§ 43. Mr. Ramsdenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what he attributes the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. PeartSo far, we have been quite unable to discover the source of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Oswestry. The virus has been typed as O1.
§ 48. Mr Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and 93W Food what reappraisal he has made of the efficacy of inoculation against foot-and-mouth disease in view of the heavy cost of the present epidemic.
§ Mr. PeartVaccination does not always confer complete immunity, and regular vaccination would be very expensive. I therefore still think that a slaughter policy is the best one for this country; I am in close touch with the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright which has the efficacy of vaccines constantly under review.
§ 49. Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the total cost of the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease compares with the average annual value of exports of British livestock.
§ 67. Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost so far of slaughtering stock infected by foot-and-mouth disease.
§ 69. Mr. Grant-Ferrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the estimated cost so far of claims in connection with the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and what amount of money has been spent upon research into a cure for the disease.
§ Mr. PeartSo far I have paid just over £2 million in compensation, but the total cost will be much in excess of this. It is too early, in the middle of the epidemic to estimate the total cost.
The average value of livestock exports from Great Britain has been estimated to be about £14 million per year over the last three years.
Research is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. About £450,000 was spent on research at Pirbright against foot-and-mouth disease last year.
§ 56. Mr. Brewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now review the slaughter policy in connection with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease; and whether he will make a statement.
§ Mr. PeartEvery effort is being made to contain and eradicate the disease by the most vigorous application of measures which have been applied successfully in the past. I am keeping the situation94W under continuous review, but I am not convinced by anything that has happened in this epidemic so far that we should change our policy.
§ 60. Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the financial hardship caused to farmers by his Department's Infected Area Order in Shropshire; and what financial and other help he is prepared to give where loss and damage occurs but slaughtering has not been ordered.
§ Mr. PeartI appreciate the financial hardship caused to farmers not only in Shropshire but throughout Great Britain. I regret that it is not possible to compensate for such consequential losses.
§ 66. Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has from the Food and Agriculture Organisation about the system under which foot-and-mouth disease is controlled in other countries, including the United States of America; and what evidence is in his possession that large scale outbreaks of the disease have been prevented by the rigid control of imported meat.
§ Mr. PeartIn general, those countries where the disease is not endemic, and which are not contiguous with other countries where the disease exists, rely entirely on the slaughter policy if outbreaks should occur. The United States of America is one such country. These countries either prohibit the importation of meat or permit it only from countries that are free from foot-and-mouth disease. I have no evidence that the absence of large-scale outbreaks is attributable to the rigid control of meat imports but it must obviously be a material factor.
Other countries control the disease either by vaccination and movement controls, or by a combination of vaccination and slaughter.
§ 72. Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will revert to the previous practice by which meat from abroad was imported into this country off the bone.
§ Mr. PeartMeat from abroad was imported into this country off the bone during the war in order to economise in 95W shipping space, and not as a disease control measure. Even if the hon. Member's suggestion were adopted, there would still be a risk from the foot-and-mouth disease virus, which can survive several months in parts of chilled and frozen carcases other than bone marrow.
§ 73. Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the procedures for the inspection of chilled or frozen meat coming into this country from abroad; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. PeartChilled and frozen meat imported into this country comes only from approved overseas establishments where both post-mortem and ante-mortem veterinary inspections are carried out. The exporting countries are either those known to be free from the more virulent animal diseases or those where safeguards are practicable and have been agreed to by the authorities there. Meat from countries in this second category has to be accompanied by veterinary certification.
Her Majesty's Government are considering whether these safeguards are adequate.
§ 74. Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the present epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease and the recommendation of the veterinary officers to farmers that no farmers' meetings be held even in unaffected parts of England till the epidemic is controlled, he will now recommend the cancellation of the Smithfield Show.
§ Mr. PeartI would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).—[Vol. 755. c.70.]
§ 75. Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average delay between veterinary diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle, his department's confirmation, and the final slaughter of the affected beasts during the present outbreak.
§ Mr. PeartIn most cases confirmation is given immediately on the telephone and affected animals are slaughtered as96W quickly as possible thereafter, usually in a matter of hours.
§ Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stocks of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine are held in this country; and if he will estimate how long it would take to acquire vaccine sufficient to vaccinate all cloven-footed animals in the country.
§ Mr. PeartThere are about 1 million doses of all types in this country. The answer to the second part would depend upon any vaccination policy that was decided upon. But, as I said in reply yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), I have taken steps for a sufficient supply of vaccine to be acquired and stored in this country to enable a vaccination programme to be adopted as a second line of defence should this become inevitable.—[Vol. 755, c.70–1.]
§ Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how soon after vaccination an animal acquires an immunity to foot-and-mouth disease.
§ Mr. PeartThe immunity given by modern vaccines increases up to 14 days after vaccination when a satisfactory level of protection is established. But this is subject to several qualifications. Young calves are not protected; in other cattle immunity may vary between individual animals and in differing conditions such as weight of virus challenge; vaccinated animals which have contact with the virus may become symptomless carriers; in pigs vaccination is less effective; and vaccine prepared from one type of virus will not protect against another.
§ Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has established that there is any link between all the most recent epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease; and whether they were all of the same type.
§ Mr. PeartThe virus in the outbreak in Northumberland in 1966, and in Hampshire and Warwickshire this year were of the same type as in the current epidemic. The time that has elapsed between these outbreaks is such that any link is impossible.
97W
§ Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the result of his inquiries into the main causes and agencies by which the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was spread.
§ Mr. PeartAn epidemiological study of the current epidemic has been in progress for some weeks and I await the findings.
§ Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the proposal that, upon an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, immediate vaccination of all beasts within an area of 20 miles shall take place to create an epidemic break.
§ Mr. PeartThis has been examined in the past, but a simple slaughter policy has been found in general more effective. Nothing that has happened in the present epidemic so far has caused me to change my view that a slaughter policy is most effective.
§ Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what comparison he has made, from international sources, of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain in recent years with those of other European and Western countries, including Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
§ Mr. PeartThe number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain as compared with those in other countries during recent years is as shown below:—
98W
1965 1966 Great Britain 1 34 Argentina 4,286 5,225 Brazil 176 205 Uruguay 67 259 U.S.A Nil Nil Canada Nil Nil Australia Nil Nil New Zealand Nil Nil South Africa 5 Nil Austria 30 22 Belgium 112 323 Bulgaria 1 5 Czechoslovakia 41 4 Denmark 2 39 Finland Nil Nil West Germany 15,942 4,689 France 10 59 Greece 176 1 Hungary 58 1
Italy 5,840 1,552 Netherlands 1,426 2,194 Northern Ireland Nil Nil Irish Republic Nil Nil Poland 39 3 Portugal 770 17 Roumania 4 1 Sweden Nil 1 Switzerland 670 321 Turkey 3,901 700 Yugoslavia 115 17 Spain (73,806)* 1,202 *This figure is the number of animals affected.