretically possible but no case was known. This was reiterated by my right hon. Friend in answer to a Question last Monday.

It is interesting to note that, at this stage, when the matter had been going on for some time, no instructions were given to my constituents either to isolate their animals or on how to treat them. Indeed, the treatment of this disease is very difficult because, unlike the case of brucellosis abortus, there is no vaccine. They were so worried about the disease, as soon as they knew what it was, that they sent their five-year-old daughter away because she had been very ill. presumably as a result of drinking the milk. The mother of Mr. Moon also has been seriously ill, again, I imagine, from the same cause.

The case has caused considerable local alarm and has received much newspaper publicity. As well as several, and lately, very urgent, representations from the National Farmers Union about it, I have seen similar representations from the area drainage board because it is very worried that water passing through the pastures used by this farm will be contaminated and so, on going down to other pastures, will infect other cattle. I have received similar representations from commoners who live in the area and use the land there, and from individuals. None of these people who make representations can understand why, in such a serious case, with what I would describe as widespread infection, my right hon. Friend does not see his way clear to using his discretion and making a compulsory slaughter order.

I wish to refer to another matter which causes me much disquiet, namely, the grave suspicion that the disease in the form of Malta fever can be transmitted from infected cattle not only through the milk but from contact with infected animals. Of course, it is not easy to obtain evidence about this, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in reply to a Question by me on 25th April last, referred to the possibility of the contraction of the disease by contact, as he put it, with "infected material". I should have thought that a diseased cow was certainly infected material. I will return to this later.

I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say that there is no danger from milk if the milk is heat treated and, since milk has to be heat treated, that is all right. But he knows as well as I do that an appreciable amount of milk, whether we like it or not, does go direct from the farm to the consumer, whether to an employee on the farm or in other ways. This is a fact which none of us can ignore.

I am sorry to detain the House on what may seem to be a purely constituency matter, but in my view there is more to it than this. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Moon, have seen their herd which they patiently built up and skilfully tended rendered practically worthless, and they themselves are in sore straits, but there are other factors, also, to be thought of.

In a letter to me, my hon. Friend, in expressing sympathy, said that it was one of the hazards of farming. It may well be, but what I am worried about, as well as the many other points, is the fact that no real advice has been given about the disposal of the cattle involved in this case. There are apparently no regulations affecting this matter. As long as a cow has not aborted recently, presumably it can be sold in the open market. My constituents are now driven by necessity to dispose of the cattle in the herd which are saleable since they cannot afford to keep them. They have to make what little they can of what they have left. I am surprised that they were able to sell any, but they have sold one or two. After representations from the National Farmers' Union, they have agreed to sell no more pending the result of my appeal today.

I should now like to put the following points to my hon. Friend. The first concerns the grave danger of the spread of infection by the dispersal of the cattle from this infected herd which may have the disease dormant within them. It is about this that the National Farmers' Union is at all levels, from county upwards, most concerned and which it has asked me most urgently to stress. It seems almost incredible to me that my right hon. Friend the Minister, by refusing an order for compulsory slaughter, has virtually given his blessing to any efforts that my constituents can make to dispose of the cattle as they can.

Secondly, I, like, I think, many other people, am very gravely concerned about the risk of infection to other herds if the infected animals get out of their enclosures into other people's fields. As I have said, there is also the risk of contamination of water.

Thirdly, I am not satisfied that the disease cannot spread to human beings by contact. I have referred to the question of infected material. There is plenty of infected material handled by farm workers. For instance, mucus of the product of abortions is infected material and must be handled by farm workers.

Fourthly, this outbreak is remarkable for its severity and extent. I believe that it is the first that has caused the death of animals. To make a compulsory slaughter order in this case need not create a precedent in less severe ones, but not to do so will, I believe, as well as cause loss and disaster to my constituents, result in disquiet and the utmost concern to the farming community over a wide area, as well as to the National Farmers Union.

In conclusion, a compulsory slaughter order has been refused on a number of assumptions—that the disease will not spread, that the milk will not be drunk unless it has been heat treated, and that contact with infected animals cannot pass on the disease to humans. These are only assumptions. There is always the possibility of a first time when these assumptions will be falsified. It is because I do not want this case to be that first time that I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider his decision.

3.24 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very difficult case in the House. I should like straight away to pay public tribute to him for the way in which, on behalf of his constituents, he has persevered with and pressed this matter. No constituent could be better served than in the way my hon. Friend has sought to bring forward his constituents' genuine feeling. It is, however, a very difficult question, and, as my hon. Friend will know, both my right hon. Friend and I have gone into it very thoroughly and at great length. The burden of my hon. Friend's case is that my right hon. Friend should use his power to have this herd which is suffering from brucellosis melitensis slaughtered and to compensate the owners out of public funds.

I think that I should start by explaining the Government's policy on the compulsory slaughter of animals. Whenever a disease attacks a farmer's livestock or crops, the consequences can be serious to the farmer, perhaps involving him in heavy financial loss. I entirely agree that the case which my hon. Friend has outlined, where his constituents' herd has an unusually heavy incidence of this disease, together with mastitis as well, must have affected them very severely. I am sure that the whole House will join me in having very great sympathy with Mr. and Mrs. Moon in their ill fortune, particularly in view of the points which my hon. Friend has made about their hard work and the way in which they have built up their business.

However much we may sympathise with the farmer, it is not possible for the Government to attempt to insure farmers against one of the risks inseparable from their calling by compensating them for outbreaks of each and every disease, no matter how heavy in the individual case. It is only when the public interest is involved that we would be justified in using our powers of compulsory slaughter with payment of compensation. It is from that point of view that we must look at this matter and not from the degree of loss suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Moon, however much we may sympathise with them.

My hon. Friend asked particularly why we were not prepared to use the power given under the Brucellosis Melitensis Order of 1940. The explanation is that at the time the Order was made, it was believed on the best advice available that this disease constituted a serious risk to public health. It was for this reason that herds and, later, single animals were compulsorily slaughtered on that account. Since then, however, experience has shown that that belief was ill-founded and in 1956 we decided to cease the practice of compulsory slaughter because there was no evidence that it was justified either to prevent the spread of the disease or to safeguard human beings.

My hon. Friend drew the perfectly fair point of the number of cases a year, both now and when the Order was used, but even seven cases a year do not add up to evidence of any serious risk of spreading the disease. It is not of sufficient significance to prove the case. It certainly does not compare in any way with the diseases for which compulsory slaughter is used. Indeed, the public interest is involved in only two kinds of disease; those in which the animal disease can be dangerous to the health of the community and, secondly, where the disease is so infective that it would spread rapidly through the nation's herds.

There are at present only four of the many diseases that can attack farm animals, namely, foot and mouth disease, fowl pest, certain forms of bovine tuberculosis and atrophic rhinitis—in which it is considered to be in the public interest to follow the policy of compulsory slaughter with compensation. On present knowledge, we do not think it right to follow that course with any other disease, no matter how serious it is in a particular herd.

The question is, therefore, whether brucellosis melitensis is a disease which falls into either category which I have named. Let me deal first with the possibility of a danger to human health. On this, I do not think I can do better than refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health gave him on 23rd April. We do not know of any case where human beings have suffered from brucellosis melitensis spread by cattle in this country. I assure my hon. Friend that we have looked into this matter most thoroughly.

Sir G. Wills

That Answer also indicated that in Mediterranean countries, the disease had been transmitted by contact with infected material.

Mr. Godber

We must restrict ourselves to experience under conditions existing in this country. It is only on that basis that we can deal with cases of this nature. Therefore, on the question of human health, there is to date no evidence in this country which suggests that brucellosis melitensis in cattle should be treated as a more serious public health risk than, for example, brucella abortus, which is a more widespread disease among cattle here. Medical opinion is that if milk which is infected with these organisms has the proper heat treatment, it is made safe. Medical officers of health have powers to insist upon this heat treatment and an order requiring it has been served on Mr. and Mrs. Moon.

It is true that that applies to milk for sale and not to any which is consumed by the farmer and his family and workers on the farm. My hon. Friend made the point that other people could possibly consume the milk, but I do not see what can be done in a case of that sort. I cannot think that Mr. and Mrs. Moon, or any other farmer, would either take the risk of drinking raw milk themselves or allow others to do so, having been warned, as they have been in this case, of the dangers to other people involved.

Turning now to the other ground on which compulsory slaughter is justifiable, it cannot be said that brucellosis melitensis is so highly infectious to other cattle as to warrant this policy. My Ministry knows of only 63 cases of this disease in this country since 1940 and from none of them have we heard of any serious spread. I can well understand the anxieties of the local farmers, to which my hon. Friend has referred, when they are confronted with a serious outbreak of a rather uncommon disease. We cannot say that it is impossible for the disease to spread by contact or in other ways, but this is purely a theoretical possibility because, as I have said, in all the cases that we know of we have never heard of any degree of spread to other herds in this way. I emphasise that.

Much the same applies to the point about the risk caused if Mr. and Mrs. Moon sell their diseased cattle through the markets. The Epizootic Abortion Order, 1922, forbids the sale through the market of any beast which has aborted in the previous two months. For other beasts, however, there is legally nothing to prevent a farmer disposing of cattle suffering from brucellosis melitensis in this way, just as there is nothing to prevent them from doing so in such much more widespread diseases as Johnes and brucella abortus. In these matters we must rely upon the common sense of the farming community generally.

My hon. Friend made some comments about the conduct of my officers in the early stages of this case. I want to make clear a very important point which I do not think has been fully realised in this case. It is not the function of my Ministry's veterinary investigation service to advise the owners of cattle directly. We must be scrupulously careful not to do that, for this is the right and proper function of the owners' own veterinary surgeons and it would be quite wrong of us to seek to usurp their position. It is for this reason that my investigating officers can come into a case only at the request of the veterinary surgeon concerned, and their reports go to him and not to the farmer.

I think that Mr. and Mrs. Moon have been under some misunderstanding about this, because many of the requests which they have been putting to my officers would have been more appropriately put to their own veterinary surgeon. My hon. Friend asked if my Ministry's veterinary investigation service could undertake a further investigation of this case. As my right hon. Friend has told my hon. Friend, we would be perfectly willing to do this if their own veterinary surgeon thinks it desirable, but we would not do so unless requested by him—that is, to see to what extent the disease is present in the herd now.

This is a matter on which I do not think that any Government could offer to compensate a farmer simply because he has suffered from a serious outbreak of disease on his farm. We could do this only if there were a serious public health risk or if the disease constituted a serious risk to the national herd as a whole. The best advice possible from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health's medical experts on the one issue and from my own Ministry's veterinary experts on the other is that neither of these conditions is met in this case. I must say, therefore, that distressing through I know it must be to Mr. and Mrs. Moon, and though I have looked as sympathetically as I can at their case, I can find no grounds on which it would be possible for public money to be spent in compensating in a case like this.

I stress once more the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend must be placed in a case of this sort if it is looked upon only out of sympathy for the farmer. We naturally sympathise with those who have a misfortune in this way, but as a Ministry we must not base our actions on that sort of thing. We have these two clear responsibilities which we must fulfil. If a case does not come within the terms of either of them, then, however much we may wish, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not possible for us to take action specifically designed to help the farmer concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure his constituents that we have looked at this matter in every possible way to find out whether we could help, but on the basis of the advice we have, both medically and veterinary. I regret that I can see no means by which we can do anything.