HC Deb 24 July 1912 vol 41 cc1150-1
19. Mr. C. BATHURST

asked whether in view of the fact that when the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Market Harborough was made known to the authorities as many as fourteen animals were found to be affected with the disease, the Board of Agriculture are of opinion that the disease had existed on the premises for several days prior to its notification; and, if so, whether the Board propose, in the general interests of stock owners, to take steps to ensure in every case immediate notification of the disease when an outbreak occurs?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Every person having in his possession or under his charge an animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease is bound by Section 4 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and by Section 1 of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order, 1895, with all practicable speed to give notice of the fact to the police. This requirement is well known to stockowners, but-notwithstanding the widespread publicity which has been given in the public Press both to the existence of the disease in this country and to its characteristic symptoms, the person in charge of the stock on the farm in question does not appear to have suspected its existence until the owner of the stock returned to the farm, and his attention was called to the condition of the animals. The immediate notification of the disease is of course a matter of the greatest importance, but it is difficult to see what further steps can be taken by the Board to prevent the possibility of failure to comply with the rejuirements of the law such as occurred at Market Harborough. I should be only too glad to consider any practical suggestions for the purpose.

Mr. C. BATHURST

In some of the cases referred to were not some of the animals found in an advanced stage of the disease when the notification actually took place, and have circumstances possibly arisen for a prosecution to be initiated?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Yes; I am considering that point.

Mr. C. BATHURST

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can give any information to the House with regard to a rumoured outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease near Shepton Mallet, in Somerset?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I regret to say that a report was received yesterday stating that foot-and-mouth disease existed on a farm at Westcombe, near Shepton Mallet. The Board's chief veterinary officer visited the premises early this morning, and found that twelve animals were infected. The usual restrictions on the movement of animals and the holding of markets have been imposed on a large area surrounding the infected place.

Mr. C. BATHURST

May I ask whether, in view of the case of carrying germs of this disease, either by wind or insects or birds, he attributes the outbreak in Somerset to the importation of Irish stock at Bristol?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

No, Sir. As far as we are aware, it is not in any way connected with that.