HC Deb 29 November 1927 vol 211 cc290-2W
Sir A. KNOX

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the conflict of opinion between the Government veterinary surgeon and the local veterinary surgeon engaged in the recent alleged outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Slough district, he will make a statement on the case?

Mr. GUINNESS

On 8th November, foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed on the premises of a retail and wholesale butcher at Windsor, who, in the course of his business visited a large number of premises to purchase animals. This butcher on 4th November visited the premises of a farmer at Slough, Buckinghamshire, to buy some sheep. As the butcher might have conveyed infection from his own infected stock to those of the farmer, and also because the latter had applied for a licence to move stock, a veterinary inspector visited the farmer's premises on 9th November, and noticed that a number of the sheep were lame, three of which in addition to foot rot, showed lesions which were suspiciously like those found in the early stages of foot-and-mouth disease.

The inspector reported his suspicions to the Ministry and asked that a more senior inspector should be sent to examine the sheep. Accordingly an inspector was sent who had had great experience of foot-and-mouth disease when working under the Foot-and-Mouth Research Com- mittee, and also when dealing with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which have occurred in recent years. This second inspector reported that he thought the sheep were affected with foot-and-mouth disease but the lesions were not sufficiently definite to justify a positive diagnosis.

The following day, 10th November, the two inspectors again visited the sheep, and found that in the meantime the disease had progressed and there were lesions present which were clearly those of foot-and-mouth disease. They reported their diagnosis to the chief veterinary officers of the Ministry in London, who had no hesitation in accepting it.

The veterinary surgeon who disputed this diagnosis saw the sheep on 9th November only, when the Ministry's inspectors reported that the lesions on the feet of the sheep were suspicious but not conclusive evidence of disease. Had this

Ships laid down or complete in Private Shipyards during the financial years 1924, 1925 and 1926, awl the expenditure on them in each of these financial years
Ship Builder. Date Expenditure
Laid down Completed. 1924. 1925. 1926.
1924. £ £ £
Berwick Fairfield Sept., 1924 267,239 571,345 693,274
Cumberland. Vickers Oct., 1924 202,907 625,404 623,161
Amazon Thorney croft Jan., 1925 39,231 164,916 84,253
Ambuscade Yarrow Dec., 1924 66,312 167,623 68,795
575,689 1,529,288 1,469,483
1925.
Gannet Yarrow March, 1926 10,320 32,011
Peterel Yarrow March, 1926 10,321 38,314
20,641 70,325
1926.
Shropshire Beardmore Feb., 1927 49,215 352,429
Sussex Hawthorne Leslie Feb., 1927 65,846 558,260
Seamew Yarrow April, 1926 6,167 23,606
Tern Yarrow April, 1926 6,167 35,563
127,395 969,858

Ships building during financial years, 1924, 1925 and 1926, which were laid down before 1924 and completed after 1926.
Contract.
Nelson Armstrong Dec., 1922 1,516,192 1,099,295 692,212
Rodney Cammell Laird Dec., 1922 1,417,404 1,215,322 735,313
Dockyard.
Adventure Devonport Nov., 1922 145,910 224,755 388,138
Oberon Chatham March, 1924 109,919 194,387 259,121

veterinary surgeon seen the sheep again on 10th November, when characteristic vesicles of foot-and-mouth disease were present in the mouths of the sheep in addition to the lesions on the feet, which were alone present on the 9th, he would have had no difficulty in recognising the disease.