HC Deb 23 January 1945 vol 407 cc771-86

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

On 17th November I raised on the Adjournment the question of the continued outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country and referred to the Argentine meat that was imported. I pointed out then that certain steps ought to be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture to prevent foot-and-mouth disease getting a stranglehold on the livestock industry. The three points I made then were: First, that vehicles carrying foreign meat should be disinfected before they were used to carry livestock or materials, such as feeding-stuffs, for the farms. The second was that butchers handling imported meat should be prohibited from keeping pigs, or alternatively they should be prohibited from keeping pigs on their own premises. Thirdly, I said that in my view it was very important that every publicity should be given to the peril and dangers of this disease and its causes, on the B.B.C. and in the Press, and everywhere where the Ministry could do so.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied to me on that date. On the transport question he made a statement that all vehicles carrying swill must be disinfected before carrying other feeding-stuffs, and he said there was only one occasion known when a vehicle had carried live- stock and imported meat. He finished by saying that it was the duty of the individual in these cases to see that the vehicle was sterilised before its use for the second purpose. That surprised me very much, because it meant I had misled the House, quite inadvertently, when I made this fuss about carrying imported meat in vehicles which would have to be used for the carriage of feeding-stuffs and of livestock. It meant also that the veterinary profession who had informed me of the danger of this bad misinformed me. So I put down a Question to the Minister of Agriculture on 7th December dealing with this point to see whether, in fact, I had been incorrect. The Minister of Agriculture on 7th December said that it was not obligatory to disinfect a vehicle after it had carried imported meat prior to its carrying livestock or feeding-stuffs. He went on to say: I am sorry if any statement made during the Debate on the Adjournment on 17th November gave a misleading impression."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 726.] Unfortunately, these mistakes do a great deal of damage, and a correction does not get the notoriety which is received by a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in a Debate in this House, which is reported in all the agricultural papers and given full notoriety among the agricultural profession. It is, in my view, extremely unfortunate that this misleading impression should have been given to the House. Now that it has been given, what is to be done? It is, I think, beyond argument that all up and down the country imported meat is being taken from the collecting centres in vehicles that are used at other times to carry feeding-stuffs and livestock off the farms, and this is a very grave danger. If the Order is not in existence, as the Minister has now told us, it should be in existence, and, whatever the difficulties, it is for the Minister of Agriculture to devise a method of disinfecting the vehicles after they have been used for the carriage of Argentine meat; or if such methods are not devised, there must be a prohibition against using the same vehicle for carrying Argentine meat and later carrying materials for use on the farms.

The Parliamentary Secretary agreed with me that everything should be done, by leaflets and through the B.B.C., to educate farmers and everyone concerned. He agreed with me on 17th November. Three days later, in Yorkshire, at Scalby, near Scarborough, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred. Let me tell the House how it was announced in the Press and on the B.B.C. On the morning of 20th November the markets were closed. Some farmers heard that a case was suspected. It was announced in the evening papers at half-past five that a case had been suspected. In the broadcast news at 6 o'clock there was no news at all of this outbreak. The farmers who listened in had no help. Only those farmers who bought an evening paper, or who met officials or the police, knew that foot-and-mouth disease had been suspected. At half-past six officials were telling farmers not only that a case was suspected, but that it had been confirmed. Yet the broadcast news gave no news of any case being suspected or confirmed. Next morning the daily Press in Yorkshire merely said that a case had been suspected, not that it had been confirmed, although 12 hours before officials were telling farmers that a case had been confirmed. I do not lay any charge against the Minister of Agriculture on that score, but it shows how much more education he must give to the B.B.C. and to the Press on the necessity for getting news of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease out at once.

My third point, on the necessity for butchers not to keep pigs, has, I think, been confirmed by subsequent events. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in his view it would be impracticable to prevent butchers keeping pigs. Since then there have been outbreaks all over the country, and in a vast number of cases these can be traced to butchers. This very week-end, when I got home on Friday night, I found that two miles away from my farm a butcher keeping pigs had brought foot-and-mouth disease to my constituency. It may interest the House to know the result of the inquiries I made during the week-end on that case. They may illustrate how important it is that butchers should not keep pigs. This butcher, Mr. Pattison, was a most careful man, keeping pedigree pigs. He had his pigs well away from his butcher's premises. He boiled all his swill, he had a foot-bath installed for disinfection, so that people would not bring infection when coming to the styes. Yet his pigs caught this outbreak. He got all his swill from a prisoner-of-war camp, run by the War Office. It was brought, processed, to his farm, and there boiled. In his view—and I think it is the view of the Minister—the infection comes merely from the handling of the imported meat. The marrow gets on to his clothes, and when he deals with his pigs it is carried to them. There you have a careful butcher, who has not only lost his own pedigree herd but has brought the danger to the whole agricultural area of Yorkshire, although he took every possible precaution.

I submit that to-day the menace is so great that butchers should not be allowed to keep pigs. It is a very great menace to the future of our livestock industry. Our livestock industry is one of the most important parts of our new agricultural policy. If we are going to destroy the good name for health of the British livestock industry, it will be very hard to rebuild our agriculture, as we desire, at the end of the war. I believe that every farmer, every butcher, every official, has a duty to take great care over this foot-and-mouth disease menace—not only to take great care, but to make sacrifices. It is not good enough to say, "We have so many restrictions and regulations to-day, we must not add to them." This is a matter where agriculture will brook more restrictions and regulations, if it means stamping out foot-and-mouth disease.

There was one part of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech on 17th November that I thought was very unfortunate. It mystified us a great deal. Having dealt with my suggestion regarding stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, he went on to say that there had been discovered in this country a vaccine which, when used in the Argentine, produced a certain amount of immunity. I do not want to make out that he claimed more than he actually did, but that created an unfortunate impression, because it makes people think, "This disease cannot be so bad; it is only a temporary phase; here is the Parliamentary Secretary talking about some cure for this disease in the Argentine." He gave no details of it. I questioned the Ministry later to find out what was this vaccine. I was told that it is a crystal violet vaccine, which is produced at Pirbright. We must be told what is the principle of this vaccine. I know people who have claimed to have discovered immunity. I asked him on the same day about a Dr. Crofton, who claimed that, in Brazil and the Argentine, he had created immunity in animals. If that is a fact, we ought to be told. If this Pirbright crystal violet vaccine gives immunity, we should tell the Argentine Government that, until and unless it is using these two vaccines we will not have any more Argentine meat in this country, and that, if there is a process giving immunity, it should be used forthwith. I think it is a great pity that this issue was introduced at the present time. Our job is to see that this dangerous substance, Argentine meat, is not allowed to infect our livestock. Because of the serious position of meat supplies in war we must have Argentine meat, but we should see to it that, when it is brought here, it does not wreck the future of the British livestock industry. I am sorry to have troubled the House a second time on foot-and-mouth disease, but I think it of vital importance at the present time. I also think it is unfortunate that, quite inadvertently, my right hon. Friend had misled the House on this subject, and it is on that account that I have brought it up again. I hope he will be able to give us a fuller reply than he did on the last occasion.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Snadden (Perth and Kinross, Western)

I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on this very important question, and I would like to support him, as I did last time, as strongly as I can, in his plea for a tightening up of the existing regulations to secure the most effective control possible of this dangerous disease. I think the fact we have to face is that despite all the regulations we have to-day this deadly menace to our livestock industry, and, particularly, to our dairy industry, our No. 1 priority, is spreading. The disease not only persists, but is spreading, and, to me, the most alarming feature of the present outbreak is that it is spreading, not by contact, but through initial outbreaks, and there is a very great difference between the two. There is very great concern in my country, as well as South of the Border, because no action has been taken since the Debate on 17th November to tighten up the present regulations. I do not know what the present figure of the number of outbreaks is, as I have been unable to keep up with them, but, surely, the very fact that we have had over 100 outbreaks during the past 12 months is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the present regulations are completely ineffective.

What are the Government going to do about it? They cannot go on as they are doing now. It is not fair to our attested herds, or to our tuberculin-tested herds throughout the country. It is not fair to the whole livestock industry. I was present when the Minister replied last time, and, though I do not want to take up the points already made so effectively by my hon. Friend, in reading through the Minister's speech, it seemed to me that the Government's objection to any further restrictions in regard to our present regulations was based upon the fact that some outbreaks have occurred through household scraps becoming contaminated by frozen meat, and, unless these people were going to be controlled, nothing else could be done in the whole field of foot-and-mouth control. But the fact remains, according to my information from Scotland, at any rate—it may be slightly different South of the Border—that the great majority of initial outbreaks do occur in pigs fed on swill procured from camps or large institutions and from butchers' premises, where uncooked meat-stuffs find their way into the mixture. The butcher, as a pig feeder, is a very serious offender, and I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about butchers. If the danger from the camp, institution or butcher's premises could be eliminated, I submit that the risk to the farmer would be really negligible. The only real solution, as I pointed out last time, is compulsory centralised processing of all swill, but I recognise, as one must, in face of the arguments put up, that here we are up against very serious difficulties; and, alternatively, to bring in an Order imposing compulsory sterilisation of swill in Service establishments and institutions of that kind would, I think, lead to the destruction of very valuable foodstuffs and cause great hardship to people who are already suffering under very great restriction of feeding stuffs, so I am not going to press that point.

What, then, can be done? The National Farmers' Union of Scotland and Chamber of Agriculture have been intensely interested in this matter, and they have put to me a suggestion which I think is, at any rate, a step in the right direction. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell us that, because of all the difficulties in bringing in new restrictions, the proposals we make will do a great deal of harm in another way, we shall not make any progress, but this suggestion is very simple, and I do not think it will impose any hardship anywhere. I admit that it is not a 100 per cent. remedy. It is that all users of purchased swill should be required to register. Registration would mean that the police would immediately become aware of the fact that people in the village or town were using this form of swill, and we know, in this war, that, unconsciously, when one becomes registered for any particular purpose, one becomes more efficient and careful. The police could descend on these people—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams)

Did my hon. Friend say that all users of purchased swill must be registered?

Mr. Snadden

Yes, purchasers of raw swill which has not gone through a centralised plant. In regard to the butcher, I do not think it would be reasonable to prohibit butchers keeping pigs. I know many who are doing the job very thoroughly, but I would include them in my registration scheme. Obviously quite a large number of consumers are left outside the net, but I think everyone realises that we cannot possibly control the farmer who collects scraps from his own household. Against that, we have to remember that only in a very small number of cases is raw imported meat found in household swill.

One hon. Member has told the House about the danger of animals gaining access to swill which has been dumped on the farm and is awaiting treatment. I suggest that this danger could be eliminated if it became an offence to transport raw swill unless in watertight containers. I was in the streets of Edinburgh about a month ago and saw raw swill being transported in a lorry, from which it was seeping into the streets. That, in itself, is a very serious thing, and I suggest that this proposal for watertight containers should be taken into consideration and there would not be the same danger of animals getting at the mixture.

From the information I have been able to gather, there is substantial evidence that swill is our main source of infection, and I hope the Minister, in his reply, will consider the suggestions put forward. I hope that nothing will be left undone to ensure that the treatment of this potential source of infection is made as effective as is humanly possible. We are not satisfied at the present time that everything that can be done has been done, and I hope that to-day the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Minister is prepared to take some further steps along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend and myself.

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

6.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams)

The whole question of foot-and-mouth disease is of very great importance not only to the agricultural industry, but also to the nation. I welcome any opportunity to gain further publicity for the dangers and ways of meeting them. They give rise to a very wide range of problems and if we could concern ourselves with disease alone, obviously, the straightforward method would be to prohibit the import of meat from those countries where the disease is endemic or outbreaks are known to be occurring. But my hon. Friend knows full well that that is almost out of the question. The Minister of Food stated recently that if he were to adopt the policy suggested by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) it would reduce our meat ration from what it is down to somewhere about 9d. per person per week.

Mr. Turton

I have never made that suggestion.

Mr. Williams

I understood my hon. Friend to make the suggestion to-day that the only means of solving the problem was by prohibiting imports of South American meat. We cannot do that, because we cannot concern ourselves with disease alone, and in the same way, when considering smaller measures, obviously the House has to consider the cost in time, labour and inconvenience of any further step we might be disposed to take. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has corrected the error I fell into on 17th November, but he still persists that something might be done with regard to the conveyance of imported meat. It is a case that must be looked at very carefully. To provide the safeguard that he suggests, we should require an order which would provide for two things, namely, that vehicles used in the distribution of meat should not at the same time be used for carrying livestock or certain farm requisites, and that such vehicles should not subsequently be used for carrying other goods until they had been properly cleansed and disinfected. I have spoken of meat rather than imported meat, because it is hardly practicable to think in terms of imported meat only. In almost every case the vehicles used for carrying imported meat are also used for carrying home-killed meat. Although a good deal has been done to arrange for distribution in such a way as to help over the foot-and-mouth disease problem, it is still possible that nearly all meat dealers have some imported meat at some odd time. I am sure that the House will not agree to apply such an Order as has been suggested to retail distribution.

I make that bold statement for the following reasons. I ask hon. Members to look for a moment at what the retail distribution of imported or home-killed meat really involves. Wherever possible, consumers are expected to carry home their own joints. There are thousands of farmers who carry home their own joints in their own vehicles, and perhaps the joint of a friend and neighbour or even of one of their employees, together with certain other requirements for the farm and, occasionally, a calf or a pig. The House will agree that it would not be possible or practicable to prohibit that, and certainly it would not be practicable to require that a farmer, who in his own vehicle conveys his own joint to his own home, shall not be able to carry any other farm requisite in that same vehicle, but must make two journeys and disinfect his vehicle in between them. Again, some meat, as hon. Members will know, is taken from house to house by what is called a pooled delivery service or by common carriers, and in each case the order of prohibition to which I have referred is almost entirely out of the question. In short, retail distribution cannot be dealt with by order, and I think even my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton would agree with that proposition. The problem of retail distribution can only be dealt with by enjoining upon everyone to prevent meat, imported meat in particular, coming in contact with other goods.

Possibly, something more might be done about wholesale distribution, but here again one must weigh in the balance the advantages, or possible advantages, with the disadvantages of any order. In any case, I must say that in wholesale distribution it would, of course, be utterly impossible completely to close the door, for some exemptions would have to be provided in any such order to meet cases where it was quite impossible to avoid carrying meat and other goods at the same time. For instance, there are certain isolated areas in Scotland that are completely outside the general transport scheme for meat, and that, of course, would form one exemption to any order. In these cases, small quantities of meat are taken by common carriers, but those common carriers may take other goods in the same vehicle, and may pick up any other goods on the return journey. I do not see how it is possible to avoid that. Nevertheless, it is still fair to examine whether an order covering the wholesale distribution of meat would be of some help. The practical question is whether the amount of help to be gained is enough to offset the additional work, the dislocation, and the various difficulties that would be involved.

The wholesale distribution, as most hon. Members will know, is undertaken by the Ministry of War Transport on behalf of the Ministry of Food. They operate approximately 1,500 vehicles direct and a much larger number, nearer 9,000, on a part-time basis on contract. These vehicles are also used for other purposes owing to the need for economy in fuel, tyres and labour. They often go out with meat and pick up some other load on the return journey and, of course, privately-owned vehicles are conveying goods of all sorts and kinds when they are not directly employed for the Ministry of War Transport. If an order were extant, which compelled a person, after having conveyed meat, thoroughly to cleanse and disinfect his conveyance before he could pick up any other load, certain difficulties would be encountered. I quite admit that none of the difficulties are so serious as some of the difficulties that the farmer is faced with, but, nevertheless, there are practical difficulties. One can imagine a lorry driver at the end of his journey, having conveyed his load, finding no hot water to make his soda solution in order to disinfect his vehicle or means to dry it before any other goods can be picked up. The driver would have to return empty or break the law. Certainly, there would be a great deal of dislocation if such an order existed. This is the sort of practical problem that must be taken into account in dealing with this question.

On the other hand, the essential question is: If such an order were made, how much improvement could be expected? Last year, 1944, would have been a very great test of the risk involved in the transport of imported meat, for in that year there was a heavy wave of disease in South America, which if the transport risk had been great, ought, naturally, to have expressed itself in outbreaks where vehicles had conveyed meat and other goods to or from farms in their daily work. If even five out of the 180 outbreaks of 1944 could have been traced to vehicles used for wholesale meat distribution, then an order might very well have been justified. If even three cases, or two, or one, had been traced to such a vehicle then there would have been something to be said for an order. But not one outbreak in 1944 was traced to a vehicle conveying imported meat.

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)

I may be stupid, but I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I always understood that in the majority of these cases the Ministry were quite unaware of the cause of the outbreak. What is the value of evidence that cannot be definitely traced to vehicles? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases in which the outbreak has been traced to a particular source?

Mr. Williams

I think it is simple to reply to the Noble Lord. In searching for the cause of an outbreak all relevant factors are examined by thorough-going experts in this problem. In no case has it been discovered that an original outbreak had been due to the presence of a vehicle which has conveyed the meat from one place to another The Noble Lord asked me whether I could say how many outbreaks have been attributed to one or the other cause. I said on 17th November in this House that the vast number of outbreaks had been directly traced to swill containing imported meat. I ought to say that it is not only in 1944 that we have had under review this problem of meat from countries where the disease is endemic, or where they have constantly recurring outbreaks. We have had it under review for many years prior to 1944, and so far as the evidence goes to show, few or no cases have been traced directly to any particular vehicle.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether examination of all these relevant factors has exonerated vehicles where it was proved that the disease could not have originated from that source?

Mr. Williams

The only distance I am prepared to go is to say that no original outbreak has been traced to a vehicle. There are, every year, some cases where the source of origin may be doubtful. After carefully watching all these outbreaks on balance, it has not been felt worth while to make another order dealing exclusively with vehicles. I think the House will be with me when I say we ought not to delude ourselves, that by the mere passing of a spate of orders we could solve a great problem like foot-and-mouth disease. In 1924 there was for a short time a Labour Government, and the then Minister of Agriculture was confronted with a bill for £3,000,000 expenses incurred in paying for foot-and-mouth disease losses in 1923. The first fortnight of the Labour Government was devoted to showing reasons why they had not cured the disease, though they had only taken office the previous week. This has been a great problem for a very long time, and the mere passing of more and still more orders will not necessarily solve it, or remove the danger from the countryside.

Mr. Turton

I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is saying to-night that most of the 180 outbreaks have meat been traced to imported Argentine meat in transport. On 17th November, in talking about imported meat, he said that these various dangers were greater than those arising from swill. I do not quite understand how he can make those two statements agree. I quite understand that it is difficult for him to say that one particular outbreak came from a vehicle, and another from swill or foreign meat.

Mr. Williams

The hon. Member had an unfortunate outbreak in Thirsk last week and he has informed the House how it occurred. He said it was the result of pigs belonging to a butcher having been infected. Those who are responsible for dealing with the problem in the Ministry have vast experience and, as soon as they can, they try to trace the origin of any outbreak. No one attempts to withhold information from the House as to the source of origin. With regard to vehicles, I need only say that, if we can reduce the risk in other ways, I think we ought to leave nothing undone that could be done to help, but we ought not to delude ourselves that the passing of an impracticable order is going to be the solution. I know we can count on the assistance of the Minister of Transport, in impressing on those who convey imported meat, the importance of properly cleansing and disinfecting vehicles before carrying livestock. Full publicity cannot fail to help the problem.

My hon. Friend referred again to butchers. In November he demanded that the Ministry should prohibit the keeping of pigs on butchers' premises. Now he has changed his mind, and he wants us completely to prohibit butchers from keeping pigs at all. I replied in November showing the practical difficulties of even preventing butchers from keeping pigs on their premises. The actual outbreak in the hon. Member's division is found to be a mile and a half away from the butcher's shop. That has proved my contention of 17th November and tended to destroy the contention of my hon. Friend.

Now he goes one step further and says we ought to prohibit every butcher from keeping pigs. Does he mean that we should prohibit only the butcher, or also the butcher's wife, the butcher's brother, the butcher's country cousin and anybody related to the butcher? If we are to have an effective order, it must be carried to that distance, and I am sure the Noble Lord will agree. In the mile-and-a-half between where the butcher's pigs were kept and the actual butcher's premises, there may be a dozen lots of other pigs that are kept which are always in the same danger as the butcher's pigs. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that here is a proposition which is wholly impracticable and which Members of the House would not stand for for a moment. My hon. Friend knows that some butchers are also farmers. Would he prohibit a butcher-farmer from keeping pigs? If so, how would he interpret a farm? Should it be one acre, 50, 100 or 200 acres, or what should it be? It is easy to make a suggestion without having carefully considered what it really implies. I suggest that it is not so much the butcher as meat scraps that are the danger to our livestock. If the Orders already in existance were faithfully complied with, the danger would be reduced enormously.

I have only a few moments left in which to deal with the question of vaccine. My hon. Friend rather regretted that I mentioned it on 17th November, although he asked me for the information. He asked me to tell the House of any steps which the Department had taken to try to reduce this disease to a minimum. I informed him that a vaccine had been produced at Pirbright which, on results in tests in this country, proved capable of producing a degree of immunity which may last for a year. I also said that particulars of the vaccine and the method of preparation of it had been sent to Argentina. We must recognise that there is a wide gap between the experimental work so far done here and the large-scale use in conditions such as obtain in South America.

Reference has been made once again to Dr. Crofton. I can only say that Dr. Crofton's claim to have discovered a cure for foot-and-mouth disease forms part of much wider claims. His views are not accepted by the medical profession, and they are contrary to scientific opinion all over the world. However, a test was carried out at the Foot-and-mouth Disease Research Station at Pirbright on lines agreed upon by Dr. Crofton himself. The result disproved his theory, and it provided no evidence of any relationship between his cultured micro-organisms and foot-and-mouth disease. I understand there have also been some tests in France and also in South America, but under no official arrangements, and no details of these tests are known to us. Neither have there been any published results.

I am advised that the Pirbright test was scientifically conclusive, and no fresh grounds have been provided to warrant re-opening the question. I am sorry to have gone on so long in replying to my two hon. Friends, but I want to say in conclusion that the Ministry have no intention of hushing up anything about imported meat. I have here a whole list of Press notices which have been sent out and a couple of sample leaflets which have been printed by the hundred thousand and sent out all over the country. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome whatever publicity we can get from this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) made a suggestion which does not seem very practicable. It was that all those who purchase swill ought to be registered. What is to happen to the person who is lucky enough to be able to beg swill? If such an Order were in existence it would affect scores of thousands of people, who would easily find ways and means out of it. The suggestion does not appeal to me at the moment as practicable.

If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton wishes to pursue this matter further with the veterinary officers of the Ministry, we shall be very glad to make an appointment at any time. I hope that the House generally will agree that all practical steps that can be taken have been taken, and I can assure them that such steps will be taken in the future, to help the farmers of this country.

6.26 p.m.

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)

In the two or three minutes left to me I should like to make one observation with which I do not think the Minister will disagree. I have not the knowledge on this matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has, but I think that the whole community, and the agricultural community especially, and those who represent them in this House, are indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this question.

On these occasions one cannot refer to legislation and, therefore, my argument must be somewhat circumscribed; but, in my opinion, this Adjournment Debate, despite the small attendance of Members, has been of immense importance. It is now, as I see it, indelibly impressed on the minds of everyone that the main cause of foot-and-mouth disease, by the admission of the Minister himself, is imported diseased meat. It is a monstrous thing that the people of this country should be asked to eat it. In the present state of medical knowledge there may well be—and no one can say "Yea" or "Nay" in the matter—a connection between that fact and cancer of the stomach. It is a monstrous thing that we should take out of the pockets of the taxpayer £300,000,000 a year, or £30,000,000 a year—whatever the sum may be does not matter much, because it is, at any rate, a large sum of money—in order to compensate farmers for losing their stock, and that the hearts of many good pedigree breeders should be broken because of the fact—let the House take note of it—that the foul foot-and-mouth disease is due to diseased meat being brought to this country.

It would be out of Order for me to say on this occasion what the remedy is, but I hope that the fact will be impressed on the minds of the agricultural community, and that they will continue to press it upon this House all the time now that we have had an admission from the Minister himself on the matter. In the old days we used to be told: "We do not know. It may be brought here by birds." We have now been told that this filthy diseased meat which is brought here is responsible. What a reflection on the Governments of this country in the past, and upon the Ministry of Health, that this meat should come into this country. I hope that this House and the agricultural community will learn this lesson. The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night and we now know that, in the great majority of cases, the disease is due to diseased meat—let us not simply call it meat infected with foot-and-mouth disease—which is brought into this country for human food, and which is found in swill. I hope that on a future occasion when we can discuss this matter further, suggestions will be made for remedying the position. There is a very good remedy, although it affects questions of foreign and Imperial relations. In any case, it cannot be discussed now.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes after Six o'Clock.