HL Deb 06 February 1975 vol 356 cc995-1007

3.50 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Many diseases, such as cattle plague and sheep pox, were eradicated from Great Britain in the last century and in the early years of this century by the strenuous efforts of the State Veterinary Officers and their assistants. Foot and mouth disease is of course a name much more familiar to us in this age. A severe epidemic of this disease occurred in the autumn of 1967, as your Lordships will remember, and lasted until the middle of 1968, causing severe economic losses to the livestock industry, particularly in the West Midlands. Circumstantial evidence strongly linked the source of the outbreak to mutton imported from Latin America which had been sold through normal retail outlets in the area of the initial outbreaks.

Foot and mouth disease is a highly infectious disease and very readily spread. Over the years it has been introduced in a number of ways. In the last century several outbreaks were traced to imported cattle, but experience with other diseases had already shown the disease risks in importing live animals, and import controls thus limited the possibilities of foot and mouth disease entering the country in this way. In more recent times, however, it has become clear that foot and mouth disease can be carried in other ways. Besides the 1967–68 epidemic, imported meat was responsible for an outbreak in Lanarkshire in 1926. In 1908 an outbreak in Edinburgh was believed to have originated from infection carried in imported hay ; an outbreak in Gloucestershire in 1938 was due to infection in an imported glandular product which had been used in a pharmaceutical preparation injected into a cow; while in 1952 an outbreak clearly demonstrated that infection could be transferred in infected milk derived from infected cows and fed to calves. This was home produced and not imported milk, yet the same considerations apply to the latter. My Lords, the permutations of how this disease can be spread are manifold. It must be concluded that all ruminating animals and swine, any of their meat or other products and any other thing that has been in contact with them can all harbour this disease!

Swine fever has been eradicated from this country at great expense, but it can be transmitted quite readily by infective animals or materials from them. Swine vesicular disease, our current problem disease, which in outward appearance is so like foot and mouth disease but affects only pigs, most likely entered this country in illegally imported pig meat. So far as poultry are concerned there is, of course, the variation of fowl pest known as Newcastle disease, which despite its name is not really a home product. It was eradicated after appearing here in the 1920s, but it re-entered this country in poultry carcases imported from Eastern Europe shortly after the Second World War, and since then, I regret to say, England and Wales have never been really free of the disease. Our veterinary surgeons have, over the last 100 years or so, achieved remarkable progress to combat, overcome and eradicate from our countryside many animal diseases, and I should like to pay a tribute to them. But no programme of eradication and control at home can be successful unless risks of possible infection from overseas can also be eliminated.

From the time of the great cattle plague of 1865, it was progressively realised that there was need to control imports not only of live animals, but also of meat and other things. The extent and format of regulations reflected growing knowledge of the methods of transmission of disease. This resulted in a consolidated Act in 1894, but knowledge and experience grew further so that further Acts and Orders were made. As a result, in 1950 a further consolidating Act was passed, called the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, and, although this has been amended to some extent by subsequent enactments, it remains the principal animal health Act on the Statute Book.

Unfortunately our present legislation does not allow flexibility for effective and speedy action. It contains much detail which cannot be amended at short notice, because it is in the Act itself. Some of this detail has been overtaken by modern events and is no longer required, and other would more appropriately appear in subordinate legislation. The Government therefore propose by this Bill to formalise a three tier structure of control. The first tier, the Bill itself, would provide the basic framework which already appears in the present Act, although rather entwined in detail. This structure is that the Agricultural Ministers have the powers to prohibit or control by Order and licence the import of any animal, poultry or other thing whereby disease may be introduced. The second tier would be the import Orders made under the enabling powers which would detail the prohibitions and cover, where admissible, the general conditions under which animals or other things could be imported. Each Order would relate to a group of animals or poultry or products, and would contain provision for individual imports or consignments to be licensed generally or individually. The third tier would be these licences which would contain the detailed veterinary conditions, such as health certification, or quarantine, or like matters, that the importer would have to meet for his particular import. I would emphasise, however, that wherever it is possible from the animal health point of view to allow unconditional entry of animals or goods this will be done.

My Lords, I will now, with your permission, run briefly through the clauses of the Bill. The major clause is Clause 1. This, in effect, sets up the three tier system to which I have just referred by replacing the detailed provisions in the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 with these more flexible powers. There are however one or two other points in this clause. We have also clarified the question of what is imported by extending the definition from the general sense of the word meaning something brought in from another country into Great Britain. We have included items brought into this country which may have come from such places as oil rigs or similar structures not strictly another country, and also items which may be simply taken from Great Britain out of our territorial waters and then returned to us, but possibly having met with something foreign on the high seas.

The clause also widens the definition of disease and of animals for import purposes. This is to enable new conditions in animals not legally specified as disease under the 1950 Act that may occur in imported livestock or goods, to be dealt with as animal disease. Also it will allow the possible future control of imports of species such as reptiles or fish, or their products, which may come to cause an animal health risk. Furthermore, the definition of when goods brought by air are imported is clearly defined on the lines of the Customs definition. The clause also authorises the specified matters detailed in Schedule 1 which I will deal with in a moment.

My Lords, Clause 2 of the Bill widens the powers of entry of inspectors so that they can enter vessels or aircraft currently at ports or airports in Great Britain, to ascertain whether any animal or product is on board which could pose a disease threat to us. The power extends also to vessels, boats, hovercraft and aircraft which may have come into a port which is not a recognised port or airport such as an emergency landing field. Existing powers are deficient in this respect, particularly where aircraft or vessels in transit are involved. These may well have animals on board which are unacceptable to us. In most cases the reason for the presence of the aircraft or vessel will be for service purposes such as refuelling or crew changing or part loading or unloading of a cargo, and they will soon be on their way. Thus the need to use these powers will probably be infrequent, and will in all cases be very carefully considered, but nevertheless we think it necessary that we should have them in case our national animal health should be at stake, particularly from insect borne disease.

This clause also provides powers for inspectors to enter buildings, land or vehicles inside or outside ports where it is suspected that imported animals or other things are being or may have been kept. This is to enable us to ensure that there have been no breaches of any conditions of an Order or licence made under the authority of the Act. This will be particularly true where post-import conditions are imposed. We do not envisage the use of these powers as a matter of routine, but again it is necessary for us to reserve them to ourselves in case national animal health should again be at risk.

Clause 3 toughens up the penalties for infringements by allowing prosecution on indictment. This brings the penalties into line with those in last year's Rabies Act. Clause 4 contains transitional provisions to enable existing Acts and Orders to continue until the new Orders, to be prepared under the Bill, can be made ready for introduction. Clause 5 enables the Bill to come into effect by enabling Order and also indicates that the Bill relates only to Great Britain. Northern Ireland has her own veterinary legislation, and acts independently but in accord with Great Britain in these matters.

Now, my Lords, I should like, if I may, to turn to Schedule 1. Schedule 1 contains the matters to which Orders made under the enabling power may relate. These are self-explanatory and cover the whole range from importation, through quarantine if applicable, to any other post-import conditions that may be required. It is not proposed as a general rule to pay compensation for imported animals or goods that have to be destroyed because they are diseased or infringe the regulations. Nor is it intended that the Agricultural Departments shall bear any of the costs in connection with an import other than those normally incurred by them in carrying out routine policing of the import controls.

Schedule 2 repeals the existing provisions in the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 that relate to importations, plus the subsequent amendments that have been made to those provisions in later enactments. The Schedule also picks up and repeals an item in the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 which relates to the seizure of diseased animals at ports of entry. These powers have long since been superseded by other powers. This seems to have been forgotten and it was not realised that they were still extant.

Regarding our obligations as members of the European Economic Community, our partners in the Community have made great strides in transforming their foot-and-mouth disease position from an endemic situation to one in which outbreaks are happily few and where eradication successfully follows. Nevertheless, regular vaccination against this disease is still a main plank of their defence and unhappily swine fever still occurs in some parts of the Community. It was for these reasons that by the Treaty of Accession we are allowed to retain our national animal health rules for our protection against the risk of foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever infection in imported meat and for the import of live animals. These rules are subject to negotiation on their future and these negotiations have yet to take place. It cannot be known what the outcome of the negotiations will be, but whatever animal health rÉgime is eventually agreed for trade between ourselves and other members of the EEC, the three-tier system which this Bill proposes should mean I submit, that the new rÉgime could be taken on board without further recourse to legislation.

My Lords, the sea has over the centuries been our good ally, but we have long since realised that we cannot rely upon it, and it alone, to protect us, and today we are also at risk from the air. We must therefore strengthen our cordon sanitaire. There are still many diseases and disease conditions lurking in various parts of the world that would prosper if they could cross the sea or come through by air and gain access to our herds and flocks. It is to the credit of the vigilance of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland in successive Governments and their veterinary advisers that these diseases have so far largely been kept at bay. But we need modern and effective legislation to give them adequate powers to continue to do this. This Bill, I submit, is the right way to give them such powers to act swiftly and surely when our national animal health situation is threatened from outside. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Strabolgi.)

4.9 p.m.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for introducing this Bill relating to the diseases of animals. Much of the protection of our animals, and indeed of our country, stems from the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. It is a salutary thought to realise that that Act is now no less than a quarter of a century old. I think we can rightly pay tribute to the architects of that Act—to the noble Lord's Party who were in Government at the time it was introduced and to the Minister of Agriculture of that time, the late noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, whom we all remember and respect as a great Minister—for having had the foresight to introduce a Bill the provisions of which were sufficiently wide to encompass the majority of developments which were likely to appear over the ensuing 25 years. Of course there have been developments in research and techniques in husbandry and in travel, and it is right that the Act should now be updated.

Diseases change, as do their incidence, type and virulence, and, indeed, their ability to mutate and change their nature thereby becoming more resistant to known antidotes. Modern methods of travel and moving animals, moving sera, moving carcases, whether by air or roll-on roll-off ferries, can suddenly present a country with the full impact of a disease for which they could be well unprepared and which they certainly did not expect. We have seen examples recently—and the noble Lord referred to some of them— foot and mouth disease, swine vesicular disease, even anthrax and Newcastle disease. In my judgment, therefore, it is wholly right for the powers available to the Minister to deal with these emergencies to be updated. Nobody likes giving Ministers undue powers if they are likely to be subject to abuse, but I think that that is extremely unlikely. Though their imposition may cause hardship to some at the time when they are imposed, this should be accepted in the interests of disease prevention. I would congratulate the Government on bringing in this measure and the Minister of Agriculture for having again the foresight to act in advance of the need. The Bill will enable the Minister to act quickly by Order— which will be subject to Negative Resolu- tion. Therefore it can come into effect quickly. And with disease, speed of action is essential.

Again I would reiterate the sentiments which the noble Lord expressed in saying that we should be grateful to the veterinary staff of the Ministry of Agriculture who at a moment's notice bear the responsibility for curtailing an outbreak of disease. We have seen a number of examples of these situations and I think that the work which these staff have done has been extraordinarily efficient, for which we should all be grateful. Despite our affiliations with the Common Market (which I, for one, hope will grow and come closer) we have one unique advantage—and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to this—in that we are an island ; and from a disease point of view this is a prize which we should never undervalue. This aspect makes it easy for us to control and prevent disease from entering and gives us a unique advantage in the export of livestock in that they come from a diseasefree country.

The noble Lord mentioned the Common Market and said that the Bill did not conflict with the arrangements which we have for foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever, but I should like to ask him how the Bill squares with our obligations to the Common Market and our exemptions from it. I think I am right in believing (and what the noble Lord said confirms this point) that from an animal health point of view we can take such action as we like to protect ourselves for the next five years or so, after which time the arrangements will be reviewed. This could mean inhibiting imports from the EEC countries, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would confirm that if we do so it would not in any way be in breach of our commitments.

There is only one other point to which I should like to draw attention. In this case I wish to offer my humble congratulations, not to the Government or to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but to his noble friend the Leader of the House, because when the Rabies Bill was introduced originally into your Lordships' House—it subsequently fell because of the General Election—I remember the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who was then in Opposition, making a great fuss, and quite rightly so, about the inadequacy of the fines and penalties for those who deliberately imported animals from countries where rabies was endemic and, by so doing, flouted the law. It was his observations and determinations that went right up to the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor, and it was decided to make an exception to the normal penalties for acts of a similar nature and to make the offence an indictable one, where a person may be liable to imprisonment for twelve months or to an unlimited fine. My Lords, that was a very marked improvement on the penalties which were available previously, and that position was due entirely to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he was in Opposition. The fact that the same enhanced penalties now appear in this Bill is again a tribute to him. I am glad to see that the Government have taken this opportunity to increase the penalties for those who deliberately flout the law and so endanger the health of the animals in this country. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for introducing the Bill, and we wish it well on its passage through Parliament.

4.15 p.m.

Lord de CLIFFORD

My Lords, I rise briefly to address your Lordships on the Bill. I should like to give it my wholehearted support. There are only one or two small queries which I wish to raise on the subject. I have had drawn to my attention a number of people who are worried about the position of oil rigs. The importation of rabies could quite easily come through those oil rigs, because, I am given to understand, dogs are permitted to land on them from other parts and, so far as I know, dogs from this country are also permitted to land on them. What control have we under this Bill over those oil rigs? I do not see mention of oil rigs, but the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, during an opportunity we had to discuss this matter, conveyed to me that oil rigs are classified as vessels. Would the Government consider putting oil rigs and their control and searching as a description in the Bill, just as it includes vessel, boat, hovercraft, aircraft or vehicle of any other description," ? I find it difficult to conceive that an oil rig is a "vehicle", or necessarily a " vessel". I see that the Bill includes hovercraft, which was a fair newcomer to the methods of transportation, and perhaps the Government will see whether they can also include oil rigs in this provision.

My second point, about which I am worried, is where the actual limit of search ends, or—shall we say?—begins. What is the position of a pleasure yacht during the summer, going from this country and taking the pet dog with it outside the three mile limit, say, to Ireland? People of the Irish Republic are worried about this possibility. If the yacht goes to Ireland with the pet and calls at one of the French ports on the way, how are we to keep surveillance to ensure that the dog is not taken into France and then landed in Ireland and subsequently brought back again? Inspection arrangements in Ireland are accepted by us on the same level as they accept ours.

This is an excellent Bill and I have only one further matter to raise, which brings me back to the European Economic Community. I hope that in all negotiations with the Community in the future the Government will insist upon our right to maintain the protection of our animal health. I should like a little guidance from the noble Lord about Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, because, while giving us the power to maintain our protection for, as they say, Public morality, public policy or public security ; the protection of health and life … of animals et cetera, it ends up with a little sting in the tail, which says: Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will keep this little sting in mind in the negotiations with the Common Market, because I feel there is a weakness here whereby, for instance, our quarantine restrictions for rabies might be held as a restriction on trade for movement and sale of dogs within the Community. Apart from that point, my Lords, I give a most wholehearted welcome to the Bill.

4.21 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who took part in the debate for the welcome that they have given to the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the kind remarks that he made about Her Majesty's Government and the tribute paid to the late Lord Williams of Barnburgh. I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to the noble Earl. He and I have worked together on the Rabies Bill and on the present Bill, both of which were, of course, non-Party measures. I greatly appreciate his constructive approach to these matters which are, of course, so important.

My Lords, the noble Earl asked particularly about the Common Market and how the Bill matches up with our obligations. We can retain our own animal health import requirements until 1977, but we shall be conducting a review with our EEC partners before any changes are made. With regard to the Rabies Bill, I am very glad that the noble Earl also supports the fact that in this Bill it will also be an indictable offence, because the penalties should, I think, take account of the gravity of any transgressions of this kind.

My Lords, I should also like to say how much I appreciate the speech of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who also was kind enough to give me notice of the interesting questions he has raised. To deal first with the question of the Treaty of Rome, it is provided by Article 30 of the Treaty that : Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall … be prohibited between Member States. Article 31 goes on to prohibit any new restrictions of this kind. The power to regulate imports by licences conferred on Ministers by the new section 24 of the present Bill does, on the face of it, fall foul of these provisions, as enabling the Ministers to impose a quantitative restriction in respect of animal imports. However, by Article 36 of the Treaty, it is provided that the provisions of Articles 30 and 31, shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports … justified on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, provided such restrictions or prohibitions are not used as a way of discriminating against other Member States or of disguising genuine restrictions on trade within the Community. Clearly, the regulation of imports under Section 24 falls within this exception and will not be contrary to the Treaty.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford also asked about oil rigs and said that he did not think that they were vessels. When we had a preliminary discussion on this, before I had got quite so far into my brief, I told him that I thought they probably were vessels, but in actual fact the noble Lord is perfectly right: they are not vessels, they are places. I think, in that way, that they would also be caught under Clause 2(1) (4B)(a). There is of course also the question of animals going outside territorial waters and returning. I think that this is covered in Clause l(3)(a) which says : An order under this section may provide that, in such circumstances as may be specified in the order, animals or poultry which—

  1. (a) are brought into Great Britain in such circumstances that they are not imported, within the meaning of this Act and
  2. (b) whilst outside Great Britain have been or may have been in contact with any of the things specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) … above."
My Lords, I hope that that covers the point because Clauses 1 and 2 have been drafted specifically with these two questions in mind; that is, the entry of animals or poultry from oil rigs or other similar constructions and ships outside Great Britain and its territorial waters and the return to this country of animals or poultry which have not been landed in a foreign country, but which may have been exposed to infection by contact with animals on other ships.

With regard to the definition of a "port" and of "territorial waters", here, of course, as the Bill points out, the territorial waters will extend over a distance of three miles. The definition of a port will be the definition in the Customs and Excise Act and this is used here because every point on the coastline and the adjacent waters is taken as coming within the limits of a port. All imports by sea, therefore, enter a port and so become subject to inspection. In other words, ports really extend along their coastline until they meet another port and the extension also goes out to sea up to the three mile limit so that the whole coast and the sea three miles beyond is covered. Aircraft are similarly covered if they land at a customs airport of which there are 30 in Great Britain, including all the prinicipal civilian airports. A further provision gives an inspector comparable powers of entry where a vessel, hovercraft or aircraft is not at a port or customs airport, but is reasonably believed to have arrived recently in Great Britain. This caters for aircraft landing at other airports, for emergency landings and for evasion of customs or animal health checks.

My Lords, I hope that has answered the various questions raised by the two noble Lords.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.