ERADICATION OF BRUCELLOSIS

HC Deb 03 August 1972 vol 842 cc1045-52

Mr. Prior

I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 2, line 5, leave out Clause 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 3 in page 2, line 39, at end insert: () An animal slaughtered pursuant to the next following subsection shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (3) of the said section 17 (compensation) as having been slaughtered under that section and for the purposes of sections 19(5), (6) and (7) of the said Act of 1950 (ancillary provisions as to slaughter and compensation) as having been slaughtered under that Act at the direction of the Minister. No. 31, in page 2, line 39, at end insert: (7) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State for Social Services shall make an order prescribing as an industrial disease under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, brucellosis. (8) Entitlement to benefit under the foregoing subsection shall be payable to all persons found to have contracted brucellosis because of occupational contact with bovine animals infected by brucella abortus, their carcases or untreated products, or with laboratory specimens containing brucella abortus, by reason of employment as a farm worker, veterinary worker, slaughterhouse worker, laboratory worker or in any other work relating to the care, treatment, examination or handling of such animals, carcases or products. No. 32, in the Title, line 2, after 'animals', insert: 'to provide for industrial injury benefits to be payable to persons affected by brucellosis'.

Mr. Prior

I do not know in what way the House would like me to deal with the other Amendments which are taken with my Amendment No. 47 since they are Amendments to a Clause which I am proposing to remove from the Bill. Perhaps I shall be allowed to answer any points which arise in this discussion by making a short speech at the end of the debate, if that is in order.

I am sometimes accused by the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) of being dogmatic. Yet here I am coming to the House and asking hon. Members to remove a Clause of the Bill which the Government thought was essential for the brucellosis scheme and which received a general welcome at that time. There- fore, I owe the House an apology for what perhaps might be considered to have been a waste of the valuable time of the House. I also owe the House a full explanation why we have taken this step.

The original compensation terms for compulsory eradication of brucellosis included the payment of replacement grants on slaughtered reactors and incentives on beef and milk from the time of the first test until one year after accreditation. In addition, the owner was given the responsibility of disposing of reactors, but retained the carcase realisation price. Although these terms were not to be applied compulsorily until November of this year, they were in the meantime offered on a voluntary basis to owners in the first eradication areas. We agreed with the Farmers' Unions in March, 1971, that the operation of the scheme during this "voluntary year" would be reviewed in 1972, with particular reference to its impact on heavily infected herds.

We carried out this review in the spring. In the course of that review it became clear to us that, particularly in view of the substantial increase in cattle prices during the second half of 1971, the existing compulsory terms needed revision and that owners of the more heavily infected herds had suffered significant losses. Nowhere was this more marked than in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend sitting in on this debate. His constituents assembled in unaccustomed crowds to protest at the inequities of the Government scheme, and we tried to meet his criticisms. The terms also tended to operate inequitably between owners of herds of different types and breeds. The Farmers' Unions had made it plain to us that they felt that the fairest way to compensate herd owners whose stocks are slaughtered compulsorily is to relate compensation to the value of the animals concerned.

We therefore decided, after consultation with the unions, to replace the existing terms by a new scheme, which I announced on 19th May. This scheme will provide for the payment of compensation for reactors at the full market value during the pre-accreditation period, subject to a limit of £240 per animal. Valuations will be agreed with the owner or, in the absence of agreement, by an independent valuer, and will be based on the non-accredited market value of the animal. In accredited herds—that is to say, herds which have become brucellosis-free—compensation for reactors will be paid at 75 per cent. of market value, but in these cases the animals will be valued as accredited animals and will be subject to a maximum payment of £180 per animal. The Government will take possession of the reactors, arrange for their slaughter and retain the carcase realisation price.

Under these new arrangements, the powers which Ministers would be given under Clause 1 of this Bill are no longer necessary. We shall not need to require owners to dispose of reactors, except by agreement under the voluntary incentives scheme, nor shall we need powers to pay compensation in a form unrelated to market value. Instead, we shall simply be acting in the future under the existing slaughter and compensation powers contained in Sections 17 and 19 of the Diseases of Animals Act and will be making the necessary orders later this year. Rather than put legislation on the Statute Book which will not be required, we have therefore decided to delete Clause 1.

I should make it clear that this in no way affects the pace of our eradication programme. My right hon. Friend and I have already announced the areas in Great Britain into which eradication will extend up to the end of 1973 and those further areas in which a start is likely some time in 1974 or 1975.

My right hon. Friend and I feel that we now have a scheme which is fair and which will be accepted as such by the industry as a whole. We are encouraged in this by the generous welcome and support which the National Farmers Unions have given to the new arrangements. Indeed, it would be impossible to eradicate this disease unless we were assured of the wholehearted co-operation of the industry in this most difficult of tasks.

In withdrawing this Clause, I apologise again to the House for having put hon. Members to the trouble of the long discussion which took place on an earlier occasion. I am grateful for all the trouble hon. Members took in the debate to let me know their views on what has been perhaps an unsuccessful but genuine attempt to provide a new form of compensation, as a result of which we have found that we have now to go back to the original idea.

Mr. Mackie

We are indebted to the Minister for his explanation of the deletion of Clause 1. He has explained the matter very fully, and it is an excellent scheme.

The only point of criticism—and I must declare my interest in this subject because I have an accredited herd—is to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has provided for any system which will keep observation on values. The value of cattle has jumped to an alarming extent. Since the right hon. Gentleman made the valuation in May, the price of beef has risen by £20 to £50. Therefore, some system is needed to look at the situation as a whole, especially as we are so near to approaching Common Market values. The right hon. Gentleman will need to look at this matter again if he wants to be fair to the agricultural community.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones

The Minister is to be congratulated on putting into being a better system than the one which was originally proposed. He should not give the credit only to hon. Members on his own side of the House, since we have impressed on him the need to change the scheme if he is to get closer co-operation. The Farmbers' Unions in Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire—and I am speaking for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan)—have pressed the Minister on this matter. I remember attending one meeting at which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire and I pressed for a closer alliance and the payment of more realistic compensation.

The Minister knows that Carmarthenshire and West Wales are heavily involved in the present scheme. I pay tribute to the farmers of West Wales for their great co-operation since they have again led the way. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the situation over TB-testing in which the farmers of West Wales and Carmarthenshire were the pioneers of that scheme back in the late 1940s.

8.0 p.m.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) about keeping an eye on the market value of accredited herds. The NFU in Carmarthenshire wrote to me about this matter on 11th February, 1972. The Minister of State had this document during the meeting we had with him. The document states: Accredited animals have been known to reach £250 in local marts and it is very difficult to get anything for under £200. That was in February, not May.

I do not wish the Minister to detract from what he is proposing, but we must keep an eye on the market value of accredited herds. To fix a figure for May, 1972, when, according to the NFU in my county, it was out of date on 11th February, 1972, and to stick to that figure continuously for a year or so would bring us back to the scheme which operated before these proposals. The full compensation criterion would diminish if we stuck to what the Minister has proposed of £240 as the full market value for accredited herds with reactors at 75 per cent. of the market value with a limit of £180. If the Minister will look at this matter over the coming months and can then show that some relationship exists between market value and compensation, I am sure that the Farmers Unions in Wales would welcome the proposal.

Mr. Peart

I welcome the Minister's approach to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman need not worry about being chastised for being dogmatic. I recall that he sometimes accused me of being dogmatic. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman said that he was pragmatic.

The Minister is right to come to the House and frankly admit that he does not need the Clause. We had a long debate on this matter in Committee. I would have participated in the debate, but I believe the right hon. Gentleman has taken the right and only action. After all, he has consulted the industry and looked into the matter very carefully. I welcomed the Minister's initial moves and am proud of the fact—I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, that I am not being conceited when I claim credit—that I started the voluntary scheme. I am glad the Minister has built on it. I hope that he achieves success.

We want to eradicate brucellosis. I have here an article from Community Medicine of 21st July, 1972, which deals with a brucellosis outbreak in Peeblesshire which has affected five families of human beings. Therefore, it is an important matter for the community.

My hon. Friends have put points to the Minister concerning compensation. The right hon. Gentleman has made his case. We were to have a discussion on our Amendment No. 31 to Clause 1 which relates to compensation for people connected with the industry. Amendment No. 31 seeks, in page 2, line 39, at the end to insert the following: (7) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State for Social Services shall make an order prescribing as an industrial disease under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, brucellosis. (8) Entitlement to benefit under the foregoing subsection shall be payable to all persons found to have contracted brucellosis because of occupational contact with bovine animals infected by brucella abortus, their carcasses or untreated products, or with laboratory specimens containing brucella abortus, by reason of employment as a farm worker, veterinary worker, slaughterhouse worker, laboratory worker or in any other work relating to the care, treatment, examination or handling of such animals, carcasses or products. We were thinking particularly of the veterinary worker, the slaughterhouse worker, the laboratory worker and, of course, the farm worker who is in daily contact with the herds. We believe that this would have been a useful addition to the Clause. Even though the Minister is withdrawing the Clause, I am sure that he will note the points we have made and bear them in mind. After all, the right hon. Gentleman may bring in a regulation concerning this matter.

I wish the Minister well with his scheme. I know that he will have the co-operation of the whole industry. I therefore advise my hon. Friends to accept the Minister's view.

Mr. Prior

With the permission of the House I should like to reply briefly.

On the right hon. Gentleman's last point dealing with Amendment No. 31, that brucellosis should be a prescribed industrial disease, I should point out that this has now taken place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has accepted the recommendation of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council that brucellosis should be prescribed as an industrial disease for the occupations mentioned in the Amendment. The necessary regulations have recently been laid before the House and came into operation on 31st July. To that extent that point is covered.

Concerning values, we have agreed with the NFU to periodical reviews. It seems that the NFU will not be slow to put before us its views on when values should be reviewed. The success of the incentive scheme has been such that the reservoir of brucella-free cattle has not been building up sufficiently fast for those herds which need replacement. In some parts of the country the premium on accredited stock is quite considerable. While I am not suggesting that we shall have to slow down the scheme in any way, I think we must watch that we do not get accredited cattle values going through the roof.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

Only two days ago my right hon. Friend's Ministry was able to issue an optimistic and encouraging statement about the latest returns, which showed that there was a considerable increase in the breeding herd. Does he know what proportion of the increase is in the accredited herds?

Mr. Prior

No. Our figures on the census returns are not accurate enough to tell us that. I should think that it is particularly in the accredited herds that expansion will come because farmers will recognise that the premium paid on their stock is considerable. Certainly many farmers are increasing the size of their accredited herds considerably. None of us likes the high prices we have had, but they are an indication of the demand for stock and, as such, are to be welcomed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) pointed out, the number of heifers in calf is up by 12 per cent. on a year ago and the number of beef heifers in calf is up by the fantastic amount of 52 per cent. on a year ago. That indicates that the industry is certainly expanding very rapidly.

I should refer to the voluntary incentive scheme. Just over two years ago about 15,000 herds were taking part in the voluntary accreditation scheme. Since that time the figure has increased to 65,000 herds. To go up from 15,000 to 65,000 in two years is a phenomenal rate of increase. It means that at least half the herds in the country are either accredited already or in the process of becoming accredited. We are getting on pretty well.

I conclude by thanking the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members for the way in which they have accepted the Amendment and assuring them that we shall be keeping a careful watch on prices. No doubt the NFU will be in touch with us. I am glad that the Amendment has been as well received in Wales as in Westmorland.

Amendment agreed to.