§ LORD STRACHIE had given Notice that he would move, That in view of the recent serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Dorset, it is desirable that the Minister of Agriculture should have power to prohibit the introduction of hay and straw or other imports into Great Britain from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is known to exist. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a week ago I asked a Question of the Minister of Agriculture as to the position in Dorset with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and the answer that I got was rather alarming, in a sense, because it was stated that the number of separate outbreaks was ten, and the animals slaughtered numbered 5,418, composed of 970 1,199 cattle, 3,236 sheep and 983 pigs, at a total cost exceeding £25,000. This year already there have been outbreaks in five counties, costing another £46,000; so we may say that up to the present moment slaughtering has cost this country over £70,000 this year. I am not for one moment complaining of the slaughtering of these animals. I suppose that at the present time it is absolutely necessary. But I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that, while undoubtedly very liberal compensation is given, it does not compensate a man for his entire loss of business. Suppose he is a dairyman, he loses his contract for supplying milk, and the whole of his business is upset. On the other hand, often very valuable herds are slaughtered for which no scale of compensation can adequately pay. I saw the statement in a newspaper—and no doubt the noble Earl will tell me whether it was correct—that a particularly valuable flock of horned cattle in Dorset was isolated. I should like to ask, if that was so, whether it was effectual. Another point is that very heavy loss is suffered by farmers who are unable to send their beasts for slaughter to the markets in their areas. Many men have suffered very much indeed in that way and in those cases there is no compensation whatever.
§
When I bring the question forward and ask whether something more can be done, the answer given is that:
Exhaustive inquiries have failed to reveal any circumstances to which a source of infection can be attributed.
It seems to me that so far as this country is concerned that is always the answer: it is impossible to tell how a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak arises. I notice that in another place the other day the Minister of Agriculture was answering questions from the Dorset Members, who are no doubt very much concerned about this matter. Mr. Elliot, in reply to Mr. Hanbury, stated that he was fully satisfied that the relative freedom of this country from foot-and-mouth disease could not have been maintained in the present state of knowledge other than by the slaughter of infected animals and those in contact with them.
§ I am quite ready to agree that up to the present moment that is absolutely necessary, but then Mr. Elliot went on to 971 say that the only alternative to slaughter in existing conditions was a policy of isolation and treatment. I think all of us who know anything about this matter are agreed that it is entirely out of the question, except in very rare cases indeed, to have isolation, and that slaughter is necessary. But the Minister of Agriculture says that there is practically no alternative. I want to impress upon the noble Earl who represents the Ministry that something might be done on the lines that are followed in the United States and Canada. The noble Earl has previously informed me that there is power for the Minister to prohibit the import into this country of straw or hay used as packing. He informs me that it is always burnt after it has come here, but I should have thought it was very difficult to make certain, taking the country as a whole. For instance, I do not think the noble Earl will tell me that the straw envelopes, in which large quantities of wine are brought over from France and other parts of Europe into this country, are burnt afterwards. That is not my experience. These straw envelopes are usually simply thrown away, and it would be very difficult to insist that every one who has wine coming over in that way should burn the straw envelopes. I doubt very much whether it would be possible to carry out such a regulation.
§ What happens in the case of the United States and Canada? They lay it down that no hay or straw used for packing purposes for goods coming into those countries will be allowed unless a certificate has been given by a medical officer of health or a veterinary officer that that hay or straw has been properly disinfected before it was used for packing purposes. That seems to me to be what we do not do in this country, and such a system might help to prevent infection from being carried by hay or straw. So far as the Channel Islands are concerned, I understand that, after the last outbreak that occurred there, they positively said that it was due to straw packing that arrived with some furniture. New Zealand is even more stringent than Canada or the United States, for it absolutely prohibits the packing of goods arriving from Europe in hay or straw. The only exception they make is that in the case of Great 972 Britain and Ireland they allow such goods to come in if a certificate has been given, either by a medical officer of health or by a veterinary inspector of the country from which the goods come, stating that it has been disinfected.
§ There may be difficulties about the matter, but still it seems to me desirable to have more stringent provisions than we have. I know that in the old days the argument used to be advanced that it would interfere with trade, but I do not suppose the noble Earl will say that to-day; he will be inclined rather to say that all necessary precautions have been taken. In my Motion I have suggested that there might be some other imports which might cause infection. When one observes that in the United States and Canada they have no foot-and-mouth disease at all, one is inclined to say that if they have been successful in keeping it out why should not we be equally successful? In fact, being an island, we ought to be able to do it more easily. Certainly, New Zealand has been successful, because it has never had any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I do not wish to make any attack on the Ministry of Agriculture. I am perfectly certain that they are as anxious as anybody to keep out foot-and-mouth disease, but I can assure the noble Earl that in the West of England the feeling is very strong indeed that something more should be done to prevent these outbreaks which do so much damage. I beg to move.
§ Moved to resolve, That in view of the recent serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Dorset, it is desirable that the Minister of Agriculture should have power to prohibit the introduction of hay and straw or other imports into Great Britain from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is known to exist.—(Lord Strachie.)
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very important question, and he certainly has not exaggerated the cost of this disease to the State, to the farmers whose herds suffer, and indeed to their neighbours who have the movements of their stock restricted. He has referred to the amount of disease that there is in this country, but I think if he compares our figures with the figures on the Continent, 973 he will realise that the incidence of foot-and-mouth disease in this country is really extraordinarily slight; indeed, it is so slight that there is never an outbreak that is not fully reported in the Press. That is one reason, I think, why the disease always seems to be so prevalent in this country The noble Lord has referred particularly to the case of Dorset, and he referred to the number of cases and extent to which the disease had spread down there. It is almost certain that the main reason why it spread so much in that area was the lateness of the notification of the disease, and I can assure the noble Lord we are taking active proceedings to deal with that matter. He asked me whether it was the case that there was one floek—I think of Dorset horns—that had been isolated. I can tell him there has been no isolation down there at all.
The noble Lord has asked me to deal with the possibilitity of infection coming over here in imports of hay and straw particularly, though he has mentioned the subject of imports generally. It might interest your Lordships to know the steps that His Majesty's Government take with regard to this matter. With regard to live animals, your Lordships are aware of the fact that all imports are prohibited from infected countries. With regard to carcases and other animal products, the Importation of Carcases Order, 1920, forbids the import of fresh carcases from Europe. At His Majesty's Government's request, the Governments of South American countries have prohibited the export to Great Britain of carcases from any herds affected with foot-and-mouth disease, and there is a most carefully administered system of inspection at the meat works which has been repeatedly checked and which we are satisfied is carried out in full. Then we come to feeding stuffs. That is an item into which we look very carefully. It has been frequently suggested that infection might come in imported feeding stuffs, but from all our investigations this looks as though it is most unlikely. We have carried out our investigations, particularly in Scotland, where unexplained outbreaks are very few but where the amount of imported feeding stuffs is high.
Then there is the question to which the noble Lord specifically alluded—namely, hay and straw and other packing materials. With regard to foreign hay 974 and straw, that was dealt with by an Order in 1912 by which imports of hay and straw for either fodder or litter from infected countries are specifically prohibited. With regard to hay and straw used for packing purposes, that, as the noble Lord has already said, has to be destroyed. The noble Lord has referred to the difficulty of checking that particular Order. I quite agree with the noble Lord that that must be an extremely difficult Order to check, and I should like to look into that matter myself before giving him any definite answer on the subject; but I might say that within the last ten years there have been only three cases in which it was even suggested that hay and straw might have been implicated, and in every single one of these cases we were unable to establish any proof that that was so.
We come next to another kind of import that is frequently suggested as a source of infection—namely, vegetables and fruit. There again in the last ten years there have been only five cases in which these particular commodities have been subject to suspicion, and again no proof could be established. Then, of course, there is the old suggestion that the disease might come over by means of migrating birds. I think your Lordships are aware that that has been very thoroughly investigated, and it is certainly interesting to note that there is no regular correspondence at all between initial outbreaks and the migratory seasons. We should certainly expect Scotland and Ireland to be particularly subject to foot-and-mouth disease if that were the case, and that is not so. Lastly we come to the Wrapping Materials Order, 1932, which deals with wrapping materials for meat. It has been frequently suggested that these wrapping materials might be responsible. In 1932 the Government took action and laid it down that the wrappers for meat from infected countries should be striped with red, and that they should not be allowed to come into contact with animals, and further that no meat wrappers should come into contact with animals until sterilised.
I am afraid, as is usual with questions regarding the source of foot-and-mouth disease, that my answer is inconclusive. The fact of the matter is, with regard to all these outbreaks that we have—incidentally, as I say, far fewer than 975 your Lordships may probably realise—that there is a great variety of causes, and never has it been possible to trace the infection to any one source. There is, however, at the present moment a Committee sitting, the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Arkwright, of the Lister Institute, who is also a member of the Agricultural Research Council. This Committee has been asked to examine this question particularly. They have been investigating the general question of establishing immunity, and that, after all, is the solution at which we should all hope to arrive; but in the meanwhile we are hoping that they will very shortly issue an interim report on this question of the source of the disease. I can assure your Lordships that, if anything transpires from that investigation, His Majesty's Government will not be slow in taking up any suggestions and putting them into force.
§ LORD STRACHIEMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for going so very thoroughly into this question. In asking leave to withdraw my Motion I would remind him, as regards the question of the disease being brought in by way of imports, that during the War, when these imports did not come here, there were no outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. That shows that the disease is brought into this country in some way or other. I hope after what the noble Earl has said in his sympathetic reply to my Question, that His Majesty's Government will leave no stone unturned to investigate the matter and see if it is not possible to keep out any possible source of infection. I am sure that he and his Department realise that this is a very serious matter.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.