DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. (Hansard, 5 March 1924)

§ LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, this is a short Bill, but it raises questions of some importance, particularly questions relating to the recent severe outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. In fact, it is this exceptional visitation of foot-and-mouth disease which has rendered it necessary to introduce this Bill at the present time. I dare say your Lordships are aware that the Act of 1894, which deals with these matters, says that the amount that can be taken from the Exchequer funds is £140,000. If further moneys are required then, under Section 18, subsection (2), of that Act, they come out of the Local Taxation Fund account. That means that expenditure in connection with animal diseases that affect the whole country would be paid out of local funds from some particular locality. From 571 the time that Regulation was made it has, however, always been the practice to provide that, in fact, the moneys required for the prevention of diseases in animals shall come from the Exchequer and not from the local funds. I think your Lordships will agree that a principle of that kind is just, because it is impossible to suppose that such an expense could be borne by a particular district or locality.

In 1922 there was also a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and on that occasion the expenditure incurred was £755,000. Half of the excess beyond the £140,000 was at that time found by the Exchequer and half came out of the Local Taxation Fund account. In connection with the present outbreak the expense already incurred—I give the figures up to yesterday—is about £3,250,000, so that a very large amount has to be found beyond that which is provided for in the Act of 1894. The proposal is that as to £250,000 the amount should come out of the Local Taxation Fund account, leaving the amount payable out of that account in aid of local taxation at the average figure of payments during the last five years. The rest of the sum, which I suppose will amount in the aggregate, when all is settled, to something like £3,000,000, wall be provided from the Exchequer. I am not quite sure whether the proposal has already gone through the other House, but at any rate a proposal will be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that proportion of the expenses (which will not be far short of £3,000,000) shall be found by the national Exchequer.

I have had supplied to me the latest statistics and history of this outbreak. It is so important that I will give your Lordships, at any rate, one or two of the crucial figures in order to show not only its severity but the extraordinary range of country over which it has extended. The first case occurred on August 27, 1923, at Rotherham in Yorkshire. Since that date, taking the figures made up to yesterday, 2,808 outbreaks have occurred in 41 counties in England and Wales, and 11 counties in Scotland, involving the slaughter of 94,897 cattle, 34,678 sheep, 43,897 pigs, and 116 goats. The cost to be paid, as the actual value of the animals destroyed to the present date, will be £3,032,000, the difference between that 572 figure and the figure which I mentioned of £3,250,000 being taken up in heavy administration expenses.

The disease spread with rapid infection from farm to farm, particularly in the North Midlands, and, if we take the case of Cheshire, which has suffered in an exceptional maner, we find that 34 per cent. of the cows in that great dairy county have been slaughtered owing to this terrible invasion of foot-and-mouth disease. If you were to put the total number of cattle in the country against the number slaughtered it would appear to be comparatively small, but in Cheshire no less than 34 per cent. of the dairy herd has been slaughtered. I think there is some considerable evidence to show that the contamination was spread from railway sidings to the markets at Newcastle and Gateshead on one side, and from the railway sidings at Crewe over the Cheshire district. Since December, when the disease reached its height, the situation has undoubtedly improved, and this is shown by the fact that whereas there were 319 outbreaks on separate farms in the last week of December, in the past week there were only 99. However we look at this outbreak, the figures are very large, and the expenditure involved is very great.

It cannot be said that the method of dealing with an outbreak of this kind by slaughter can be relied on under these conditions as an effective way of dealing with it. When I say that I am not in any way criticising the views of the Ministry of Agriculture. I have no doubt that with our present knowledge—and I want to refer presently to scientific research and investigation—the only effective way of dealing with an outbreak of this kind is by the slaughter policy. That was really accepted by a large majority of the farmers as the best method of dealing with the outbreak, and there is a consensus of opinion in other countries where similar outbreaks have been dealt with, that until further research and curative knowledge is obtained the only way of dealing with it is by a slaughter policy.

Let me say one word on the matter of isolation. There is a great deal to be said for isolation in order to prevent the destruction of so many cattle, but the difficulties of isolation are exceedingly great. As a matter of fact, there are only 573 a small number of farms where the buildings sure such that isolation would be effective. In Cheshire there are 21 cases where isolation is being tried as against slaughter, but the difficulties are very great, and it cannot be expected that isolation by itself will be effective so long as there is so much inadequacy in many of our farm buildings and premises.

It is not necessary on this occasion to go any further into the rival policies of isolation and slaughter, because the Minister of Agriculture has already stated in the other House that he has appointed a small Departmental Committee to inquire into the present series of outbreaks, with the following terms of reference: To examine into the circumstances of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; to review and report upon the slaughter policy and the procedure adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture ; to advise whether any further precautions should be taken to guard against the introduction and spread of the disease, and to consider whether a scheme of insurance can be devised as an alternative to the existing system of compensation for slaughtered animals. That Committee will consist of Mr. E. G. Pretyman, as Chairman, Mr. Walter Smith, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. H. German and Mr. Alexander Batchelor, who were members of the Committee of 1922, together with Sir William Bromley-Davenport, Lord-Lieutenant of Cheshire. I have no doubt that this Committee will reconsider the whole outlook and will be in a position to assist the Ministry of Agriculture as to the best policy to be adopted in the case of another such outbreak as that from which we are suffering at the present time.

No doubt there have been complaints as regards delays in Cheshire in dealing with outbreaks on various farms, but it is impossible to avoid some delay when you have such an extensive outbreak running into tens, hundreds and thousands of cases. It is impossible to maintain a staff large enough to deal with an outbreak of this kind. The Ministry of Agriculture have only a nucleus staff which has to be supplemented by persons obtained ad hoc, such as butchers and slaughterers, for special purposes. It has been alleged, although, there is no evidence of it, that the staff recruited in this manner has not 574 been able to realise the extreme necessity not only of keeping themselves isolated from other herds but of disinfecting themselves after they have carried out their work.

One suggestion has been made with which I must deal ; that is infection from hay and straw. So far as hay and straw for feeding purposes are concerned, it is only allowed to be imported from countries entirely free from foot-and-mouth disease. But it has been alleged that in the case of packages the hay and stray so used may have been a means of spreading infection in this country. That matter was considered and determined by the Committee which sat in 1922. They reported that there was no evidence whatsoever that hay and straw used in packages had been a source of infection. They further reported that it would be a very serious interference with a large number of industries if packages of this kind were not allowed. The experience of the Ministry of Agriculture has been entirely in accord with the Report of that Committee, but all these questions will now be reconsidered in the light of the somewhat unfortunate experience we have had during the last few months.

Now I come to the last part of the statement I desire to make. It must appear to most people that research and scientific discovery ought to have made some progress in ascertaining the real nature of this disease and the treatment of animals so that they should no longer be liable to infection either by contact, or by the carriage by birds or in any other way. It certainly seems rather lamentable that with all the research work we have done for the purpose of manufacturing weapons of destruction, a far greater amount of continuous effort has not been made to solve this problem so that our flocks may be relieved from the risks to which they are liable at the present time. It has to be realised that in some countries—India is one—where the slaughter policy has not been carried out this disease is endemic, and if it were to become endemic in this country it would be a tremendous loss to our pedigree cattle trade which is a matter of the first importance to our farmers.

The Government have been very fortunate in the Committee appointed in order to deal with this difficult matter 575 of research and scientific discovery. I say "difficult" because, so far as research has gone, it has not been possible, either by microscopic effort or any pathological inquiries, to ascertain the real source from which this disease springs in order that a proper virus or serum might be provided to deal with it and disinfect our herds. This research or scientific Committee is most fortunate in having as its Chairman Sir Charles Sherington, President of the Royal Society. Its other members are, Dr. J. A. Arkwright, Dr. Bulloch, Professor J. B. Buxton, Captain S. E. Douglas, Mr. S. H. Gaiger, Sir John McFadyean, Professor C J. Martin, Professor Robert Muir and Sir Stewart Stockman.

I do not think that a stronger body could be constituted for these research purposes. The terms of reference of this body are as follows: To initiate, direct and conduct investigations into foot-and-mouth disease, either in this country or elsewhere, with a view to discovering means whereby the invasions of the disease may be rendered less harmful to agriculture. I look hopefully to the results of investigations carried out by a Committee of that character, and if they are successful, as it may be hoped that they will be, it will not be necessary in future to consider a policy of slaughter, the risk of infection and extension will be dealt with, and we may hope that we shall keep our flocks and herds free from the contagion and infection which, if they did become endemic, would threaten most seriously our position in modern markets. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.