§ MR. KENNYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If his attention has been called to the Report of the Richmond Committee on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, published in 1878, according to which (see paragraphs 1202, 1203, and 1204) such cases as the "Silloth case" and the "Manchester case" could not re-occur; whether, notwithstanding such assurance from the then Lord President of the Council, Irish cattle have been excluded from English and Scotch ports, and from English and Scotch markets, by local authorities; and, if the Government propose to take any steps to prevent local authorities acting in such a manner?
§ MR. DODSONSir, the assurance referred to as given by the Duke of Richmond was that the Silloth and Manchester cases—namely, the detention of healthy animals in transit, in consequence of the appearance of disease in one or more of the number, should not recur. No such case has recurred, and the Regulations of the Privy Council render its recurrence illegal. No assurance was given that a local authority should not exorcise the power of excluding from its district animals (other than animals in transit) from the district of any other local authority or local authorities in the United Kingdom. No exceptional powers are given against Ireland.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Privy Council, in view of 1802 the increased movement of cattle about to take place, and the consequent risk of disease again spreading and becoming unmanageable, and the fact that the Returns on the 29th ultimo showed that there were only 740 diseased animals in the United Kingdom, and that the loss from the slaughtering of such animals would not amount to more than five thousand pounds, the Department will consider the desirability of simultaneous action throughout the Country for stamping out foot-and-mouth disease by the issue of an Order in Council directing the slaughter of all animals at present affected with the disease, in accordance with the powers vested in the Privy Council by section 29 of the Act of 1878, and also directing, for a prescribed period, the establishment of an efficient cordon around each infected farm or place, under the powers vested in the Privy Council by section 32 of the same Act?
§ MR. DODSONSir, my hon. Friend put the same Question to me only on Friday last. The Privy Council have not changed their views, and I can only refer him to the answer I then gave. I am glad to be able to add that the Returns for the week ending April 5, which, however, are not complete, show that the number of animals in Great Britain affected with foot-and-mouth disease, which for the week ending March 29 amounted to 740, was reduced to less than 500.