§ 4.6 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMy 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 how many primary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth since the war have definitely been due to infection from South American beef, how many due to South American mutton or lamb, how many due to other causes, and in how many cases the cause of the primary outbreak has not been traced.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, from 1946 to 1966, 418 primary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease were recorded. No cause has been definitely established. In 130 cases (31 per cent.) the origin was obscure; 127 cases (30 per cent.) were considered to be of European origin, possibly due to bird movement; in 120 cases (30 per cent.) the origin was associated with imported meat, including South American meat. Forty outbreaks 2 (9 per cent.) were connected with swill in which material of animal origin was not identified; one outbreak was attributed to the escape of virus from a research institute. Of the primary outbreaks associated with imported meat, 92 were identified with South American meat. In the majority of these cases the meat could have been beef, lamb and/or pork but in 11 cases beet alone was identified; in 4 cases, pork alone, and in one case, lamb alone.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in our present state of knowledge these figures tend to show that beef is responsible for more cases and, therefore, presumably more dangerous than lamb or pork?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, if the noble Duke is asking me my view, I would say that it would be dangerous to draw firm conclusions from these figures which are spread over a period of 20 years. The geographical incidence of the disease has changed very considerably over that period, and I would not advise that any conclusions at all should be drawn from the figures.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that one of the most important lessons to have come out of the recent outbreak is that we simply cannot take any risks at all? Will he, therefore, once again impress upon his right honourable friend the importance of this point and also the importance of the views expressed by the National Farmers' Union and their extreme 3 anxiety about the matter? Will he also stress the importance of the views expressed by his right honourable friend's own advisers on the same line? It really is very important indeed.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, by now I know the noble Lord's view, and I sympathise with it. I will press the view upon my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture; but I say quite definitely that such pressure is a work of supererogation for, as the noble Lord is aware, other considerations are involved for which my noble friend the Minister of Agriculture is not responsible.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, in view of that somewhat cryptic statement, is it not the fact that the Chief Veterinary Officer to the Ministry was unable to distinguish between the sources, so far as beef and sheep were concerned? Does he not say in his report that returns made by the Argentine authorities show that the foot-and-mouth disease occurs in the exporting area concerned, but that the returns do not distinguish between cattle and sheep? In these circumstances, why do the Government distinguish between cattle and sheep?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, if the noble Lord looks at the report again he will see that the C.V.O. attributed the last outbreak possibly—and the circumstantial evidence pointed to it—to lamb. It is because of that that my right honourable friend has made his announcement about the continued ban on imported mutton and lamb.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMy Lords, although the last outbreak was probably due to lamb, surely the noble Lord agrees that an outbreak due to beef could be just as bad and, on the figures, is equally, if not more, likely. Therefore, while it is logical to ban imports of both, or neither, meats from South America, to ban one but not the other seems to me to be so illogical as scarcely to be true.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I do not want to make a Party point, but there have been cases where the infection was thought to be due to beef, and no action has been taken by other Administrations to ban imported beef. On the other hand, 4 in one case it was thought that pork was responsible; and pork has been banned. There was no complaint then that it was illogical, and it was thought sensible that pork should remain banned. Since, in the last outbreak, the cause was attributed, according to circumstantial evidence, to mutton and lamb, mutton and lamb have been banned. I would add one other thing. I accept absolutely what the noble Lord opposite said. One can get as near to safety as possible, but one has to pay a higher premium so one must consider whether the premium, in certain cases, is not too high. In this case the Government bearing in mind every consideration, have decided that the present decision is the right one.