RABIES BILL (Hansard, 29 March 1974)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Roland Moyle)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is exactly the same as the Rabies Bill which was brought to this House from the House of Lords earlier this year and the progress of which was stopped by the Dissolution. I am happy to say, moreover, that it is a Bill which enjoys widespread support both in the House and in the community generally.

The reason for that widespread support is not far to seek. It is difficult to overstate the serious nature of rabies as a disease. Once the disease has developed in humans, it is almost invariably fatal. It is caused by a virus which affects the central nervous system. Most commonly it is transmitted by a bite, and the disease is notable for an incubation period which in human beings may be as long as 12 months, so that a person who has been bitten by a possibly infected animal faces a long period of worry as well as some highly unpleasant treatment.

This country has been virtually free of rabies since 1922, with one or two minor exceptions, and we all want to keep it that way. As a result of two cases of rabies in dogs in 1969 and 1970, a committee of inquiry on rabies was appointed by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC, to review the policy and precautions against rabies in Great Britain and to make recommendations.

The report of that committee was submitted to Ministers in May 1971. In its introduction to the report, the committee drew attention to the worsening of the rabies situation on the Continent and the spread of the disease towards the Channel coast. Fortunately, it has not yet reached the Channel coast, but the spread appears at least to be well ahead of the prophesies made by the Waterhouse Committee.

Total recorded cases of rabies in France in 1973 were over 2,000, which was double the level in 1972. Over three-quarters of these cases concerned foxes, which are 822 important in connection with rabies, as I shall explain later. Figures so far available for 1974 in France indicate that the incidence of disease is running at nearly double the level for the corresponding period of 1973. So there are no grounds for complacency.

In considering the implications of the possibly increasing rabies threat for Great Britain, the Waterhouse Committee concentrated on two main aspects of the situation. First it looked at the adequacy, in the face of the increasing risk, of our existing safeguards against entry of the disease. Secondly, recognising the unpalatable fact that no matter what measures it recommended as desirable to strengthen existing safeguards the risk of entry of the disease into this country could not be entirely eliminated, the committee considered the measures needed to deal with rabies outbreaks in Great Britain, particularly if they affected wild life.

Since the committee reported, quarantine controls have been applied to a much wider range of mammals; new conditions have been introduced for authorised quarantine premises, and controls over the carrying of quarantine animals have been tightened. Therefore, with few exceptions, the committee's recommendations on the preventive side have been implemented.

There are one or two important provisions in the Bill aimed at achieving greater security in our import controls, but its main objective is to pave the way for implementation of the second group of recommendations for dealing with rabies outbreaks outside quarantine.

Before I outline the main provisions in the Bill, it may be helpful if I explain the structure of this legislation and its relationship with the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. The 1950 Act provides extensive powers for the protection of our animal health and some of the powers needed to deal with a rabies outbreak are already provided by it. However, the 1950 Act was drafted primarily for dealing with farm animals and farm diseases. It also provides for measures to deal with urban rabies in domestic dogs and cats, but there is no provision for necessary action to deal with the situation of wild life rabies as it has developed in France and some other continental countries in recent years.

823 Each clause in the Bill relates to a corresponding section of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 and supplements the general order-making powers in that section for the purpose of dealing with rabies. It is important to note that the Bill is enabling legislation and will require orders to put it into effect. Such orders would be made under the Diseases of Animals Act as extended by the Bill, which I hope will receive its Second Reading this afternoon.

Clause 1 enables the destruction of foxes and, if necessary, other wild mammals not in captivity to be provided for in an order declaring an infected area. It also provides for an order to include powers to enter land to carry out such destruction.

Foxes are specified in the Bill as the most likely species against which action would be taken. The fox is highly susceptible to the disease and can both spread the disease and act as a reservoir of it. A high proportion of the rabies cases reported in France have been deaths of foxes. The view was expressed by the Waterhouse Committee that, whatever the original source of an outbreak of rabies might be in Great Britain, it was probable that the fox would become the main reservoir of the disease if it ever became firmly established in our wild life. Indeed, events since the committee reported have tended to support this view.

Although all mammals are believed to be susceptible to the disease, the experience of Denmark, which has been very successful in controlling rabies, has been that if the fox population in and around a rabies infected area can be reduced by preventive and control measures, the disease burns itself out altogether. For this reason the fox is very important in the control of rabies.

If any other species developed the same characteristics as the fox, Clause 1 would empower us to act against that as well. It has to be recognised that, even where foxes were the only target for the control measures, some other wild animals would inevitably be destroyed along with the foxes.

We are seeking powers to proceed not merely by the gassing of foxholes but also by the use of poison baits, and perhaps in certain regions, mostly the mountainous ones, we would use gin traps 824 as well, although where gin traps were used we would ensure that there was a daily check by expert people on the traps to make sure that no undue cruelty was being perpetrated by their use. Experience in Denmark has shown that a certain amount of ruthlessness is justifiable to control the situation once a rabies outbreak occurs. That is why we are asking for these powers.

Gin traps are likely to be used in mountainous regions, because there very often foxes whelp, not in underground burrows, but in cairns of stones which are not sufficiently airtight to enable gassing processes to be used successfully.

Clause 2 provides powers for dealing with domestic animals, either confined or stray, and wild species held in captivity—in zoos and safari parks, for example. It extends the powers at present available for applying controls to the domestic animal population and wild animals in captivity in rabies infected areas. It will enable orders to be made to confine, control and require the vaccination of such animals. It will also enable stray animals to be dealt with.

Clause 2 also enables an order to be made to provide for infected areas to be divided into zones and for different measures to be applied in different zones. This is necessary because the existing legislation, as supplemented by the new powers, will provide for a wide range of measures to deal with different situations and the controllers of an anti-rabies compaign would obviously need the maximum flexibility to contain any measures taken strictly to the areas where they were considered necessary.

Clause 4 makes it obligatory on anybody who comes across a case of rabies to report it to a constable as soon as possible. Existing legislation places the obligation to notify only on the owner or person in charge of an animal which is suffering from rabies, but as the measures in the Bill are largely directed towards controlling rabies amongst wild life obviously that would be totally unsuitable.

The majority of the Waterhouse Committee's recommendations concerning preventive measures against entry of the disease have already been implemented under existing legislation. However, one or two points need to be cleared up. These are covered by Clauses 3, 5 and 6.

825 The main intention of Clause 3 is to enable us to control the keeping and importation of rabies virus and to provide for similar quarantine arrangements to be required for native animals used in experimental work involving rabies virus as are applied to imported rabies-susceptible animals. The Ministry has had consultations with research institutes. They have always been aware of the hazards involved in their work and have adopted procedures which enable them to control the spread of rabies virus. Nevertheless it is an inconsistency in our legislation at the moment that there is no statutory control of these operations, and Clause 3 is aimed at introducing that form of control. We are confident, as a result of consultations, that the statutory controls can be applied without inhibiting necessary research in any way.

Clauses 5 and 6 are intended to provide more effective weapons for dealing with animals illegally landed in Great Britain. I think it is generally accepted that the illegal landing of animals, whether deliberately or unknowingly, represents the biggest threat to our rabies security. Even when such animals are openly declared to Customs, they create a considerable problem and an element of risk. No quarantine accommodation has been booked for them and no authorised carrying agent is waiting to pick them up on arrival. The problem usually boils down to the authorities at the point of entry having to decide how to dispose of such animals. While they are doing so, the animals may be at the ports or airports for quite long periods in far from ideal conditions from the point of view of security against disease spreading and of welfare.

At present the owners or carriers of such animals are offered alternatives of re-export, destruction or direction to quarantine premises, but sometimes immediate re-export is not feasible. I think that this would be obvious on moderate reconsideration. If quarantine accommodation is not available, the destruction of the animal becomes the only alternative, except that our present legislation does not empower our authorities to destroy an animal other than with the owner's consent. This is a considerable loophole in the existing legislation. The object of Clause 5 is to remove that loophole and allow the authorities in the last 826 resort to destroy an animal without the owner's consent.

Far greater than the risk offered by the openly declared unlicensed animal is that posed by the person who deliberately tries to smuggle a pet. There are examples of people who have gone so far as to sedate their animal to assist concealment and to put the whole animal and human population of this country at considerable risk for their own selfish ends. Probably they do not know the responsibilities they are undertaking and have not had sufficient experience of rabies to know of the dangers which they are likely to inflict on the population of this country by such methods. Sometimes the aim is to avoid paying quarantine fees.

The maximum penalty for an offence under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 is £400, but even that has been rarely imposed and for the type of offence which I have been describing we usually find that the magistrates have not imposed fines exceeding £50 to £75, which is far below the costs which the successful smuggler can save.

Clause 6 will enable Ministers to declare the more serious offences under rabies controls as optionally indictable. If they do that, the local authorities will then have the choice of prosecuting the offence either on indictment or summarily. In the case of the former the defendant would face trial by jury, and if convicted could be given a year's imprisonment as a maximum penalty or an unlimited fine, or both. We would then for the first time have a really substantial deterrent against this type of offence.

Following publication of the Waterhouse Committee's report, all persons and organisations who had given evidence to the committee were asked to comment. Those organisations, including all the leading bodies concerned with animal health, welfare, conservation and related matters, have been overwhelmingly in favour of the report and very few qualifications have been made about even some of the more drastic remedies which the committee thought necessary. Further research and preparation will be needed to formulate the detailed orders which will be required to implement the powers in the Bill, and the views of the interests affected will be sought at that stage. There will, therefore, be a second 827 round of consultations on the detailed implementation of the provisions of the Bill.

I think that everybody with knowledge of this disease recognises the high priority which should be accorded to preserving the rabies-free status which this country enjoys. Our import controls and quarantine policy have stood us in good stead for a very long time, and the Bill will enable us significantly to strengthen these controls to counter the increasing risk of the introduction of the disease from abroad. It is also essential that we should be prepared to take the necessary action to stamp out this disease should it occur in this country. The Bill provides the essential powers for that task.