§ Sir A. KNOXasked 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. GUINNESSOn 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- 291W 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 292W
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.