§ 14. Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he would state what reparation was to be made, and when, to Edward Sheridan and others, joint owners of 111 cows shipped on 28th June from North Wall to Heysham, kept there eleven hours by the Midland Railway Company, then returned to North Wall, kept there in quarantine for three weeks, with insufficient room to stand or lie down and milking neglected, with the result that three of them died and the remainder were by this treatment reduced in value from £16 each to £5 each; and, this loss having been caused by State officials needlessly, since the cows had never had foot-and-mouth disease, whether the reparation would include anything for the dislocation of these dealers' business?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)My own knowledge of the circumstances of this case is confined to the fact that the cows in 3146 question arrived at Heysham on the 29th June, and that they could not be landed there in consequence of the issue of the Order on the previous day prohibiting the importation of animals from Ireland into Great Britain. I should have been prepared to allow them to be landed for immediate slaughter, but in view of the character of the stock the owners, not unnaturally, decided to take them back to Dublin. I much regret the loss which the owners sustained in the unfortunate circumstances which arose, but it is not in my power to pay them any compensation out of public funds.
§ Mr. GINNELLHas the right hon. Gentleman made any representations to the Treasury on this subject?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, Sir, it would be quite useless to do so as there is no power to pay compensation in cases of this kind.
§ 16 and 17. Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (16) whether, in considering the admission of livestock from the Drogheda district, he would have regard to the offer made to him by the deputation of stock owners who waited on him last week that they were willing, at their own expense, to provide the most exacting veterinary inspection by highly qualified professional men of livestock, both on the farms and at the port of embarkation, which his Department might ask, if the opening of the local ports was favourably entertained; and (17) whether he was aware that in proportion to its size the county of Meath exports more fat cattle to this country than any other county in Ireland and that anything affecting prejudicially the cattle industry in the county must injuriously affect the majority of counties in Ireland from which it draws its supply of lean beasts for fattening purposes before shipment here; whether, having regard both to the interests involved to the stock owners in the county and the effect to the other subsidiary counties which would follow any prolonged dislocation of the export trade, he would consider favourably the early reception of cattle from the natural outlet of the county, the port of Drogheda, which is twenty-three miles distant from the centre of infection; and, if he cannot immediately admit cattle from that port, as an alternative will he allow cattle to be landed from county Meath at Birkenhead or Manchester through the next most convenient port, that of Dundalk?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI fully realise the importance of the cattle industry of Meath, and I much regret the loss and inconvenience arising both in Ireland and Great Britain by the existing restrictions on importation into Great Britain. But I do not see my way to allow the importation of animals from Drogheda so long as any portion of that county is included in the area scheduled by the Irish Department. Animals brought from those portions of Meath which are not included in the scheduled area may be shipped at Dundalk for slaughter at the foreign animals' wharves at Birkenhead, Bristol, Glasgow, and London.
§ Mr. PATRICK WHITEIf the Irish Department limits the prohibited area to the district round Swords, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIf the Irish Department modify the restrictions, I will reconsider the matter, but I cannot say more at present.
§ 18. Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state what proportion of the meat supply imported into Great Britain comes from Ireland, averaging over the past five years; and whether, having regard to the advisability of preserving unimpaired the continuity of the trade between the two countries in the interests of both producers and consumers, he will arrange that, after the adjournment of this House, someone representing his Department be kept in communication with the Irish Cattle Traders' Association or a committee thereof, so that the earlier information may be at his disposal which would justify him in resuming the acceptance of both fat beasts and store cattle at the various ports of Great Britain?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIt is estimated that about 20 per cent, of the total imports of meat (including bacon and hams) into Great Britain comes from Ireland. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would say that I am as anxious as is the hon. Member that the normal trade between the two countries should be resumed at the earliest possible moment consistent with safety, and that any representations which may be made to me on the subject during the Recess by the Irish Cattle Traders' Association will be promptly considered.
§ 46. Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if neither the Board of 3148 Agriculture nor the Irish Agricultural Department can compensate owners whose cattle have been damaged, and some of them killed, by return from England to Ireland and detention in quarantine, when the cattle are found after quarantine never to have had the-suspected disease, and the loss caused by order of State officials to have been mistaken and needless, whether he will, by supplementary estimate or by legislation, make provision for compensation to the full amount of the loss in such cases?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I fully realise the losses occasioned to so many stock owners, both directly and indirectly, by reason of restrictions imposed to prevent foot-and-mouth disease from becoming epidemic in this country, but it is impossible for the Government to propose that those losses should be made good out of public funds. There is no precedent for such a course, and if it were adopted it would be impossible to limit its application to the particular circumstances in question.
§ Mr. GINNELLThe Chief Secretary for Ireland having had notice of this question, may I be allowed to ask him whether he is in a position to add anything to what he has stated, and especially whether the Department will pay for the maintenance of the-cows while they were kept in quarantine?
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)I should like notice of the question.
§ 51. Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether, having regard to the possibility that between the Adjournment of the House for autumn and its next sitting in October the cattle trade of Ireland, which has more money invested in it than any other trade in that country, may pass through a perilous and exceptional period, and to the fact that portion of the cost of the recent slaughtering of cattle will fall on a comparatively small area, and that the loss sustained in Ireland where the dead beasts have the usual English markets closed against them falls much more heavily than in England where the slaughtered animals are beside the usual market, he will before the Adjournment ask Parliament for such exceptional powers and financial assistance as will enable his Department, acting in concert with the stock owners of Ireland, to meet any eventualities that may arise?
§ Mr. BIRRELLIt does not appear that further powers than those already conferred by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, are necessary for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. The further question raised by the hon. Member is under consideration.
§ 52. Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice President whether, having regard to the fact that the foot-and-mouth disease is confined to the one immediate district where the first outbreak occurred, and that part of the still prohibited area in county Meath is thirty miles from the original scene of the infection, and that no single case has arisen in county Meath, he is now prepared, in the vital interests of stock owners, to still further limit the boundaries of the infected area which extends into county Meath?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe furthest point of the present restricted area in county Meath from the Swords infected district is twenty-two, not thirty miles. The Department expect very soon to be in a position to contract substantially the limits of the area under restriction.
§ Mr. P. WHITEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are Irish miles, which are longer than English miles?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI must confess that, although I am aware of the distinction between the two, that I am not aware which is which in my answer.
§ 53. Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President whether he can state, approximately, the number of cattle and sheep exported annually through the ports of Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, and Belfast from the county of Meath; and whether, having regard to the interests involved by the present closing of ports in Great Britain against livestock, he is considering any scheme whereby the loss to stock owners might be reduced to a minimum in the event of a continuance of the existing condition of affairs being thought expedient?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his similar question on this subject yesterday.