FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (Hansard, 19 April 1967)

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the human aspects of foot-and-mouth disease.
In reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), on 27th January, 1967, I announced that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I had asked Professor James Howie, Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, and Professor Sir William Weipers, Director of Veterinary Education, University of Glasgow, to consider and report to us on whether the rare occurrence of a human case of foot-and-mouth disease presented any problems of diagnosis or necessitated any additional precautions to prevent spread of infection.
The Report has now been received and I have today placed a copy of it in the Library of the House. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking these two eminent gentlemen for their excellent work. The main conclusions of the Report are as follows:

(1) The patient concerned was infected with foot-and-mouth disease during the first week of his illness but was not so infected at any time thereafter.

(2) The patient was not infectious on 8th August, 1966, or on any subsequent date; in fact, the duration of infectivity must have been less than a week.

(3) Any connection between the patient's later illnesses and foot-and-mouth disease can be ruled out.

(4) The ordinary precautions under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950—which prohibit any person from entering or leaving an infected place except with a permit from an Inspector of my Department—seem entirely sufficient to cover any possibility of spread of infection to animals by human agency.
492
(5) No additional precautions are called for in the handling of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks so far as concerns human beings who might be infected.

(6) Any regular and systematic search for suspected human cases would be difficult to carry out, would make an undue call on resources and could not be justified.

(7) The Ministry of Health should be notified if the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is isolated from a human patient or if a human infection by this virus is strongly suspected on good grounds. The important thing—as was done in this case—is to isolate the patient from contact with animals during the period when he is infectious.
The House will note that the Report endorses the action taken in this case, the effect of which was that during the whole period when he could have been a source of infection, the patient was either on the infected farm, from which all stock had been cleared by slaughter, or in hospital, so that any risk of animals being infected by him was removed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is consulting the medical profession on the implementation of the Report's recommendation concerning notification to him of suspected or confirmed cases of foot-and-mouth disease in human beings and on the measures to be taken.

§ Mr. Stodart
May I express the regret of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for his inability to be here this morning? I thank the Minister and, of course, we will study the Report in the Library with care.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement gives rise not only to considerable interest but also to concern of a general nature as well as a particular concern for the gentleman who was so regrettably a victim of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a human being possibly a carrier of the disease. Will he deal with this point further? Can he tell us whether it is possible for one human being to infect another with this disease?
Secondly, if, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the ordinary precautions are enough to cover any possibility of the spread of infection to animals by human agents, is he aware that, on 19th January, Mr. Brewis, the gentleman concerned, received a letter from his doctor which, I understand, told him that he must not come into contact with cattle for for an indefinite period and that, as a 493 result of the letter, Mr. Brewis's employers have had to terminate his employment with them? Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore allay the anxieties which have been aroused by the implications which undoubtedly lie behind the doctor's advice?
Finally, will the Minister reconsider the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) on 18th January with regard to some compensatory payment being made in this case?

§ Mr. Peart
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about his right hon. Friend, and I understand the position.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to some of the concern which has been aroused by this case. This is why I decided to have this independent inquiry by two very distinguished men, and they have gone into this matter with great care.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the disease can be spread by human beings. This is dealt with in the Report, and if the hon. Gentleman reads it he will find that Section 2 covers this point fully. The inquiry considered this matter carefully and took evidence about it. The Report says that there is no cause for alarm, and it adds: These precautions seem to us to be entirely sufficient to cover the possibility of spread of infection to animals by human agency whether the human person involved is merely contaminated with virus or, as in the recent case, may be infected. On the question of the advice given to Mr. Brewis, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Brewis's physician was in contact with our veterinary people, and every precaution was taken. This comes out very clearly in the Report. I was merely giving a concise summary of it.
I will certainly look into the question of compensation for Mr. Brewis. I believe that he has had a very difficult time. In fact, I was rather worried about the publicity given to the case. This has caused considerable concern to his doctor, who has made a public statement. I hope that no one will wish to embarrass Mr. Brewis. I did not want him to be embarrassed by setting up this inquiry, and this, too, comes out in the Report. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall carefully consider the question of compensation.

§ Mr. Stodart
The right hon. Gentleman said that the doctor in this case was in close touch with his officials. This must mean that the letter which the doctor wrote on 18th January advising Mr. Brewis that he must not be in touch with any cattle for an indefinite period was the advice given with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman's officials. It is difficult to understand how that ties in with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the ordinary precautions being all right. The implication must be that Mr. Brewis could cause harm if he were in contact with cattle.
If that is not the case, can the right hon. Gentleman say that the employers, who felt it necessary to terminate this gentlemen's employment, are able, in the light of what he has said, to ignore the advice given to them and to reinstate Mr. Brewis?

§ Mr. Peart
I have made inquiries about the letter. I have no knowledge of it, but I will check on this point. It is not for me to comment on the termination of this man's employment. I do not want to embarrass Mr. Brewis, but, as I say, I will consider his position about compensation.

§ Viscount Lambton
Is it possible, from the information in the Report, to say whether one man can give foot-and-mouth disease to another? If it is, is it not possible that Mr. Brewis quite unwittingly spread the disease when he was on the farm, and could have spread it to the cattle? We must not forget that foot-and-mouth disease was not diagnosed until after he had left the hospital. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the simple question—is it possible for one man to give this disease to another?

§ Mr. Peart
I am making a statement, and giving a précis of the Report of two independent people who considered this matter. They came to the conclusion that it was very unlikely. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the Report with care.

§ Mr. David Steel
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's fifth point that no additional precautions are called for in the handling of foot-and-mouth disease, may I ask whether he is satisfied with the steps taken to seal off the 495 area in the south of Scotland in my constituency? I ask that because in the early stages of the outbreak there was real concern among farmers there that the warning notices issued by the police to keep people clear of the area were insufficient both in size and number, and in the early stages I had to make representations on this matter.

§ Mr. Peart
Once again I was stating what the Report said. I stressed the fact that the Report stated that no additional precautions were called for in the handling of foot-and-mouth disease in respect of human beings who might be infected. This was the conclusion after hearing evidence on the matter.

§ Dr. John Dunwoody
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the unfortunate man has suffered more from the emotional and hysterical way in which this matter has been dealt with than from the disease itself? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a freak case of a disease which, from a human point of view, is of very little clinical significance?

§ Mr. Peart
I think that my hon. Friend's latter comment and he is speaking as a medical practitioner as well as a Member of this House—confirms what has been said by those who produced this Report. I agree that Mr. Brewis has received undesirable publicity. I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) has been more tolerant this morning in the sense that he has not used extravagant language, but Dr. Armstrong, the doctor in this case, said that a lot of harm had been done to Mr. Brewis by the publicity which he had received, and he mentioned the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Kitson
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but does not this once again demonstrate the need to have better co-ordination between his Department and the Ministry of Health to examine the problems of animal diseases occurring in human beings? The incidence of brucellosis, salmonella typhimurium, anthrax, and now foot-and-mouth disease, make us feel that there is not enough liaison between his Department and the Ministry of Health. Will not 496 the right hon. Gentleman set up some kind of co-ordinating committee to look into this problem?

§ Mr. Peart
I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in animal diseases, especially brucellosis, but his question goes beyond this Report. I do not think one can say that there was a lack of co-ordination here. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is consulting the medical profession about the implementation of the recommendation in the Report with regard to the notification to him of suspected cases. My right hon. Friend will examine this, and we will have joint consultations. I am always willing to consider positive suggestions which will enable us to improve co-ordination between departments on the whole question of animal diseases, but in this instance the Report does not say that there was a lack of co-ordination.

§ Sir Knox Cunningham
Can the Minister give the number of recorded cases both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere of human beings who have contracted foot-and-mouth disease?

§ Mr. Peart
This is the only one that has been brought to my notice. I shall check on the numbers, but I do not think that there has been one that has received the full examination that this one has had.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine
The odd thing about the Minister's statement is that it frequently referred to the possibility of infecting animals by human beings, but did not deal with the risk of infecting other human beings. We shall have to look at the Report with some care when it is placed in the Library. Then the Minister went on to indicate that the period of infection lasted only seven days. Is that the normal period or the result of treatment or a circumstance peculiar to this case?

§ Mr. Peart
This is what the scientists and the people who looked into the matter have said. I am a Minister and we are all politicians here. The Report was by two distinguished independent scientists, professional people who know a great deal about this and carefully looked at the evidence, and they have come to that conclusion.

§ Miss Quennell
While the Report does recommend that further steps should 497 be taken in dealing with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, could the Minister indicate whether it is considered that in the rare and infrequent occasions where human contagion has occurred cottages occupied by the unfortunate victims should receive particular attention?

§ Mr. Peart
That was not mentioned by the Report. That is a difficult question. I am still considering other matters of a wider aspect. The Ministry examines how it can improve its methods in connection with any outbreak, and I shall make another announcement in the House about another matter involving other aspects of the problem. But I shall carefully look at the point raised by the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Peter Mills
Will the Minister encourage further research into the whole relationship between animal diseases and human health, as some of us have a feeling that there is a close relationship in many of them, such as farmer's lung.

§ Mr. Peart
Obviously the people engaged in veterinary research will take note of that and the inquiry, which has focussed scientific attention as well as public attention on the problem, will be very useful. The problem is continually examined and our research on it is probably the best in the world.

§ Viscount Lambton
The Minister has chosen to say that I courted publicity. Is he aware that the only reason I did it was that he announced on 5th December that he did not intend to have an inquiry into the matter? Has not the inquiry which he was forced to have by publicity not justified the action I chose to take? Would the Minister answer another simple question? Was it possible—I do not say likely or unlikely—for Mr. Brewis to have infected any cattle during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

§ Mr. Peart
I have given the answer. When it was felt that Mr. Brewis had the disease in the period mentioned in the Report, adequate precautions were taken. I merely said that Mr. Brewis's doctor accused the hon. Member on the question of publicity. If I quoted all that Dr. Armstrong said it would embarrass the noble Lord. He was accused of being callous and indulging in cheap publicity at the expense of Mr. Brewis, 498 who was a patient of Dr. Armstrong. That was said by the doctor, not me. The doctor has rebuked the hon. Member over and over again.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot debate an issue on a statement.