§ 34. Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether there is any case recorded at the Board in which the infection of foot-and-mouth disease has been proved to have been communicated to previously sound animals more than ten miles from an initial outbreak of the disease; and, if not, whether, in view of the extreme inconvenience to stock-owners resulting from the enforcement of a standstill order operating over a fifteen mile radius and the sense of grievance thereby engendered, he will consider the advisability of reducing such radius in all normal cases to ten miles only?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand from the second part of the question that the hon. Member wishes me to reduce the margin of safety which it is the practice of the Board to provide around infected places. I cannot adopt this suggestion, for such a margin seems to me to be essential in dealing with outbreaks of the disease, especially in initial cases with regard to which no definite information is available, and I was under the impression that the hon. Member agreed with me on this point. On 22nd May of this year he himself signed a report fully approving the Board's procedure.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIf the first part of the answer is in the affirmative, why was not, evidence of that fact brought before the Departmental Committee?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI did not sit on the Departmental Committee, and there the hon. Member has an advantage over me.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs it not a fact that all your experts gave evidence before that Committee, and were asked how they could justify the fifteen-mile radius, but failed to do so.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI cannot carry in my memory the names of the witnesses examined before the Committee. I only know the hon. Member himself signed the Report approving of the whole proceedings of the Board.
§ 62. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what is the radius round an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland within which the movement of live stock is forbidden; and whether the experts of his department have any reason, founded upon Irish, British or Continental experience, for insisting upon a wider area than ten miles in cases where all affected and in-contact animals have been compulsorily slaughtered on the occurrence of such outbreak?
§ Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland)The radius of a scheduled district declared by the Department round a foot-and-mouth disease infected centre is as a rule roughly speaking about fifteen miles. It may be somewhat more or less in parts, according as the natural features of the country lend themselves to the adoption of well-defined boundaries that can be effectively guarded. This is the procedure in Great Britain, and is based on the principle that movements of animals on foot are unlikely in ordinary circumstances to exceed this limit, but would in cases about reach it. Besides this scheduled district of fifteen miles radius, a prohibited area of a radius of two or three miles around the infected place is also declared. Movement of animals in certain circumstances is allowed on licence within the scheduled district save the prohibited areas.
§ Mr. W. O'BRIENHas the right hon. Gentleman represented to the President of the Board of Agriculture in England that the principle he has just laid down in Ireland would be exceedingly useful in England?
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDo I understand there is never a smaller radius than fifteen miles round any outbreak in Ireland; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that is 1053 contrary to the official evidence brought before the Departmental Committee as to a variation of radius according to local circumstances?
§ Mr. RUSSELLWe have insisted on the fifteen miles radius.
§ Mr. W. O'BRIENMay I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question as to whether he has advised there should be equality of treatment in Ireland and in England?
§ Mr. RUSSELLYes, there is equality in this matter. We have acted all along in this matter of area in the same way as the Board of Agriculture in England.
§ Mr. W. O'BRIENHas the right hon. Gentleman made a recommendation that in England the same practice shall be followed instead of the present practice of boycotting two whole provinces which for a generation have been free from disease? Answer that—then give up your post, Sir.
§ 63. Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) why Belturbet, county Cavan, has been included in the scheduled area under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order; is he aware that the nearest case occurred over seventeen miles from Belturbet, and that Stumpy Hill, where the most recent case has been reported, is over eighteen miles distant from Belturbet; and will he at once have the scheduling of this area revised with a view to allowing the November fair to be held in Belturbet, a fair which has been held without any interruption now for over seventy years?
§ Mr. RUSSELLBelturbet is only from eleven to twelve miles from the foot-and-mouth disease infected places near Thompson's Bridge. As the latest case which occurred at Laragh was confirmed so recently as the 7th instant, it would be premature to contract the boundaries of the scheduled district.
§ 64. Mr. GILHOOLYasked the Attorney-General whether, on any occasion when the Irish Agricultural Department declared an exclusion of animals from Great Britain or Ireland, the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted as to the legality of such Order under the Diseases of Animals Acts; whether the Acts confine exclusion to a prescribed area or place; what is the Section giving power to the Department, 1054 either in England or Ireland, to declare the sister island as a whole infected; whether, if such a declaration be false in fact, the Order is challengeable; whether the power to make Orders prohibiting the landing of cattle from any specific country outside the United Kingdom and prohibit the landing of such cattle, save under certain conditions, has been extended to native cattle in either island, and, if so, by what Act; and whether Article 22 of the Foreign Animals Order, 1910, applies to British or Irish cattle?
§ Mr. RUSSELLPerhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this question. The Department were advised several years ago that there is power under Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, to make Orders prohibiting the landing of animals in Ireland. The Irish Importation of Animals Orders were submitted for the approval of the Irish Law Officers for the time being before they were passed. These Orders, which have been in operation for many years past, do not absolutely exclude the landing of British animals. They provide that such animals shall not be landed without the consent of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. Prior to the establishment of the Department the consent of the Lord Lieutenant was necessary. The procedure adopted under these Orders when foot-and-mouth disease has appeared in Great Britain is to suspend temporarily the issue of consents for the admission of animals; either from the whole or from parts of Great Britain, as may be considered necessary according to the circumstances.
§ Mr. GILHOOLYI put down my question to the Attorney-General for England, and I think the Vice-President might have allowed an English official to give an answer of that kind.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs it not a fact that this embargo was imposed in Ireland upon British stock for six months after a single case had occurred in Surrey last year?
§ Mr. RUSSELLYes, I think it was.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYMay I ask whether the English Law Officers have advised on the many important points raised in this question?
§ Mr. RUSSELLNo, Sir; the Irish Law Officers have advised.