FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (NORTHUMBERLAND) (Hansard, 22 February 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 to the House on slaughtering procedure during last summer's outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland. A report, including a detailed examination of the allegations which have been made of cruelty in slaughtering on a number of farms, is available to hon. Members in the Library.
Foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed on 32 farms in Northumberland between 21st July and 5th September. In all, 5,753 cattle, 38,448 sheep and 714 pigs had to be killed. Northumberland was then heavily stocked with sheep and cattle out at grass. The county sends livestock over a wide area of Great Britain. Furthermore, the outbreaks were near to open grazing of the Cheviots with a very large sheep population.
In all these circumstances, there was a grave risk of spread of this most infectious of all animal diseases, not only locally but, as happened in a previous outbreak in Northumberland, to other parts of the country. Nevertheless, the outbreak was mastered.
Containment and eradication of the disease constituted an achievement which could never have been brought about without good organisation, prompt and efficient action, and unremitting hard work. Credit is due to the veterinary officers, to the farmers and farm workers, to the police, to the contractors and their men, and to the slaughtermen, all of whom gave invaluable service. Speed was the first essential, and this need was impressed on all concerned by senior veterinary officers from headquarters who visited the area. Sometimes large numbers of animals, particularly sheep, had to be slaughtered within a few hours and often late in the evening.
The substance of most of the allegations was that several shots of the captive bolt pistol were used on individual animals. It is true that this happened occasionally, but it does not mean that there was cruelty. When a humane killer is used the animal loses consciousness, 1626 if it is not killed at the first shot; but a subsequent shot or shots are sometimes used to make sure that life is extinct or to stop reflex movements.
The ideal weapon would ensure not only unconsciousness but also death in every case at the first shot. Captive bolt pistols have been used for a long time, but in their present form they do not reach this ideal, especially when large numbers of sheep have to be slaughtered and where speed is essential and bleeding cannot be practised. I am going to consult with the R.S.P.C.A. and other authorities to see whether any improvements in the weapons or in the method of slaughter can be obtained.
It is possible that out of over 38,000 sheep slaughtered a few may have been accidentally suffocated. A worker at one farm has stated that after the slaughtering of sheep he found some still active and that he killed them with an iron stake. Such an observation of movement among the sheep does not mean that they were conscious or that any suffering occurred, but if the farm worker had reported what he found to the veterinary officer in charge, the latter would have used a humane killer if necessary. No such report was made, and the veterinary officer knows nothing of the incident.
My veterinary staff always examine the results of any large series of outbreaks to see what can be done to improve the organisation. This examination is being carried out now, but before reaching any conclusions as to the way in which slaughter organisation and other aspects of our operations could be improved, we have been waiting for the farmers' unions to discuss with us the suggestions which I understand they have received from the Northumberland County Branch. I understand that the unions will be ready for these discussions very shortly, and as soon as possible thereafter. I shall announce any consequent changes in our procedure.
I believe that in the report which I have placed in the Library I have covered all the allegations that have been made to me of cruelty during the slaughter of cattle and sheep which had to be carried out in Northumberland. I most emphatically repudiate these allegations, which are a gross aspersion on our veterinary officers whose training and very calling is opposed to cruelty to animals, and also on the 1627 slaughtermen employed, who as a body carried out their formidable task with efficiency and despatch in extremely difficult conditions.

§ Mr. Godber
I thank the Minister for responding to the wishes expressed by my hon. Friends by making a statement on this matter. We are grateful for that. We shall, of course, want to study the Report which he has placed in the Library and we will do that with the greatest care before coming to any detailed conclusions about it. As a preliminary, however, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer a few questions arising out of his statement.
He said that the substance of most of the allegations was that several shots of the captive bolt pistol had to be used on a number of animals. I have not understood that to be the substance of the allegations made by my hon. Friends, and the right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, wish to enlighten us further about that. I understood that the allegations were more serious and I was, therefore, somewhat perturbed at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the difficulties involved in the slaughtering of large numbers of sheep. I accept that those difficulties exist. At the same time, although he said that movement among sheep did not necessarily mean that they were still conscious or that any suffering had occured, I understood that it had been said that some of these sheep were moving 24 hours after they were supposed to have been slaughtered. That really cannot mean that there could not have been suffering, or that the animals would not have been conscious.
I am glad that the Minister is to have discussions with the N.F.U.s, and I hope that he will be able to tell us something more about that.
It is obvious that grave disquiet was caused here. I cannot say that I am happy at the statement. It seems to tend to brush aside some of the allegations that have been made without giving them adequate consideration. I would ask the Minister to give further thought to the points I have made.

Mr. Pearl
I certainly will. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is 1628 back, and that he is much improved in health.
I had to deal with the captive bolt question, because it was raised. I have gone into great detail, and I believe that when the right hon. Gentleman reads the document now in the Library he will see that I have covered the allegations of suffocation, etc., and faulty organisation which could create cruelty. As to reflex actions, I am advised that after a sheep has been dealt with in the normal way it is possible for reflex actions to operate. In any case, I have stated what my own veterinary officer has reported, and this is in the narrative, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read.
I am merely arguing that I have looked at every allegation of cruelty up to now very carefully, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that I have dealt with them fully in the longer statement, which I could not possibly have given orally to the House. I have responded to the desire expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and their hon. Friends, who pressed me to make an oral statement. I felt that it was right to do so, and I hope that hon. Members will now carefully read the full details I have published.

§ Viscount Lambton
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his report is shockingly casual and designedly confusing? When I raised the subject on 18th January I quoted certain evidence. Some of that evidence was given by a farm worker, Mr. Jobson, who alleged that one sheep had had to have its throat cut and that another had had to be banged with an iron stick to be killed. This is the evidence. The Minister has not been in contact with Mr. Jobson. Why?
On Monday, my agent in Northumberland contacted Mr. Jobson——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I sympathise with the noble Lord, but he cannot make a speech now.

§ Viscount Lambton
Then will the Minister say why, if the inquiry was to be complete, Mr. Jobson was not contacted?
I also gave the evidence of two farm workers at Dancing Hall Farm—Mr. Johnson and Mr. Young. Will the right 1629 hon. Gentleman say why, if the inquiry was thorough, they were not contacted? I gave the evidence of Mr. Brown, and I have a letter from Mr. Brown saying that he was not contacted. How can the Minister say that his inquiry was thorough in any sense if neither he nor his Ministry actually contacted the people who gave the evidence?

§ Mr. Peart
The noble Lord has said that my report is casual. I hope that he will carefully read the statement which is now in the Library. Obviously, a statement to the House must be short and concise, but I have prepared a very full document, and I hope that he will read it.
The noble Lord asks whether I have been in touch with individuals who have been mentioned. I have asked my veterinary officers and staff; I have made inquiries, and I have looked at all the evidence the noble Lord has put to me. I believe that he has tried to make his case out of hearsay from certain individuals—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I am entitled to reply to the noble Lord. He has been indulging in tremendous publicity in this matter, and I believe that he has cast aspersions on men who have given tremendous service. I merely express to him the hope that he will carefully examine the evidence I have put forward. So far, the noble Lord has not himself produced any evidence to show that there has been mismanagement or tremendous cruelty in Northumberland. I assure him that even farmers who have now come out openly in Northumberland have said that he is exaggerating the position.

§ Mr. Wilkins
It is noteworthy that not one word of praise has come from the benches opposite for the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture and its officials in dealing with this outbreak. Can my right hon. Friend give the House any estimate of the cost to the country or the industry, or to both, resulting from the grossly exaggerated statements made by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton)?

§ Mr. Peart
On the wider aspect of the cost of compensation, no. But I can give the estimated cost of the operation. I would say that in Northumberland the 1630 estimated cost would be in the region of about £72,000. This was a very large outbreak, and I am glad that an hon. Member has paid tribute to the way we have succeeded in dealing with it. Indeed, one farmer from Northumberland, one marksman, has said that the way it was done was really a miracle.

§ Mr. Stodart
Is the Minister aware that my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lamb-ton) has raised a point of considerable substance by revealing that the Minister, in his anxiety to check the facts—and I am using the words he used to the House on 18th January last when he said: … I would rather check the facts with those concerned …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 618.] —has not taken statements from those who made the allegations, which is quite astonishing? How can a full inquiry possibly have been made without taking statements from those who have made allegations in the public Press of what happened?

§ Mr. Peart
We have made inquiries into what has been said by the noble Lord, and what he claims to be evidence that he has received. I have carefully looked into every matter. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that if he looks carefully at the full document now in the Library he will see that I have adequately covered all the points raised. There is no attempt here to hide anything. I accept that inevitably—and I mean this, Mr. Speaker—where a large number of animals were involved and men had to work immediately, late at night or through the night, there were mishaps. I have said so, and it is in the report, but there was no deliberate cruelty.

§ Mr. R. W. Elliott
Is the Minister aware that those people who were involved in the outbreak, most of whom I know, would fully agree with him that speed was essential? Does he appreciate, however, that most of those who were involved in the outbreak were dissatisfied with the adequacy of the penning and the type of instrument used for the killing—the captive bolt pistol? Hence, most of them will welcome his statement that he intends to consult the R.S.P.C.A. 1631 about the possibility of a better instrument. Does the Minister realise that the speed would have been much greater if the penning had been adequate? How much longer does it take to drive live sheep into a pen where there are already dead sheep than into a pen which is clean and empty?

§ Mr. Peart
I deal specifically in the report with the case of penning where the gates were put up the wrong way; but remedial action was taken. When the hon. Gentleman considers the difficulties and the size of the operation, I am sure that he will appreciate that the contractors acted very speedily. I think that we should have further study of the captive bolt pistol, and that is why I am consulting the R.S.P.C.A. and other bodies. If we can improve matters there, it will be for the good. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, and I believe that his views are very responsible.

§ Mr. Hazell
I congratulate the Minister upon his decision to consult the R.S.P.C.A. to see whether improved methods of slaughtering are possible. Was the method of slaughtering used in this outbreak similar to that used for many years in dealing with outbreaks of this nature?

Mr. Pearl
This is the method of slaughtering which has been adopted by the Ministry for a long period of time. It may be that we can devise something better. If hon. Gentlemen know of something better, I shall be delighted to consider their views. However, I am sure that I ought to consult bodies like the R.S.P.C.A.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Northumberland as a whole and, no doubt, a very much wider area would have much preferred an independent inquiry? Nothing that I have heard this morning about the controversy moves me from the idea that there ought to have been an independent inquiry. As the controversy is continuing, I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will see that the whole matter is sent to the Parliamentary Commissioner, when he is finally appointed?

§ Mr. Peart
I replied to the hon. Lady on that matter the other day——

§ Dame Irene Ward
The right hon. Gentleman did not.

Mr. Pearl
I did. The hon. Lady did not agree with my reply, but that is a different matter. I said that I thought that the Ombudsman was not a suitable person to deal with the matter. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to put it forward, she can do so, by all means. The reason why I rejected the concept of a public inquiry was that the noble Lord had made charges against officials and about mismanagement in another sphere and had also brought in the whole question of diagnosis. This has been dealt with. Now I am dealing with another charge which has been made, and I am merely saying what the Northumberland farmers feel. As was stated in the Northumberland Gazette of 10th February, farmers feel that the cruelty business is overdone and that some people, in the end, are getting rather tired of those who seek publicity out of it.

§ Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie
We are all relieved to have the Minister's statement, because the question of an inquiry has been uppermost in the minds of most people. The Minister has told us that there is a full report available, and that may reveal other aspects which make an inquiry either more or less desirable. However, at this stage, we should wait until we have read that fuller report and reserve our position on the question of an inquiry. The other matter which should be stressed is the importance of containing any outbreak in the future at this time of the year, because of the very detrimental effects that this outbreak has had on the sheep sales, when there are so many sheep being removed from the hills to the lowlands. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and that the Ministry, having learned a great deal from this outbreak, will take particular precaution in future to see that any other outbreak is contained.

Mr. Pearl
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about looking at the document which I have placed in the Library. As he rightly says, that should be examined carefully. On his second point about the future organisation procedure, obviously the Department has, as it has in the past, learned much from the Northumberland incident. We are seeking to improve 1633 the administration, and will continue to do so.

§ Mr. Jopling
Is the Minister aware that I have had an opportunity to get the document from the Library, and I have looked through it quickly? He said a moment or two ago that he had looked into every aspect of the allegations. We heard this morning the suggestion from my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) that some parts of the allegations have not been investigated, and I have found no reference to them in the report. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will quickly make arrangements for the people whom my noble Friend specified to be interviewed with a view to getting their evidence and seeing if there are not certain facts in the report which are not quite true?

Mr. Pearl
I know that the hon. Gentleman is in difficulty because he has only just seen the report. I would ask him to read it carefully. I have taken up all the allegations which have been made by the noble Lord. I asked him some time ago to give me precise information. Some of his information is based purely on hearsay evidence and statements by individuals. I have checked as far as possible, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will bear that in mind when they read the report.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Hawkins.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have not called the noble Lord. Mr. Hawkins.

§ Mr. Hawkins
In my professional work, I have come in close contact with Ministry of Agriculture veterinary surgeons and, unfortunately, have had to take part. In any questions which I ask the Minister, I wish to stress that I have myself found the veterinary service of the greatest——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must have questions.

§ Mr. Hawkins
What I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, was that in any questions that I put to the Minister, I do not want to detract from what I consider to be a very fine service. Will the Minister agree that a very deep probe into the questions which arise from this 1634 outbreak must take place, and can he promise the House that he will use every endeavour to improve and make more humane slaughtering under these conditions? Can he promise the House that he will seek some improvement in relation to the spread of disease? Certain questions seem to need to be asked. For example, what stocks of humane killers are available to the Ministry in outbreaks such as this? These killers——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not debating. We are asking elucidatory questions on a statement. I must protect the business of the House. Mr. Peart.

§ Mr. Peart
In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I agree that we must try if we can to improve the method of slaughtering. I have said that already. In relation to the spread of the disease, where we can improve methods of containment, we will look at them carefully. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the veterinary profession.

§ Mr. Noble
May I ask the Minister to come back to the point which has been worrying hon. Members on both sides? My noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lamb-ton) has told the House that he gave the names and presumably the addresses of certain people who could give evidence to the Minister. The Minister said this morning that that was merely hearsay evidence, but that inevitably must be so in any matter raised by an hon. Member on behalf of a constituent, and it is none the worse for that. It does not remove any obligation from the Minister to have asked one of his officials to see these people, take their evidence and decide whether it was good or bad. The Minister has made no attempt to answer the question, but has tried to avoid it by various devious smokescreens.

Mr. Pearl
The right hon. Gentleman should not say that. I have been very frank with the House. I have looked into this carefully. The right hon. Gentleman has not read the report. I am surprised that someone whom I have always regarded as a responsible person should fall for some of the cheap tactics used by his noble Friend. I have looked into this carefully, and I beg right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, before making wild charges, to look at the report, which covers——

§ Viscount Lambton
Answer.

Mr. Pearl
I am answering, and the noble Lord should not be impatient. I ask the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) to look at the report which I have published.

§ Mr. Noble
I made no allegations at all. I merely said that my noble Friend had given the Minister certain evidence which he had received, or the names of people who had that evidence. I said that I thought the Minister, through his staff, should have interviewed those people to see whether their evidence was good or bad. There cannot be anything wrong in asking the Minister to do that. I said that the Minister should study the information which my noble Friend had made available to him before saying whether or not it was false.

Mr. Pearl
I have done that. Over and over again, I have been in touch with the noble Lord. He has written to me, and I have followed up all inquiries in relation to what he said. What the right hon. Member for Argyll said was that I was being devious. I ask him to withdraw that.

§ Viscount Lambton
The Minister said that he has followed up every inquiry. I have in my hand a statement from a farmer who made allegations which I presented to the House. He says: I have had no interview with any Ministry of Agriculture official regarding any inquiry into last year's outbreaks. Will the Minister say why?

Mr. Pearl
If something has not been done, I will certainly look into it. That is what I have always said. I am asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to examine the report which has been placed in the Library. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen feel that they would like more information, I shall be delighted to give it. I have always responded to the noble Lord's questions. Often he has come to me personally, and I have done my best to follow up any matters which he has raised.

§ Mr. Godber
I rise for only one further moment, because there is a clear dispute on the facts. The Minister will recall that right at the start I asked him for an independent inquiry. I have not yet read 1636 the report and do not want to prejudge it, but surely, if there is a dispute on the facts—and there is a dispute on the facts—this is still the best way to settle the matter?

§ Mr. Peart
There is no dispute here on the facts. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to read the report carefully. I ask him to remember that the demand for a public inquiry was on other matters originally, which the noble Lord does not now repeat—for example, that we have intimidated people in the industry. The noble Lord has never proved that. He has never made his case on it. Now he has come to the cruelty business. I have examined this very carefully and I believe that we have done a good job here.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must leave it.