§ Mr. Maxwellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why licences are still being issued for Olney Cattle Market to take place, although this is now an infected area.
§ Mr. PeartIt is desirable that fatstock in infected areas should be slaughtered as soon as possible. The advantage of licensing fatstock markets is that it ensures veterinary supervision, disinfection of vehicles and enables the presence of disease to be detected.
§ Sir J. Gilmourasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether 419W he is satisfied that there are, and will be, sufficient stocks of disinfectant material for all farmers who so decide to be able to implement his recommendation for taking disinfectant precautions at the farm gate as a means of minimising the spread of foot-and-mouth disease; and if he will make a statement.
§ Viscount Lambtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any of his officers were present at the burial of cattle imported from abroad and made unfit to be eaten by the dock strike in the North-West; and what disinfectant precautions were insisted on by his Departmental officials.
§ Mr. PeartNeither I nor the local authorities responsible for the disposal of unfit meat, whom I have consulted, have been able to trace any such incident, but if the hon. Member will give me further particulars I will look into them.
§ Mr. Bishopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken in Nottinghamshire to limit the use of footpaths and restrict access by pedestrians on farm land where it is considered desirable in the interest of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
§ Mr. PeartNottinghamshire is not in an infected area. There has been a good response to advice to keep entry on farm land to the minimum.
§ Mr. Templeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will institute an inquiry into the problems of providing compensation to organisations who have had their activities stopped or curtailed due to instructions given by those controlling the foot-and-mouth diseases outbreak.
§ Mr. PeartThe problems of providing compensation for losses consequential on an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease were considered by the report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into Foot and Mouth Disease, 1952–54. They recommended that compensation should only be paid for animals slaughtered. This has since been extended to give compensation for materials destroyed in order420W to prevent the spread of disease. I regret that it would not be practicable for the Government to undertake to pay compensation for consequential losses as a result of the epidemic.
§ Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will take power to prevent entry on farms where this may cause a risk of spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
§ Mr. PeartYes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have made the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Temporary Restrictions) Order 1967 under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, empowering us to serve notices prohibiting entry on agricultural land or adjoining land where we consider it necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
The public have responded with full understanding to our appeals to keep out of infected areas, not to go needlessly on farmland anywhere, and not to do so in any case without the farmer's consent. Many events involving movements and gatherings of people which lead to contacts with infected areas or with farm stock have been curtailed or cancelled. Many people have suffered financial loss as a result and others have gone without their usual sports and pleasures. We thank all concerned for their co-operation.
We do not wish or expect to make any wide use of our powers under the new Order, which will cease to operate on 31st March, 1968, unless extended by a further Order, and is meant only to enable us to deal with the small minority of individual cases where there may be no other way of preventing entry on to farm land or adjoining land in circumstances which may present a risk of spreading the disease.
The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1928 prohibits entry on an infected farm without a permit and this prohibition is unaffected by the new Order.
§ Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out in detail the known causes of foot-and-mouth outbreaks over the last 10 years, the number of cattle, sheep and pigs slaughtered in each of these outbreaks; and how much has been paid in compensation.
421W
§ Mr. PeartThe information is not readily accessible in the form the hon. Member requires.
The origin of any outbreak can be assessed only on circumstantial evidence. Since 1954, up to but not including the last outbreak, primary outbreaks have been attributed to the following causes:
Percent Continent (Birds) 46 (25) Swill 36 (20) Contact with imported meat and bones (other than swill) 54 (30) Escape from Research Institute 1 Unknown origin but possible contact with swill, etc. 11 (6) Origin completely obscure 31 (17) The number of cattle, sheep and pigs slaughtered in calendar years for the last ten years, excluding 1967 are:—
Year Cattle Sheep Pigs Goats 1957 11,284 12,885 6,221 20 1958 9,529 2,442 8,008 24 1959 2,251 2,284 3,179 3 1960 26,045 32,493 12,031 24 1961 7,078 9,813 8,149 9 1962 371 273 308 — 1963 — — — — 1964 — — — — 1965 154 — — — 1966 5,964 38,607 718 2 The amount of compensation paid for the last ten financial years is:—
£ 1957–58 880,586 1958–59 869,553 1959–60 225,370 1960–61 2,120,745 1961–62 679,540 1962–63 26,869 1963–64 — 1964–65 — 1965–66 18,299 1966–67 932,786
§ Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has declined to give to interested parties and authorities details of the Butyl road bath which is a more effective method of decontaminating vehicles and pedestrians than the straw beds used at present.
§ Mr. PeartI am not aware of having declined any requests for information, but it is for manufacturers to publicise their products.