§ 3. Mr Farrasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the campaign against rabies.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. FarrAs the Minister responsible for health matters is also closely involved, 239 is it not about time that, instead of our having four different departmental Ministers responsible for dealing with an outbreak, a plan was drawn up in the charge of a single Minister for immediate implementation when the disease comes to this country?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an extremely serious problem, one which causes grave anxiety to us all. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Ministers in surrounding countries are in close co-operation about the matter. The hon. Gentleman will know—and I think that he will be willing to pay tribute to the actions taken by the present Government—that we introduced a Rabies Act last year giving us enabling powers. We have made two orders, one to deal with import controls and quarantine requirements and one to deal with stamping out any outbreak which might occur in this country. Those orders became fully operative last February. A very high fine is imposed in odd cases.
§ Mr. Raphael TuckNot high enough.
§ The Prime MinisterI heard of a case when I was on holiday last year of a French yachtsman who walked his dog on the quay being immediately fined £400 in a magistrates' court. Offenders are now liable to a year's imprisonment. [HON. MEMBERS: "This reply is too long."] Anyone who says "Too long" in regard to such a matter has no sense of responsibility. I am trying to answer the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I shall begin again.
Offenders are now liable to up to one year's imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) that fines, even of £400, are totally inadequate because of the risks to life and the risks of terrible suffering in this country.
§ Mr. FauldsWould the Prime Minister consider it worth while approaching officials of the Council of Europe, the relevant committee of which I think I am right in saying is planning to set up a scheme to monitor the movement of rabies across Europe?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. We are in touch with our European partners and neighbours. One of the reasons 240 why the whole House, or nearly the whole House, agrees about the urgency of the matter is that that monitoring has shown that rabies is reaching perilously near the Channel coast. We have contingency plans. What we should have to do if there were any danger of this infection reaching this side of the Channel would be horrible. It would mean serious action against wild life in this country. The whole matter involves serious and grave action, but nothing so serious or so grave as the danger of hydrophobia and the spread of rabies in this country.
§ Mr. PardoeDoes the Prime Minister agree that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was wrong in saying that four Ministers were involved? The number is five, because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is involved. Is the Prime Minister satisfied with a situation in which foreigners and residents of this country are being told all round the globe that it is quite easy to bring pets into this country through Ireland?
§ The Prime MinisterStrong action will be taken against the smuggling of any possible carrier, or, as I think they say in the technical language, any vector. But I think that I referred to Northern Ireland. Co-operation between the Ministry of Agriculture and its counterparts in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands is vital, and it is being thoroughly carried out.
Dr. M. S. MillerI thank my right hon. Friend for the action he has already taken in this respect, but may I impress upon him that what is needed is constant publicity about the killing nature of the disease, which can be passed on to people, even in epidemic forms, not merely by an animal bite, but even by licking by animals? The fox population of this country is also involved, and it must be eradicated. May I go further in this respect, and impress upon my right hon. Friend that it is necessary to have at all our airports and seaports indications to tourists going abroad that smuggling pets into this country will be treated with absolute severity?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the question of smuggling, I agree with my hon. Friend that the maximum publicity should be 241 given to this matter for the reasons he has given. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough and others for what has been said—[Interruption.] This is an extremely serious matter. I only wish that sound broadcasting were now in operation so that Opposition Members could be heard barracking on the subject.
I repeat that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough for raising this matter this afternoon since it will assist in obtaining the necessary publicity. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) referred to the lethal character of this disease. We must also consider the terrible agonies involved. Anybody who has studied reports on these matters will know the situation and will not make light of it, as the hon. Member on the Front Bench is now doing. I must refer to one point because there may be some misunderstanding. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride called for the eradication of all foxes. That is not in contemplation, but if rabies were to spread to this country, it would be necessary—and it would be a ghastly job—to eradicate the fox population.
§ Mr. OnslowOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister made a deprecating reference to me—
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not hear any such reference. I call Mr. Fairbairn on a Private Notice question.
§ Mr. OnslowFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the Prime Minister would deny making that reference. If he seeks to deny it, I shall know what to think of him.
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not deny making that reference. I was appalled by the frivolity of a so-called Front Bencher making light of a subject such as this.
§ Mr. Onslowrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe frivolity of the Front Bench is not a question for the Chair.
§ Mr. OnslowFurther to that point of order. As the Prime Minister should be aware that it was in my constituency that there was an outbreak of rabies in this 242 country, may I make plain to him that what infuriated me was the Prime Minister's trivialisation of this subject in an attempt to talk out Prime Minister's Questions.
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order. The hon. Gentleman's interruption was not about the horrible nature of death by rabies, but was some silly, frivolous remark to the effect that he was not enjoying my answers to Questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerHowever that may be we now move to the Private Notice Question tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).