HC Deb 13 November 1911 vol 31 cc7-8
Captain FABER

asked whether although the late outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at West Hallam, near Derby, was discovered on the Sunday and the Board of Agriculture was notified at once, it was 5 p.m. on the following Friday before the order was issued prohibiting the movement of animals in the area surrounding the infected farm; whether Derby market was permitted to be held in the interim; whether farmers and dealers had been notified that the order would be put into operation, thus causing them to get their beasts outside the infected area before the order came into force; and why this was done in view of the danger of the disease spreading?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

The first intimation that the existence of foot-and-mouth disease was suspected reached the Board on Monday, the 21st August. The symptoms then described were not characteristic of the disease, and although the cattle affected were examined by one of the Board's veterinary inspectors on the same day, it was not until the evening of Thursday, the 24th August, that the chief veterinary inspector was satisned that the case was really one of foot-and-mouth disease. An order prohibiting movement within a prescribed area was issued on the 25th August, but it was too late to prevent the Derby market from being held on that day. The precautions taken by the Board appear to have been sufficient to stamp out the outbreak. No notification of the character suggested in the penultimate paragraph of the question was issued by the Board.

Mr. C. BATHURST

Is it not a fact that there is absolutely no animal disease easier to diagnose by people who really know their business than foot - and - mouth disease?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I have discussed the matter with the chief veterinary inspector, who informs me that it was impossible to tell until Thursday that it was a case of foot-and-mouth disease, and action was immediately taken.

Captain FABER

Would it not be possible, when foot-and-mouth disease was suspected, to issue orders at once to see that a prescribed area was looked after?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I agree that it would be as well to err on the side of safety, but I am anxious not to put the agricultural community to inconvenience in cases where there is not some clear evidence of foot-and-mouth disease.