HL Deb 20 March 1928 vol 70 cc513-28

LORD ERNLE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the existence of two distinct types of foot-and-mouth disease is still confirmed by the Research Committee; whether the type most prevalent in Denmark, Holland and Belgium is the same as that which mainly prevails in this country; whether the virus has been recovered from any imported supplies of chilled or frozen meat; and, if so, to which type it belongs; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in previous discussions of foot-and-mouth disease the precise points to which I wanted to call attention were not raised, and I scarcely thought it reasonable to spring them upon an unprepared Minister. I therefore have put Questions down which I hope indicate with sufficient clearness the lines which I wish to pursue. A Research Committee was appointed in April, 1925, to examine into foot-and-mouth disease in this country and elsewhere, with a view of discovering some means of rendering invasions less harmful to agriculture. In the course of their researches they confirmed the discovery of there being two distinct types of foot-and-mouth disease—two distinct fixed types, and only two—and they designated them by the letters A and O. The first question that I wish to ask the Minister is whether that confirmation still holds good. It may have an important bearing on the whole question of foot-and-mouth disease. The Committee examined seventeen strains of the virus of foot-and-mouth disease, derived from cattle infected in this country, and they found that of those seventeen, sixteen belonged to the O type of feet-and-mouth disease, and one only belonged to the A type. I believe that type was discovered in Sussex, and promply suppressed, and so you may say for certain, if these samples are representative, that foot-and-mouth disease in this country belongs to the O type. We know that that is the type which prevails in France and the A type appears to have prevailed in Germany.

My second Question is whether the virus of the disease in Denmark, Holland and Belgium has also been examined, and whether it is known to what type the virus in those countries belongs. If infection is blown here from the Continent, it evidently may have an important bearing. The source of the invasion of foot-and-mouth disease only secondarily comes within the province of the Research Committee, but it is only those sources of invasion that I want to deal with. Initial outbreaks, as they are generally called in the Ministry's publications, occur generally in rural districts, and of recent years more particularly in the Midlands. They often occur under very puzzling circumstances. Suddenly, in a lonely isolated farm perhaps a hundred miles away from any source of known infection in this country, the disease breaks out. No livestock of any sort have been brought on to the farm. No human contact can be traced, and the smaller rodents, such as mice and rats, appear to be acquitted by science of being carriers. How, then, can the virus have reached that isolated place? Generally there are two theories. One is that the infection is air-borne, or bird-borne, and the other that it is introduced into this country in some article of agricultural produce imported from abroad. Whichever of those two theories you like to embrace, there is this initial difficulty. Since 1892, when the slaughter policy was first adopted in this country, down to 1927, infection on the Continent has been continuously prevalent, and the importations of the same articles of agricultural produce have been continuously pouring into this country. For the first twenty-six years of that period those two sources of infection, if sources they are, were innocent of infecting this country. In the last nine years we have suffered almost continuously, with varying degrees of severity, from outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

The difference between the two periods may be measured by the amount paid in compensation for animals slaughtered under the slaughter policy. For the first twenty-six years, down to 1918, the amount paid was under £12,000 a year, and the total expenditure for the twenty six years was about £300,000. In the last nine years the average annual net expenditure has been over £485,000, and the total net expenditure for the nine years has been £4,300,000 odd. How then, if those two sources of suspected infection were comparatively innocent for twenty-six years, can they be flagrantly guilty in the last nine? That is the difficulty you have to face. As to the air-or bird-borne theory, I think it is a theory of despair. I do not think it will hold up against examination. It cannot make any answer to the point that if the air and the birds were innocent for twenty-six years, why have they become guilty in the last nine. Certainly you would expect, if it were the fact, that there would be more numerous outbreaks in this country when there were more numerous outbreaks on the Continent. I have searched the figures very carefully, and I will not worry your Lordships with them. I will only mention two facts. In 1923, when our outbreaks rose to the, for us, enormous figure of 1929, the Continent was comparatively free from infection. In 1926, when our outbreaks dropped to 204, the air and soil of the Continent were reeking with infection. Therefore I do not think that that theory of despair need be adopted. No definite proof is possible in such a theory, and, if it is true, no remedy is possible.

At the most we can say that there are some cases to which it may apply. Therefore we are driven back to the imported trade in agricultural produce, and if we have any chance of finding that it is responsible, what we have to look out for are the changed conditions which make it possible for that trade to be infectious at one time and innocent of infection at another. There was one new trade that has already been dealt with—the trade in fresh pigs' meat from Belgium and Holland. That new trade was found to be infected and was prohibited in July, 1926. Other agricultural produce has been sometimes suspected and measures have been taken. One of these was the trade in foreign fresh vegetables, which might go uncooked into the swill of large towns. That was dealt with.

There remains the imported chilled and frozen meat from abroad, and particularly from the Argentine. What changed conditions has that gone through? It has gone through several changed conditions. In the first place it has greatly increased in volume. It used to provide rather more than one-third of the meat supply of this country: it now supplies close on one-half. Increase in volume in itself, of course, proves nothing at all, but if the produce is infected it becomes of extreme importance. Another change is that, within the last nine years especially, the predominance of chilled over frozen meat has become more and more marked. In 1912, I think I am right in saying, the proportions were about 50–50, but in 1927 the chilled meat had risen to 86 per cent. Once more, this change means nothing at all if the meat is innocent of infection, but if it is guilty of infection, then you have this fact. The activity of the virus must have a time limit. The chilled meat must be consumed within the time limit. Frozen meat can be kept for years. I believe there is a piece in the docks—when I was President of the Board of Agriculture there was a piece that had been there for over twenty years, and was supposed to be quite good.

Therefore frozen meat can be kept for any time, chilled meat must be eaten much more quickly—eaten, that is, when the activity of the virus is still considerable, and I should like to say that that has a very great bearing upon a Question which was asked by Lord Banbury about a fortnight ago. He said that the frozen and chilled meat trade had been suspended during the War, and he suggested that our immunity from outbreaks was due to that suspension. As a matter of fact it was not really the frozen meat trade that was suspended, it was the chilled meat trade. The frozen meat trade continued in volume as great as at any time within the last three years. What did happen was that the chilled meat fell off practically to nothing. It may be only a coincidence but we were certainly immune from outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, and if the matter has any significance at all it is that it confirms to a certain extent the view that chilled meat is the dangerous part of the import.

A third change may have taken place, and about this I really want all the information that the Minister can give me. I should like to know whether the Argentine meat has become infected, whether in other words, foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent in that country. I know, and I think it is common knowledge, what his answer must be—that it is prevalent in Argentina. He may tell us that in South America it is a benignant disease. But, if I may say so, unless he is going to tell me that the Research Committee have other types, it can only belong to type A or to type O, that is to say to two types which in this country are virulent in their form. That the disease is benignant in South America may be a very good thing for the South Americans, but that when it comes over here it comes in the virulent form is what does us harm. It may be that it makes matters worse for us, because if it is so mild in Argentina it may be more difficult to detect. There are, I am told, no statistics, but if this disease belongs to either the A or the O type, then it is the type that is prevailing in this country at the present moment. If there are no statistics probably the Minister may not be able to tell me what I particularly want to know. I want to know if foot-and-mouth disease has increased in prevalence in Argentina in the last nine years; whether it was exceptionally prevalent in our worst years, 1922, 1923 and 1924; and whether to his knowledge it is now endemic in South America.

This becomes an important point, if you consider the recent Report of the Research Committee. The Research Committee examined carcasses of infected animals in this country, dressed for market and exposed to the chilling and freezing temperatures, so as to make them exactly comparable to the chilled and frozen trade of South America, and they found the virus of the disease was active in the blood for from 30 to 40 days, and that it was active in the marrow of the bones for longer periods—in two instances up to 76 days. Now, that is an important, at all events a significant, discovery. If, as I expect the Minister to tell us, Argentina is rife with this disease—whether it is malignant or virulent that does not affect the question—it means that our meat supply, distributed all over the country, is a source of infection to our flocks and herds, and if you consider one other point made by the Research Committee, you will see the gravity of that. The mere smear of the virus of this infection on a man's working clothes is actively infectious for more than a fortnight, and even up to three weeks. Therefore by handling this infected meat you are multiplying all over the country the sources of initial outbreaks. I make no comment on what is past, nor do I mean to do so, but I want to ask the Minister what his Department has been doing. That progress Report was signed in January, 1927, fourteen months ago. What I want to know is whether the Ministry have examined the virus derived from the disease in Argentina, and, if so, whether they can tell us to which type, A or O, it belongs; whether they have actually found the virus in meat that has been imported from Argentina into this country; and, finally, what steps the Ministry have taken, or propose to take, to control the importation of infected meat from the country of origin, or to regulate its handling after arrival in our ports.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, before the noble Earl answers there is a further question on which I should like to say a few words, which is germane to that put by the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord has introduced to-day a subject of national importance, a subject that goes to the very root of things in this country, and which has inflicted upon us much loss, not merely of animal life but of money to our people. He said that research had got so far as to show that there are two types of this disease, and he also went on to indicate, speaking with the great knowledge which he has of these matters, that between chilled meat and frozen meat there is a great difference. The bacillus, for it is a bacillus in some form, lives longer under chilled conditions than it does under frozen conditions. That, at any rate, disappoints one.

LORD ERNLE

I do not think I quite meant to convey that. What I meant to say was that there must be a time limit to the activity of the virus, and that chilled meat will be sold before that time limit is reached while frozen meat may be kept beyond it. It is the same point put in a different way.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

That, I think, is very much the same thing as I was suggesting.

LORD ERNLE

Quite so.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

When we get to the root of it there is a bacillus, the nature of which we do not know, and we are speculating about the discovery of that bacillus and its life under certain conditions. Early in 1924, I think it was, a Committee was appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture to inquire into this matter. That Committee has been working steadily ever since. It has distinguished experts upon it and has presented various Reports; among them, the progress Report of which the noble Lord has spoken and other communications. But when you want to get at the character of a bacillus like this what is the use of leaving it to a Committee? The Committee consists of very eminent men who know a great deal, and if they could give their time and thought to it with the passion which is given by the individual researcher the fruits might be great; but it is never so. I know something of the history of biology in this country, and I have never known of any great discovery being made by a Committee, and I do not expect that I ever shall. It is not a question merely of the conditions under which the disease manifests itself or how it may be mitigated. It is a question of what is the character of the bacillus. That is a purely scientific question and it is a question of biology.

Let us look at the past. We had a terrible question of the same kind in rabies. It was solved by Pasteur. Do you imagine that Pasteur's place could have been taken by any Committee? No, not at all. He was opposed and bitterly assailed at the time, but that would not happen again to-day. He had to do his work himself, in solitude, inspired by the passion for excellence and by his superb scientific instinct. Take Lister, who was a disciple of Pasteur and applied his principle in an entirely new form. That, again, was the work of a single man. Only a single man can devote himself and his knowledge with the passion for excellence which is required if you are to get a great individual result. In later times Banbury did his work for humanity by himself. No doubt he had colleagues with whom he consulted, but it was Banbury's work; it was the work of an individual.

What the Ministry of Agriculture has never done, what no Government has ever done, and what I have clamoured for more than once, is to look out in the biological laboratories of Universities among the experts in these things for a comparatively young man who would devote himself to this research into the character of the bacillus. I know it is very difficult to find. The Germans thought they had found it. I do not think they think so now; but what has been done with them has been the work of one man. It is always one man who does these things. Notwithstanding the War, notwithstanding the loss of life among our young scientific men, we still retain a remarkable number of quite first rate investigators who are engaged in parallel fields. It is no use going to the great professor, because he will say that it is not his subject. But the professor may tell you—and he is likely to know more than you do—who there is of promise, who there is that can be trusted, who there is that can be set to work in the research which is necessary to identify this bacillus, which is a very difficult thing. Probably it is an ultramicroscopic bacillus. But the microscope is not the limit to our power of detecting and describing these things, and if somebody was turned on and his whole time in his laboratory given to the research, I venture to think the prospect would be far more promising than that which can come from any Committee.

I am far from criticising the Committee or depreciating its activities. I have no doubt that it has done very useful work. But having regard to the terrible national evil which has been inflicted upon us, having regard to the magnitude of what it costs us in life and money, I am for omitting no step which, according to the best analogies, may be likely to throw light upon the source of a great evil. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will tell us that the Ministry of Agriculture is alive to these things and that it is prepared, notwithstanding its Scientific Committee, to look out for this far more special kind of assistance which it can derive from the work of a single individual, sought for and found on the best advice of the people with whom he has been working, and who may be engaged to devote his whole time and his whole energy to this very special research.

THE EARL OF STRADBROKE

My Lords, in replying to the two very interesting speeches which have been made on this subject this afternoon, I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the suggestion he has made. I can assure him that great care has been taken by the Research Committee to make the studies he has suggested, and if we can find anybody who is qualified for this work I am sure that use will be made of his suggestions. The noble Viscount will, I know, agree that it is very difficult to find anybody who will be able to fill this very difficult position and still more unlikely, I am afraid, that he will find a preventive. A cure has been found, as our Lordships know. The difficulty is to find a preventive of this terrible disease, foot-and-mouth disease, which is causing so much anxiety to the Ministry at the present time.

With regard to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, placed on the Paper, I should like to say that the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee have confirmed the opinion arrived at by Dr. Vallée, of the Alfort Veterinary College, Paris. They agree that there are two strains of foot-and-mouth disease and that if cattle, or animals, are attacked by one strain of virus of the disease and become immune it does not prevent them falling victims to the other strain of virus. The distinction between these two strains cannot be found by clinical evidence; only by cross-inoculation. It has been proved that if an animal is infected, we will say, with the A strain of virus and becomes immune and after a short time is again infected by the A virus it does not re-act. But if it is infected with the O virus it does re-act and becomes infected. That is the only way of proving that these two strains exist. The importance of the discovery is that it explains why, when animals have been attacked by foot-and-mouth disease, it is not uncommon for them to be attacked again within a few months. A good many people thought that if an animal or a herd of animals were infected with foot-and-month disease, after they once got over it they were immune. That has proved not to be the case, and the reason is that, while in the first case they were infected with one strain, On the second attack it was the other strain to which they had fallen victim.

This naturally very greatly adds to the difficulty of eradicating the disease. The only way we see at the present time of attacking it is by the very expensive method of slaughtering the infected animals. It is important also to notice that the animals are immune from the disease for a very short period, at most a few months only. As the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, pointed out, the type of the disease that is most prevalent in Europe is the O. type, the same that we have in this country, and perhaps that is the reason why it is so much more prevalent here than the other type—namely, on account of our proximity to continental countries. I do not know if it has any bearing on the case, but in 1919, 30,000 cwts. of fresh meat were imported from Europe whereas in 1926 1,000,000 cwts. were imported. I do not know whether this increase in imported fresh meat from the Continent has had any bearing on the increase in foot-and-mouth disease during those years. It looks on the face of it as if that might be so.

There is no information available as to the type of foot-and-mouth disease in the Argentine. We do not know which type it is that is most prevalent there, but we know that it is very prevalent. I hope the steps that the Government of the Argentine have promised to take, to check the sending to this country of cargoes that are likely to be infected by the disease, will prove effective. Article 7 of the new Argentine Decree, if properly enforced, will, I think, minimise the danger of infection being brought here very greatly. The Article to which I refer is as follows:— The procedure of inspecting animals at the freezing plants before and after slaughter will be intensified, and the herd (particular consignment) shall be isolated in the event of symptoms of foot-and-mouth dsease or other contagious disease being established among the animals on foot, and when such disease is ascertained on the slaughter ground the meat from the herd may not be exported. That, I think, will greatly minimise the risk of infection. Your Lordships are aware—the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, has already referred to it—that in July, 1926, the embargo was put on the importation of fresh carcasses into this country from the Continent owing to the outbreak that occurred in Lanarkshire in that year. The cause of the disease was traced to carcasses imported from the Continent.

The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, also asked whether the virus has been recovered from imported supplies of chilled meat or frozen meat. I must say that no attempt has been made by the Foot-and-Mouth Diseases Research Committee under this head to recover the virus from imported meat. It is thought that such a task would really be impracticable as so many thousands of carcasses are imported. One might take case after case and find nothing and, after all, that would not prove that there was an infection brought in but would simply prove that the carcasses that had been examined were free from the disease, though all the time disease might be brought in. The work of the Committee has been carried out on animals that have been specially infected with foot-and-mouth disease for the purpose of experiment. It is thought by that method the Research Committee can make sure that the animals are infected with the disease and find the results that occur when animals are truly infected. They get better results in that way than they would do by taking chance carcasses of the previous condition of which they might not be sure. I regret I cannot give the noble Lord the information that he wished to have, but I have given him all the figures which are at the present moment available to me.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I am conscious that, having only lately returned from a Government Mission to the Governments of South America in connection with this question of the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease germs in chilled carcasses to our own shores, your Lordships will probably desire I should not remain silent in the course of such a debate as this. Obviously it would be quite impossible for me, even if it were strictly proper, to go into detail at this stage as to the contents of a Report which, in its complete form, I have not yet submitted to His Majesty's Government, but I should like to say, in reply to a Question of my noble friend, Lord Ernle, that foot-and-mouth disease, or as it is called there aftosa, is undoubtedly prevalent in the Argentine, although I learn from various responsible sources that it is not deemed to be more prevalent to-day than it was, say, a decade or two decades ago. The disease is at least as prevalent in Uruguay, from which the importation of meat is not so considerable, and is very considerably prevalent, one might almost say raging, in the very large tract of country known as Brazil. I do not know that Brazil is very important from our point of view because, so far, a comparatively small amount of chilled meat passes from Brazil into this country, but it is an increasing amount and I am inclined to think we shall have to focus our attention more largely on Brazil in this connection in days to come than perhaps even upon the Argentine, where, owing to the climate being much more temperate and the country being much more manageable, it is easier to control the disease.

But what I should like very much to ask the noble Earl who now represents in this House the Ministry of Agriculture is whether something could not be done to effect co-operation in the matter of research as between the very eminent veterinary experts who are conducting research work with the utmost sympathy with our contentions on this side of the Atlantic and the very eminent experts both in Argentine and Brazil who are engaged in similar tasks. I may particularly mention Dr. Suarez, the chief veterinary inspector of the Argentine Government and a very eminent veterinarian, Dr. Huerta, who is the chief veterinary and a very eminent expert under the Government of Brazil. I may mention in connection with Dr. Huerta that he professes, rightly or wrongly, to have discovered, and is in fact using, a preventative serum which was found first of all to be successful in preventing the spread of rinderpest which has been rather seriously prevalent in Brazil. He has used it also in the case of foot-and-mouth disease with, as he alleges, very remarkable preventative results. But in any case, entirely sympathising with the contention of the noble and learned Viscount opposite, my point is that you cannot expect a Committee effectively to conduct research into this or any other scientific problem. Those working on the Committee—and there are indeed in this country several eminent research workers who are working under this Committee—might be invited to co-operate with those who are carrying on similar work in countries which are more seriously devastated by the same disease.

There are certain observations which were made in the course of a letter addressed to The Times by Sir William Haldane, who I think is a brother of the noble and learned Viscount, and who, I believe, is also a Development Commissioner, It would not have been appropriate for me to have commented before to-day upon the contents of that letter, because the Ministry of Agriculture had in no way made public officially the purport of my preliminary Report which was made to them on my return from South America, but perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of saying that when Sir William Haldane says, as he does in this letter, that it "has passed beyond the power of the Argentine authorities to save the herds of that country from this devastating disease," I can only say that personally I do not support that view, after carefully investgating the position on the spot. I cannot help feeling that with the sincere and hearty support which I think we may expect from the leading estancieros of the Argentine to their own Government in carrying out, as they obviously intend to carry out, our demands in relation to restrictions and penalties under the Decree which the Argentine Government has just issued, the position in the Argentine will very materially improve, and that there is not sufficient ground for such an alarmist statement as that.

I notice that Sir William Haldane goes on to quote a paper, a well-known organ of public opinion in South America, the Review of the River Plate, as saying:— The facts stated are, however, sufficient to prove that there is too much of the spectacular and too little of the practical in the preventive measures which have thus far found favour with the Argentine officials… My comment upon that is that all South American Governments do indulge, perhaps, in spectacular legislative efforts to a greater extent than those of Western European countries, and no doubt they lay rather more stress upon what may be called the printed or the written word without considering perhaps as seriously as we should its prompt and effective enforcement. Still, I am bound to say, after most careful and detailed negotiations with the representatives of the Argentine Government, with which the President of the Republic was in entire sympathy from our point of view, that I am perfectly convinced that whatever may have been the case prior to my visit, the Argentine authorities are determined to do their utmost to carry out their Decree, which embodies to a very large extent, though not entirely, the conditions which we asked them to adopt some six or nine months ago.

I know that personally I have been criticised for not demanding from the South American Governments the same drastic Regulations as are in force in respect of this disease in this country. The answer is that these South American Governments stand in relation to this highly infectious disease in a similar position to where we stood say sixty years ago. Any attempt rapidly to enforce penalties upon the estancieros of that country when they have never been used to effective control in the matter of disease would, I am quite sure, defeat its own end. That is the impression I have formed, and I am bound to say that the British community of Buenos Aires and of other large towns in South America hold exactly the same opinion. If we try to force the pace in this matter, we shall not obtain what we desire. I made an earnest appeal to that most powerful of all bodies in the rural areas of the Argentine, the Rural Society of Argentina, asking them to do their utmost to point the way in carrying out the requirements of this new Argentine Decree, which embodies our demands. I used these words—and I am not in the least ashamed of them—"I appeal to your honour and conscience to do what you can to see that our British requirements are carried out." I am bound to tell you that I believe those words are likely to have more effect than anything that has been done so far. The appeal has been embodied in a letter which has been addressed by the council of this powerful organisation to all the estancieros throughout the whole of this large country. I have only recently received a letter from their president to the effect that they have every hope that it will produce the required effect, and that the new Decree of the Argentine Government will be faithfully carried out.

When the noble and learned Viscount opposite suggests that a first-rate young investigator should be found, and entrusted with the special task of this very difficult research work, I entirely support his contention, but, as has been discovered in other fields of scientific endeavour, these men are very hard to find. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount realises this, but the one outstanding fact that emerged from our Imperial Agricultural Research Conference which met last October in this country and was attended by scientific representatives from all over the Empire, was that men are to-day not available in sufficient numbers to carry out agricultural research of any description to the extent that we desire and require throughout the British Empire. In fact, representatives of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge who were present had to admit that there was not a sufficient number of the right type of man for producing this very difficult human article—namely, a really efficient research worker. Subject only to that, I am in entire agreement with the suggestion. If such a young man could be found, and brought into sympathetic contact with this work, I am sure we should much sooner come to the discovery, from which we are still so far, of what is really the nature of this germ, which is ultra-microscopic, and which is also filterable. That discovery would give the means to prepare that preventative virus, which probably is the solution of our difficulty far more than any attempt to cure the disease. I hope this drastic and expensive policy of slaughter may, by such discoveries, soon be brought to an end, to the advantage of our flocks and herds, and also to the alleviation of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country.

LORD ERNLE

My Lords, I do not propose to press my Motion for papers. I presume we shall have laid before us as soon as possible the full details of what we asked of the Argentine, and what they are prepared to do. I would, however, venture to appeal to the Ministry, after the rather vague answer which I have received to my very definite Questions to consider whether unless they show more activity in this matter, they will be able any longer to rely upon loyal co-operation in carrying out the slaughter policy, which is quite sure to be ineffective if the farmers do not support it. I do not think we have heard in the answer of the Minister, and still less, if he will allow me to say so, in Lord Bledisloe's contribution to the debate, anything likely to be comforting to the farmers of this country.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.