§ 2.35 p.m.
§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODMy 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 are aware of the importance of removing animals infected by brucellosis immediately, to avoid the spread of infection and the disturbance to farm practice by the isolation of the animals concerned.]
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, once brucellosis has been diagnosed this is an essential precaution on the part of any owner who is concerned to clear his herd. However, as the noble Baroness will know, protracted tests may be needed to establish freedom from brucellosis. It would be wrong either to slaughter a suspect animal or to allow it to rejoin the herd without first completing the precise range of tests needed to determine the presence or absence of this most complex disease.
§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for that Answer, may I ask him at what time the new scheme is going to come in, so that this great complication of isolation may be avoided?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the compulsory scheme, then I can tell her that in the spring of next year the first areas in which the compulsory scheme will take place will be announced, but the compulsory scheme itself will not start before the autumn.
LORD NUNBURNHOLMEMy Lords, do the Government realise that the sooner the compulsory scheme is put into operation the better, both for financial reasons and to avoid the further spread of the disease? Further, can the noble Lord give us any reason why the compulsory scheme should not be put into operation at least by June 1?
§ LORD DENHAMYes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord reasons why. The first is that it is very important to let the voluntary scheme go forward and gain as much impetus as possible before the compulsory scheme comes into being. It is also very important to give the farmers in areas to be covered by the compulsory scheme as much warning as possible—and I think that six months' warning will not be any too long—that their area will be designated as a compulsory area.
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory reply, because one of the great difficulties with the voluntary scheme is that there is this long-drawn-out delay before the compulsory scheme comes in, and the people who have entered into the voluntary scheme do not think that they are having a fair crack of the whip?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that people with clean or relatively clean herds who take part in the voluntary scheme will be in a more advantageous position than if they wait for the compulsory scheme.
LORD ROWALLANMy Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider the possibility of giving an alternative to the owner of an animal which shows a doubtful reaction, so that that animal can be removed from the farm and slaughtered if the owner so wishes? If, on a post mortem, the result is negative, then full compensation should be paid for the slaughtered animal. If, on the other hand, the result is positive, then the owner will have the satisfaction of knowing that he has removed a source of infection.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I am aware of this suggestion, which has been made before, but there are two objections to it. The first objection is that one has to be absolutely certain, before 1275 there is a lot of slaughter, that there are enough free beasts available to replace those slaughtered; and the second is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in trying to eliminate this very unpleasant disease is to place greater emphasis on giving an incentive to farmers in respect of their fit animals rather than compensation for slaughtering reactors.
LORD ROWALLANMy Lords, if an animal is a possible source of infection, is it not rather a "dog in the manger" attitude to compel a man to keep it on his farm, with all the very great inconvenience involved, as well as the danger of infecting a valuable free herd? Surely, that is a bad position for the Government to adopt.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, it would not be practicable at the moment to encourage the slaughter of all animals which react to brucellosis.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, in view of the fact that the brucella organism was discovered about 1878, does not the noble Lord think that voluntary effort has had a fair chance?
§ LORD KILBRACKENMy Lords, did I hear the noble Lord correctly? Did he say that he did not think it was necessary or desirable at present that all animals which reacted to this disease should be slaughtered? If so, what action does he think should be taken with animals which react to the disease?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, what would be desirable is that all herds that are free, or comparatively free, of brucellosis should take part in the voluntary scheme. For herds that are badly infected, the best thing would be to try with vaccination to cure the herd and to make sure that the disease does not spread.
§ LORD KILBRACKENMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that a main reactor must be slaughtered; that there is no question of curing it; that the policy of vaccination is one for preventing the spread of the disease and is something quite different?
LORD NUNBURNHOLMEMy Lords, the Government have said that six months' notice should be given to farmers in the designated areas. In view of that can the noble Lord say why 1276 the scheme should not be started on July 1?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, what I said was that it would be fair to let farmers in a particular area know in good time that their area was going to be designated as an area for compulsory eradication of brucellosis so that if they wanted to take part in a voluntary scheme they could do so. So far as the whole question of how brucellosis should be dealt with is concerned, I know that many noble Lords are very concerned about the subject and that a number of them are meeting my right honourable friend early in the New Year to discuss the progress of the voluntary scheme after it has gone on long enough to give some idea of the results. I think that over the future wide policy field it would be best for the moment to leave the matter until this meeting with my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, will the noble Lord confirm one thing which he said which sounded to people like me who do not know too much about this subject to be slightly lacking in common sense? He seemed to be saying that where a herd was not seriously infected there was a policy of slaughter; but that where it was seriously infected the policy should be to try to save them.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I do not think that I said that.
§ LORD BURTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the longer the time taken to eradicate the disease the greater is the ultimate cost of eradication?
§ LORD DENHAMYes, my Lords; but, on the other hand, one must make sure that all the steps taken to eradicate this very serious disease are steps in the right direction.