FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.

HL Deb 08 March 1922 vol 49 cc384-93

THE EARL OF WEMYSS rose to ask His Majesty's Government how many cattle have been compulsorily slaughtered during the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and to ask what the cost has been; to draw attention to the correspondence that took place between - the Board of Agriculture and Mr. Crossley of the Poplars, Ashford, at the time of the last outbreak; and to ask the reasons for the Board's refusal to try the suggested cure; and to draw attention to the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts; and to move to resolve, "That it is desirable to inquire into the efficacy of the various alleged cures with the view of a curative treatment being made a substitute or an alternative to the present policy of slaughtering infected cattle."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am aware that the number of cattle slaughtered is considerable, and I am also aware that I shall be told that they only amount to about one-eighth per cent. of all the cattle in the country. I confess that I attach less importance to hearing the precise numbers than to ascertaining whether the Government are convinced, and if so by what facts and by what evidence, that this compulsory slaughter is the best way of dealing with this disease.

I approach this Question quite unbiassed. If I have been impressed by what I have heard on the other side I am ready, and should be rather pleased, to be convinced by the noble Earl opposite, but it is impossible to deny that the present method of slaughter is costly, wasteful, and, to a certain extent, barbarous. If he can prove that it is the only way then there is nothing more to be said. But many people, a daily increasing number, believe that it is not the only way, and that the same and better results could be achieved by less drastic methods.

I desire to tell your Lordships of a gentleman who claims to have discovered an infallible cure and who is prepared, moreover, to give ample pledges of his belief in his own cure and of his own good faith. I wish it to be distinctly understood, however, that I do not vouch for this cure. I am only stating what I have been told. This gentleman claims that before the Act was passed he cured hundreds of cases; that lie never lost a single case, and that the treatment he recommends is easy, inexpensive and in- fallible. He makes this further extraordinary claim for which, of course, I do not vouch; that just as ailing children after measles become strong, and as many of us in much later life who have undergone some severe illness become stronger and develop a regrettable rotundity of figure, so the cattle who have had this disease put on flesh more quickly and come to market in a better condition than their less fortunate companions who have not had the disease.

I do not know what importance to attach to this, but when we remember that not a great many years ago people who had consumption were shut off from every breath of fresh air and that they are now put on the tops of high mountains with all the air that they can get, we see what amazing somersaults medical science can turn. We must not be surprised at anything. I should not have brought up this man's case unless he had told the Government that if they would let him treat cattle for this disease he would undertake, if they gave him two guineas and out-of-pocket expenses for every case he treated, to pay full value for every animal that died under his treatment. It seems to me a very fair offer. It is a sporting offer, perhaps rather too sporting. It suggests the Golden Ballot, or Premium Bonds, or whist drives.

I do not think it was refused on that ground. I understand the Government in their reply said they were interested in the prevention, not in the cure, of this disease. Everyone will admit that prevention is better than cure. But if you cannot prevent, will you not try to cure? If you have failed to prevent, will you not try to cure? As far as I understand—I may be wrong—the Government have not advanced one bit in their knowledge of this disease. They are still groping in their original darkness and have not even discovered the bacillus or the bug. They have no knowledge as to what brings the disease, or why it comes, or why it goes away, or when it will come again. They are still in absolute darkness; and yet their only policy seems to be a futile search after prevention, followed in time by what I may almost call an orgy of slaughter.

I should be obliged to the noble Earl if he will explain to me exactly when this slaughter begins. I am not sure that I understand, but I imagine it is something like this. Supposing, for the sake of argu- ment, that this Act applied to human beings. It is an unpleasant hypothesis, and I only use it by way of illustration. But supposing I were to invite my noble friend to dinner and he were good enough to accept, and that during dinner I developed symptoms of influenza—I suppose he would be slaughtered.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

You would have to be certified.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

But after that he would be slaughtered. Of course, I should be slaughtered, too, and that, I am sure, would be some consolation to my noble friend in his last moments—something like the glass of ruin given to a French criminal on his way to the guillotine. But what I want to know is why either of us should be slaughtered? Why should not I have treatment, and if I respond to the treatment, then be allowed out? Why should my noble friend not be put under observation, and if he does not contract the disease, be allowed out too? We do not apply this sort of treatment to human diseases. Medical science tries to do three things. It tries to prevent disease, to stamp out disease, and to cure disease; and I am not at all sure that their attempts at curing disease are not more successful than their attempts to stamp it out or prevent it. Enteric, diphtheria, tetanus, pneumonia, have none of them been stamped out, but they have been robbed of their sting and deprived of the greater number of their victims by curative and prophylactic methods.

Why should you not try the same thing with cattle? I dare say I shall be told that the farmers of this country are in favour of compulsory slaughter. All I can say is that they would be very strange people if they were not. They would be superior to human nature. Under your Act they have full protection. If their cattle are infected they get, or are supposed to get, full compensation without the trouble of taking them to market, and they have this indirect and additional advantage that when the slaughter begins the price of cattle goes up. It went up enormously in Scotland at the beginning of this outbreak, and the result is that you offer to the farmers what practically amounts to a fully paid premium policy with an additional bonus in the shape of a possible appreciation of the value of their stock No wonder the farmers are in favour of it.

I think it only fair, however, to tell your Lordships of a conversation I had with a very prominent member of the Farmers' Union. I will not say where it was, but he said to me: "Of course I am in favour, or rather my Union is in favour, of slaughter; but while I rejoice as a farmer I deplore as a citizen the public waste in this most unnecessary slaughter. Many farmers agree with me, and farmers have told me that they would be quite contented if this slaughtering were done away with, and if the farmers were given some compensation while the treatment was going on." I give you that for what it is worth.

In my Motion I have made some reference to administration. I do not know that. it is very important, but I read the other day that 127 tons of coal had been used to consume the carcasses of 100 oxen. We have witnessed, on occasions of public and private rejoicing, the roasting of a whole ox. A more unpleasant spectacle I cannot imagine, and I can quite believe that a large amount of fuel is consumed in doing it. But science must surely have found better means of dealing with these carcasses than by using the best coal, and I cannot help saying to the Government: Why these unsavoury bonfires, and why this costly holocaust of slaughtered hecatombs?

There is another point, the element of compensation. I do not think we need suppose that there are any wide and general complaints regarding the allocation of compensation. If there were I am sure we should have heard of them. But I did hear of two glaring cases close to one another. It was not, of course, in this outbreak, in which, I suppose, the compensation has not yet been allotted. In one case a man owned a stock of pedigree cattle. They had an illustrious line of ancestry, but something had gone wrong with the strain, and they were degenerate sons of sturdy sires. The owner would have been pleased to take £6,000, and he was offered £24,000. I do not give his name; the name was withheld from me, because naturally, if it is unpleasant to be considered a war profiteer, it would be worse to be considered a foot and mouth disease profiteer, or a cattle plague king. Close by was another man who, I was told, had a stock which was not pedigree, though extremely good, and he was offered only half the value of that stock. I give that as an instance. I dare say my noble friend does not know of it, and may disbelieve it. I cannot vouch for it, but I was told it on very good authority.

In conclusion, I would only add this. You have just had a severe attack of this disease. You had an attack a short time ago; it is quite impossible for you to tell when you may have the next attack, nor can you tell how severe that attack may be. It may come in a severely epidemic form, when, I suppose, your slaughtering operations would not be able to overtake it. I imagine there is some limit to the number of cattle you could slaughter. I ask my noble friend, if he will not, on behalf of the Government, consider whether it is not worth while to examine these cures. It will not prevent the Government from continuing their researches; it will not prevent them from slaughtering; and if they examine these cures and find they are of no use, they will be no worse off. If, on the other hand, they find one or inure of them to be efficient they will then, perhaps, though not escaping the reproach of having carried on a foolish policy for a long time, be able to claim at least that they had the discernment to discover, and the courage to correct, the mistake when it was pointed out to them. I hope my noble friend may be able to give us sonic hope and encouragement in this matter.

Moved to resolve, "That it is desirable to inquire into the efficacy of the various alleged cures with the view of a curative treatment being made a substitute or an alternative to the present policy of slaughtering infected cattle."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)

My Lords, I think it will be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if I first of all read the answer as regards the numbers and cost—that is the first thing asked by the noble Earl in his Question—and I can then deal with his points concerning the cure. The slaughter of 20,813 cattle has been authorised by the Ministry up to and including March 6 in connection with the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The existence of the disease was first reported to the Ministry on January 23 last, and the outbreak now embraces some 981 separate cases. The gross amount of compensation payable in respect of this number of cattle is approximately £580,000, but from this figure a deduction should be made for salvage receipts the amount of which is not yet definitely known, but is estimated at £70,000. A sum of £510,000 may therefore be taken as being approximately the net cost in respect of compensation for the cattle slaughtered up to March 6.

I might mention at this point, in order to afford as complete information as possible to the noble Earl who, in his Question, referred only to cattle, that the other animals, namely, sheep, pigs and goats, which have been slaughtered in connection with this outbreak, number some 23,600. The net compensation payable in respect of these animals is estimated, however, to amount to not more than £89,100. There are also certain administrative expenses which should be to ken into account in estimating the cost of the outbreak. These charges, consisting of salaries of the additional inspectors, wages to slaughter-men and the expenses of dressing the carcasses and disinfection, are estimated at a total of £135,000 to date.

Having given these figures I think I might be allowed to make one or two observations on the points raised by the noble Earl. First of all, as to the suggestion that these animals are slaughtered straight away if they are suspected, I may say that they are not slaughtered until an inspector of the Ministry has given a certificate that the animal has contracted foot and mouth disease, and has also certified what animals have been in contact with the infected animal. It is necessary, of course, to have extra inspectors, which naturally costs money, and further I think I am right in stating that almost all these animals are slaughtered by professional slaughtermen, and probably with humane killers.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I never implied anything else.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Quite so. But that naturally adds to the expense. As regards the point which the noble Earl raised about the cost of coal and the compensation, if he will give me details I will try to ascertain the facts about it. I believe that the £135,000 includes the coal, because I think in many cases the bodies are burnt.

With regard to the correspondence to which the noble Earl refers, I may say that Mr. Crossley addressed a letter to the Ministry in January, 1921, in which he stated that foot and mouth disease could be cured, and that he was prepared to undertake the demonstration of a remedy. The Ministry's reply was that it was aware that there were a number of methods of treatment of foot and mouth disease which are beneficial in enabling animals to get through the attack safely, but that the policy of the Ministry did not permit of the remedial treatment of infected cases, and was directed rather to the complete elimination of the infection as expeditiously as possible by the slaughter of diseased animals and those animals in immediate contact. The reason why remedial treatment is not adopted is because it would involve the maintenance of the infection while the treatment was taking effect, and so long as the virus exists there would always be a very great risk of its conveyance to other stock in the vicinity, indeed, of the permanent establishment of the disease in this country, as it is in most Continental countries.

On the question of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts I may take this opportunity of stating that the administrative procedure adopted under those Acts has never been called upon, since its formulation nearly thirty years ago, to deal with an outbreak so extensive as the present. In consideration of this fact, and of the obscurity which exists as to the origin of the present outbreak, the Minister has arranged to set, up a Departmental Committee to inquire into the working and administration of the Acts. I think the reference to the Committee is drawn very widely, and they will inquire into several of the subjects mentioned by the noble Earl. I have the terms of reference here; they are as follows— To inquire into the origin and circumstances of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease and into the policy and procedure which was pursued in dealing with the disease, and to report whether any alteration of the methods of administrative control hitherto adopted or any amendment of the existing law is necessary and desirable. In addition to that the Ministry is entering into correspondence with Governments on the Continent in order to arrange for their co-operation in an International Inquiry into the general question of the treatment of foot and mouth disease. It is hoped that it will be possible to arrange for the investigations to be carried out on the Continent, where, as foot and mouth disease is always present, it will not be necessary to maintain a centre of infection in an otherwise free country.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

In these circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my Motion.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I should like to say one word on this question of cure versus slaughter. Of course, the trying of cures of necessity means the maintaining of a sphere of infection in this country. You have to have infected animals on which to try your cures. Now, the policy of successive Governments has been, for the last thirty-two years, the moment an outbreak is discovered, to have slaughtered as speedily as possible all animals infected and all those that can possibly have been brought into contact with them. The effect of that policy, and the cost of that policy, are wonderful. During the whole thirty-two years, I believe, the average cost of thus dealing with the disease has been only £9,000 per annum, and the advantage to this country throughout that period has been enormous. I am informed that in France, during 1920, the loss to farmers owing to foot and mouth disease amounted to five and a-half millions.

In spite of what people may say there is no doubt that it is disastrous for anybody to get foot and mouth disease into his herd. Even if the animals are cured, and there are cures, from all I am told those animals lose in condition. When they recover, no doubt they pick up quickly, but I am informed that it is a most dangerous thing if the disease is contracted by cows or ewes, as it very frequently brings about abortion. It would be a most serious thing if the hill flocks in Scotland were attacked with the disease just before lambing time, because it might mean the loss of the whole season's lambs. Therefore, to say the disease does not matter is not quite true. It is a serious thing.

In addition, there are other important points to take into consideration. Whenever, during the last thirty-two years, this country has been free from foot and mouth disease all the other countries in the world have come to it to buy pedigree stock, but whenever you have the disease in this country the ports of all those other countries — of Argentine, Brazil, Canada, America, and South Africa—are closed against us. The moment the disease is stamped out the buyers of those countries flock back here to buy pedigree stock. If we go in for the policy of allowing the disease to remain in the country for the purpose of curative treatment, it is certain that the disease will hang about for a longer period, and that foreign countries will close their ports against our cattle, and the trade in pedigree stock will be stopped for a long time, involving serious loss to the nation.

It is not true that the Ministry never undertake any investigations in this matter. As a matter of fact, only about a year ago they commenced to carry on investigations. They began by trying to find the virus. Apparently they could not find the virus of foot and mouth disease, because it cannot be seen with a microscope. In order to get preventive treatment by injection the very first thing you have to do, I am told, is to cultivate the virus, and they never got so far as to be r able to cultivate the virus. Therefore, the prospects of finding out a preventive or cure which is a certainty seemed to be very remote indeed—at all events, they do not seem to be very encouraging.

I can only say in conclusion that there is a great outbreak, and that if it goes on much longer—I think we have got it in band and that there will not be another flare-up—it will be impossible to continue the policy of slaughter indefinitely. In the meantime, it is inevitable that when you have a flare-up like this, the first really serious one for more than thirty-two years, you should have nearly everybody coming along and saying lie has a sure cure for it. The gentleman who has written to the noble Earl is not alone in this matter. A short time ago I was rung up by a friend in the City who said he knew of a professor at Berne who had an absolutely infallible cure. The first question to be asked is why, if these people have an infallible cure, do they not try it on the Continent, where the disease is rampant. I hope that at the present moment it will not get about the country that we have been wrong in the past in the policy of slaughter. By the means we have adopted, except on this occasion, the thing has been stamped out in a few weeks, and it would be a great pity to abandon that policy until some mixture is found which is, not a cure, but a preventive.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his explanation. I said at the beginning that I had no bias on this subject, but that the cure I recommended was not a foreign one but an all-British one. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.