Clause 64.—(DISEASES OF ANIMALS.)

HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc350-62

Mr. Kitson

I beg to move, Amendment No. 78, in page 75, line 3, to leave out ' have power'.

The intention behind this Amendment is to try to encourage the Minister of Agriculture to tackle the problem of salmonella typhimurium. I know that this is a difficult problem and that both Parliamentary Secretaries are extremely concerned about the spread of salmonella typhimurium. I referred to the phage type 29, discovered by the Chinese in 1959, and isolated in this country in 1961. In an Adjournment debate on 28th July, 1966 I pointed out that there are no enforceable restrictions to stop a farmer who has a drug resistant salmonella in his herd from selling his animals and spreading the disease and, therefore, the resistant organisms. I said then: There is documentary evidence that a particular salmonella has been spread by one calf dealer into nearly every county—certainly into 37 counties. Even though the technical laboratories and the public health workers know the background to this problem there are no powers to control it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July 1966, Vol. 732, c. 2056.] In Hampshire, there were three human deaths as a result of an outbreak and in another case 57 people were taken to hospital. There is a difficulty, which we all recognise, of isolating this particular type of salmonella. I have no doubt that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies he will say that there are thousands of different types of salmonella. But there has recently appeared in this country this salmonella typhimurium of phage type 29.

I know that it will be extremely difficult, having located this disease, to clear it up, but the "vets" feel, I am sure, rightly, that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics on calves to try to cure them creates very dangerous problems for the human beings who can also develop this type of salmonella. What happens is that a child or an old person develops this particular salmonella and a doctor uses drugs such as penicillin, chloroamphenicol, ampicillin, and sulpholamides but to no effect.

The calf dealer of whom I spoke earlier came from Essex, and the Ministry knew about him and realised the problem, but they had no powers to act. The least that the Minister can do is to accept this Amendment and make some attempt to help solve this problem and reduce a very serious human disease.

Viscount Lambton (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

On a point of order. Is Amendment No. 79, in page 75, line 4, after 'services' insert 'for particular purposes', and Amendment No. 80, in page 75, line 5, after 'services' insert 'and provision for a double check on these where any question of doubt arises' being discussed with this Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It would be convenient if those Amendments were discussed with this Amendment.

Viscount Lambton

I had not originally intended to put down the Amendment which, with your permission I will now discuss, but I believe that the need for a double check is essential. To explain why, at some slight length for the time of day, I would like to bring to the attention of the House certain examples illustrating the faults in veterinary administration which occurred in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in North Northumberland last summer. I contend that this outbreak was due to a maladministration and that as a result very considerable animal suffering—

Mr. Peart

On a point of order. The noble Viscount has the Adjournment debate soon and has informed my Department of the charges made by him. I would have thought that to get involved on this Amendment in this way would be extending privileges rather far.

Viscount Lambton

I must say that I claim the right to explain fully why I put down this Amendment. The fact that I have the Adjournment debate is totally irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I was listening to the noble Viscount. This Amendment is a narrow one and it would not be in order for him to elaborate arguments in support of it at any great length. He is entitled to refer to the outbreak in Northumberland briefly, in support of his argument, but he must confine his speech to the narrow purposes of this Amendment.

8.15 a.m.

Viscount Lambton

May I ask what you mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by "the narrow purposes of the Amendment "? I should like to give examples of what occurred in practise, which illustrates the necessity for a double veterinary check.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The noble Lord must appreciate that his Amendment has not been selected by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has permitted the Amendment to be discussed with the Amendment which has no w been moved, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confine his remarks briefly within that limitation.

Viscount Lambton

I will certainly try to do so; but I must go beyond the limitation which the Minister wishes to impose on me. Unless you stop me, I would like to give certain examples illustrating the need for the Amendment which I have inserted. I would say with all deference that the fact that I was able to discuss this does enable me to treat every aspect of the case.

Mr. Godber

You yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, made the point that this particular Amendment had not been selected, but was being allowed to be discussed. I understand that Amendment No. 79 has been selected. The reference to particular purposes would largely cover what my hon. Friend is proposing to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Amendment No. 79 has not been selected. The only Amendment which has been selected at this point is Amendment No. 78, but Mr. Speaker has permitted Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 to be discussed with Amendment No. 78. That selection does impose limitations on the length to which the noble Lord can go.

Viscount Lambton

I will certainly try to be as brief as possible in order to meet your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I should like to give some quotations which, in my view, necessitate the need for a double check. One statement, in my view, makes it essential that there should be a check. It is one that was given to me by a farmworker, Mr. Jobson. He said that the slaughterers …got impatient waiting up to 2 hours for the animals to be brought in and penned. The animals were crammed into pens. If a sheep was not properly shot it got behind him and was sometimes missed. Some sheep were suffocated by the pressure and not shot, at least some did not have any bullet holes. Slaughter started on the Thursday (28th July) and the last sheep were killed on Saturday (30th). When I went out at 10 p.m. some sheep (which were presumably slaughtered) were still active and I had to "bang them" (with an iron stake). One had to have its throat cut on the Sunday (31st). I suggest, with all deference, that this is within the narrow limits of the discussion.

Let me give another statement which was made by two farmworkers, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Young, of Dancing Hall, Callaly, Whittingham. They said: Slaughtering at Dancing Hall was a disgrace. One slaughterman was very young and inexperienced. The contractors' men needed supervision. They did not accept our advice, with the result that the penning of the animals caused unnecessary delay and confusion, for example, penning where the gate opened the wrong way. The slaughtering was badly executed. One beast was shot 5 times and had to be roped at the finish for the final shot. If the cruelty to animals people had seen this there would have been real trouble. To show how necessary it is that this matter be discussed on the Amendment, I shall now give the view of the slaughter-man who would, presumably, be condemned by the statement which I have just read. He said: There were five beasts which were penned up; these are normally destroyed by the vet in charge, but as this was an immediate confirmed case and valuation was not finished this was carried out by myself. He then goes on to say: Of the 69 cattle we destroyed, 60 just loose in the byre. For the other nine we built a pen of gates. Of these nine we destroyed seven; the last two we had bother keeping them in. We then lassoed them with binder twine. I then put my arms round both their necks and held them while they were being shot. The last beast had four or five shots"— I draw this particularly to the attention of the House— due to faulty gun which had been reported to the vet in charge at the time of slaughter. The vet officer and field technician were present while the slaughtering was carried out; at no time were any objections raised in the method it was carried out. The fact that no objections were raised to the method by which it was carried out is further evidence calling for extra veterinary supervision.

I wish to be as brief as your Ruling indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the last statement I shall quote is that of Mr. Brown of Wandylaw, Chathill. He said: On the evening of Tuesday, 9th August, 31 heifer calves and stirks were slaughtered at the steading. It was amongst these animals the disease was diagnosed, hence the desire for an early slaughter. The following day, Wednesday, 10th August, the remainder of the cattle, 142 head and approximately 200 sheep were slaughtered at the steading; the remainder of the sheep, 1,340, were slaughtered at the site on the moor. Naturally, having a very personal interest in the stock, I did not care to watch much of the slaughter operation, but on the few occasions when I had a look I was satisfied that the man, one person from Rothbury, was doing his work humanely. I never went near the moor. The report the shepherd gave me after driving in the first lot so disgusted me I simply could not face up to it, so the report I give of these phases is what was told me by my shepherd and one of the vets. The slaughter enclosure was a long double pen. Into this were first driven the Blackface ewes and lambs, 500 in all. They were slaughtered where they stood and the carcases left lying. Over these sheep 300 ewes were driven and slaughtered on top of the Black-faces. Finally, the lambs, rams and any odd sheep (approximately 550) were driven on top of those already mentioned, and slaughtered in any fashion. Later that evening, when all slaughtering was done. I drove to the moor, and one look at the shambles was sufficient for me. It was one pile of dead sheep lying on top of each other. Perhaps it was as well I made no close inspection. The following day the vet."— whose name I have— who superintended the burial informed me that some sheep were still alive and he mercifully cut their throats. How many died during the night is anyone's guess. My shepherd told me of a Blackface tup jumping out of the pen after being shot in the head and remaining there until he (the shepherd) brought in the last lot when he managed to get it in with them. In fact my shepherd was so upset with what he saw that he was almost on the point of fetching the last lot, the lambs, down to the steading for slaughter. This is a most shocking and damaging report. It merits inquiry, and it demands from the Minister a condemnation of his own civil servants and those who organised the slaughter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The noble Lord is not entitled on this Amendment to make accusations of maladministration. He is entitled to give illustrations to show why he considers that there should be a change in the law.

Viscount Lambton

Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I conclude by saying that the examples which I have given show every possible ground for arguing that there should be a change in the law. I hope that the Minister will accept what I propose by my Amendment.

Mr. Peart

I am rather surprised at the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) going beyond the arguments of the Amendment, which deals with the question of a double check. I shall reply to the hon. Member because he has made many allegations. Not only that, but he came to see me at the Ministry. This is on record. I wrote to him on 4th January as follows: You left the matter in my hands for me to deal with. I started enquiries immediately on the specific points you put to me but they are not yet complete. If I am to do this to my own satisfaction or yours. I must know all that is in your mind. I would, therefore, suggest that you should tell me what the points are about which you say you remain dissatisfied so that I can see how they can best be cleared up. I have never had a reply from the hon. Member.

The hon. Member has made a series of allegations about maladministration. I would be out of order to reply to these on the Amendment, but his behaviour in public has been shocking and I am sorry that he has not given me a follow-up to my letter, which he agreed to do. Instead, he went to a political meeting and now he comes to the House making charges about cruelty and the rest. I am making inquiries about the whole of these matters, but as yet I have had no response to my letter to the hon. Member.

Viscount Lambton

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Peart

No, certainly not. The hon. Member likes a lot of publicity outside, but he cannot "take it" inside.

We are dealing with an Amendment which affects the diagnostic services which are referred to in Clause 64. That is what the Amendment is about. These are the services provided in England and Wales—

Viscount Lambton

On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Minister to make a false statement about a letter and not to enable me to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is perfectly open for the Minister to decide whether to give way. I should add that it would be unfortunate if this incident were pursued any further in this debate. The Minister has dealt shortly with the accusation of maladministration, but any further discussion of those incidents, would, in my view, be out of order in relation to the Amendment.

Mr. Peart

I will deal with the matter more fully in due course on an Adjournment debate.

As I have said, the diagnostic services referred to in Clause 64 are the services provided in England and Wales by the Central Veterinary Laboratory and by the veterinary investigation centres run by my Department, and in Scotland by the centres run by the agricultural colleges. These veterinary investigation centres already undertake tests of a routine nature for private veterinary surgeons and charge for them. They also act as consultants at the request of private veterinary surgeons should a disease problem arise in any herd belonging to their clients. These consultant services are given free of charge.

The purpose of the inclusion of these services under Clause 64 is to ensure that they will be available to owners of livestock businesses who participate in the arrangements envisaged, such as the pig health scheme. The essential difference is that instead of being available as now at the request of the private veterinary surgeon, they will in future be available to members of the pig health scheme and any other such scheme that may be set up as a result of a concerted and co-operative effort by my Department's veterinary service and by the private veterinary surgeons. These laboratory services always check their results, in cases of doubt by applying other tests within the limits of basic scientific knowledge.

8.30 a.m.

We are not here dealing with diseases which must be notified. Fortunately, the diagnosis, though difficult at times, is relatively simple compared with the whole range of diseases with which we envisage the various schemes under the Cause will deal. In any case, I would have had to ask the House to reject inserting the phrase "double check" because it could be taken to mean a check by repetition rather than a check by a different method.

The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) has shown consider- able interest in salmonellosis and, in view of that interest, it was right that he should have asked me a number of questions. It would appear that his Amendment would either compel the Minister to admit farmers into a health scheme or compel him to afford veterinary services to anybody who was in the scheme. However, the Amendment would achieve neither objective.

The purpose of the Clause is to give broad enabling powers to the Government to enable health schemes to be set up. The only one we have in operation at present is the Poultry Health Scheme, covered by Section 46 of the Diseases of Animals Act. We want to set up a pig health scheme, albeit a limited scheme, and other health schemes may arise in future, though we have not got anything else under active consideration at the moment. Our main aim is in relation to this pig health scheme.

The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made a number of points about specific diseases, but I am sure the House would not wish me to enter into a discussion on these in the context of a broad enabling Clause. Indeed, there is little I can add to what was said recently in reply to an Adjournment debate. I hope, with this explanation, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept my assurances.

Mr. Jopling

I am speaking now, following the Minister, because I was unable to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had I been called earlier I would have commented on Amendment No. 79. However, like most hon. Members, I was carried away by the shocking facts revealed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). They were not the sort of things one likes to hear at any time, least of all after having been awake all night. He revealed a disgraceful state of affairs and I trust that ultimately a full and complete inquiry will be conducted into that case. [Laughter.] Why these remarks should be greeted by laughter from the Treasury Bench I do not know.

I raised the matter with which Amendment No. 79 is concerned in Standing Committee, but did not receive an adequate answer. Subsection (1) states: …the Minister shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to afford veterinary services, including diagnostic services, whether free of charge or not, to persons who carry on livestock businesses… The Minister described this as a broad enabling Clause; that is, enabling health schemes to be set up. But it goes wider than that. It allows for veterinary services to be provided, free of charge, to persons carrying on livestock businesses. We are, therefore, enabling the Minister to set up free veterinary services for farmers.

I do not see how the Minister can say anything to the contrary. It is clear from the third, fourth and fifth lines of subsection (1) that the powers are there for the Ministry to float a completely free veterinary service arrangement for farmers or for anyone else in the livestock business. This is a very new and fundamental departure which has so far passed unnoticed. It may be that this is not quite a power which the Minister intends to take. He has talked of a health scheme, a diagnostic service, and so on.

When I raised this matter in the Standing Committee the Minister's hon. Friend referred to the fact that I had asked whether this would mean the setting up of a sort of animal health service. He said: Certainly it is not. It is simply a Clause included in the Act to give the Minister powers for the eradication of brucellosis, and so on, and for the setting up of health schemes such as the poultry health scheme which has done such a lot of good."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th November, 1966; c. 1213.] We all agree that the Clause allows such health schemes to be set up, but it goes very much further than that.

It allows different veterinary services without specifying health schemes. It allows the Minister to finance the visit of the vet, to any farm where a beast is ill, or where his attendance is necessary. The Minister cannot be allowed to let this Clause go through without some sort of explanation on the lines I have indicated. I am not sure whether he has realised that he has taken these important and broad powers, or intended to do so, but he has, and I should be most grateful to have his comments.

Mr. Godber

I could conceive of no more difficult circumstance in which to debate anything of this nature—at this time, after a long sitting, and with the various cross-currents that have arisen in the debate, but it would be quite wrong to part with this Amendment and Clause without some recognition of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). These are important points, and I hope the Minister will ask leave to give a further indication of his intentions.

Some of the major aspects of the prevention of disease in animals are extremely important in regard to what we want to achieve in animal health generally, and this Clause provides certain measures. My hon. Friend was right to pose these questions, and I hope the Minister will respond.

I now want to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) in relation to the very serious problem of salmonella typhimurium, about which all concerned with calf rearing are most anxious. Very heavy losses have undoubtedly taken place as a result of this disease, but all the indications are that it can be and should be eradicated. No doubt the Minister was very much engaged in his mind with the other point, to which I shall turn in a moment, but I was disappointed with his reply, and I invite him to consider again the very serious points put by my hon. Friend, who has made a very special study of this disease. It is a study that could help enormously in avoiding calf losses.

I will not attempt to embark on the subject of foot-and-mouth disease except to say that my noble Friend the Member for Berwick - upon - Tweed (Viscount Lambton) has raised the matter in several ways. I do not think he should be blamed for this, because at an earlier stage he asked the Minister to institute inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote to him before Christmas to say that I knew nothing of the details but that as serious charges had been made I was appealing to the Minister himself, in the interests of his own veterinary service, if nothing else, to consider having a full and impartial inquiry.

I still think that an inquiry would help. It is only in this way, when serious charges have been made, that a satisfactory answer can be worked out. I do not wish to abuse our procedures, but I have now put on record the fact that I made that request to the Minister before Christmas, and that I still feel that an inquiry would be the best way of dealing with a matter which arouses deep emotions in the minds of all of us when we contemplate the sort of thing with which we are now dealing.

I come back to the other issues and I invite the Minister to say something further now. It would help if he would give further consideration to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.

Mr. Peart

I started immediate inquiries when representations were made to me. I would add that I never complain about an hon. Member making representations. However, I shall be dealing with this matter on an Adjournment debate.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), I entirely agree that salmonella typhimurium is a serious matter. I cannot commit myself at this stage, but I am carefully looking into the matter, and I will note his points with care.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), following his intervention in Standing Committee we have carefully examined the position to see whether it is possible to narrow the situation still further. I have come to the conclusion that the only way in which this could be done would be by specifying a limited number of livestock businesses. At the moment, as I have said, we have two schemes in mind, the poultry health scheme and the pig health scheme. I wish to limit the number of types of livestock businesses, but I will carefully examine the hon. Member's point about a scheme.

Mr. Kitson

I hope the Minister will appreciate the seriousness of the problem. The Parliamentary Secretaries have been extremely helpful, but in an Adjournment debate one of the Parliamentary Secretaries said that he was awaiting a report, and surely that report has been received by now. I hope that the Minister will take action at the earliest possible moment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.