FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE. (Hansard, 12 April 1938)

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

My Lords, I understand that this is the first occasion on which the noble Lord has addressed your Lordships, and I am sure it would be the wish of this House that I should convey to him an expression of our pleasure that he is participating in our debates. I hope that the noble Lord, who farms on an extensive scale, like many others of your Lordships' House, will provide us with the benefit of his farming experience on future occasions when agricultural matters are under discussion. There will be some, I expect, in this House who will recall the time when the noble Lord's grandfather, Lord Carrington as he then was, was President of the Board of Agriculture as it was then termed, and your Lordships will appreciate the fact that my noble friend is now carrying on the tradition and engaging himself in agricultural affairs.

The noble Lord has raised a question which is of very great importance to all who are concerned with the welfare of the land. It is a disappointment that, after the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease which as your Lordships will recall began in the South-Eastern counties last October had been wiped out, this fresh series of outbreaks should have begun. Before I turn to the specific point raised in the noble Lord's Motion, 662 it may be convenient to the House if I explain the character of the present outbreak and the reason for the somewhat drastic measure which we have taken to cope with it—a measure which we hope will crush this epidemic in its early stages. In the first place I ought to explain that the outbreaks which began on March 25 have, so far as we can see, no connection whatsoever with the last epidemic. As your Lordships are aware, several different types of the disease exist, but there are indications that the present epidemic is not concerned with the type of the disease with which we have been engaged during the course of the last autumn and winter; at any rate the disease in its present form appears to take a longer time to show its presence in the animal. Another difference is that in the last epidemic the series of outbreaks appeared simultaneously over many parts of the country. The disease arrived without warning and without evidence of definite centres from which it was spread, and this led us to connect that epidemic with the migration of birds from the Continent which was going on at that time. In this case, although outbreaks have again occurred at widely separated places, the evidence has led us to believe that infection was picked up at certain definite centres—that is, at certain important markets in the Midlands, markets which taken together distribute stock over the greater part of the country.

Taken together then, these two facts meant, first, that we have had a longer period of notice of what might happen, and secondly, that there was a possibility of such a wide distribution of the disease that there was danger of one of the worst outbreaks that this country has ever known. In those circumstances, what action were we to take? It was essential to check any further distribution of the disease by the movement of animals, and it was necessary to obtain a breathing space so that we could track down every single animal which might have been exposed to infection, and also to place under restrictions every centre of the disease which our investigations might disclose. By thus overtaking the spread of infection the danger would be largely averted and the task of eradication would be made obviously more rapid and more effective. That is why, in addition to the usual declaration of in- 663 fected areas and the restrictions within those areas, we decided that we must impose a Stand-still Order on the whole of England with the exception of certain counties in the far North and the far West. This restriction was not just a matter of red tape; it was a measure dictated by the most elementary foresight and it was a measure to meet an emergency and what might have proved to be a disaster.

We realise the inconvenience of such a measure at such a time of year. The noble Lord referred to the fact that at this time of year there was a large redistribution of cattle owing to the change of tenancies and to the necessity of buying stock in greater quantities to prepare for the grazing season; but it is indeed because of the time of year and the wide distribution of live stock that takes place now that such drastic steps had to be taken in this intermediate period until we had further information. The tracing of the animals that were exposed at the suspected markets is now proceeding as fast as possible and we hope to complete our investigations at an early date. Since April 4 when the Stand-still Order was imposed five new centres of disease have appeared. We consider that these further outbreaks have justified the imposition of the Standstill Order, but the facts so far available indicate that the actual spread of infection will not prove to be so serious as at first was anticipated. If within the next few days this view is confirmed and my right honourable friend the Minister is satisfied that the spread of the disease has been checked, we anticipate that a substantial reduction of the controlled area will be possible even if it is proved impossible entirely to withdraw the Order covering those parts which are nearest to an infected area.

I now come to the points raised by the noble Lord in his Motion with regard to the local restrictions which we impose in the case of infected areas. Roughly speaking this is what happens. As soon as the disease is suspected the owner has to inform the police. A veterinary inspector of the Ministry at once makes a diagnostic inquiry, and if he suspects foot-and-mouth disease movement out of, into or within an area of five miles round the premises is prohibited. As soon as 664 the existence of disease is confirmed, two things happen. All affected animals and all contacts must be slaughtered in order at once to stop the manufacture of the virus which is so easily and rapidly spread from animal to animal and carried by numerous mechanical means. For this slaughter policy we have the support of every competent authority and every responsible representative agricultural body in the country. Secondly, an infected area of fifteen miles round the premises is declared; movement of animals out of it is prohibited and movements and markets within the area are permitted only by licence. Vehicles used for conveying stock have to be cleaned and disinfected after use. Anyone who enters infected premises must have a special permit, and must disinfect his boots and clothes on leaving; apart from that, any owner having animals on premises in the area may prohibit unauthorised entrance on to his premises. The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, has, I understand, taken this precaution on his own farm and I believe that wide advantage is taken of this power by agriculturists generally.

These measures have been severely tested over a number of years, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that they have well stood the test. They conform fully with the recommendations of a Departmental Committee which investigated the very serious outbreaks in 1924. That Committee stated that restrictions on the movement of human beings except within the actual infected places could not be justified. We are aware that in some countries on the Continent more severe restrictions have been imposed. I understand that churches and cinemas have been closed and football matches have been prohibited. Of measures like that I would say in the first place that I am not aware that they have had any great effect. The disease is still going on in Germany and recently we have had information that it is getting worse. From March 1 to 15 there were over 25,000 outbreaks in Germany, or almost twice as many as in February, and over eighty times as many as we had in the whole of the financial year 1937–38. Secondly, it has to be remembered that on the Continent the slaughter policy, which we can adopt because we live on an island, is not practicable. That means that infection 665 is not wiped out as it is here: the manufacture of the virus goes on unchecked. In those circumstances it is hardly surprising that even more severe restrictions on movement should be advocated.

As regards one or two of the particular measures which my noble friend advocates, I would suggest to him that they might not be so effective as he thinks and that they might even make the position worse. You may close down your parish life, but you cannot close down the life of your birds, your ground game, your rodents and other vermin. There are many who think that children are less likely to carry infection from farm to farm or from field to field if they merely move across the accepted footpaths and highways to and from school than if they are turned loose to wander about the countryside for the greater part of the day. As regards footpaths, the inspectors are already empowered to prohibit their use by serving a notice on the occupier. These powers are exercised in relation to infected places and on neighbouring premises where there seems to be any risk in allowing the use of footpaths to be continued. In short, the present regulations, necessary as they are, already cause sufficient loss and inconvenience. They represent what is practicable in this country, and making comparison of the outbreaks of the disease in this country with the outbreaks on the Continent, I think your Lordships will unanimously agree that they are effective. The Government would prefer to rely upon these existing precautions, on the powers which owners have of keeping people off their premises and on the slaughter policy which strangles the disease at its birth, rather than on measures the inconvenience of which would outweigh any possible advantage which might be derived from them.

The noble Lord at the conclusion of his remarks made reference to consequential losses that were sustained by an occupier and were not covered by actual insurance. I understand that, although no policy of insurance under State management has been inaugurated, certain insurance companies—one, if not more—accept business of this character and that therefore a farmer can take measures to compensate himself over and above the compensation that is provided by the State. Having referred in par- 666 ticular to the suggestions made by the noble Lord and intimated that for practical reasons it may be impossible to implement them, I would wish to add that during the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease of the last six or eight months the work of the inspectors at the Ministry has been very greatly facilitated and aided by the co-operation of the farming community in the notification of the disease at the very earliest moment. It would be proper for me in discussing the dangers of this disease to pay tribute not only to the noble Lord, a member of this House, who has shown us the steps that he has privately taken to safeguard his own area, but also to those members of the general farming community who have followed his example and are taking similar measures in many cases to eliminate the risk which we must admit at the moment is a formidable one, although we trust that within a matter of only a few days it will appear less formidable than at present.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, as I have just indicated, it was thought that the outbreak which occurred in the autumn and winter, and which started in East Anglia and eventually found its way to the West, to the Counties of Wilts and Somerset, was connected with the migratory birds which first landed on the East Coast and in the course of their usual flight went West. The Research Committee which has been set up to deal with foot-and-mouth disease has had much evidence submitted to it on that count, and it is thought that in particular the starlings might be the means of carrying the virus; but up to the present I have no particular information that leads me to think that this evidence which has been supplied during the winter carries any conclusive proof. I would wish to make it clear, however, that the present outbreak is not connected with that former outbreak, and that there is no evidence up to the present to show that the spread of the disease is due to the flight of migratory birds more than to the movements of any ruminating animal. The danger of the disease at the moment lies in the fact that a large 667 number of sheep—infected stock—were sold in Banbury Market and went in the normal course of marketing operations to all parts of England, except the Counties of Durham, Northumberland, Westmorland, Cumberland, Devon and Cornwall.