Fowl Pest (Hansard, 18 July 1962)

§ Mr. Soames

I have accepted the Committee's advice that slaughter is unlikely to eradicate the disease and that the Exchequer cannot go on indefinitely bearing the heavy cost of compensation for slaughter, simply as a means of keeping the disease under control. But I have consulted the industry since the Report was published on 29th March, and I accept their view that it would be unlikely that vaccine would be used sufficiently widely to control the disease, if, as proposed by the Committee, slaughter with full compensation were to continue at the expense of the industry.

I have therefore decided to subsidise the price of vaccine for two years, and to discontinue at the end of the present financial year the present policy of slaughter with compensation at Exchequer expense, except for the rare per-acute form of the disease. This arrangement will not apply to Scotland where the present slaughter policy and movement restrictions will continue, and vaccination will be allowed but not subsidised. I should like to thank the Plant Committee for their investigations and the industry for the spirit in which they have met my suggestions.

The cost of the present slaughter policy is now running at a rate of up to £10 million a year. As a result of the new policy there will be virtually no further compensation after the end of this financial year, except in Scotland, whilst the charge on the Exchequer for vaccine should be less than £1 million a year for two further years, at the end of which it will cease.

A fuller statement follows:

The report of the Committee on fowl pest policy, under Sir Arnold Plant, was published in March of this year. Immediately afterwards we asked the 49W poultry industry to set up a special committee representative of all sections of the industry to discuss future policy.

First, I should like to pay tribute to the great help we received from the Plant Committee. Their conclusions are the foundation of a new policy. The committee in its report studied the effect of vaccine control in various countries and decided that the use of dead vaccine could safely be permitted in this country. We accept this view and it is the central feature of the policy we propose to follow.

I must also pay tribute to the states-man-like way in which the poultry industry has approached this problem.

The new policy which I am glad to say has been accepted by the industry is as follows:—

(a)there will be no change in the slaughter and compensation policy in Scotland so long as the disease remains at its present level in that country; and the existing restrictions on the movement of live poultry, day-old chicks and hatching eggs into Soot-land from England and Wales will continue;
(b)manufacturers of dead vaccine which conforms to the standards prescribed by my Department will be licensed to offer it for sale. Anyone who can purchase supplies of the vaccine will be free to use it in all parts of Great Britain, including Scotland. This will enable owners of particularly valuable flocks to seek immediate protection by vaccination.
(c)From a date yet to be announced the Ministry will make supplies of vaccine available at divisional offices and other Ministry centres in England and Wales for use by the industry in general. This vaccine will be sold at a low uniform price with a view to encouraging the greatest possible use of vaccination. I cannot say yet what the price will be, but it will not be more than a halfpenny a dose and it may be less. Subsidised vaccine will not be issued in Scotland.
(d)During the first few months in which vaccination is going on, slaughter with full compensation will continue but it will cease at the end of the financial year. This will enable the industry to protect itself by vacci- 50 nation with a view to reducing the incidence of the disease against the time when slaughter and compensation will cease.
(e) The only exception to this, apart from Scotland, which I have already mentioned, will be that I will continue to exercise my powers to slaughter and pay compensation for any flocks affected by the per-acute form of the disease. Fortunately, the per-acute form is very rare and we have not known its presence during the last eight or nine years.
(f) This new policy will continue to be kept under review, and it will be subject to special review at the end of two years when in any case the vaccine subsidy will cease.

I am sure that given co-operation all round, this new policy is the best way of tackling this disease.

I would like to emphasise the great importance of continuing co-operation between the industry and the Government. There is no simple answer to the problem of fowl pest, and there is a great deal of hard work ahead of us if we are to gain control. We will need to continue those prevention measures which are such an important feature of the present policy. The assistance of the fowl pest committees will still be greatly needed, and I was pleased to know that the industry proposes to continue its support of these committees. We will also need the full support of the industry in ensuring the widest possible coverage by vaccination, and I know its support will be forthcoming.