FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (NORTHUMBERLAND) (Hansard, 18 January 1967)

§ Viscount Lambton (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Early yesterday morning I had some very harsh words with the Minister of Agriculture. This was the cause of some regret to me, because I had been what I like to think a friend of his over the years. I therefore thought that it would be only right and fair to the House to explain why I expressed myself so plainly.
To do so I shall have to go back and relate the dealings that I have had with the Minister since the start of this affair. Foot-and-mouth disease was first diagnosed in the area on 18th August last year. From the very beginning I naturally had the very greatest concern over the matter. I understood from a casual conversation which I had with the Minister that it was his intention to have an inquiry when the outbreak was over. As a result of this I made two speeches in my constituency, in both of which I clearly stated that I had seen the Minister and I asked those in the audience to reserve their judgment because he had assured me that later there would be an inquiry.
During the whole period of the outbreak very great fears and doubts were expressed to me about the method being used to combat the disease. Nevertheless, I made no public reference whatever to these doubts, presuming that there was to be an inquiry. I waited until November, but by then it became apparent that no inquiry was being publicly spoken of. I therefore put down a Question on 15th November. I received an emphatic reply from one of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries that there was not to be an inquiry because that was unnecessary. As a result I found myself in an awkward position. I had kept silent about my doubts because I 610 believe that there was to be an inquiry. If there was not to be an inquiry there seemed no alternative but for me to use publicity to see that the feelings of my constituents were aired and that the mistakes were brought out into the open in order to ensure that they should not occur again.
I do not deny that I have used publicity to this end. I will not deny that I shall continue to do so, because I am still of the opinion that the very gravest mistakes were made by the Minister and certain of his officials during the outbreak. A very large number of the Ministry officials worked most unsparingly and without any consideration for their own comfort towards bringing the outbreak to an end. They deserve the very greatest of thanks.

§ Mr. W. E. Garrett (Wallsend)
I am indeed grateful that the noble Lord has in a way retracted some of the damaging parts of the public statements he has made, particularly in the northern Press. His constituents were involved and he was right to use all methods of publicity, but I am glad that he has made this partial withdrawal, because I believe that he made a tactical error in attacking the officials.

§ Viscount Lambton
I make no retraction whatsoever. All I am doing is praising the majority of officials. At the same time, as I shall explain, I would to the utmost of my ability condemn the action of certain other officials.
The Minister chose to say yesterday morning that I had brought no evidence before him. I want to deal with that assertion. I went to see the Minister before Christmas. I conceived that it was to be a private meeting. Instead, I was met with the full array of the Civil Service—by the Minister, by the Chief Veterinary Officer, by the chief civil servant in the Ministry, and by a gentleman whose time seemed to be devoted to taking notes. I told the Minister of the very grave doubts which I had and asked for an inquiry. At this meeting the Minister conveyed to me that certain of the statements that I had made could in certain circumstances be considered libellous. If the Minister wishes to get information from Members of Parliament visiting him, such an announcement is not one which will encourage them to give him their confidence.
611 However, after Christmas I was by no means satisfied with the situation. I therefore wrote a letter to the Minister in which I asked him if it would be possible for me to see two veterinary officers—Mr. Pickering and Mr. Weir—and ask them certain questions which I thought might put my doubts at rest. I received a letter towards the end of December, dated in rather original fashion for a Ministry, in that it was merely dated "December", with no specific date being given.

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart)
So was yours.

§ Viscount Lambton
Then we are equal. The Minister repaid my compliment. Is the Minister's letter to me dated? If so, what date is on it?

§ Mr. Peart
I shall deal with that.

§ Viscount Lambton
There was no date upon the letter I had, but this is largely irrelevant. I received this letter saying that it was to be put before the Minister at the earliest opportunity. The next thing I knew was when I received a letter from the Minister, which was dated 4th January, in which no mention whatsoever was made of my request to see Mr. Pickering and Mr. Weir. I therefore did not believe that my reasonable request had been granted.
Shortly after that, and in some ways as a result of it, I called a public meeting in Rothbury. No sooner had I done so than I received a telephone message from the Private Secretary to the Minister in which he brought to my attention the fact that, though the Minister in his letter had said nothing about my request, he did not want me to understand that he was averse to my seeing Mr. Pickering and Mr. Weir. Indeed, he told me that he would be ready to do so as long as the Minister himself was present. This seemed a most singular request, that a Minister should insist upon being present at a routine discussion between a Member of Parliament and two veterinary officers. But I do not want to make too much of this, because I regard the personal relationship between ourselves as largely irrelevant to the two main issues. The two main issues are: was the outbreak effectively combated, and was there adequate prevention of its spread?
612 I have no doubt that mistakes were made, and the original mistake was made by Dr. Wilsdon on the 19th when he decided to decline to accept the analysis which had been made by Mr. Easingwood and Mr. Pickering that it was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. As a result of this error, the standstill was taken off on the 19th, and an open mart was held at Rothbury on the following Thursday, with the distribution of, perhaps, infected cattle around the countryside.
It is impossible to say that this spread the disease, but, at the same time, it is impossible to say that it did not. An inquiry would bring out whether or not it is satisfactory for veterinary officers to go entirely by the results which come out of the veterinary service at Pirbright. The all-clear was given on the Tuesday, after one test, when the third test proved positive. With all deference, I consider that this is a matter into which we could look with advantage.
The next matter is the inefficiency with which the contractors worked. One contractor who was employed in this outbreak told me that he was simply told to get men to do the jobs which came before the killing, the penning and so on. He told me that the only men he could get were in many cases unemployable. At the public meeting in Rothbury, he declared that at no time was he asked to put any supervision over those unemployable men. This should be inquired into.
Next, the delay in burial. On two farms certainly, at Dancing Hall and at Wandylaw, the cattle were killed and then were laid out for a period of up to two days without being disinfected. For all we know, birds may well have spread the infection. We must look very carefully into an organisation which kills without immediately disposing of the animals killed.
The contractors were not adequately supervised. Here is a statement given to me by a farmer, Mr. Hall, of Newham Buildings, whose cattle were killed: The Ministry should get its priorities right about human disinfecting. My workmen (who had not been near the infected animals) had to bath and change into clean clothing. The contractor's men, as far as I could see, were coming and going for four days without changing or bathing. The Ministry of Agriculture technical officer produced six new pairs of 613 overalls for the men. These were not used, and eventually were put into one of my sheds and retrieved by the Ministry weeks afterwards. I was asked by the V.O. Mr. Bolton to wear protective clothing and go with him to Newham Village Farm. He did not wear protective clothing and went into the infected field with Mr. Laws, the contractor's foreman, who also did not wear protective clothing. The rules were stringently applied to my men and I, and apparently ignored by the Ministry and through them the contractors.

§ Mr. Garrett
rose—

§ Viscount Lambton
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I should like to get on.
I should like to add a quotation by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Young, of Dancing Hall. They said: The contractor's men due to lack of supervision were not efficient. Their organisation broke down so badly the beasts were left lying unburied for two days. You could smell them in our cottages. We were confined to the farm, but the contractor's men were coming and going with the same clothes that they were handling the infected animals.

§ Mr. Peart
May I have an opportunity to reply to the hon. Member? The custom is that we divide the Adjournment time half and half.

§ Viscount Lambton
I have nearly finished. I have dealt with the cruelty. I should like to say one thing before I sit down about the personality of Dr. Wilsdon. In a speech he accused me—

§ Mr. Garrett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is unfair. The hon. Member is referring to individuals who cannot defend themselves in this Chamber, and I think it is unworthy of the hon. Member to attempt to make allegations against people at this stage of the debate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
That is not a point of order. The Minister will have an opportunity to reply in due course.

§ Viscount Lambton
If the hon. Member would not take up so much of my time I would be able to finish. I do not think that officials should make such statements. I asked the Minister whether he had given authority. He said he had not.
The right hon. Gentleman is asking for time, and I shall give it to him with pleasure. I conclude by saying that 614 many things have changed since 1928, not least the methods of killing. Cannot more humane methods of killing be introduced to avoid the atrocities that I have mentioned? At the same time, can it be right for contractors to be employed without supervision, thus spreading the disease, while the farmers themselves are confined to their farms? All this adds up to the need for inquiry which I hope the Minister will set in motion.

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart)
I welcome this debate, and I shall reply to some of the allegations made by the hon. Member in the short time at my disposal.
I am glad that after throwing so many wild allegations at me and my Department on the radio, television and in the Press, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) has come face to face with me in the House. I have said publicly that I am not prepared to argue with him at a distance.
I shall repeat the facts. Just before Christmas the hon. Member came to see me and I undertook to examine the points that he put to me. Whilst I was engaged on this, he wrote immediately after Christmas saying that he was dissatisfied with—I quote—"a thing or two". I wrote to him on 4th January asking him to let me know what these points were. I said: …you left the matter in my hands for me to deal with. I started inquiries 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 would best be cleared up. I have never received a reply to that letter.
Nevertheless, on 11th January the hon. Member addressed a public meeting at Rothbury, the centre of the outbreak. Apparently he delivered himself of a string of allegations, including some new ones which he did not mention at his meeting with me. Hon. Members may be as surprised as I was at this.
I want to deal straight away with the gravest of the charges made by the hon. Member. In mid-December the hon. Member made a speech at Acklington in 615 which he is reported in many newspapers to have said, and I quote: I have also been conscious of deliberate attempts to hush up the original errors by putting pressure on those whose livelihood is dependent on business provided for them by the Ministry of Agriculture and have been given to understand that they should keep quiet or face the economic consequences. This most serious allegation quite naturally caused alarm and consternation. The House, my Department and the public at large have a right to know whether the hon. Member has or has not retracted these remarks. I challenge him to give a straight answer here and now to this simple question—does he stand by these words or does he not? Yes or no?

§ Viscount Lambton
I will answer. I am content that the speech made by Dr. Wilsdon was a deliberate attempt at intimidation, an attempt to hush up the matter and to bring home to people that they should make no statement whatsoever.

§ Mr. Peart
That is really shameful. The hon. Member does not retract, but what he has said, in view of my meeting with him, is quite remarkable. I am really surprised at the hon. Member. If he wishes to deal with individuals he should go further and repeat it outside. I would never sue the hon. Member. I believe he has a right to pursue his Parliamentary duties by pursuing inquiries. But to make charges of that kind is, I think, deplorable. He really must substantiate his charges, and he has not done so.
At his meeting with me before Christmas when he seemed inclined to stick to this allegation, he made it clear that it was based on remarks made on a private occasion by my Regional Veterinary Officer. I have had an account of what the R.V.O. said, and I accept that he should not have used the language he did, and for this I have taken appropriate measures. But by no stretch of the imagination could what he said be held to be intimidation or to justify in any way the words used by the hon. Member.
I want to deal now with the argument about diagnosis. The hon. Member's main charge under this head is that the veterinary service was negligent or in- 616 competent in its original diagnosis. There is not enough time to go over all the ground, and I can only highlight the key points.
The diagnosis of foot-and-mouth depends first and foremost on the clinical examination by the veterinary surgeons on the spot. All—and I repeat all—of my officers concerned agreed both on 18th and 19th July that the clinical symptoms were not those usually associated with foot-and-mouth disease. Their evidence was subjected to the closest scrutiny by my experts at headquarters. Although in agreement, they asked, even after the negative report from Pirbright, for a further examination before the restrictions were removed.
My most experienced and senior officers have since gone carefully over all the records and are of the opinion that necrotic stomatitis was present in the animals examined at Flotterton Hall on 18th and 19th July, and that this disease was still present in the animals examined there on 21st July. They have concluded that this condition probably masked the early symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease, which became evident only when it spread to cattle not affected by necrotic stomatitis.
There is a lesson to be learned from this very unusual situation. In future cases my officers will have to consider this further possibility. But there is no question of blundering or negligence. I must emphasise, too, that from the time the restrictions were withdrawn until they were reimposed on 21st July there was no movement of animals from the farm which could have contributed to spreading the disease.

§ Viscount Lambton
rose

§ Mr. Peart
I cannot deal in the time which the hon. Member has left me with the other points in the diagnosis, but I shall send him a full written statement and I shall publish it.
I deal with Mr. Brewis. This is one of the charges, although the hon. Member has not mentioned him tonight. I find the way in which he has thought fit to refer to the case of Mr. Robert Brewis particularly repugnant. I am not alone in this. Dr. Armstrong, Mr. Brewis's doctor, is reported as saying: I am livid with anger at this man Lambton. — While propaganda to a politician 617 is absolute meat and drink, to me it's anathema and to Brewis it might be 'death'. and: I regard it as thoughtless—and indeed rather callous … I can understand Dr. Armstrong's feelings.
Apart from the time when he was in Walkergate Isolation Hospital, Mr. Brewis was, from 21st July to 17th August, living on an infected farm, where he was subject to very strict control. He was allowed off the farm only with the permission of my officers. Foot-and-mouth virus was identified in a specimen from Mr. Brewis's hands sent to Pirbright on 31st July. Further tests, on 4th, 9th and 11th August, were all negative and we were satisfied that he was no longer a danger to animals. There was, therefore, then no need to impose a stricter control on Mr. Brewis than on other residents there.
Recently, the hon. Member is reported to have said that Mr. Brewis once again showed symptoms of the disease. I understand, however, that tests made for foot-and-mouth disease virus have proved negative and that investigations into the cause of his illness are continuing.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides—and the hon. Member for Berwickupon-Tweed—will share my sympathy with Mr. Brewis. He has suffered much and the last thing I want to do is to add to his difficulties. I have taken my own inquiries as far as I can with my experts. But, as the circumstances of the case are rare and raise some questions of scientific interest, I propose, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to ask scientific experts in this field to consider whether the rare occurrence of a human case of this disease presents any problems of diagnosis or necessitates any additional precautions to prevent spread of infection.
There is no time to deal with the other points which the hon. Member raised. I am making urgent inquiries into complaints about slaughtering. The hon. Member did not mention this at my meeting with him, although he managed to drag it into yesterday's debate on a rather narrow point—

§ Viscount Lambton
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would answer it this morning.

§ Mr. Peart
The hon. Member must not be too impatient. He has made 618 many wild statements about intimidation and threats to people's interests, which is absurd, and he knows it. On the question of Mr. Brewis, he has created difficulty and uncertainty. He has decried the veterinary service which, particularly in relation to these tests at Pirbright, has proved itself one of the outstanding services in the world. He has sought to denigrate officers who cannot answer back and has made exceptionally cheap remarks.
I am making urgent inquiries into the complaints about slaughtering. The hon. Member raised this—

§ Viscount Lambton
The right hon. Gentleman denied them.

§ Mr. Peart
I must ascertain the facts. I am not prepared to accept always what the hon. Gentleman says; in view of what he has said previously, I cannot accept his opinion. He has made so many extravagant statements that I would rather check the facts with those concerned than wait for the opinions of the hon. Member.
I am making inquiries into this. As soon as my inquiries are completed, I will certainly make a full statement. If I found that there were any abuses, I would condemn them. That is right for a Minister, and I would do this. The hon. Member has made accusations about slaughtermen. I do not know whether the hon. Member is right or not, but I am making inquiries—

§ Viscount Lambton
Why does not the right hon. Gentleman—

§ Mr. Peart
I am making inquiries. That is my job and responsibility as a Minister. I do not need to be told that by the hon. Member—

§ Viscount Lambton
The right hon. Gentleman does.

§ Mr. Peart
—and I shall make a full statement.
I want to make a general point. After an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, my Department always carries out a thorough review. We are always on the look-out for ways and means of improving our procedures and, of course, we are considering, and acting upon, any lessons to be learned from this outbreak. I understand that the Northumberland branch of the National Farmers' Union 619 has compiled a report for its headquarters. If the union has any points which it wishes to put to me, I shall, naturally, be very glad to follow them up.
The hon. Member has, of course—I have never denied this—the right to raise any points which he thinks appropriate on a matter affecting his constituency. I said that to him when he came to see me. 620 I am sorry that he has seen fit to discharge his duties in the way he has.