CONTROL OF ZOONOSES (Hansard, 3 August 1972)

§ Mr. Strang
Hon. Members will recall that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) was particularly interested in this question and there was a debate whether brucellosis was covered by the Clause. As has been said, when we talk about zoonotic diseases we are talking about important diseases which affect livestock, such as brucellosis, anthrax and Newcastle disease, and I do not think that anyone would want to minimise the serious effects which these diseases have on humans who are unfortunate enough to contract them.
Linked with this problem is the question of the use of antibiotics on livestock. While on a narrow definition one could perhaps not look upon this as a zoonotic disease it is, nevertheless, a similar problem, in that applying antibiotics on a substantial scale to livestock means that the micro-organisms in the livestock develop immunity to them. 1053 These are then transferred to human beings dealing with the livestock, and the immunity of the micro-organisms which have been so transferred can then be transferred to the micro-organisms which may have developed in humans as a disease and antibiotics are no longer effective. To that extent the problem is similar to that of zoonotic diseases.
It is worth mentioning that a number of hon. Members, including myself and, more recently, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), have questioned the Minister about the importation of meat from countries which are able to use antibiotics on a scale which is prohibited here. The Minister has replied that although some of the meat coming into the country is produced in this way, it is only a small amount. I wonder what method the Minister uses to assess the amount. I wonder whether he is satisfied with the present situation. Should not we seek to ban the importation of meat which we suspect may be produced in this way? I wonder what the position will be when we enter the EEC? We have a much more strict approach to the question than do the Community countries and I hope that their standards will be raised to come into line with ours, rather than that ours are lowered in order to harmonise with the Community.

§ Mr. Deakins
Wishful thinking.

§ Mr. Strang
My hon. Friends who put down the Amendment thought that in order to deal with the importation of cattle given antibiotics and to deal also with the wider question of zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis and the problems facing those who have to deal with livestock it would be useful to set up a committee of this nature, and I hope that the Minister will make some conciliatory and sympathetic noises.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) put forward the case for the Amendment. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I did not realise that he intended to raise the matter of antibiotics as I did not think, strictly, that it was covered by the Amendment. However, I have taken note of what he said, and if anything in particular requires action I shall consider taking it.
1054 The Amendment is concerned with zoonoses. We fully accept that there should be administrative machinery to investigate the risk to health of persons engaged in agriculture and the food processing industries from zoonotic diseases and for instituting suitable precautions where necessary. We do not, however, see the need to establish new machinery for this purpose, as there are already arrangements for considering occupational health problems, from whatever cause they arise, including those which might be associated with zoonoses.
We have to recognise that although the disease or infection may be carried through from live animals, from carcases or from animal products, the risks to which farm workers are subjected are different from those which affect people in the food-processing industries. This is largely because of the different environments in which the two kinds of workers operate, and therefore we have to look at the two problems separately.
Looking first at the problem as it affects agricultural workers, I can tell the House that we have recently reconstituted a working group which is charged with responsibility for investigating problems of the working environment. The group will function in much the same way as the national advisory committee provided for in the Amendment and will bring together representatives of various interests concerned with whatever problems are being examined.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for occupational health in all factories and other premises covered by the Factories Acts including those in the food processing industries, and the Industrial Health Advisory Committee largely fulfils the role of the committee proposed in the Amendment and could consider the problems associated with zoonoses.
I hope that the House will not think that I am being difficult or obstructive over this genuine Amendment. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's desire to see that the problems of zoonoses and the risks to people employed in agriculture and the food-processing industries are properly dealt with. I share the aim of the hon. Gentleman, but I am satisfied that the existing machinery is adequate 1055 to do this job. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Buchan
In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 15, leave out 'or to animals affected with it'.
I think that it may be convenient to take at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell)
If that is agreeable to the House, so be it.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a fairly technical Amendment. The purpose of subsection (2) is to enable the relevant powers of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 to be used in respect of any disease of or any organism carried in an animal designated under subsection (1) as constituting a risk to public health.
Since the Committee stage we have been advised that subsection (2)(a) as drafted could possibly imply that the powers in the 1950 Act may be used only in relation to animals actually affected with a designated disease, and not to other animals which are suspected of being affected. Similarly, subsection (2)(b) could carry the same implication as regards animal carriers of designated organisms. Under the Diseases of Animals Act we are able, when necessary, to deal with animals that are affected with disease as well as with those suspected of being affected with disease. It is essential to cover both these categories of animal when the Act is used in relation to Clause 2. Therefore, the Amendments simply omit the words which would carry the implication we are anxious to avoid.