AMENDMENTS OF DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1950 AS RESPECTS IMPORTA- TION AND VACCINATION, ETC.

HC Deb 07 April 1970 vol 799 cc470-88

Mr. Temple

I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 82, line 6, at beginning insert— Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment, it would be convenient to discuss also Amendment No. 51 in page 82, line 12, at beginning, insert— Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section. and Amendment No. 53 in page 82, line 23, at end insert— (4)(a) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall come into operation on such date not earlier than twelve months after the passing of this Act as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may by order prescribe. (b) An order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument.

Mr. Temple

I rise as the clock strikes 3 a.m. and I give an undertaking to be as brief as possible on a complex and difficult subject. The object of this Amendment is to defer the operation of the reserve powers taken by the Government for ring vaccination against foot and mouth for one year. Then they would be brought in by Statutory Instrument if the Government wished.

Up to now, there have been neither national nor international consultations on these reserve powers. I readily admit that foot-and-mouth disease is probably the biggest international animal health problem in the world today and there is nothing simple about it. However, every aspect of ring vaccination should have the most careful scrutiny before being put into operation.

I shall hand the Leader of the House a bouquet because when he was Minister of Agriculture during the 1967–68 outbreak, the Government had reserve powers they could have used for vaccination in that great emergency, but they kept their nerve and the reserve powers were never used.

I have another bouquet for the present Minister who has also done a magnificent job on the acceptance of many of the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee. I shall not quote from that committee's report, but if hon. Members want to look at the recommendations they are on pages 93 and 94.

The first and principal recommendation of the committee is that the slaughter policy by itself should be implemented and that only in certain circumstances should vaccination be held as a reserve power. I congratulate the Minister on doing practically everything asked of him by the Northumberland Committee on that second point, but reading its recommendations carefully, one finds that it does not make it necessary for the Government to have the reserve powers which they are taking. Our Amendment seeks that they should not operate for a year, which would give time for careful thought.

The present position is that the Government are to use the slaughter policy—I want to be absolutely fair in stating my case—but that it will be backed up if necessary by ring vaccination, and the Government have taken powers to keep a revolving stock of vaccine at a cost of over £500,000 a year, which is quite an insurance premium to be paying annually!

Many explanations have been given on how this policy will work out. I shall quote only from the latest information, given in a letter by the Private Secretary to the Minister to the Royal Agricultural Society of England on 25th March, when he said: It is not proposed that it will be imposed with every initial outbreak of the disease. That is now acknowledged by the Minister, and that is therefore the policy. The vaccine will be used in certain circumstances. The slaughter policy by itself, the policy of the Gowers Committee, is now, because of the Government proposals, a thing of the past.

There are strong reasons for advocating this Amendment, otherwise we should not be bringing it forward at this late hour. In evidence to the Northumberland Committee, and indeed, today, all interests are unanimous that they do not want ring vaccination. This was the evidence of the National Farmers' Union on behalf of the commercial men, of all the breed societies representing all cattle, sheep and pig breeders, of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and of the British Veterinary Association.

The Northumberland Committee recommended reserve powers of ring vaccination in certain circumstances only, basing its recommendation on Danish experience. The Minister has made it clear that the Danish experience will be varied in that the Government's reserve powers will be used to vaccinate pigs. Pigs are particularly difficult subjects for vaccination. I have very recent information to give the House from an impeccable but I regret to say non-attributable source which is very much concerned with Denmark.

As I understand it, in the last outbreak in Denmark in December of last year "A" virus was the cause. There were severe subsidiary outbreaks in vaccinated stock within 14 days. The House will accept that immunity is not gained in cattle or sheep until ten days have passed. My informant from Denmark also says that the excreta from all vaccinated animals is extremely dangerous. I am afraid that vaccination could pose a good many more problems than it would solve. I give the House only these examples from Denmark, though I could give many more examples of the problems raised by reason of the use of vaccine.

Now I turn to the international repercussions of the policies proposed by the Government. Here I again have up-to-date information from another non-attributable but extremely well informed source. The United Kingdom does not allow vaccinated stock into our country because it is acknowledged that they are dangerous. So we should not be exactly surprised if other countries would react in a similar manner! In Committee I raised the question of consultations with the Northern Ireland Government and with the Government of the Irish Repub- We have not had discussions as to how we are to proceed with them".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 3rd March, 1970, c. 979.] that is, with the Northern Ireland and Irish Government negotiations.

My advice is that those discussions may go very badly. My reason for saying this is that certainly the Irish Republican Government have at the moment a very excellent meat export business amounting to about £10 million a year with the United States and they are looking forward to building up their meat export business with Japan. The United States and Japan are two of the most animal-health conscious countries in the world. None of us would wish to have a barrier brought down as between Ireland and ourselves with regard to the interchange of livestock.

Animal health problems are very difficult and complex. I ask about international repercussions because I greatly fear that other countries will adopt the same attitudes as those which I visualise will be adopted by the Irish Republic. In Committee I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would do a cost evaluation exercise of his proposals. I may have been wrong, but I thought that he took that very lightly. There is no doubt that at present the cost is a very serious matter. There are more "knowns" now than there were only a few weeks ago. We now know that the cost of the revolving vaccine will be about £½ million a year. We know that in the outbreaks which occurred from 1950 to 1966—a period of 17 years—the slaughter policy cost less than £½ million a year, less than the cost of the revolving stock of vaccine. Averaging out the cost of the big outbreak in 1967–68, the total cost of the slaughter policy works out at £1.7 million a year over a period of 20 years.

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman will come to his Amendment, which seeks to postpone the date for 12 months.

Mr. Temple

I am seeking to postpone the date so that all these factors may be considered. This is my third and last factor, because I promised to cut my speech down, and I am regrettably already leaving out a tremendous number of good points.

There is no doubt, with hindsight, that the 1967–68 outbreak need never have cost as much as it did. It should never have been as extensive as it was. That is not to imply any criticism of the Ministry.

Mr. Mackie

The hon. Gentleman needs to expand on that point. It is a new one, and very relevant.

Mr. Temple

I will give the hon. Gentleman one explanation, though I could give many. One is that the disease was spread by milk tankers. This is in the Northumberland Report. The air blown off by one tanker contained enough virus to infect about 8 million cattle. That is now known and acknowledged. That is why I say, with hindsight, that this need not have occurred. To put it no higher, our livestock interests and the public are entitled to see the Ministry's thinking on paper with regard to the justification for spending over £½ million per annum on the revolving stock of vaccine, having regard to the average costs that I have mentioned.

The Government are organising a conference with the Animal Health Division of the Ministry on 21st April. But this is not simply a matter of animal health. Export problems are involved, and there are also international complications. All those should be resolved within a year before the Government take the final decision to have these reserve powers on the Statute Book. I could give many examples of how difficult these international discussions will be, because I know from personal experience just how difficult and touchy other countries are about animal health regulations. I trust that I have convinced the House that it would be wise to defer the implementation of these powers for one year, and that the Government will give very sympathetic consideration to the Amendment.

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

Farmers in my constituency have asked me to support the Amendments. They are particularly anxious that the period of one year's deferment should be agreed. They point out that there has been very little discussion on the Clause with the various interested parties on the vaccination of livestock, and especially that there have been no consultations with the countries where livestock is to be exported. This is a very important aspect of the problem.

The Minister has been reminded time and again of the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee, which considered the slaughter policy to be the best method of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease when it occurs in Great Britain, it recommended that it should be continued, and that only if the recommendations on the importation of meat were not carried out effectively would it be desirable to revert to a policy of vaccination.

3.15 a.m.

It also recommended that as part of contingency plans ring vaccination material should be kept in constant readiness. Many feel that the existence of these stocks might be a temptation and that they might be used in an emergency. The committee also pointed out that the only country where ring vaccination was practised is Denmark and that far more is needed to be known about the effects before this country followed its example.

My farmers are also concerned with the problem of the export of livestock. Here I would pay a tribute to the excellent work done by the British Agricultural Export Council. I wonder whether the Minister has had any consultations with that body as to the effect that this will have on exports, if the year's deferment is not agreed to. I very much hope that this proposal for the deferment will be accepted.

Mr. Noble

I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and others. Some years ago I had the task of being chairman of the British Livestock Export Group, as it was then called, and we were continually, and inevitably, in discussions with other countries and farmers overseas about ways and means whereby livestock could be imported into those countries. Often we reached the position where the farmers wanted to import the stock and the Government of that country was looking for reasons to refuse the importation. One of the main reasons was any question dealing with foot-and-mouth disease.

It is certain that if we move from the present position when we will not allow in animals which have been vaccinated and practise vaccination here, then every country which wants to prevent our livestock getting in will turn round and say that it cannot accept our livestock, pointing out that this was the policy that we pursued six months ago.

There is every reason for taking this matter slowly. All sections of the farming community are worried about it and feel that they do not know enough about it. There is every reason for more consultation. On the export side it is vital that proper consultations are held with other countries, or else very great damage will be done.

Sir J. Foster

My constituency had perhaps the biggest incidence of foot-and-mouth disease, on an area basis. Although my constituency is largely industrial, practically all of the agricultural part was laid waste by this dreadful disease. The House will agree that the Amendment, which has the support of farmers in my constituency, is aimed at getting the best policy.

The Government have the power, under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, to vaccinate any animal which comes into contact with an infected animal. The Bill extends the power to any infected area so declared by the Minister. The Amendment delays this extended power for one year to give the Government the opportunity to think again and not bring into operation ring vaccination.

It is hoped that, after consultations have taken place, the Government will see that the policy of ring vaccination is wrong. It affects our exports, and, if it were brought in in an emergency, many countries would not import cattle from us. It would also prohibit or seriously impede the movement of animals for breeding purposes.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are debating not the merits of Clause 99, but whether we should delay the coming into operation of certain provisions for 12 months.

Sir J. Foster

With respect, we want to postpone the operation because we are opposed to ring vaccination. It is legitimate to propose an Amendment to allow the Government to think again about the wisdom of bringing in a policy of ring vaccination. If at the end of the year the Government are still minded to use ring vaccination in an outbreak, there will not be much point in postponing it for a year. The postponement is of no value unless it leads the Government to the conclusion that ring vaccination is not to be used in dealing with an outbreak.

By extending vaccination to any infected area the Government are running counter to the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee, which said that, if its advice about imports were accepted, it was not in favour of the Government using or extending their powers of ring vaccination. The Government had the power during the last outbreak, but they did not use it. Use of the power would give approval to the policy of ring vaccination.

We want the power to be postponed for a year, so that international and national consultations will persuade the Government that the Northumberland Committee was right and that ring vaccination will harm our exports, so that the Government at the end of the year will not bring in an order to apply ring vaccination to an infected area. There is a certain lack of logic in this, as the Government already have this power.

I ask the Government to examine this again and come to the conclusion that they should not use either the power they have or the extended power which they are seeking in the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins

It is obvious that our exports should be taken into account when considering this problem of ring vaccination, and the reason why I support my hon. Friends in asking for a year's postponement is the practical application of ring vaccination. Once it was started it would do great harm to our livestock industry.

We have lived with the present policy for many years, and we have all hated to see the slaughter which has been necessary from time to time. But we have realised that it is our only hope of containing the disease. We have had one exceptionally bad outbreak, the report on it has come out clearly in favour of continuing the slaughter policy, and we must go into the deepest detail with all the powers concerned, nationally and internationally. For that purpose, this year of postponement is vital.

My own county of Norfolk does not have an immense amount of stock, but there are a large number of pigs. Many 50-acre fields carry hundreds of sows. The practical application of ring vaccination would be an immense problem. With veterinary surgeons and vaccinators moving about, the chances are that there would be a greater spread of the disease than would result from continuing the slaughter policy. I urge this postpone- ment in order that the matter can be thoroughly reconsidered.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I became interested in this matter when we had the terrible outbreak last year. School children in my constituency collected money to send one of our clean groups of cattle from Suffolk to start a new herd in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), where, very sadly, it began.

I have another interest in that my constituency has possibly the heaviest concentration of pigs in the country. The Minister recently visited a bacon factory there. Shortly, we are to have what will probably be the largest bacon establishment in Europe. So I have a considerable interest in this matter, and I urge the Government to listen to the wise words of my hon. Friends who ask them to pause for reflection before they "go hard" on this policy.

The first reason why the Government should delay is that they are taking considerable powers. Among others, they are taking power to declare a whole area to be infected. This will mean that many firms could be placed at risk. They could be ordered to accept inspectors and vaccinators, who would have the right to enter their farms and vaccinate their stock.

Before these powers are taken, I believe that the Government should consult those concerned very much more fully than they have done so far. The President of the National Pig Breeders Association is a constituent of mine. He tells me that he and his organisation were virtually not consulted on this matter. I cannot believe that that is right when a serious step of this kind is being taken. I understand, in addition, that the other breed societies in the country were not brought into discussion before the decision was taken.

3.30 a.m.

There is the question whether there was consultation with the countries to which we export animals. I refer the Minister to a Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) on 16th March, when he asked …with what countries in the last four years his Department has been in consultation regarding the use of inactivated foot-and-mouth vaccine?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1969; Vol. 798, c. 56.] The Minister's reply was "None". He admitted openly that there had been no consultation formally with any other countries. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Government the opportunity to undertake these discussions with the countries to which we wish to export livestock.

Another reason why delay would be wise concerns cost. I am advised that, whether or not the vaccine is used, simply to produce, stockpile, and have it available would cost not less than £500,000 a year. That is a substantial sum. Excluding the period of the last epidemic, it is rather more than the annual cost of the slaughter policy. I submit that by rushing this matter forward the Minister is not giving himself time to work out the cost benefit of this large investment. Again, the Amendment would give him this year in which to work out the cost implications rather more than he has so far done.

The third reason why I ask the Government to pause and reflect is that they are going a long way beyond what the Northumberland Committee recommended. When a committee is set up we presumably have a good deal of confidence in its members. I am certain that in the chairman of that committee all of us have a great deal of confidence. The committee made recommendations which the Minister will know virtually by heart. It is a big step to go beyond its conclusions, and to do so so quickly.

The Northumberland Committee recommended that vaccination should be kept as a reserve power, a fall-back emergency action, only to be taken if all else failed. The Government are moving away from that very quickly. I think that they ought to pause and reflect before making this decision.

My last point concerns pigs, in which I have had some interest. The only country where ring vaccination is known to be practised is Denmark. I hope that the Minister will not say that he can take the Danish experience and apply it in this country. He has not had time to study the situation in Denmark at all deeply. Moreover, conditions in Denmark, which presumably form the basis of at least some of the Government's thinking, are by no means comparable with conditions here. Although Denmark has fairly heavy concentrations of livestock, it has comparatively little movement. I believe that it has six livestock markets, whereas we have more than 1,000. The Minister would be wise to take the time to send his experts to Denmark to study the situation there more deeply. We ask for this additional time so that he can do that.

I am reminded that again my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester, on 11th March, asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in the last two years representatives from his Department have visited Denmark in order to have consultations in that country concerning methods of controlling the spread of foot-and-mouth disease with special reference to ring vaccination policies. The Minister's reply was once again rather disturbing. He said: No countries have been visited in the past two years by representatives of my Department specifically to study ring vaccination".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 306.] The Minister went on to say that there were two occasions when the subject was discussed by senior veterinary officers, but no visits to Denmark at all.

The Amendment would give the Government the opportunity to do various things. It would give them an opportunity to send their representatives to Denmark to discuss the matter in rather more detail. The Danes, after all, have rather more experience of this than we have. It would give them an opportunity to work out the financial implications rather better. Above all, it would give them an opportunity to face the practical difficulties which they are likely to meet.

I ask the Minister to accept that, rightly or wrongly, farmers in my constituency are very worried about this, and I believe that the debate tonight must attempt to allay their real anxieties. They make the point that there are great practical difficulties, which the Government would recognise if they took time. For example, it is necessary to muster large numbers of animals at short notice in one place to vaccinate them, and this can cause considerable stress at times of the year, such as at lambing and spring calving time.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is entering into the merits of the Clause. He must keep on asking for more time.

Mr. Griffiths

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for very little more time.

The point I am making is that if the Minister takes time to reflect—and the Amendment would provide the time—he would quickly see that there are times of the year—for example, lambing and calving time—which would present difficulties for his policy. In addition fog or snow could create hazards for both men and stock; and there would always be difficulty in bringing in all the stock. Another danger would be the removal of animals from the relatively infection-free hills and outlying areas to farm steadings where they would be more likely to be exposed to the disease. That is a quotation from paragraph 200 of the Northumberland Report, and my point in quoting it is simply to illustrate that that if only the Minister will take some time, as the Amendment provides, he will see that there are these practical difficulties, there are the financial implications, and there is the fact that we do not know sufficient about the disease, or, more particularly, about the vaccination. He should not rush this policy along and alarm our farmers at the same time.

I ask the Minister to weigh very carefully the undoubted anxiety among our breed societies and farmers. I ask him to take this little time to consider the points which have been made. He will have his power. He will only have to come to the House with a Statutory Instrument to be able to exercise it.

Mr. Godber

The short debate on this important subject illustrates very clearly the disadvantages from which we are suffering, in that we have not had the opportunity of a full debate in the House on the two reports of the Northumberland Committee. If the House had been able to consider them before the Minister brought forward this legislation, we and the farmers would have been able to appreciate the implications and the pros and cons of the situation.

The Clause provides for certain extensions of the existing power, and my hon. Friends are seeking to delay the operation of some of those extensions. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) made clear, this would not necessarily achieve the object which some of my hon. Friends have in mind, because the Minister has the power now if he wants to use it.

I hope that the Minister will take note of the anxieties of many farmers about the use of ring vaccination. Two separate arguments have been adduced. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who speaks with great experience, and who has studied this problem carefully, based his argument largely on the need to have full discussions with other countries to ensure that if this policy is introduced it will be done in a way which will do the minimum amount of harm to our international relationships in animal trading I fully endorse that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich took the matter rather further when he indicated that his main purpose in bringing about some delay was to seek to prevent the change being introduced in this Measure.

On behalf of the Opposition I am quite happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester and the wording of the Amendment. I am not happy to commit myself and my colleagues to a rejection of the idea of ring vaccination in toto. We want more time to think about it. My views might be affected to some extent by the results of the discussions that I hope the Minister will have—especially with other countries—on the effect on the export of our pedigree stock and the other relevant matters. I have a fairly open mind about the matter. I feel that we need more time.

Mr. Temple

My right hon. Friend is experienced in international negotiations. Does not he agree that discussions take a long time to bring to finality in this difficult field?

Mr. Godber

Yes, although I hope that they will not take as long as some international discussions that I have been involved in. I am thinking of disarmament discussions, but that goes outside the scope of the Amendment. International discussions can be lengthy. I should have thought that the 12 months' period that my hon. Friend has suggested would be a reasonable one to enable the Minister to follow up the various points put forward. I hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment, or at least give some thought to it, with a view to introducing his own Amendment in another place, because of the real worry shown in regard to the possible implementation of this provision.

I am not wholly convinced one way or the other by the arguments for or against ring vaccination. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich referred to the Northumberland Committee. It is only fair to say that the Government did not accept in toto its recommendations in regard to the import of meat. I think that the Government were right in their decision on imported meat, which means that my hon. and learned Friend's argument falls to the ground to some extent. If there were a continuing risk the argument in favour of ring vaccination might be greater. These are difficult and abstruse matters to argue now, and I do not propose to develop them further. I wanted to make clear my thoughts in regard to this rather difficult matter, and to say that I, like my hon. Friends, feel that more time is required. I therefore hope that the Government will give a sympathetic reply by saying that they will give careful thought to the points raised and have the fullest consultations before any definite decisions are taken.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Mackie

The Amendment would prevent our introducing ring vaccination for at least 12 months.—[Interruption.] Let me start developing my argument. Arguments were brought forward in Committee about the advisability of postponing ring vaccination for 12 months. As I promised in Committee, we shall consult all the various bodies about what might be the situation.

The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), with hindsight, said that there could be a situation in which we could handle an outbreak better than we handled that of 1967–68. That could certainly be the case. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made many points, all of which would be taken into consideration before ring vaccination took place. Obviously, there would be a study of the epidemiology of an outbreak and a veterinary study of the risks of the disease spreading. All that would be done.

I reiterate that the policy of the Government is that of slaughter to contain foot-and-mouth disease. There has been talk of a cost of less than £500,000 up to the 1967 outbreak and £1,500,000 after it. These were average costs. The true cost was far in excess of them. No Government could agree to the postponement proposed here. We have a duty to try to protect the herds of this country. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) put the point fairly that we have not accepted the whole of the Northumberland Committee's Report and that most of the evidence about the outbreaks was circumstantial.

There are two distinct points here. The first is the question of safety in the country, whether ring vaccination will contain the disease. The second is the effect it will have on our livestock exports. I do not think that the second point has the tremendous significance that hon. Members suggest. Past outbreaks have affected exports of livestock. If we have ring vaccination, it is unlikely to increase that effect. This country imports non-vaccinated animals from France, and if there is ring vaccination only a minimal number of animals in the country will be done, and, of course, it is a dead vaccine.

If the Amendment were accepted and we were confronted with a disease situation where all the expert advice available to us indicated that there was the possibility of the disease spreading to epidemic proportions, we would be unable to use ring vaccination in that 12-month period.

The Amendment would lay down an arbitrary period of 12 months for these consultations. We believe that the consultations can take place in much less time than that. If that is the case, why wait for 12 months? I give the House an assurance that the consultations hon. Members have been asking for with the exporters and the N.F.U. and all others concerned will take place and that we do not think that they will take 12 months or anything like that period. As we have decided that ring vaccination might be necessary, it would be ridiculous to lay down an arbitrary period of 12 months in which we could do nothing.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

rose——

Sir J. Foster

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order, There are two would-be interveners

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is a vaccination policy we could say "Good-bye" to our exports to Japan or New Zealand.

Mr. Mackie

This is not a vaccination policy but a policy of ring vaccination to contain a disease. I do not know whether I am in order or not.

Mr. Speaker

I warn the hon. Gentleman—not.

Sir J. Foster

On a point of order. In my submission, Mr. Speaker, you are here to guide our debates. Sometimes, if it is said that a wrong statement is made, you are in a position to say whether that is a matter of opinion. However, the Parliamentary Secretary has misconceived what the Amendment says. He is just not right. He says that the Amendment would prevent ring vaccination from being used for 12 months. That is not so. Although it is 3.50, I beg him to correct his first premise. He already has the right to order ring vaccination. It is in the existing law. How could the Amendment prevent him from exercising that right? It will be ridiculous if he has to correct all this in HANSARD.

Mr. Mackie

The Amendment says that these provisions are not to come into operation earlier than 12 months after the passing of the Bill.

Sir J. Foster

That is an extra power.

Mr. Temple

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. A dual intervention may be quite attractive, but it is physically impossible.

Sir J. Foster

I do not want to seem in the least rude or imposing. That prevents the extra power of ring vaccination from being used. The Minister has the right—to order ring vaccination now under the 1950 Act, and the Amendment cannot touch that. The Minister may order the vaccination of any animal which comes into contact with an infected animal. He is now seeking power to vaccinate any animal in an infected area. It is that which we are asking him to postpone for 12 months.

Mr. Mackie

In fact it is ring vaccination which the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to postpone for 12 months. I can read the Amendment in no other way. It asks us to postpone ring vaccination for 12 months. I see no other explanation of the Amendment.

Mr. Temple

The Parliamentary Secretary missed the first bouquet which I handed to the Government, which was that they did not lose their nerve during the 1967 outbreak when they could have vaccinated. Ring vaccination is only another term for general vaccination, barrier vaccination. The Government kept their nerve in 1967, but if they had wanted to, they could have ordered vaccination under the 1950 Act.

Mr. Mackie

I do not see what that has to do with it. The Amendment simply says that ring vaccination should be delayed for 12 months. I cannot interpret it in any other way. If there were an outbreak, the Amendment would simply inhibit us for this arbitrary time. The hon. and learned Member wants us to change our minds, but we want to have discussions before coming to any final decisions, and that may take less than 12 months. It would be wrong to accept this arbitrary time and I could not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Temple

This has been a rather disappointing debate on this complicated subject. I should like to thank all my hon. Friends who have supported the Amendment. Those speeches have been extraordinarily constructive, reasonable and amenable. I am extremely sorry that once again the Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood what we are trying to achieve. We have put our arguments as reasonably as possible, but I do not think that we can now press them further.

It seems clear that the discussions will take a good deal longer than the Parliamentary Secretary expects and that to a degree they will take place after the decision has been taken, which will make them nothing like as valuable as they would have been if the Parliamentary Secretary had been able to have all the information available to him before taking the decision. However, at this time we cannot take the debate further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mackie

I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 82, line 23, at end insert: (4) Section 19(6) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 shall cease to have effect so far as it authorises the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to withhold compensation or other payment in respect of an animal slaughtered at his direction where the owner or person having charge of the animal has, in the judgment of the Minister, been guilty of an offence against the Act in relation to that animal. (5) Section 79 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 (penalties for offences against that Act) shall be amended as follows:—

1. (a) in subsection (1), as amended by Part I of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967, for the references in paragraphs (a) and (c) to £200 (the normal maximum fine) there shall be substituted references to £400, and for the reference in paragraph (b) to £20 (the maximum fine per animal where the offence is committed with respect to more than ten) there shall be substituted a reference to £50; and
2. (b) in subsection (2) (imprisonment in lieu of fine on repetition of certain offences within twelve months), the words "within a period of twelve months" shall be omitted.

Mr. Speaker

I think that it would be convenient at the same time to discuss Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59.

Mr. Mackie

The Amendment should commend itself because it makes two important changes. It removes the Executive's power to inflict a penalty by with-holding compensation. On the other hand, it enables the courts to impose heavier maximum penalties.

The new subsection (4) of Clause 99 implements a recommendation in the Part II Report of the Northumberland Committee. It thought that the criminal sanctions in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, should be adequate to deal with offences against the Act, and that it is undesirable for the Executive to have the power, at their discretion and with no appeal, to increase the penalty by withholding compensation. This power has not been exercised since 1954, when a similar recommendation was made by the Gowers Committee on foot-and-mouth disease.

Both the Northumberland and the Gowers Committees recommended increases in the maximum penalties for violating the requirement of the Diseases of Animals Act. Subsection (5) implements their recommendation, except to the extent that the maximum fine is raised to £400, or £50 per animal where the offence involves more than ten animals, against the recommendation of both Committees of £500 or £50 respectively. This lower maximum has been set by agreement with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has established the policy that the maximum monetary penalty which can be imposed by a magistrates court is £400.

Mr. Temple

I should like to thank the Government for this Amendment. This is a proposal which I made in Standing Committee, supported very much by the National Farmers Union. It is a recommendation made as long ago as the Gowers Committee and reiterated by the Northumberland Committee. The House will be obliged to the Government for this.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 54, in page 82, line 24, leave out Clause 100.