§ 53. Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether, having regard to the loss sustained by stock owners in Ireland owing to the restrictions imposed upon the landing of animals in this country during the latter half of this year, he will now accede to the request of the many interested bodies in Ireland who have passed resolutions asking for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the possible origin of alleged cases of foot-and-mouth disease in that country and generally to report upon what regulations should govern the transit of animals from one country to the other in the event of an outbreak of disease in either country?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI can add nothing to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member on 30th December last.
§ Mr. MOOREHas the right hon. Gentleman received any resolution of protest from the date of the discussion of this important matter from the Nationalist party?
§ The PRIME MINISTERFrom the Nationalist party?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNot to my knowledge.
§ 63. Mr. FFRENCHasked in what respects mycotic stomatitis resembles foot-and-mouth disease, or if there is any possibility of the former disease having been mistaken for the latter in the case of Irish cattle imported into this country; and, if so, will he see that the order to detain Irish cattle at the port of debarkation for twelve hours be relaxed?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)Mycotic stomatitis, that is, a form of stomatitis caused by a fungus, has not, so far as the Board are aware, been proved to exist in Ireland. I am informed, however, that a veterinary surgeon practising in Ireland gave it as his opinion that a form of stomatitis met with in Ireland was caused by a fungus. The restrictions upon the importation of Irish cattle into Great Britain were imposed on account of undoubted cases of foot-and-mouth disease.
§ 64. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, after the veterinary officers of the Board at Glasgow and Birkenhead had diagnosed as foot-and-mouth disease the complaint from which cattle landed from Ireland at the above ports in December were found to be suffering, and this opinion had been confirmed by the Board veterinary experts in London, a pathological examination of these cases, coupled with inoculation experiments on healthy animals undertaken at the instance of the Irish Department of Agriculture, conclusively proved that they had not suffered from foot-and-mouth disease, but from stoma titis, and that this was proved to the satisfaction of one of the Board's own experts sent over to Ireland to participate in the investigation?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI cannot accept the statement set forth in the hon. Member's question. With regard to Glasgow, no cattle believed to be suffering from foot- 2076 and-mouth disease were landed, but lesions similar to healed lesions of foot-and-mouth disease were found in offal from Ireland at Moore Street Abattoir. With regard to Birkenhead, the Board were advised that healed lesions, which were indistinguishable from those which result from foot-and-mouth disease, were present in cattle landed from Ireland, and that the cases would require to be dealt with as foot-and-mouth disease until the question was cleared up by inquiry on the farms from which the cattle came. An inquiry was instituted in Ireland, and in the district from which some of the cattle came a contagious disease of the mouth was found to exist. As the result of observation on the affected farms, it was found that this disease did not conform to the epizootio-logical characters of foot-and-mouth disease, and an experimental inquiry on a small scale was conducted to establish the nature of the disease. One of the Board's veterinary inspectors was sent over to Ireland to examine the experimentally produced cases after the inquiry had been in progress for some little time. As the result of this inquiry, the Board's officers believe that the disease found on the farms in Armagh is not foot-and-mouth disease. They are further of opinion, as the result of the experimental inquiry, that lesions similar to those found at Glasgow in offal, and at Birkenhead in cattle, could be caused by this disease of the mouth. I may point out that the lesions were practically healed.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTMay I take it that the information contained in the leading Scottish newspapers to the effect stated in the question is wholly without foundation?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIf the hon. Gentleman wishes to put questions to me about what appears in the leading Scottish newspapers, he must give me notice.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYCan the documents and reports dealing with these matters in any sense be considered secret or private, and would he have any objection to publishing as a Blue Book the reports of his inspectors and the whole of the evidence upon which he has acted?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have made public in this House the whole of the evidence upon which I have acted, and have given the House the fullest possible information in regard to this and all other cases.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI am not speaking of word-of-mouth declarations, but of documents and reports. Can we have the leading documents and reports connected with this matter?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThere are a great many documents connected with conferences between the Boards concerned. What I have given by word of mouth is just as accurate as what appears in the documents.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThat is no answer to my question. Will the reports of the inspectors and the written documents be laid before the House of Commons?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, Sir; because the written reports would only be part of the evidence.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYYou are ashamed of your conduct. They are public documents and why cannot we have them?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANBecause the fullest information has been given to the House, and there is no need to supplement it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYYou have lost us millions of pounds on false information.