HL Deb 16 March 1972 vol 329 cc541-58

4.32 p.m.

LORD GISBOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to eliminate the warble-fly. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the warble-fly is the gadfly. We have all seen cattle gadding around the field with their tails in the air, and we know that the gadfly is after them. The menace is mainly in the warm, humid South-West of the country. To give an example of that, in June, 1971, no less than 100 per cent. of the cows killed had warble damage, a state of affairs one may compare with that which exists in Scotland, where in fact the warble menace is very much less. Another comparison is that in June, 1971, 76 per cent. of the hides in the South West of the country were warbled, and throughout the whole of the country 33 per cent. were warbled. So there is quite a percentage in the whole country, but it is very much higher in the South-West.

The warble-fly, or gadfly, flies after the cattle which gad about, eventually catches them and lays up to a hundred eggs on the hairs of the legs or the underparts of the body. After a few days, these eggs hatch and the larvæ then largely go into the skin and migrate up to either the gullet or the backbone of the animal. Later, in December or January, they creep up and lie underneath the skin of the back. Here they grow into pupæ about one inch long, having made a hole in the back through which they can breathe, and eventually in about May or June they go out through the hole, drop into the ground, a few weeks later come up again, change into flies and fly around to start the cycle once again. They fly only up to a mile from where they actually hatch. These flies soon die, because they are unable to eat.

The losses caused by the gadfly are quite large, and occur chiefly with the hides. The holes that the pupæ make render the hides unusable for any large-scale use—for example, for the upholstery of these Benches, because it would obviously have holes in it. The losses from bad hides amount to about £1 million a year, and in addition to the hide losses there are the losses of milk. It is estimated by the Irish that a cow with 30 warble holes will probably lose about three pints of milk per day. It is also estimated that the quality of the milk will go down by between 10 and 25 per cent. The Irish have carried out certain experiments and discovered that in a 43-day period the difference of weight gain between animals with warbles and those without warbles varied as between 15 lb. and 47 lb. In addition, the butcher will have to cut away probably 2 lb. of what is known as "licked meat", where the warbles have been in contact.

There may be considerable injuries during the gadding period, when beasts will gad into perhaps wire fences or into each other, and hurt each other with their horns. What cannot be estimated, but I think it is quite considerable, is the suffering that can be caused, because I have no doubt that an animal with any number of these pupæ in its back must suffer considerably. There is the average lessening of value of the beast in the market to take into account, with the high likelihood of the hides being warbled, and the result is that the farmer who has taken trouble and has a warble-free beast will suffer as he is averaged down, and the farmer who has not bothered will gain because he will be averaged up. It is interesting that the Danish hides which are imported—there is no warble-fly in Denmark—command an increase of price of some £2.50 per hide. It is also interesting that in 1970 the £4 million-worth of exported hides from Britain averaged £181 per ton, whereas the £7½ million-worth of hides imported into this country averaged £191, a difference of £10 per ton. This difference in fact has amounted to quite a great deal, even up to £25.

The warble can be killed by interfering with its life cycle at any stage, but the only stage at which it is practical to interfere with its life cycle is when it is actually in the beast. There are several ways of doing this. I was reminded recently by somebody who had been a farmer that he had been told by a veterinary surgeon that there was nothing like a pair of strong thumbs. This reminds me of a story my mother told me. When she was young, she answered an advertisement which said, "Send half-a-crown and receive an instrument guaranteed to kill flies". She received two pieces of wood and the instructions, "Place a fly on one piece and strike firmly with the other". The strong thumbs are rather like that. The more practical method, the one that has been used throughout the ages, is derris, which is a chemical which has come out of the derris root. This has to be applied once every month. The back of the beast is scrubbed so that the holes are exposed and the derris goes down through the holes and kills the pupæ underneath. However, it is a monthly dressing.

More recently, there has been developed the systemic dressing, which is much more efficient. This is put on between August 15 and November 15, when the larvæ are migrating round the beast and have not actually reached under the skin. The advantage of this method is that it has to be done only once, and it also kills the larvæ of liver fluke and kills lice, but it is difficult to use, because the quantity used is quite critical in relation to the weight of the beast. It is imperative that it is put on in the right way, and it is necessary to use rubber gloves and to take certain safeguards. So it is necessary for it to be put on by a trained operator, and it is not practical for every farmer to use it himself.

I am afraid that it is necessary to look at some figures. In England and Wales in 1961 no less than 31 per cent. of all hides were warbled. This figure came down in 1969 to 8 per cent. on a gradual scale, which looked quite reasonable. But in 1971 the figure went back up to 14 per cent., so it is getting worse. The reduction was due to various reasons, perhaps mainly the efforts which the Irish made in the mid-sixties when they introduced what was first a voluntary scheme and then a compulsory scheme to treat their warbles. It was also partly due to the efforts of the drug manufacturers, the leather associa- tions, the farmers' unions and the Ministry of Agriculture, who made great efforts to have the warble dealt with.

The bad figures later were partly due to the warm summer of 1969, which encouraged the warble fly. It is interesting that in June, 1969—the summer months being much worse-16 per cent. of the animals killed were warbled, whereas in 1971, just two years later, the figure had doubled to 33 per cent. These are only summer examples, but they are critical due to the fact that the warbles are obviously living in the ground and will infect the whole national herd. If one takes ox and heifers, one finds that in mid-1961 there was 56 per cent. infection: in 1968 the figure went down to 19 per cent.—a great improvement—but by 1971 it had gone up again to 39 per cent. It had doubled in fact. So the infection is obviously getting very much worse and will spread throughout the whole herd.

The Irish had their voluntary scheme in 1964–65, which was made compulsory in 1966. The effect of that was enormous. Their infection came down from 65 per cent. to 2.4 per cent., and I have already explained the effect on cattle coming over from Ireland and being killed here. But there were pockets of infestation left in Ireland which were not dealt with, and they have been the source of more infestation. The Irish were very aware of the lessening from physical injury due to the lower amount of gadding. In 1971, they had a compulsory scheme and the farmer paid 20p to have each beast treated by the artificial insemination operators. In 1972, the scheme will continue and it is hoped that the warble will be wholly eliminated from Ireland. Since November 15, 1971, it has been an offence for any farmer to own or to put into the market any animal which does not have an ear tag with the accompanying certificate, to show that it was treated last autumn with systemic dressing. As a result of this, Irish cattle are fetching much more at Smithfield.

What the Irish scheme does, and what it is necessary for any British scheme to do, is, first of all, to see that all cattle are dressed during this period in the autumn. It must also be illegal for cattle to be put into a market unless they are accompanied by a certificate and an ear tag showing that they have been dressed, and any infested cattle will have to be treated. It is necessary to have trained operators running a scheme and for it to run for two consecutive years. The second year is extremely difficult, because by then 98 per cent. of the cattle are free of warble so that most of the chemical is wasted. But it is necessary to have a second year in order to catch the final 2 per cent. The cost of the scheme if it were applied to England is estimated at £2½ million for the first year, which would represent 25p per beast to the farmer, and it would then cost £100,000 a year to keep up the scheme subsequently. But it is estimated that the annual benefit in hides alone would be £1 million, and the Irish found that there was great benefit because of the lack of gadding. There would also, of course, be higher milk yields and so on. The return on capital with a single year's dressing is estimated at 35 per cent., and with a two-year dressing it is estimated that it would take seven years to break even on the cost.

There are no regulations here about the warble at the moment. There was an Order in force up to 1964 but that was largely unenforceable, and when it was taken off it had no noticeable effect. It is strange that the Order in Ireland of 1964–65, which was first voluntary and then compulsory, had such a great effect and that the fly was almost eliminated, because it was an Order similar to ours and I have always understood that we are a rather law-abiding race, whereas the Irish have always prided themselves on saying, "If it's the law we are agin it." It seemed to work there, but not here. But if we have a scheme here it must be compulsory, and we have the enormously valuable experience of the Irish scheme on which to base it.

The Ministry will say that if a farmer thought it was worth while getting rid of warble, he would do it himself. That is not correct, because although a farmer might do it himself his neighbour might not do so and it would be wasted effort. One knows that in the case of tuberculosis and brucellosis it was in the farmers' interest to get his cattle declared free, but until the scheme became compulsory most of them did not bother. In much the same way, their neighbours' cattle might have reinfected their own herds or they might have bought infected cattle from the market. There has been a suggestion that there should be financial incentives or penalties. The cost of tracing a hide back to the farmer who grew the beast would be so high that it would not make an incentive worth while; and the penalty would have to be very high because of the cost of tracing back. Also, if a farmer knew that by sending his cattle to a certain market or to a certain tannery he would suffer penalty, he would send his cattle somewhere else. So that penalties and incentives are nonstarters.

There are few rules in the E.E.C. about the warble, but there is nothing to stop any country having any health laws, provided that the rules applied to incoming beasts are no more stringent than the rules applied to farmers within that country. Belgium has free treatment on demand by the Ministry. In Denmark, the warble was virtually eliminated 30 years ago with derris. In Germany, there is a law for eliminating the warble but it has been put into effect by only two States. There is evidence that the E.E.C. is watching Britain to see what we are going to do about this, when Ireland is taking such great steps. I believe that if we put a scheme into operation the E.E.C. might well follow suit. But I am quite sure that if we do not do so they will take it as an excuse to do nothing. I am confident it will be said that it is too difficult to institute a scheme when the Ministry is flat out trying to get itself sorted out for going into Europe.

So far as I know, Ireland is also going into Europe, so I do not see why it should be more difficult for Britain to do anything about this than for Ireland. Anyhow, the operators in this country could be the A.I. operators, just as they are in Ireland, which would not bear directly heavily on the Ministry. It will be said, no doubt, that it will be too expensive, but I do not think it is going to be any cheaper in the future. It will probably be more expensive still. When we go into the E.E.C., and when Ireland has warble-free cattle, I wonder whose cattle the Continent will prefer? Will they prefer the Irish warble-free cattle or will they prefer the British warbled cattle? When it comes to hides, will they prefer the Irish hides or the English hides? I do not think there is any doubt which they will want. It is also said that the farmers will not agree. Of course, farmers seldom do agree, so I think that can be discounted.

My Lords, the figures that I have given clearly indicate that this problem of warble was getting better but is now getting worse again; and this increase of numbers will mean a spreading of warble throughout the British herds very shortly. There is the enormous value of having the Irish scheme on which to base any scheme we might have, and we can see the pitfalls they fell into. I am sure that there must be a value in running a scheme at the same time, using the same momentum as they have. I am sure that we should set an example to the E.E.C., and that we should also be able to compete with the warble-free Irish cattle next year or the year after. I believe this Question is timely. I believe this is a moment of opportunity for having a warble scheme; and I believe that a compulsory scheme should be initiated now, so that action may be taken to ensure that all cattle are dressed this autumn.

4.52 p.m.

LORD HOY

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for raising this particular subject, which is of course important to the agricultural industry; but if we are to understand what the problem really means to the industry as a whole perhaps the Minister this afternoon will bring us up to date with the figures which are involved. It is always interesting to go back and make comparisons between 1971–72 and 1961–62, but with the great variation in the disease itself, and in its inicidence, it is not a matter in which it is possible to compare 1972 with 1962 and say that the situation is either better or worse. But what I think we are all concerned about is the total cost of the damage, not only to the agricultural, industry but by way of losses to the country as a whole. It appears to me that there are three things we have to take into consideration: (a) the meat loss; (b) the milk loss; and (c) the hide loss—because there is no doubt at all that when the warble-fly is active then the value of the hide goes down considerably. Indeed, if we accept the noble Lord's figures about milk losses and multiply them per animal over a year, we see that we are dealing with a considerable sum of money; and certainly it cannot be denied that any animal affected by this particular insect is bound to have weight loss. In addition to all the discomfort, and the pain caused to the animal, there is a great restriction in its growth capacity.

I should like the Minister to bring us up to date this afternoon, because quite obviously the Department of Agriculture will have made some estimate of what the total losses are. We are not asking them to be absolutely precise, but to give us an idea, at least, what are the total losses. If we know that figure, we can then make up our minds, I think, rather more readily whether or not we ought to have a compulsory scheme. It seems to me that, if we decide that there should be a compulsory scheme, it will be difficult, as it always is, to enforce—because it is of no use if one farmer does it and his next-door neighbour does not. The disease will still be there.

But, my Lords, if we are to have a compulsory scheme, we must know from the Ministry what would be the cost of introducing it. I do not know what it would be. I hear the figure given as 25p per animal, but there will have to be follow-up treatment over a period of years. What the total cost would be I do not know, but I am certain the Ministry will have made some estimate of what is going to be involved. If that is so, it seems to me that, if the Ministry are going to make such a scheme compulsory, then obviously they will have to pay at least part of the cost—make a contribution to it—unless they can prove beyond peradventure that it is so good for the farmer that he is going to get a lot more for each animal at the end of the year. But I should have thought that, if a scheme was to be made compulsory, the Minister might well consider making a contribution to it.

I do not think that any of us, on either side of the House, would doubt the benefits that would arise if in fact this particular disease could be treated and obliterated. It would also be good to know what up-to-date method the Ministry have devised to deal with this disease. I know that they have moved, though not altogether, from the powder treatment to the systemic treatment. I do not know what it all costs, but I should have thought that the Ministry would be very competent to deal with this problem because (if the Minister will allow me to say once more what I have said so frequently) in Britain we enjoy the best agricultural advice services in the world. We have a Department second to none in this respect, and they, I am certain, could give all the advice required. Is there in fact a scheme carried out on a voluntary basis now? Is the Ministry saying to farmers at this particular time, or at the appropriate dates, "Here is what you ought to be doing with your cattle, and if you choose to do it we are prepared to render a service to you in carrying it out"? At the end of the day, we shall all be better off if we can eradicate this disease: the animal will have its suffering reduced; the farmers will get better results for their money; and we shall have supplies of the three things that I mentioned in greater quantities than ever before. But I think that what we have to wait on now is the answer from the Minister to the questions I have asked, because from what he tells us we can make our decision as to the best way to tackle this particular problem.

4.58 p.m.

BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON

My Lords, first of all I must declare a personal interest in the warble-fly, and this is why I felt inclined to say a few words on this Question. It is very likely because of the warble-fly that I sit in a wheel-chair to-day. The horse I was riding in a point-to-point had a warble lodged in its back. The horse was going well when it came into the jump. Suddenly, as we were in mid-air, he gave an extra sort of violent cat-jump, and that was the last I knew. The explanation I have always given is that at that moment, with the pressure of the saddle, the warble irritated to such a degree that this episode took place. For me, it was a lesson too late for the learning, but as the noble Earl who is to answer has several children I thought perhaps others should be made aware of the danger. As the warble surfaces in spring, when riding schools get busy in the Easter holidays or tracking centres start up and the point-to-point season is in full swing, I suggest that enthusiastic young people should not be tempted to ride a horse or pony with a warble until it has been treated and the lesion has healed.

My Lords, this condition in horses is rare compared with its incidence in cattle. I have personally pressed out many warble grubs from their beds of pus in cattle, and I can assure your Lordships that these animals must be much happier without them. With the modern treatment, and with more cattle spending time inside, the problem may not seem so great as it used to be. A law requiring that cattle should be treated against warble-flies might be difficult to enforce, but it would, I believe, be useful. Without this regulation the importance of the matter is not emphasised, and the bad or lazy stockman or farmer may shirk his responsibilities. I am glad to give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, in the hope that the Government may do something to run a concerted and extensive campaign with the farmer against the warble-fly, so that it can be eliminated altogether.

5.0 p.m.

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gisborough for putting down this Question and for his very constructive speech. I was also interested in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I am rather ignorant about horses; I did not realise that they had warbles. I shall certainly take her warning seriously. My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that you had to have an A.1 man or an expert to use the systemic treatment. This puzzled me, because I have used it myself, with rubber gloves, and I am still alive. It has a perfectly awful smell; but so have a lot of things on the farm and one takes them as they come. But that is by the way. The point I wanted to make bears on something that my noble friend said about the hides of these cattle and the fact that it is impossible to trace them. I do not understand why it should be impossible to trace the farm from which a particular hide came.

Before I continue, I may say that I am not declaring an interest because I have just sold my farm. Three months ago I should have done so. My Lords, the individual farmer who has a herd of cattle must get them into the yards and handle them. There are many other things besides warble. There is worming, weighing, testing and other processes. No one really enjoys it. The cattle hate it. The men tend to get cross-grained after an hour of this dirty, sweaty work and it causes a flow of unprintable language; but it is also unavoidable. Warbles are a nuisance. They are uncomfortable for the cattle and no farmer likes to see his best beast run like an express train across a field with his tail in the air. I have sold bullocks for slaughter and some have had punctured hides and some have not. I used to take beasts on short keep so that I could not always control the warble even if they had them; for they might have had them when they arrived. Noble Lords who are not acquainted with agriculture would imagine that if I sold a beast with a clean hide I would get £3 or £4 more for such an animal. Those noble Lords who are acquainted with agriculture will know that that is not the case at all. You get the same amount for a beast with a punctured hide as you do for a beast that is clean.

The business of yarding cattle and treating them for warble is smelly, sweaty and distasteful to man and beast. I agree that one should control warble in cattle. As a farmer I did it myself and I think that most of my neighbours did so. But I would put this point. Let us suppose that I buy 50 bullocks and, looking at them, find that some have warbles but that they are not too bad. I want them to grow fast because they are on short keep. It is April or October and I should bring them in and treat them for warbles. This may mean that I have to go round and get them into the yards and perhaps chase two or three beasts round the field for two hours. This can happen. It is not always a smooth business: some revolutionary beast makes for the next county because it knows what you want. I treat them for warbles and I return 50 exhausted, dirty, bad-tempered steaming bullocks to the field and I wonder how much growth they will put on in the next five or six days. Being perhaps a man with a very poor social conscience I decide not to treat them. I agree that it is wrong; but I think perhaps they will grow faster if I do not treat them. That is the sort of thought that comes into the minds of certain farmers. It may be impracticable, but it seems to me that if the farmer were paid morè for clean hides, if when he sold bullocks with clean hides he were paid £3 or £4 more, then he will carry out the necessary treatment. I can understand that this could be difficult to carry out where beasts are sold at ordinary auctions, but where they are sold on the hoof to an organisation like the F.M.C., it should not be difficult at all; for the hides can be inspected at once. They are either with warble or without; and you get your £3 or £4 or you do not. I may be wrong and this may be impracticable, but if it is I should be glad to know why.

LORD STRANGE

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask one of the experts if it is not true that this dressing in the autumn does not also interrupt the cycle of the liver fluke which is causing widespread trouble every year? Has any noble Lord the answer?

5.5. p.m.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, I think the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Strange, is that it affects some of them but does not eliminate them completely.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, gave an awful warning. I was horrified to hear her story. I did not know that warbles affected horses. They affect cattle and they affect them horribly. The term "warble-fly" has a humorous ring about it. This debate on the Order Paper may look quite funny to some people, but to anybody who has seen gadding in a field it is quite a frightening experience. The herd will suddenly rise and for no apparent reason run full tilt in all directions. I have seen animals smash through fences, knock down strong barbed-wire fences and emerge, cut, bleeding and baffled on the other side in a really very sad condition. It can happen several times a day on every day of a summer week. Those who like me run a large herd of cattle take particular care to do what we can to eliminate the warble-fly; but we do know that our plans are very often put awry by the fact that our neighbours may not dress their warble-flies. As Lord Gisborough said, the fly does not go very far and does not like crossing streams and thick hedges, but it will go through fences. For somebody with a permanent dairy herd who has taken the trouble to dress his warbles from year to year, to have his cattle reinfested is a very tiresome and tedious experience.

The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said that the treatment could be applied only in autumn. This is not true in my experience. I go on applying it until the end of May. The measure of how much these animals are irritated by the warble is shown by the fact that when you apply this particular systemic liquid, the pupae under the skin start to wriggle and I have seen animals lying on their backs and scrubbing themselves on the ground in agony to try to relieve themselves of the irritation. Whether it is dangerous to apply this systemic dressing at this time I do not know. The fact remains that I have to do it when I buy cattle.

All we need, my Lords, is a co-ordinated scheme run by the Government, rather like the Government-sponsored sheep-dipping scheme. Sheep dipping is no longer necessary. In my early days of farming I used to have to dip my sheep compulsorily; but now I do not have to dip them at all because the reason for which I had to dip them has disappeared. I hope that the Government will heed the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and will give us a co-ordinated compulsory dressing scheme from which every farmer in the country may benefit.

5.11 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, at the outset I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Gisborough for having introduced this debate. To farmers and cattle owners this is a very serious subject and the examples which have been put forward by noble Lords this afternoon must have horrified many of us. I am bound to say that the contribution made by my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton illustrates beyond anything else how terrible the effects of the warble-fly can be. The Government are most concerned about the continued incidence of warble-fly. It causes losses which could be avoided by quite simple treatment of cattle. The means to prevent losses are available and I suggest that it is simply a matter of good husbandry that these methods should be used.

The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked what is the loss to the industry caused by the warble-fly. This is a very difficult matter to evaluate. One of the difficulties about obtaining recognition of the effects of this problem is that it has not proved possible to put a figure on the losses caused. There is no doubt that losses are considerable, and basically they affect three main interests: farmers, butchers and the hide trade. When cattle stampede they cause injuries. As the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said, animals may horn each other, cut their udders and so forth, which results in a loss in the milk yield and a lowering of the condition of the animal. But it is difficult to say how much the loss amounts to. The passage of the grub through the animal, which is a pretty horrible experience anyhow, as my noble friend explained, is that it starts in the back leg of the animal and goes through the body and ends up, via the gullet, on the back of the animal. This obviously causes concern to the animal and a loss of condition.

The point I wish to emphasise is that these effects represent losses to the farmer. For the butcher there can be losses in trimming the carcase but I cannot say with any degree of accuracy what the loss would amount to. Indeed, my Lords, I think it would be fair to say that there are more estimates than there are estimators. Some indication may be given of the loss to the hide trade. It is possible to quantify the loss to a degree and the Meat and Livestock Commission have estimated that on average the loss is about 50p on a warbled hide.

Your Lordships will be aware that there has been a long history of attempts to deal with this problem. Before 1964 there was an Order requiring that all cattle visibly infested with warble-fly should be dressed with derris periodically from mid-March until the end of June. This Order was dropped in 1964 because of enforcement difficulties and the fact that the requirement to do this was badly observed. The then Minister of Agriculture drew attention to the merits of systemic insecticides which are more easily administered than derris, but he expressed the view that the Order requiring treatment by systemic insecticides would be no more enforceable than the older Order.

My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that it was not possible for a farmer to dress animals with systemic insecticides and that it would have to be done professionally. I should have thought that that is not exactly so, and that provided the manufacturers' instructions are adhered to, and rubber gloves are used, the job could be undertaken by normal farm staff. I would also emphasise that the cost of doing this works out at about 20p per animal of an average weight of 7 cwt. Obviously, with a heavier animal the cost would be marginally more. That is not a very great cost. Since the early 1960s, when systemic dressing became widely available, the incidence of warbled hides fluctuated, which is shown by the figures collected at 40 representative hide markets by the Hide and Allied Trades Improvement Society. The figures indicate that in England and Wales the percentage of warbled hides fell substantially from over 30 per cent. in 1961 to just over 8 per cent. in 1969. I confirm that these figures are the same as those given by my noble friend. As he said, the figure has risen again to nearly 14 per cent. in 1971.

The incidence of warble-fly varies substantially from area to area, being at a very low level in most areas of Scotland and highest on the Western side of England. My noble friend Lord Gisborough claimed that the enforceable Order in Ireland reduced the incidence of warble-fly hides, but the graph of the effects in Ireland has been very similar over the same period as that in England where there was no enforceable Order. I would not draw any conclusion from that. I merely say that over the period given by my noble friend the figures in Ireland did drop and so they did in this country.

From these analyses three important points emerge. The first is the difficulty of the enforcement of treatment; the second is the successful reduction of the incidence of warble-fly by the voluntary use of systemic dressings in the 1960s, and the third is the varying degrees of incidence from one area to another. All these factors would seem to indicate support for the Government's view that dressing against the warble-fly is primarily a matter of good husbandry and not something which has proved, either at home or overseas, to be amenable to Government control. As the 1960s showed, it is something that the industry can deal with if producers are prepared to make the effort. What the Government can do is to advise and exhort pro- ducers to dress their cattle in the interests of good husbandry and greater profitability.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, why should dressing be less amenable to control than the compulsory dipping of sheep, where a person either asked for a policeman to be present or went to the police station and signed a certificate that he had carried out this operation?

EARL FERRERS

In a nutshell, it is very difficult to tell after the occasion whether or not the animal has been dressed. However, I will deal with that more fully in a moment. We have tried to exhort the farmers to undertake this dressing. The Agricultural Departments have mounted publicity campaigns. They do this in the autumn and the spring, and they have been successful in stimulating a good deal of publicity on the subject in the Press, through leaflets, through posters and even through franking marks on envelopes. The Meat and Livestock Commission have also recently made an important contribution in this field.

My noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, have both argued that the Government should go further than this and organise a once-for-all effort to eradicate this fly. It has been argued, and quite rightly so, that this would produce dividends in the long run, in spite of its cost. It is claimed that Government intervention in what is basically a good husbandry matter would be justified by the fact that only a major effort by the Government could organise the country-wide campaign that would be needed; that once the fly is virtually eradicated, control could revert to the producers once again as a matter of good husbandry. The Ministry of Agriculture have in fact re-examined this possibility only recently and have come to the conclusion that, even if there were no other objections, this could not be contemplated at present because of the manpower which would be required to implement such a campaign. Past experience of enforcement problems, and the impossibility of proving conclusively after the event that dressing has or has not taken place, strongly suggest that in order to achieve the comprehensive coverage essential to eradication the Ministry would almost certainly have to provide for officials to carry out the dressing, or at least to supervise it. Each beast which had lived outdoors would require to be dressed between mid-September and the end of November for at least two and probably more successive years. Inspections in the spring would be necessary for at least five years after that, so that any cattle found to be visibly affected could receive further dressing.

LORD GISBOROUGH

My Lords, on the point of checking, surely if the systemic dressing had a dye added it would be an easy matter to check whether or not it had been applied.

EARL FERRERS

I do not think it would be quite so simple as that. It would depend very much on the time when the people came to inspect the animals and how long the dye would last. It would not be beyond the wit of some farmers to obtain the dye without having obtained the material.

LORD HOY

Surely not.

EARL FERRERS

The noble Lord knows farmers. But if we are to have the order, we obviously have to make it such as can be reasonably carried out. The manpower problem, although it is an overriding one, is certainly not the only difficulty. A comprehensive national campaign would be essential. It would not be easy, for example, to justify to Scottish farmers, with their low incidence of warble-fly, an imposition on them of the cost of regular dressing. But Scotland could not reasonably be left out. Another problem which has been encountered by countries which have attempted eradication is that, as the incidence of the fly is reduced, so it becomes increasingly difficult to justify incurring the cost of comprehensive dressing. But unless this is maintained, the fly population will rapidly resume its former level.

I suggest, my Lords, that these are fairly serious difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked: what would it cost to undertake this? It is difficult to put a figure on it, but my advice is that if this were to be properly done it would cost at least £5 million. At a time when the official veterinary staff and other manpower is stretched to the limit by other—and I am sure your Lordships would agree as to this—possibly more urgent tasks relating to disease prevention, disease control and disease eradication (I would only mention in this respect the brucellosis scheme, in which many noble Lords here have had a significant part to play), the additional manpower required could well run into four figures during the dressing period, and it simply is not available.

While I should not wish to be (if I may so put it) under-encouraging to my noble friend, because I share his horror of the pest, and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter this afternoon, the conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government have come is that an eradication scheme for the warble-fly simply is not feasible at present. But the position on the dressing of cattle against the warble-fly is absolutely clear-cut. We now have systemic insecticides, they are easy to apply, they are relatively inexpensive to apply and it is a matter of pure, basic good husbandry. The remedy for this trouble in fact lies in the farmers' hands and there is a simple method of treatment. I suggest that it is for them, and not for the Government, to make use of that remedy.