§ 25. Mr. SANDERSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has received a resolution unanimously carried by the council of the Bath and West and Southern Counties Society, namely, that the council views with profound regret and astonishment that Irish livestock are still allowed to be landed in this country alive, and urges the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take immediate steps to put an end to the practice, which is fraught with such grave and serious danger to our flocks and herds, and to place Ireland under the same restrictions as any other country where foot-and-mouth disease exists; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have received the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. In view of the circumstances of the last five weeks it is not unnatural that stock owners should wish that every possible precaution should be taken to guard against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into this country, and I shall certainly adopt every reasonable precaution necessary for the purpose. But, as I stated, in reply to the similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Eddisbury Division on Tuesday last, I am satisfied, after careful investigation and inquiry, that there is no ground whatever for suggesting that the landing of Irish animals for slaughter at certain foreign animals' wharves has been the means of introducing the disease, or that it is attended, as stated in the resolution, with grave and serious danger to our flocks and herds.
§ Mr. KILBRIDEWhat area of country does this Bath and West and Southern Counties Society cover, and if its request were acceded to how much would the price of beef be raised?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe Bath and West and Southern Counties Society is a very well-known agricultural society in this country, of quite a responsible nature. It covers eight or nine counties—[HON. MEMBERS: "More"]—or more.
§ Mr. CHAPLINIs it not the fact that at a slaughter port there can never be any adequate safeguard against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease? Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman would never have thought of admitting animals for slaughter at any port in the United Kingdom if it were known that foot-and-mouth disease existed in the country from which they came?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe arrangements I have made for the slaughter of fat animals at foreign animals' wharves only apply to three English ports, and there the most careful safeguards are taken, so that there can be no infection from the wharf, as far as it is possible for anyone to take precautions. The lairs are well isolated, and if the right hon. Gentleman would like to see the whole of the Regulations under which these foreign animals' wharves are being worked I shall be happy to submit them to him, and if he can suggest any modification or any tightening up of the restrictions I shall be only too glad to consider them. Up to the present I have not heard the least suspicion from anybody except the Bath Society that there was any chance of infection coming from the foreign animals' wharf, and up to the time of the first sign of the disease in Somerset there had been no animals landed at Bristol at all.
§ Mr. CHAPLINI am sorry to intrude again, but this is a very serious matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that his reply to me gives the whole case away when he uses the words "so far as it is possible to do so"? Is it not known to his Department that this disease is so insidious and can be conveyed by such" a variety of different means that it is impossible to check it, and you can have no safeguard against the introduction of the disease if you once allow diseased animals to land within the country?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding on a hypothesis which I cannot admit. We do not admit diseased animals at the wharf, but only animals which have passed the closest veterinary scrutiny. I am afraid I cannot take steps that would lead to a meat famine in the West of England. Every possible precaution is taken, and no risks. I believe, are run. That is my opinion and the opinion of my veterinary advisers.
§ Mr. CHAPLINI wish to ask only two more questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, 2905 oh!"] There is nobody who has had more experience on this subject than myself. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he talks of a meat famine, the animals cannot be slaughtered on the other side, and the meat sent here; is he not aware, after his present experience at the Board of Agriculture, and after all he has heard, that what he proposes cannot be any guarantee whatever against the introduction of this fatal disease; and has he inquired into the past records of the Board of Agriculture, and, if not, will he do so, and ascertain what, happened with regard to Argentina when it was infected with the disease, and when two cargoes were allowed to come here?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have inquired very fully into the past experience of this country and of the Board with regard to the introduction and dissemination of foot-and-mouth disease, not only in the past year, but in many years past, including the time when the right hon. Gentleman held the office I now have the honour to occupy. I see no reason whatever for supposing that the safeguards which are being taken are not sufficient, nor do my advisers think that they are insufficient. When the right hon. Gentleman states that the safeguards are no safeguards whatever, I can only say I totally and entirely disagree with him. I have taken every possible step to prevent the spread of the disease. Not a single case out of the sixty outbreaks which have occurred has been traced back to the foreign animals' wharves, either directly or indirectly, and I cannot see any reason whatever, merely on a suspicion which, I believe, originated in the West of England, on the theory that the Somerset outbreak was traced to Bristol, why I should alter the Regulations which have been in force for something like three weeks.
§ Mr. CLANCYI wish to ask a question on a point of Order. On the Order Paper to-day there is a question standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wiltshire which has not been reached. In that question the statement is contained that foot-and-mouth disease has broken out among the children in Dublin. I have inquired into that statement, and I have found that there is no foundation for it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is taking upon himself the function of a Minister in answering the question. What is the point of Order?
§ Mr. CLANCYThe question I was going to ask on a point of Order—and perhaps it may lead to an answer—was whether, under these circumstances, when an infamous question like this—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to take advantage of this opportunity to apply an epithet to the question. The question is a perfectly plain one: to ask whether there are cases of this disease, and, if so, what steps have been taken to prevent it spreading, or whether the Minister will take steps to make the disease in its human form notifiable by doctors and so on. The hon. Member who puts down the question has apparently heard some rumour and asks for information.
§ Mr. CULLINANHe is asking every day.
§ Mr. CLANCYMay I ask whether this question under the circumstances which we have stated ought not to be orally asked now and orally answered?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will see that it would involve me in most terrible difficulties if I were to take out of the Questions every day those which I thought should be asked and answered at once. The hon. Member will be able to obtain in the space of two or three minutes the reply at the Table which he will be entitled to see if he wishes to see it, and in any event it will be published to-morrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. CLANCYIt has been on the Paper since Friday and there is no foundation for it.