§ 32. Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department have considered any scheme for insurance against the risks of foot-and-mouth disease; whether it found any schemes submitted to it. or to its Committees, were actuarily sound; and what is the attitude of the Government towards insurance as a means of meeting the heavy charge 1435 which outbreaks of the disease throws on the taxpayer?
Mr. WOODThe question of insurance as an alternative to the existing system of compensation for slaughtered animals has been carefully considered. For a discussion of this subject I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease. under the Chairmanship of the Rt. Hon. E. G. Pretyman (Cmd. 2350). With regard to the last part, the Government would be prepared to consider any sound and workable scheme of insurance, but the question presents special difficulties and I am not at present satisfied that any of the suggestions made would be practicable
33. Mr. RUNC I MANasked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers or stockkeepers were prosecuted in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively, for failure to notify outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease amongst their stock?
Mr.WOOD:Prosecutions for failure to notify outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease numbered eight in each of the years 1922 and 1923, and 27 in 1924
§ 25. Mr. SPENCER (forasked the. Minister of Agriculture if he has received from Mr. H. Kew, of Morecambe, a. man who has treated many herds of valuable pedigree cattle, an appeal to have tested Mr. Kew's treatment of foot-and-mouth disease and tuberculosis in cattle; and whether, seeing that the Report of the Departmental Committee of February, 1925, recommended such test, will he have this specific properly and fully tested so that no possible preventive may he: overlooked?
Mr. WOODThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing the Report of the recent Departmental Committee recommended that an official test should be made of Mr. Kew's specific. I am advised that the evidence with regard to the merits of this remedy is not sufficient to justify a test being carried out at public expense
§ Mr. SPENCERAm I to understand that the conception of the right hon. Gentleman is that the 1925 Report recommendation is only confined to foot-and-mouth disease?
Mr. WOODI have answered the hon. Member's question quite clearly, and he is under a misapprehension
§ Mr. SPENCERI did not quite catch the answer, and I am sorry
Mr. WOODThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Report of the Departmental Committee recommended that an official test should be made in a specific case