HC Deb 15 June 1976 vol 913 cc503-14

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

I am grateful to have the opportunity, three hours earlier than last night, of raising on the Adjournment the threat to the country of the importation of rabies. I thank the Minister for his constant courtesy and attention to me and several hon. Members on both sides of the House in his attempts to cope with the many requests and Questions we have thrown at him in recent weeks.

I had the opportunity to raise this subject in the Whitsun Adjournment debate, but on that occasion the Leader of the House was not in a position to make a ministerial reply. I know that many people will be eagerly looking forward to hearing that the Minister has accepted many of the suggestions which have been put to him.

Rabies is a disease which can bring to man one of the nastiest and most painful deaths known. There is no known cure for rabies. It can have, and in many countries does have, a devastating effect on animal life.

The problem of co-ordination is a great one. The Department itself is responsible, particularly for the post-outbreak situation. The Home Office is responsible for police powers. The Department of Health and Social Security has responsibility connected with port health authorities and the Treasury controls Customs. The county councils act as agents for Customs, and the police and district councils are involved. In my constituency the New Forest District Council has now instituted a thrice-weekly patrol, and the marina operators are greatly concerned about the problem.

It is now vitally important that the Minister gives a lead to all the county councils and authorities involved in the country in the co-ordination of the measures being taken in attempting to prevent the entry of rabies into this country.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider a model plan which could be sent out urgently as a guideline to all county councils to try to get conformity in the co-ordinatory measures. The Minister is on a hiding to nothing in this matter, because if rabies does not come in this week or next week no one will thank him. However, if there is an outbreak he will get the blame. In his own interests, he is obviously well advised to do as much as he can.

The Government have listened carefully to representations which have been put to them. I understand that the National Yacht Harbour Association yesterday received assurances from the Minister about the points it raised with him. I do not think it is immodest of me to point out that until I put down a Question on the Order Paper asking the Minister to meet the NYHA there had been no contact between that body and his Department.

I hope that the Minister tonight will be able to say something about the outcome of the discussions he is having with the Association of Chief Constables. This was referred to at length at a recent meeting we had, and we are anxious to know the views of the police. I hope he will also be able to say something about the vaccine position as distinct from the vaccination position. Is plenty of vaccine available, and what transport facilities exist to carry the vaccine from the place where it is presently being stored should an outbreak occur at our ports or elsewhere on the coastline at an inconvenient moment during the weekend, which is always the likeliest time for these things to occur?

The Minister has been pressed about large signs at estuaries, ports and marinas. Up to the moment, he has been somewhat unenthusiastic about the proposal. I would inform him that Hampshire County Council has now accepted that the environmental disadvantages of large signs must be considered to be the price which has to be paid. In the Hamble River an 18-sq. ft. sign is being erected by the Hampshire County Council at a cost of £700. There is no doubt that if these signs are put up county councils will find themselves involved in the expenditure of large sums of money.

The Christchurch council, in my constituency, is now authorising the posting of notices at suitable points along the coastline where possible boat landings could be made. However, I still believe that there is far too much hit and miss in respect of the problem by local authorities up and down the country. That is why I hope that the Minister will consider a model plan at the earliest possible opportunity.

Why is it that Hampshire County Council is having to print its own leaflets? I believe that this is something the Department should have done and should be doing. It seems stupid that the Hampshire County Council is printing leaflets in six languages and that at the bottom are the words Issued by Hampshire County Council in the interest of public safety. I hope that the Department will produce some leaflets so that every local authority in Great Britain will be able to use them.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

While I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, may I ask whether he has seen the advertisement in last weekend's Sunday Telegraph by the Cunard Steam-Ship Company extolling the virtues of crossing the Atlantic backwards and forwards in the "Queen Elizabeth II"? That advertisement contains a drawing of a lady who is enjoying the pleasures of the shopping arcade, and who seems to be tripping around with a lot of parcels and with a clog on a lead. Would he agree that this is a most deplorable advertisement which, if read by people in America, might easily lead them to believe that it would be perfectly permissible to bring a dog across the Atlantic? Does he agree that the Government should take steps to see that this particular advertisement by the Cunard Company is suppressed at once?

Mr. Adley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the support he has offered from the Front Bench to a number of the proposals that have been made. Of course, I agree with him. I do not know who can have written the copy for that advertisement, but it cannot be anyone who is aware of the fears and anxieties, particularly in this country and around our coastlines, about the present situation.

I want now to consider those whom we are trying to prevent breaking our animal quarantine Regulations. It has become accepted in the last few weeks that the most likely people to break the Regulations are foreigners visiting these shores. I have long doubted this, certainly from the evidence of my own eyes in my own constituency, where some British citizens are in the habit of getting on their boats at the weekend and taking their animals with them. I agree with my hon. Friend that the offenders are more likely to be the sort of people who get on "gin palaces" or the "QE II" than the genuine yachtsman.

As a result of Questions which I put to the Department, I have come up with the rather surprising statistic that 38 per cent. of the offences committed during 1975 in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 were committed by British citizens and 19 per cent. by German citizens. Quite a long way down the scale come the French, the Italians, the Dutch and so on.

The evidence is that it is British citizens themselves, deliberately and knowingly abusing the quarantine Regulations, who may well be the main culprits. Mum comes down from the Midlands in a large motor car, parks it in the marina, gets on an expensive motor yacht with her poodle stuffed up her jumper, not wanting to be separated from the pet for the weekend, and nobody is to know whether they are going for a sail round the Isle of Wight or to Cherbourg. A great deal more attention needs to be paid to the problem created by our own citizens.

I want to ask the Minister about the position with our EEC partners. He has told me in a Written Answer that our embassies are now in the process of distributing new publicity material in six languages for display at ports, marinas, yacht clubs and other suitable locations.

The reality in France is very different. This was borne out horrifically over the last weekend by a reporter from the Southern Evening Echo, Mr. George Chastney, who has come back, after two days in Le Havre and Deauville, with a horror story of what is actually happening in France. The recent Isle of Wight case has been widely publicised in Le Havre, where one of the two yachtsmen on a charge in the Isle of Wight lives. But Mr. Chastney reports in the Southern Evening Echo that there are no posters in Le Havre in the modern marina area or at the headquarters of the local yacht club, to which Mr. Aubrey, one of the people to whom I have referred in the Isle of Wight case, belongs. In Le Havre the harbourmaster, Mr. Yves Tallegas, said to Mr. Chastney "If the British Government gave us leaflets, we would hand them out, and we would also put up a notice in the harbour." At one of the nearest points to our South Coast, nothing has happened, despite the soothing assurances given in ministerial answers. The British Consulate at Le Havre received about a dozen leaflets from the Central Office of Information which are still in the consulate office.

In Deauville a customs officer was quoted as saying: For every 10 French yachtsmen who take dogs with them to Britain, there are 10 Englishmen who bring dogs here. When they arrive, they do not keep the dogs on boats—they take them ashore for walks, just like everyone else. We do not stop them because they break no French laws. But when those yachtsmen return home, do they say 'We have been to France with our dog—please put him in quarantine for six months'?". I hope it is not unparliamentary to say "Do they hell!".

This story, appearing in the Southern Evening Echo, is corroborated by an Australian yachtsman, a Mr. Robert Kirk, who was in Deauville for six months. He is quoted as saying: I have seen it happen several times. They take them for walks round Deauville. There is a considerable discrepancy between what the Government hope will happen and what in fact happens. I shall send a copy of the article to the Minister and I hope that he will read it carefully. The wheels of government tend to grind slowly. It is the zebra-crossing syndrome —namely, that a child has first to be knocked down on a stretch of road before a zebra crossing is authorised. I hope that, as Mr. Chastney's report seems to suggest, the Government will not wait until rabies has entered the country before ensuring that action really is taken.

Perhaps the Government should set themselves the target of persuading our EEC partners to implement the same quarantine Regulations as we follow. That would certainly deter British citizens taking their pets abroad.

I turn to the subject of policing. Let me quote the words of the Devon County Trading Standards Officer on the effect of policing: Whilst we have excellent liaison with harbourmasters and Customs and Excise authorities, it is virtually impossible to monitor this volume of holiday traffic throughout the summer months to a stage where one could confidently feel that adequate control was being exercised over these vessels. The Customs authorities welcome help from the public, but I do not believe it is sensible or realistic to expect the over-stretched Customs officials to act as an effective police force.

There are many other problems on which I shall briefly touch. There is the problem of vaccines. Will the Minister issue leaflets to vets which they can pass on to the public explaining why the Government will not allow the vaccination of pets? Is it because it is too costly, or is it unsafe to do so? Has any vaccinated dog ever contracted rabies?

There is also the problem of the urban fox. This is not a problem which can be easily dealt with, but if rabies ever finds its way into this country we shall have to deal with it. Rats are also a problem. We talk a good deal in this context about dogs and domestic pets, but there is the problem of rats to be borne in mind. In some overseas ports, de-ratting certificates are about as hard to come by as a packet of cigarettes.

Small coasters, which are often family boats, constitute a great problem. There is also the problem of oil rigs, a matter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) has recently expressed concern. I am sure that the Minister is aware of this problem. It is not only yachts that present difficulties. Offences are also committed at airports and major seaports. People who smuggle animals into the country deliberately are selfish, odious, self-righteous and moronic. It is almost impossible to think of words strong enough to describe them. There is only one language they understand, and that is the language of much tougher penalties.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister replied to me in these terms on 20th May: I think that we should consider the possibility of making offences under the rabies legislation arrestable. I do not know what answer we should come up with, but that is the kind of issue that I am having examined. I hope that we can find some answers to it. I do not think that any hon. Member is in doubt about the gravity of the matter."— [Official Report, 20th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1708.] I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to say how far the Prime Minister's investigations have proceeded. I should like to see a mandatory prison sentence and the destruction of all animals imported illegally. Consideration should also be given to the impounding of boats, if that is at all practicable. Since the fact that policing is impossible has been accepted, tougher penalties are the only way to prevent the disease reaching this country.

The Minister knows that I do not wish to exaggerate the problem, but my constituency is in the front line. I do not believe that our existing penalties are adequate. Although the hon. Gentleman may say that it is possible to impose a prison sentence, which in theory is true, the position in practice is that from the beginning of 1975 to date only one case has been heard on indictment, which is the only way in which prison sentences can be meted out, at a Crown court empowered to impose imprisonment. In that one case the punishment meted out was a suspended sentence and a £200 fine with £200 costs. The number of cases heard at magistrates' courts during this same period was 82. No offenders have yet been imprisoned. I think it is about time they were.

1.46 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for raising the important matter of the co-ordination of measures to prevent the importation and spread of rabies. I thank him for his kind remarks at the beginning of his speech. I think we can safely say that on this issue we are all on the same side. We are all anxious to do the most we possibly can to minimise the threat of rabies in this country.

First, I should like to explain the Government's policy to deal with the rabies threat. Our primary and overriding aim is to keep rabies out of Great Britain. To achieve this we have introduced stringent import controls, compulsory quarantine requirements and severe penalties for offenders. In addition, and far from least, we rely on a high level of public awareness. Our contingency aim, should an outbreak nevertheless occur, is to stamp it out swiftly and effectively before it takes hold. To achieve this we have drawn up contingency plans and we are now encouraging local authorities to draw up and develop their own local plans to suit local circumstances.

All this involves a tremendous amount of co-ordination at various levels, and I am happy to say that we enjoy an exceptionally high level of co-operation from all concerned. In terms of keeping rabies out of anywhere in the British Isles, we work in close concert with the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In terms of central Government, there is close co-ordination between all the Departments concerned, the two Agriculture Departments, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Office, Her Majesty's Customs, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. At the ports and airports there is close co-ordination between Customs officers, the local authorities, the port health authorities and the police. We are also in touch with such bodies as the National Yacht Harbour Association and the Royal Yacht Association.

For our contingency plans there is full co-ordination between the agriculture Departments, local authorities, the police and other local organisations. We are also in close touch with the many other interested bodies and organisations—for example, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Forestry Commission and the Masters of Foxhounds Association. I believe that the Government have every right to be proud of the degree of coordination and co-operation which has been achieved.

We also set much store by our publicity campaigns to achieve a high level of awareness of the rabies risk, though we are anxious that it should be soundly based and not hysterical. On 5th May I launched a fresh publicity campaign—the Rabies Awareness Campaign 1976—and I think we can fairly claim success. Offences against our import controls have been fully reported by the whole news media. The whole country is exercising vigilance. Several offenders have been brought to book by the alertness and initiative of the man in the street. This in itself, I suggest, has made our publicity campaign worth while.

Moreover, the courts have responded to this higher level of public awareness. Several cases have recently been reported where the magistrates have imposed the maximum penalty on summary conviction of £400. I am sure that such penalties have the overwhelming support of the public.

But our publicity campaign has not been confined to this side of the Channel. Fifteen thousand posters explaining our Regulations in six languages have been, or are being, distributed through our embassies and the Governments concerned in eight European countries to ports, marinas, yacht clubs and other suitable locations. A five-minute television film explaining our policy has been shown in most European countries. In addition, a Ministry veterinary officer is co-ordinating publicity effort in liaison with the veterinary authorities on the French, Belgian and Dutch coasts.

For example, the French naval authorities have issued standing instructions that any animal belonging to a French warship must be left behind before sailing to the United Kingdom. The French Ministry of Transport has circulated information to associations of shipping owners, the fishing industry and the unions concerned. Posters and leaflets have been circulated to nearly 500 maritime sailing clubs affiliated to the French National Sailing Federation, and there was publicity in the federation's magazine for May. Our consulates in Bordeaux, Calais, Cherbourg, Le Havre, Lille, Marseille and Strasbourg are also taking part.

Perhaps at this point I should assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look carefully into the allegations which have been made in the Southern Evening Echo. Naturally, I am concerned at what I have heard about Le Havre.

All this points to our having achieved a greater degree of awareness on both sides of the Channel—an awareness that we now wish to maintain during the years ahead.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Yacht Harbour Association. We have met representatives recently. We have not decided to take up all their suggestions, but they made a number of suggestions, some of which we regard as constructive and hope to take on board.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman about the availability of vaccine. The point regarding the vaccination of animals has sometimes been misunderstood. Despite the modern vaccines which are now available, none can guarantee complete immunity against rabies. Therefore, the production of such vaccines in large quantities would be wasteful of resources without providing a real safeguard.

The World Health Organisation recommends a policy of import control and quarantine for rabies-free countries, particularly countries such as our own where there is no kind boundary. The hon. Gentleman will find that the overwhelming number of veterinary surgeons in this country take the view that it would be a mistake to introduce routine vaccination. As he knows, however, we have vaccine in stock, and it would be used almost as a matter of course if an outbreak of rabies took place in this country. It would be used in any affected area. Of course, the level of use would depend on the nature of the outbreak and the contacts which the dog or cat had had with other animals and people in the locality.

I was surprised to hear that the Hampshire County Council is having to print its own leaflets. We have an excellent supply of leaflets which we make available to local authorities. I understand that some local authorities are unwittingly printing their own. They do not seem to have grasped the fact that we have leaflets which we make available. I am not sure whether this applies to Hampshire, but I will look into that point.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the police. As he gave me advance notice of this matter, I made inquiries and I understand that discussions have taken place between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Those discussions have been of a confidential nature. Therefore, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the basis of the representations to and discussions with the Home Office was.

I now turn to our contingency plans to stamp out any outbreak of rabies that might occur. I am happy to assure the House that the Ministry has a properly-drawn-up contingency plan capable of achieving its objective. We shall keep it under continuous review and will constantly strive to improve it.

We have also consulted the local authority and police associations about local contingency plans to supplement the Ministry's plans. As a result, this week we are sending to county councils guidelines to enable them to draw up their own local contingency plans to suit local conditions. Some local authorities already have their local plans, but our guidelines will serve to achieve both a higher state of preparedness and a higher degree of co-ordination between local authorities and the police, on the one hand, and between local authorities, the police and the Government on the other. I think that that covers the point the hon. Gentleman raised when he suggested that in addition to encouraging local authorities to produce their own plans we should send out what would be in effect a model plan. These guidelines are, in effect, a model plan.

There will be full co-ordination between local authorities and the Ministry's regional and divisional veterinary staff. In the case of an outbreak, an outbreak control centre would be set up in the infected area by the Ministry's regional veterinary officer. It would keep in direct and close touch with all concerned. Direction from the centre would be given from the Ministry's Exotic Disease Control Room at Animal Health Headquarters, Tolworth, Surrey.

Perhaps I may deal with the important points the hon. Gentleman raised with regard to the need to tighten our import controls still further. We shall consider them all. Many, if adopted, would involve amending the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974. We shall not hestiate to do this if it will tighten up our defences.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the maximum fine on summary conviction is £400. One of the problems in the past has been that we have not taken advantage of this maximum. I am sure that the increased usage of the maximum is a reflection of the greater public awareness. We are looking at the question of raising that fine and at the whole question of arrest. There are powers to arrest under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, but we are looking at the question of increasing these powers.

The hon. Gentleman raised points about advice to vets. This is a fair point. There are some vets who are unclear about the position on vaccination. We are arranging for an article to appear in the Veterinary Record which will explain this matter very fully. The Veterinary Record is the main channel of communication to vets, so I hope that this will meet the hon. Gentleman's purpose.

Mr. Adley

Will the Minister please try to take on board the point about leaflets for the public? A vet cannot give a long complex article to the public. What is needed is a simple leaflet to explain to the public why they cannot have their pets vaccinated.

Mr. Strang

I shall consider that point. We have been inundated with demands for leaflets as a result of our public awareness campaign, and we welcome that. The hon. Gentleman is calling for a specialised type of leaflet. We shall consider that matter.

The Government have highly-developed policies both for keeping rabies out of the country and for stamping out any outbreak that might occur. There is coordination at the various levels of government. Above all, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who is on the Opposition Front Bench—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Two o'clock.