§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept that the eradication of brucellosis from the cattle of Britain would be a material public health advantage, would greatly reduce the losses from animal disease and would be an important factor in promoting the export trade in livestock; and, if this be so, how this acceptance can be reconciled with the refusal to allow the veterinary laboratories under Government control to carry out the necessary tests for herd owners who wish to clear the disease from their herds.]
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government accept that the eradication of brucellosis from the cattle of Britain would be of advantage to public health, and would help the 2 export trade in livestock. But the gains from the eradication of brucellosis have to be considered against the cost, and whether it can be met; and, if so, by what method it might be possible to do this. It is these matters which are being considered by the Government, and until a decision is made it would be premature to allow the Government's veterinary laboratories to become involved in carrying out tests under private arrangements.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him, since he agrees that the eradication of brucellosis should be carried out, whether he agrees that it should be carried out on a national basis, free of cost to the farmers? In view of the delays that might occur in commencing such a scheme, would the Minister reconsider the instructions given by senior members of the Ministry of Agriculture to the laboratories? This instruction, I understand, is that they should not carry out tests to assist farmers who are keen enough to commence this movement by joining schemes such as that instituted by the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. I would ask, further, whether these laboratories could carry out such tests, if not done free of charge, on payment of a reasonable fee by those enthusiastic farmers who are endeavouring to benefit the nation in this way.
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, I hope that I have got all the points the noble Lord has raised. It would be, of course, extremely expensive for the nation to meet the cost of eradication, particularly 3 immediate eradication. Gradual eradication would be very much cheaper; and the Ministry are considering all this at the present time. The Ministry feel that they must look at the problem as a whole and that a decision must be taken about the future. In the meantime, we cannot let a situation develop in which our official scheme might be put at risk because we were using our resources to help a private scheme. But if a decision were taken not to eradicate the disease, the Ministery would then consider how best to help private schemes—the sort of scheme the noble Lord has in mind.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, as this disease is transmissible to human beings, could the noble Lord tell us what, approximately, would be the cost of eradicating it?
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, as I understand it, to eradicate on the basis of doing it immediately—that is, to go straight away into it—would cost some £35 to £50 million. Spread over a much longer period, it might be done for £10 million, which is considerable saving, even in these days.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, in view of the fact that our annual drug bill is £146 million, does the noble Lord not think that perhaps economies might be introduced there, in order to meet the cost of eradicating this very serious disease?
§ LORD CHAMPIONYes, my Lords, I agree that one has to keep all these considerations in mind. I must point out that the number of human cases confirmed is about 125 a year.