§ Mr. GINNELLMay I ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state the extent of the outbreak of disease at Mullingar, the number of beasts slaughtered; whether the military barrack was concerned in the infection; whether the infected farm was speedily isolated, and in what extent of country the Order of the Department prevents the movement and sale of cattle??
§ Mr. CHAPLINMay I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is able to give the House any further information as to the outbreak at Mullingar on Friday last? May I say a single word of explanation? I hope he will acquit me of anything in the nature of discourtesy by asking the question direct of him, although he suggested to me that I should put it to the Irish Department. He is responsible for the English Department, and I think, on the whole, I ought to put it to him direct.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers the question I should like to know how far the recent outbreak would affect the intentions of the Government as declared last Friday?
§ Mr. RUSSELLThe disease has so far been confirmed at nineteen separate premises in or within a mile from the town of Mullingar. The animals are all really connected with each other, having been grazing together at town parks and moved to and from the town for milking. The number slaughtered or being slaughtered to-day is: Nineteen cattle, three pigs, and one goat. The origin of outbreak is not ascertained, but so far as inquiries have gone, there is no evidence to suggest the military barracks as the source of infection. All the infected places are rigidly isolated, cordons of police being on duty day and night. The scheduled district declared comprises the parts of Westmeath, Longford, King's County, and Meath, that are within a radius of fifteen miles approximately from the town of Mullingar.
§ Mr. GINNELLCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any foundation at all for the rumour now current in Mullingar that the infection was brought there by the Department's inspectors coming from infected centres some days before the outbreak?
§ Mr. RUSSELLI never heard of the rumour and I say now it is perfectly preposterous.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORMay I press my question upon the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland or the President of the English Board of Agriculture as to what effect this recent outbreak will have upon the intentions that were declared last Friday with regard to the opening of ports to cattle from non-infected areas?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIn reply to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite I can only say that so far as affairs in Ireland are concerned it will be more convenient to address questions direct to the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. I can only give the information to the House with regard to the immediate steps that have to be taken. A telegram from the Irish Department was received at the offices of the Board at 9.39 p.m. on Friday night, stating that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease had been confirmed among at least five small lots of cattle belonging to shopkeepers at Mullingar, county Westmeath, and that the usual Orders declaring infected places and prohibiting movement within, into, and out of a scheduled area within a radius of fifteen miles from Mullingar, were being issued. Yesterday morning we were informed that further cases of the disease had been found in other places at Mullingar, in addition to those already reported. Steps were taken by me without delay to ascertain whether any of the store cattle which had been landed in conformity with the Order of the 4th instant had been brought from the scheduled area, and also to prevent the movement of any such cattle from the landing places pending the receipt of information on the point. I have now been informed by the Irish Department that none of the cattle which have been shipped under that Order have come from the scheduled area. I am in communication with the Irish Department with a view to ascertaining how long the disease has existed at Mullingar; the number of the animals affected and in contact with disease; the recent movements of stock to and from the infected places, and the conditions of the trade generally at Mullingar. In the meantime I propose, as a further precautionary measure, which will, I hope, be necessary for only a short period, to extend the 1726 period of detention at the landing places here from ninety-six hours to fourteen days from the time of shipment. Later on, when the position has more clearly declared itself, and I have received the full information for which I have asked, I shall be in a position to determine whether it is necessary to continue to prescribe so long a period of detention; but in the meantime, I think, that in view of the new outbreak it is incumbent upon me to provide the increased security which fourteen days' quarantine will afford. I need not assure the House that it was with the deepest regret, in the interest of all classes of the community, both in Great Britain and Ireland, that I received the intelligence of these further outbreaks.
§ Mr. CHAPLINIs the scheduled district to which the right hon. Gentleman refers the old scheduled district, or is it a newly scheduled one—that is to say, the district in Mullingar where the recent outbreak has arisen?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIt means the newly scheduled district, which includes the larger part of Westmeath, part of Longford, and part of King's County and Meath.
§ Mr. CHAPLINDo I understand that, with the exception of the addition of ten days to the period of detention at the landing port, the Order is to go on as it was before?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, it cannot go on as it was before, because now there is a larger area which is scheduled from which no animals may pass out.
§ Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENWill the increased period apply also to the province of Munster, from which there has not been a single case of cattle disease reported during the present generation?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANFor the present the fourteen days' quarantine applies to all animals coming from Ireland. When the position is cleared up, I hope to revert to the smaller period.
§ Captain MURRAYDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that a proportion of the period of detention might take place at the centre of embarkation?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid that would not meet the case. We must have the quarantine on this side.
§ Mr. GINNELLI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether it is true that over a thousand head of cattle, which are certified sound and are ready for shipment to Birkenhead, are detained in Dublin for want of a place in Birkenhead to receive them; how soon places will be available; and whether the time of detention in Dublin under these circumstances would be reckoned as part of the quarantine period?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have no information as to the number of cattle awaiting shipment in Dublin. Every effort is being made to utilise the existing accommodation at Birkenhead to the fullest extent possible consistent with the requirements of the Order, and I regret I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the question.
§ Mr. FARRELLMay I ask the Vice-President will he inquire as to whether Longford is free of this disease, and if he finds that it is whether he will withdraw this Order so far as Longford is concerned?
§ Mr. RUSSELLIt is quite true that Longford is free of the disease, but portion of it is within a radius of fifteen miles from Mullingar.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTCan the right hon. Gentleman say how far this Mullingar outbreak is from the Kildare scheduled district, whether all in-contact animals have been slaughtered, and whether the presence of disease on nineteen different farms does not indicate its existence over a very considerable period?
§ Mr. RUSSELLPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of the first question. I have already explained that these are town parks, practically all one holding. As a matter of fact, they are one holding, and I do not think that there are any grounds for believing that the disease has been in existence for any time.
§ Mr. GINNELLCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Order prevents train loads of cattle passing through Mullingar without stopping there??
§ Mr. RUSSELLIt will have a very serious effect on railway traffic going through Mullingar. That is one of the unfortunate results of the outbreak. Mullingar is a great centre of railway traffic.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYDoes the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Irish Department, consider it tolerable to impose on Munster ports fourteen days' quarantine, as proposed by his English colleague?
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI desire to make a personal explanation of the unfounded suggestion which was made by the Vice-President of the Irish Department that I left this House on Friday in order to evade his criticism, when a very violent attack was made upon me in my absence. As a matter of fact, I had indicated to you, Sir, and to the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution, and to the President of the Board, whose business it was to reply to this complaint, my apology for my intended absence, as I was bound to leave this House in order to fulfil an engagement on behalf of the Gloucester-shire County Council to make a public presentation in one of the village schools in that county. The very criticism which the right hon. Gentleman made was in fact made previously by the hon. Member for North Dublin, and I in fact replied to him to the best of my ability, and I believe to the satisfaction of the House, but seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had risen to speak, I waited for a quarter of an hour in my seat in case he decided to reply to what I had said. Not a single word of reference was made to anything I had said in my speech, and I eventually went straight from my seat to catch my train, not waiting at the doors of this House as certain Nationalist Members appear to have suggested, and in fact I was leaving at Paddington Station at the time when, according to the "Times" report, the suggestion was made from the Nationalist Benches that I was lurking behind your chair and at the doors in order to avoid criticism. I can only say that such a suggestion is wholly unfounded and unworthy of the hon. Members who make it. It would be out of order for me to refer now to the misrepresentations of the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall take the earliest opportunity that is presented—and I believe the opportunity will soon occur— in order to refute the gross misrepresentations which he made with respect to my speech.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe House has been glad to hear from the hon. Member the reason he has given for his absence, but I am bound to note that no practice can be more inconvenient than for an hon. Member to attend in this House and make a 1729 speech lasting thirty-five minutes, and then to go away before he hears the answer. I regret to say that is a practice which is not confined to one side of the House, and it is a novel practice which has come up quite recently. At the time when I first entered Parliament, and as most hon. Members sitting here know who entered Parliament at that time, such a thing never occurred. I respectfully suggest to the House that it is a very undesirable practice to follow, and if an hon. Member feels compelled to make a speech and deliver his soul, the least he can do is to wait and listen to the answer.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTOn the point of Order, Sir, is that intended to extend to a Minister whose Department is not in fact being criticised, and the Resolution before the House does not apply to his Department, and he is therefore not expected to respond?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt applies to everybody. Neither a Minister nor any unofficial Member ought to make a speech here and then go away, without he hears what the answer is.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYMay I ask, Sir, whether it is not a well understood tradition in this House, sanctioned by many long years of practice, that when it is intended to make a personal attack on a Member of this House, notice should be given to him beforehand?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is quite right. That also is one of the courtesies of the House, and one which is generally, and, as far as I know, invariably followed.