§ 31. Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions are given to the inspectors of his Department on the carrying out of their duties when it is decided that poultry must be destroyed because of fowl pest.
§ Mr. John HareMy veterinary staff have comprehensive standing instructions and have great experience in dealing with outbreaks of fowl pest.
§ Mr. GrimondWill the Minister confirm that there is no question of one of his inspectors simply taking high-handed action on his own, but that all these cases, which obviously cause great concern to those affected, are carefully considered by his veterinary staff before action is taken?
§ Mr. HareYes, I can confirm that. All my inspectors have a comprehensive list of standing instructions, and, of course, they have to be convinced that the disease is in existence before action is decided upon.
§ 33. Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available more money for research into fowl pest.
§ Mr. John HareFundamental research into viruses generally is in progress in this country and abroad, and many of the results are of wide application. Since the re-appearance of the disease in 1947, the Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge has developed or studied live and inactivated vaccines and has kept in close touch with the research being undertaken in other countries. The Government's policy is to stamp out the disease by slaughter, and my veterinary and laboratory staff from their experience have built up an extensive knowledge of ways in which infection spreads and methods of control. This operational research continues. It is not possible to 647 assess the cost of this work separately from other similar activities at the laboratory and elsewhere but this work is not suffering for want of money.
§ Mr. HiltonWould the Minister agree that this is not only a serious but a costly disease and that merely to slaughter and pay compensation is just taking the line of least resistance? Surely we have to do more to find out the cause of this disease. Further, is the Minister aware that the N.F.U. in Norfolk claims to have evidence that this virus is imported into this country in tinned poultry supplied to the U.S.A. personnel at the various bases in this country? Will he look into this and, if necessary, in consultation with the Ministry concerned, prohibit imports of this nature into this country?
§ Mr. HareI understand the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern at this question of fowl pest. I can assure him that if he has any evidence of the allegation which he gave in the latter part of his supplementary question I will certainly look at it. I can assure him that we are not just taking the line of least resistance. Our policy, we believe, is right. We are certainly considering all the scientific discoveries and data available to us and when we are certain that new methods and techniques should be pursued we shall do so.
§ Mr. de FreitasDoes not the Minister's Answer today, like his answer to me last week, show that he and his Ministry are hopelessly confused between two different points? One is the slaughter policy, with which most people agree, and the other is the research into the prevention and cure of the disease, which is quite a different matter.
§ Mr. de FreitasNo, I am not at all.
§ Mr. HareThe hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that there are two very separate issues. From all the information that we have at the moment, our slaughter policy is correct. On the other hand, I am saying that we should do as much as we can in research and other inquiries of all kinds to ascertain whether any alternative methods, because of new techniques, would be better than the present policy that we are carrying out.