REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

1968

PART TWO

Presented to Parliament by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

By Command of Her Majesty

December 1969

LONDON

HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE

12s. 6d. [62=p] net

Cmnd. 4225

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

MINUTE OF APPOINTMENT

I hereby appoint

The Duke of Northumberland, K.G.,T.D., J.P.

A. Cripps, Esq., D.S.O., T.D., Q.C.

Professor D. G. Evans, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.C.Path., F.R.S.

C. H. Plumb, Esq.

Sir Edward Thompson, M.B.E., T.D.

Professor D. Walker, M.A.

Professor Sir William L. Weipers, B.Sc., F.R.C.V.S., D.V.S.M.,

F.R.S.E

to be a Committee to review the policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and to make recommendations.

I further appoint the Duke of Northumberland to be Chairman of the

Committee and Mr. J. N. Jotcham to be Secretary, and Mrs. M. D. White to

be Assistant Secretary of the Committee.

(Sgd.) FREDERICK PEART

Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

28th February, 1968.

In addition to the above I hereby appoint

E. L. Thomas, Esq., L.L.B., J.P.

to be an additional member of the Committee.

(Sgd.) CLEDWYN HUGHES

Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

22nd April, 1968.

Professor D. G. Evans was awarded the C.B.E. in the Birthday Honours List, 1969.

2

PART II OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF

INQUIRY ON FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

To the Rt. Hon. CLEDWYN HUGHES, M.P.

Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

SIR,

We were appointed on 28th February, 1968:>

“to review the policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and to make recommendations”.

On 7th March, 1969 we presented Part I of our Report (Cmnd. 3999). This dealt with aspects of our inquiry to which we felt it was right to give priority namely, the ways by which the risk of the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease virus into Great Britain, and the risk of future epidemics, might be reduced. The Committee welcomed your general acceptance of their recommendations and your subsequent announcement in regard to changes in import policy with effect from 1st October, 1969 which have established the conditions which all but one member of the Committee (Anthony Cripps, Q.C.) considered necessary for the adoption of a policy which relies on the slaughter policy. The decision to report in two stages arose from our desire to make our main recommendations on policy matters as soon as possible and not to delay until we could complete a lengthy examination of matters of detailed procedure if outbreaks occur. We now submit Part II of our Report. This reviews the arrangements for controlling outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain. It deals with such matters as organisation, administration, procedures relating to slaughter and disposal of carcases, sanitary controls and valuation. Adequate arrangements in relation to these are an essential component of a slaughter policy if the spread of disease from a primary introduction is to be controlled. The 1967/1968 epidemic brought to light weaknesses in the existing provisions designed to control the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Your Department, rightly in our view, introduced many modifications during the course of the epidemic either by temporary Order or on a voluntary basis, and considered that some of these should be included permanently in control Orders as soon as possible since they would be of great immediate importance in the event of another epidemic. The Committee agreed that important amendments should not await the completion of this Report and that some changes should be made without delay; these were introduced on 20th October, 1969. The scope of the amending Orders is given in Appendix VII; generally, these changes had our support but some of them may require further amendment if the relevant recommendations in this Report are accepted. Our recommendations include a number of proposals which we are aware your Department are considering as a result of the experience gained during the course of the 1967/1968 epidemic.

Since we submitted the first part of our Report we have held a further nineteen meetings in this country. We have revisited Chester in order to talk to farmers from the surrounding counties, particularly those who actually experienced foot-and-mouth disease on their farms during the 1967/1968 epidemic as well

as others who were involved. Some of us have visited divisional veterinary offices of your Department to discuss the arrangements for controlling the disease in the field with those directly responsible. We also visited the Animal Health Division of the Ministry at Tolworth, and the Press and Broadcasting Branch in London.

Many of the witnesses listed in Part I of our Report submitted evidence which was relevant to both Part I and to Part II. We would like to thank them again for the trouble they have taken in providing us with evidence and for answering our questions, and to extend our appreciation to those who have given us evidence since the completion of the first part of our Report. Appendix I lists all those persons and bodies who have given us evidence, whether for Part I or for Part II.

We also record our appreciation of the full assistance we received from officials of your Ministry, not only in the detailed preparation of very numerous papers for our consideration but also in the lengthy discussions we have had with them. We were impressed by their objective approach and constructive contributions throughout the inquiry. The expert knowledge and experience of foot-and-mouth disease problems of Mr. Carnochan and Mr. Beynon, who led the Ministry team and who attended all these discussions, were invaluable to our deliberations.

Finally we express our gratitude to our Secretary Mr. Jotcham, and our Assistant Secretary Mrs. White, and to the members of our secretariat for the speed and efficiency with which they have dealt with our work. Mr. Jotcham and Mrs. White have worked with us over long hours and on a number of occasions over weekends, and we are grateful to them for their unfailing co-operation, for their efficient service at all times, and for the care and attention they devoted to us on our visits overseas.

A summary of our conclusions and recommendations is given in Chapter V.

Note: The estimated cost of preparing and publishing Parts I and II of this Report is £18,637 of which £2,184 represents the estimated cost of printing and publication.

PART II OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF

INQUIRY ON FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

Chapter I	INTRODUCTION	Paragraphs 1 - 8
II	GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTROLLING OUTBREAKS OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN GREAT BRITAIN BEFORE THE 1967/1968 EPIDEMIC

		9 - 32
III	REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS	33
	(a) Initial Reporting and Diagnosis of the Disease	34 – 36
	(b) Administrative Arrangements	37 – 46
	(c) Recruitment to the Veterinary Field Service	47
	(d) Infected Areas
	(i) Definition and size	48 – 50
	(ii) Restriction on movements of animals, animal Products and people
		51 – 80
	(iii) Housing of livestock	81
	(iv) Restocking	82
	(v) Control of rats and foxes	83 – 84
	(vi) Disposal of dung, litter and	85
	(vii) Inspection of livestock	86
	(viii) Slaughter-houses and knacker’s yards	87
	(e) Controlled Areas
	(i) Purpose, size and definition	88 – 90
	(ii) Restriction on movement of animals	91 – 95
	(iii) Restriction on movement of people	96 – 97
	(f) Animals exposed to Infection	98
	(g) Licensing Arrangements	99 – 106
	(h) Records of Movements and Sales	107 – 108
	(i) Milk	109 – 115
	(j) Labour, Machinery and Equipment	116 – 123
	(k) Slaughter and Disposal of Carcases	124 – 130
	(l) Disinfection	131 – 142
	(m) Compensation and Associated Matters	143
	(i) Compensation and valuation	144 – 163
	(ii) Consequential loss	164 – 165
	(iii) Taxation	166 – 167
	(iv) Insurance	168 – 169
	(v) Grants and subsidies	170
	(n) Communication and Information Services	171 – 186

CONTENTS > continued

Chapter Paragraphs

	(o) Artificial Insemination	187 - 198
	(p) Swill	199 – 204
	(q) Legislation	205 – 208

IV	VOLUNTARY VACCINATION	209 – 214

V	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
	(a) Basis of Recommendations	215 – 221
	(b) Summary	222

VI	POSTSCRIPT TO PART I OF THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT
	(a) General	223
	(b) Characteristics of foot-and-mouth disease virus	224 – 227
	(c) Windborne transmission of foot-and-mouth disease Virus
	(c) Windborne transmission of foot-and-mouth disease Virus	228 – 230
	(d) Carrier state	231
	(e) New vaccines	232
	(f) Other problems	233 – 234

TABLES

page

I	Primary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease from 1954 to 24th October, 1967 grouped according to number of associated secondary outbreaks

		10

II	Extent and duration of Controlled Areas in Great Britain in the period 1954 to 24th October, 1967
		16 - 17

III	Period between confirmation of foot-and-mouth disease and completion of slaughter in outbreaks from 25th October to 31st December, 1967

		24

IV	Period between completion of slaughter and disposal of Carcases in a sample of outbreaks from 25th October to 31st December, 1967

		54 - 55

FIGURES

I	Chart showing the structure of a region of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
		19

II	Recommended organization in a control center	29

MAPS

I	The Ministry of Agriculture’s regional boundaries and its regional offices and sub-regional centers, divisional and area offices and divisional veterinary offices in England and Wales


		21

II	Veterinary regions, regional veterinary headquarters and Divisional veterinary offices in Scotland; area offices of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

		22

III	Map illustrating the identification of an Infected Place and the broad delineation of a part of the country in which an Infected Area has been declared, by means of National Grid references


		32

IV	Average livestock densities per 100 acres in sectors radiating from the first outbreak in the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic

		98

V	Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the Cheshire Plain during the first three weeks of the 1967/1968 epidemic
		99

APPENDICES I	List of those who have given written and oral evidence	101 - 115

II	Summary of Infected Area and Controlled Area restrictions in force before the 1967/1968 epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease

		116 - 120

III	Extracts from the milk code of practice as prepared in 1969 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
		121 - 129

IV	A possible scheme for supplementary compensation and valuation in extraordinary circumstances
		130

V	Veterinary control of artificial insemination	131

VI	Legislation under the Disease of Animals Act, 1950 relating to the control of foot-and-mouth disease
		132 - 133

VII	Amending Orders made on 7th October, 1969, coming into operation on 20th October, 1969
		134 - 135

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Part I of our Report dealt with measures designed to reduce the incidence of primary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and the risks of such outbreaks giving rise to epidemics; it also dealt with research and epidemiological studies including the use of epidemiological teams in the field. It did not cover the arrangements for dealing with outbreaks of the disease and these are the subject of Part II which deals with such matters as organization, administration, procedures relating to slaughter and disposal of carcases, sanitary controls, compensation and valuation. Our recommendations on these matters result from a study of the accumulated experience of controlling foot-and-mouth disease and of the results of research work on epidemiology since the Gowers Committee reported in 1954*. These recommendations would be equally necessary and applicable if it became necessary to reinforce the slaughter policy by a ring vaccination scheme.

2. The bulk of the evidence we received related to the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic which began with an outbreak on a farm near Oswestry, Shropshire, on 25th October, 1967. The last outbreak in the epidemic occurred on 4th June, 1968 by which time there had been 2,364 outbreaks on 2,346 farms, eighteen of which were infected on two occasions. The total number of livestock slaughtered during the epidemic was 433,987, comprising 211,825 cattle, 113,766 pigs, 108,345 sheep and 51 goats. The epidemic tested the standing arrangements for the control of the disease in this country to an unprecedented extent; it revealed some evident weaknesses and we make recommendations as to how these could be remedied. 3. The acceptance of the recommendations in Part I of our Report will in our view reduce the risk of introducing the foot-and-mouth disease virus into Great Britain. Nevertheless we cannot afford to be complacent; the virus could still be introduced and if stringent measures are not taken to guard against spread, an epidemic could follow. 4. We consider that the organization, administration and sanitary controls should be designed not only to deal effectively with an isolated primary outbreak and small numbers of secondary outbreaks, but also to be capable of rapid and smooth expansion to deal with an epidemic.

5. Table I relates to the primary outbreaks that have occurred in Great Britain since 1954. They are grouped according to the number of secondary outbreaks to which they gave rise. This table does not include the 1967/1968 series of outbreaks because it was impossible on that occasion to identify the number of primary outbreaks. The table shows that over half the primary outbreaks were isolated incidents and that a substantial percentage of the remainder gave rise to only a small number of secondary outbreaks; thus 55 per cent of primaries did not give rise to spread and 88 per cent gave rise to less than six secondaries.

TABLE I

Primary Outbreaks of Foot-and-Mouth Disease from 1954 to 24^th October,

1967 Grouped According to Numbers of Associated Secondary Outbreaks

Year

Primary*

Outbreaks

having no

secondary‡

outbreaks

Primary outbreaks giving rise to

the following number of

secondary outbreaks

Total

number of primary oubreaks

1-5

6-10

11-20

21-50

Over 50

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967 (to

24th October)

1 (67)†

1(243)†

1 (61)†

Aggregates for period

1954 to 24th October,

1967 ... ... ...

179

Percentage distribution

of the total number of

primary outbreaks

*A primary outbreak is one that cannot be linked with any known source of infection in susceptible animals in Great Britain and is therefore attributed to the virus having been introduced from abroad.

‡Secondary outbreaks are those which arise from a spread of infection from primary or previous secondary outbreaks.

†Actual number of secondary outbreaks.

6. In formulating our proposals for improvements we have the benefit of hindsight, and any implied criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (the Ministry of Agriculture) which may be read into them should be regarded in that light. The great majority of our witnesses paid the warmest tributes to the unstinted labour of the Ministry’s veterinary officers and supporting staff in dealing with an extremely difficult and dangerous situation in 1967/1968, and we fully associate ourselves with those tributes.

7. Much of the evidence we received referred in detail to the present control procedures and to proposals for change. We are indebted to all our witnesses for the care and consideration with which their evidence was prepared and presented. Much of it falls within the area of pre-outbreak planning which we discuss in subsequent paragraphs.

8. Some of the problems arising from the 1967/1968 epidemic have since been investigated by the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright in collaboration with others. The results of this research are referred to in Chapter VI as a postscript to Part I of our Report.

CHAPTER II

GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTROLLING

OUTBREAKS OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN GREAT

BRITAIN BEFORE THE 1967/1968 EPIDEMIC

9. Since 1892 the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain has relied on the slaughter policy combined with sanitary measures to prevent spread. 10. The basic principles for controlling foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain are included in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 which consolidated earlier statutes; subordinate legislation prescribed in detail the measures to be taken during an outbreak, which were as follows. A standstill was immediately imposed on all movements of susceptible animals* within five miles of the premises where there was suspicion that disease was present. Immediately disease was confirmed restrictions were extended over an area of about ten miles radius from the infected premises which were referred to as the INFECTED PLACE. The extended area > referred to as an INFECTED AREA > was then defined in a special Order made under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order of 1938. Where there was a possibility that foot-and-mouth disease might have been spread widely, due to the movement of susceptible animals, movement restrictions were imposed over a wider area > a CONTROLLED AREA > by means of an Order made under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Controlled Areas Restrictions) General Order of 1938. Generally the purpose of declaring a Controlled Areas was to keep movements of susceptible animals to a minimum until any in-contact animals (animals that had been in contact with infected animals) had been traced (see paragraph 24). The Ministry of Agriculture prepared a paper, reproduced as Appendix II, summarising the rules and practices which were applied in Infected and Controlled Areas before the 1967/1968 epidemic.

Initial reporting of the disease

11. Under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1928 any person owning or in charge of an animal affected with or suspected of being affected with foot- and-mouth disease, or any veterinarian examining such an animal, was required to report the fact without delay to the local police who would immediately inform the Ministry of Agriculture. At the same time the police were required to inform an animal health inspector of the local authority, and it was very often the case that they would themselves be acting in this capacity. (Sometimes a local authority appointed members of its own staff for this work—see paragraph 102.) The inspector served notice on the occupier of the premises concerned prohibiting until further notice all movements of people, susceptible animals or materials onto or off those premises except under licence.

12. The Divisional Veterinary Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture’s county office or his deputy examined the animals as soon as possible and reported to the Ministry’s Veterinary Headquarters at Tolworth, Surrey by telephone. If

foot-and-mouth disease was suspected, even though it was necessary to await the outcome of laboratory tests or further clinical examinations, a standstill was imposed on movements of susceptible animals out of, into, and on any roads within an area of five miles radius from the premises where the disease was suspected. When the disease was confirmed by Veterinary Headquarters at Tolworth the radius of the area of control was extended from five to ten miles and headquarters arranged for an area of approximately the same size to be formally declared an Infected Area by a special Order made under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order, 1938. The Order defined the Infected Area by reference to boroughs, petty sessional divisions and parishes. Sometimes physical features such as railways, rivers and roads were used if the other references were unsuitable for identifying the area.

13. The Ministry of Agriculture have encouraged veterinarians in private practice to consult the Ministry’s divisional veterinary officers and to discuss any case they meet in practice with symptoms which suggest foot-and-mouth disease. Thus when a veterinarian in private practice encountered such a case in the course of his work he informed the Ministry’s Divisional Veterinary Officer who arranged for an urgent examination of the animal in consultation with the veterinarian. A Notice restricting movements onto and off the premises was not served but the basic requirement of this consultation procedure was that the veterinarian would remain on the farm and await the arrival of the Ministry’s Divisional Veterinary Officer. If the veterinarian was unable to do this the case was dealt with as a suspected outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the police were informed in the usual way.

Action on the Infected Place

14. When foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed on a farm the Ministry’s veterinary officer in charge arranged for all the farm entrances to be closed, and for a police officer to guard the gate to prevent any unauthorised entry or exit of susceptible animals, people, materials and vehicles. The veterinary officer also arranged for notices to be displayed for the prohibition of entry, for the closure of foot-paths, for the disinfection of people and vehicles at the farm’s entrances and for the destruction of rats. The occupier was required to confine all cats, dogs and poultry.

15. If there was likely to be delay in obtaining the services of a valuer the Ministry’s veterinary officers were authorised to value and slaughter affected animals and their immediate contacts for which immediate slaughter was essential. Other susceptible animals on the infected premises were slaughtered as soon as possible after they had been valued by a valuer appointed to act on behalf of the Ministry. This valuer was selected from an approval list by the veterinary officer in charge; the owner’s views were taken into account in making the selection. If there were pedigree stock to be slaughtered a specialist valuer might be called in. A written statement of the valuation of the stock was presented to the owner, who had fourteen days to decide whether he wished to dispute the valuation. If he did not appeal, payment was made in full at the end of the fourteen days; if he disputed the valuation an interim payment was made pending final settlement by an independent arbitrator.

16. The carcases of the slaughtered animals were disposed of on the infected premises either by burial or by cremation where burial was not possible. Pre-

liminary cleansing and disinfection and the destruction of contaminated fodder and similar materials began as soon as the disease was confirmed. A more thorough cleansing and disinfection of the premises was carried out after slaughter had been completed.

Markets and slaughter-houses

17. The consequences of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in a market or a slaughter-house were serious; there could have been a wide-spread distri- bution of susceptible in-contact animals or infected carcases before the disease was discovered and steps had to be taken to meet this situation (see paragraph 24). Any susceptible animals remaining in a market or a slaughter-house at the time of an outbreak on the premises were slaughtered and their carcases destroyed; in a slaughter-house, the carcases of any animals that might have been exposed to infection, and carcases that might have been contaminated were also destroyed.

18. The situation was also serious when disease was confirmed on premises from which animals had been moved within the preceding few days to a market or slaughter-house. The risk of spread as the result of movements of susceptible in-contact animals or the distribution of contaminated carcases was present and this necessitated tracing. In the case of movement to a market, if the risk were considered high then it would have been necessary to slaughter the in-contact animals and impose a standstill on further movement of all other animals in or already dispersed from the market. On the other hand if there were considered to be little risk, then all such animals would have been subject to severe restrictions on movement. In any event the animals would have undergone regular veterinary inspection until the danger period had passed. Where a slaughter-house was involved the carcases of in-contact animals were destroyed; dressed carcases might also have been destroyed. An important consideration in either case was whether the contact with infected animals was direct or tenuous; the more remote the contact the less drastic the precautions necessary. Such decisions were taken by Veterinary Headquarters at Tolworth on the basis of a detailed discussion with the Ministry’s veterinary officer dealing with the outbreak.

Setting up a foot-and-mouth disease control centre

19. Immediately foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed a control centre was set up in premises within a few miles of the outbreak and the Ministry’s Regional Veterinary Officer for the region concerned, or his deputy, took charge of the control measures. These were directed from the control centre from which information and advice to the local community was also issued. Ministry veterinary officers working at the control centre maintained close liaison with local and public utility authorities, the police, the Milk Marketing Board, local creameries and artificial insemination centers, slaughter-houses and other interests whose activities were affected by the imposition of foot-and-mouth disease restrictions. The control centre maintained records on which payments to farmers, contractors and others were based. If the outbreak spread, other control centres were sometimes set up under the command of the appropriate regional veterinary officer.

20. Control centres were very often located at police stations or in Civil Defence Corps premises. This Corps has now been disbanded and many of its premises and the facilities they provided are no longer available.

Restrictions on markets and movements in Infected Areas

21. The special Order declaring an Infected Area imposed certain movement restrictions within approximately ten miles radius from the Infected Place. Copies of the Order were circulated to the police and to local authorities who were responsible for enforcing restrictions required under the provisions of the Order. Other organisations whose interests were affected by the Order were also informed. In the Infected Area no movement of susceptible animals was allowed without a licence, and their movement out of the Area was prohibited. Licences were issued by the Ministry of Agriculture for movements of susceptible animals within two miles of an Infected Place but these were only granted in exceptional circumstances; the appropriate local authority licensed any movement elsewhere in the Infected Area. Besides restricting the movement of susceptible animals, the Order prohibited markets in the Infected Area. Licences were however granted to permit the sale at a market of susceptible animals intended for immediate slaughter in the same Infected Area provided that the market was at least five miles away from any Infected Place and was under veterinary supervision. The Order also provided for other precautionary measures to be taken to prevent the spread of the disease, and these are set out in Appendix II.

22. Veterinary officers of the Ministry patrolled and inspected all susceptible animals within a two mile radius of the Infected Place and advised farmers on the precautions they should take against spread of foot-and-mouth disease. As stock on contiguous farms were particularly at risk, owners were served with a Notice prohibiting the movement of susceptible animals.

23. Artificial insemination services were suspended in an Infected Area until authority was given by the Ministry’s veterinary officer in charge of the control centre for them to be resumed. This was usually granted three to seven days after the last outbreak for farms more than five miles from the Infected Place; a week later for those between two and five miles from the Infected Place and after not less than three weeks for farms within two miles of infected premises.

Other control measures

24. Simultaneously with the action taken on the Infected Place and in the Infected Area other urgent action was taken by the Ministry of Agriculture to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. One of the first duties of the Ministry’s veterinary staff was to trace the movement of susceptible animals, people and things that had been on the infected premises during the danger period when the affected animals could have been incubating the disease and excreting the virus before the appearance of clinical signs. Arrangements were made for the cleansing and disinfection of vehicles, clothing and other materials that had been exposed to possible contamination. When susceptible in-contact animals were traced movement restrictions were imposed on all susceptible animals on the premises. If the animals that were traced had been in contact with infection more than three days previously they were placed under close observation to establish whether or not they had been infected and whether it was necessary to extend the tracing to an investigation of their contacts.

During this time the animals under suspicion were kept separate from the rest of the stock on the holding unless it was impossible to do so. If the traced animals had been in contact with infection three days previously they were either slaughtered or isolated and placed under close observation, depending on the circumstances at the time. If they had been in contact with infection less than three days previously, they were slaughtered because even if they had been infected, they would not have been excreting virus so soon afterwards and they could not have infected any other susceptible animals.

25. Sometimes it was necessary to impose movement restrictions over a much wider area than the Infected Area round the outbreak. As already indicated these wider areas were called Controlled Areas within which movements of susceptible animals were not permitted without a licence form the appropriate local authority. Markets for the sale of store animals, that is animals, not intended for immediate slaughter, were prohibited; fatstock markets and sales were only allowed if licensed. The scope of these restrictions is set out in Appendix II. If suspected in-contact animals had to be traced and had been widely dispersed, such movement restrictions were usually imposed. Controlled Area restrictions sometimes covered a very large area and usually at least an entire county; thus the boundaries were easily identifiable. Table II shows the extent and duration of Controlled Areas that were applied from 1954 to 24th October, 1967.

Removal of restrictions

26. Restrictions were gradually eased on the Infected Place by allowing, under licence, the movement of people and materials particularly after cleansing and disinfection had been completed. In single outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, the Notice served on the owner of the Infected Place restricting the movement of persons and susceptible animals was withdrawn 28 days after completion of cleansing and disinfection or 42 days after slaughter whichever was the earlier. Where a number of outbreaks occurred in close proximity these periods related to the last local case. Restocking was generally allowed after the original restriction notice had been withdrawn.

27. In the case of an isolated outbreak, the Infected Area was reduced to a radius of five miles fourteen days after confirmation of the outbreak. If, within the following seven days, there were no further outbreaks, the special Order declaring the Infected Area was revoked and all restrictions were removed. When a number of outbreaks occurred in one locality the restrictions were kept in force for the respective number of days after the last case in the area.

28. Controlled Area restrictions were usually removed as soon as all in-contact animals had been located and either slaughtered or placed under restrictions and observation. As a consequence the imposition of Controlled Area restrictions was usually of comparatively short duration.

Organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

29. Responsibility for general policy on foot-and-mouth disease is shared between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland but the former has exercised sole responsibility for the application in Great Britain of the control procedures described in the preceding paragraphs.

TABLE II

Extent and Duration of Controlled Areas in Great Britain in the Period

1954 to 24th October, 1967

Year	Extent (Counties except where otherwise stated)	Duration (Days)
1954	0	0
1955	0	0
1956	0	0
1957	Berkshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight and Wiltshire, The Landing Place * at Southampton was excluded	6
1958	0	0
1959	(a) Gloucestershire (including the City and county Borough of Bristol). (b) Lecestershire	10 10
1960	(a) Essex, Norfolk, East Suffolk and West Suffolk (b) Durham, Northumberland, East Riding of Yorkshire and North Riding of Yorkshire. (c) Aberdeen, Angus, Banff, Kincardine, Moray and Nairn (d) Ayr, Berwick, Bute, Clackmannan, Dumfries, Dunbarton, East Lothian, Fife, Kinross, Kirkcubright, Lanark, Mid- lothian, Peebles, Perth, Renfrew, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Stirling, west lothian and Wigtown. So much of the counties of Argyll and Inverness as lie to the south and east of the Moray Firth, Caledonian Canal, Loch Linnhe and Firth of Lorne, but including the whole of the Burgh of Inverness. . (e) Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough, Leciestershire, Lincolnshire (all), London, Middlesex, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Rutland, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Wor-Cestershire and West Riding of Yorkshire. (f) Orkney (g) Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Essex, Flintshire (Dispatched Part No.1) Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Hert-fordshire, Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough, Lancashire (excluding that part known as the Furness penin-sula), Leicestershire, Lincolnshire (all) London, middlesex, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, rutland, Shropshire, Staffordshire, East Suffolk, West Suffolk, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, East Riding of York-shire and West Riding of Yorkshire.	12 11 13 10 5 24 15

Table II—continued

Year	Extent (Counties except where otherwise stated)	Duration (Days)
1961	(a) Anglessey (excluding Holyhead Landing Place), Caernarvon- shire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Denbigshire, Flintshire, Lanca- shire(excluding the Heysham Landing place and that part known as the furness Peninsula), Leicestershire, Merioneth, Montgomeryshire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Stafford- shire, Warwickshire, Worestessrshire and Yorkshire (all Ridings) (b) Cornwall, Devonshire and Somerset.	7 6
1962	0	0
1963	0	0
1964	0	0
1965	0	0
1966	0	0
1967	The middle and eastern parts of Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex and the middle and south parts of Willtshire	8

Source: Ministry of Agriculture

30. Since 1954, when the Gowers Committee reported, the Ministry of Agriculture has remodeled the whole of its regional organisation and has delegated to regions a measure of authority on some aspects of the Ministry’s work. A co-ordinating regional organisation has been evolved based on seven centres in England and on the Ministry’s Welsh Department which was already in existence. Since the reorganisation the administrative and veterinary staff have been deployed as follows. The Ministry’s Chief Veterinary Officer, the Director of Veterinary Field Services and his headquarters staff, and the administrative Animal Health Divison concerned with foot-and-mouth disease and other notifiable diseases are located at Tolworth in Surrey. The Veterinary Field Service consists of a substantial regional and local organisation closely integrated with the Ministry’s regional organisation, with each veterinary region under the command of a regional veterinary officer. In the regions there are 53 animal health divisional offices each in the charge of a divisional veterinary officer. Duty rosters are maintained at all level to ensure that veterinary staff are available at all times. Regional veterinary officers and divisional veterinary officers are assisted by other veterinary and technical staff, and there is close collaboration with the staff of the Ministry’s administrative offices who will often, and always at regional level, be located in the same premises. The Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weighbridge in Surrey, a laboratory at Lass wade, Midlothian, and the Cattle Breeding Station at Shinfield, near Reading, Berkshire are the responsibility of the Chief Veterinary Officer. The Director of the Veterinary Investigation Service, whose officers are stationed at various centers throughout England and Wales, is also Director of these establishments. The main tasks of the Veterinary Investigation Service are to assist in the diagnosis main tasks of the Veterinary Investigation Service are to assist in the diagnosis of animal diseases, other than foot-and-mouth, by laboratory examination of material submitted by veterinarians in private practice, and to investigate local

problems. There are administrative regional controllers in each region who, although they have no responsibility for the activities of the veterinary staff, work very closely with regional veterinary officers and the regional heads of other professional and technical services; they can co-ordinate the full range of the Ministry’s services in their regions to provide assistance for the veterinary staff in emergencies. Figure I shows the links within the Ministry of Agriculture’s regional and divisional organisation between the administrative and the professional and technical services.

31. In Scotland provision has been made for three veterinary regions covering nineteen animal health divisional offices each in the charge of a divisional veterinary officer. There is no administrative regional organisation in Scotland similar to that in England and Wales. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has its administrative headquarters in Edinburgh and there are eleven area offices at which there are professional and technical officers and staff engaged on administration. Arrangements have been made to ensure that in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, the Ministry of Agriculture’s veterinary officers can call for and quickly receive maximum support from professional, technical and administrative staff.

32. Map I shows the regional boundaries of the Ministry of Agriculture in England and Wales and the location of regional offices. Regional sub-centres, divisional offices, area offices, regional sub-centres, divisional offices, area offices, and divisional veterinary offices in Scotland; also the location of the area offices of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

21

22 CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS AND RECOMMENDED

IMROVEMENTS

33. The arrangements described in chapter II were applied at the outset of the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic and as it progressed it was found necessary to modify and strengthen them. We now discuss the special problems that arose not only in connexion with that epidemic but also since the Gowers Committee reported in 1954.

(a) Initial Reporting and Diagnosis of the Disease

34. Early reporting of foot-and-mouth disease is of the utmost important and any delay may seriously affect the subsequent course of an outbreak. The record of reporting the disease has been generally satisfactory but in the last ten years five cases were not reported and were found when the Ministry of Agriculture were carrying out routine investigations during outbreaks; in two other cases animal with old lesions were found in slaughter-houses. During this time there were two convictions for failure to report suspected cases. We cannot emphasise too strongly the need for farmers to report suspicions of foot-and-mouth disease immediately. We realize that many of these reports would not in the event be confirmed. For instance in the period from the end of the 1967/1968 epidemic to 30th September, 1969, during which there were no outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, the number of suspected cases reported was 199. On the other hand during the epidemic there were several cases where suspicions should have been aroused earlier and where prompt reporting might have limited the spread of disease. When the county is free of foot-and-mouth disease for long periods there is a danger that farmers, and those veterinarians who have had little or no experience of foot-and-mouth disease, may be slow to recognize the early signs of the disease. It has been the practice of the Ministry of Agriculture to draw the attention of farmers, stockmen and veterinarians to foot-and-mouth disease by the use of film and discussion groups. It was because of the importance we attach to early reporting that we included in Part I of our Report an Appendix dealing with the symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease, and coloured photographs showing typical clinical sings in infected animals. We recommend in paragraph 182 of this Report that priority should be given to the circulation of an up-to-date documentary film which could be shown to farmers and veterinarians.

35. It is equally important that early reports of suspected foot-and-mouth disease are followed by prompt diagnosis, leading where confirmed to the slaughter of infected and in-contact animals without delay. We received some complaints about delays in slaughter during 1967/1968 epidemic. Table III shows that out of a total 2,177 outbreaks between 25th October and 31st December, 1967 slaughter had been completed on about 98 per cent of the farms by the day following diagnosis of the disease; however, the position was slightly less favourable for the period ending 24th November. A number of witnesses claimed that the process of slaughter was delayed while the Ministry’s veterinary

TABLE III

Period Between Confirmation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Completion

of Slaughter in Outbreaks from 25th October to 31st December, 1967(a)

Slaughter completed

25th October to 6th November

1967

25th October to 24th November

1967

25th October to 31st December

1967

On day of diagnosis (b) … … …

On day after diagnosis … … …

2 days after diagnosis … … …

3 days after diagnosis … … …

No. of

Outbreaks

Percentage of

Total

74.3

22.9

1.9

0.9

No. of

Outbreaks

653

296

Percentage of

Total

66.3

30.1

3.2

0.4

No. of

Outbreaks

1,568

563

Percentage of

Total

72.0

25.9

1.9

0.2

TOTALS … … … … …

105

985

2,177

Notes. (a).The table takes into account the slaughter of in-contact animals on the Infected Place and on the other farms.

(b) If confirmation of disease occurred after 4 p.m. the following day was recorded as the day of diagnosis.

(c) In two of these cases slaughter on the Infected Place was completed on the same day as diagnosis but slaughter of contacts took longer. In one case slaughter on the Infected Place was not completed until the second day after diagnosis because the farm formed two separate parts some distance apart and hill sheep had to be gathered in; the slaughter of contacts took a further day. In the fourth case slaughter on the Infected Place was not completed until third day after diagnosis. In the fifth case slaughter of the majority of the animals was completed On the day following diagnosis; slaughter of a group of outlying animals was not completed until the third day since the ;animals were very Fractious and a stockade had to be erected.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture

Officers consulted by telephone their Veterinary Headquarters at Tolworth to obtain confirmation of the diagnosis of the disease. We had discussed this with the Ministry of Agriculture and we are satisfied that the procedure does not delay the slaughter of animals in an outbreak. The Ministry’s veterinary officer on the can begin consulted by telephone their Veterinary Headquarters at Tolworth, to obtain confirmation of the diagnosis of the disease. We have discussed this with the Ministry of Agriculture and we are satisfied that the procedure does not delay the slaughter of animals in an outbreak. The Ministry’ s veterinary officer on the infected premises can begin immediately to enlist the services of a value, slaughter men and workers to dispose of carcasses, cleanse and disinfect. These teams take some time to assemble and in any case would not be available before the diagnosis was confirmed. The reason for the Ministry’s insistence on their procedure has been because they consider it is essential to keep the Veterinary Headquarters fully and promptly informed of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease throughout Great Britain. We agree that the Veterinary Headquarters should be kept informed promptly of all outbreaks but we cannot agree that it is necessary for headquarters to confirm the diagnosis; there is no valid reason why diagnosis should not be made by Ministry’s veterinary officer examining the suspected animals unless it is necessary to sent material for examination to the Animal Virus research Institute at Airfreight However a veterinary officer investigating a case of suspected foot-and-mouth disease might well wish to discuss the case, particularly if it is a primary one, with a senior officer in region or at the Veterinary Headquarters at Woolworth.

36. We have described in paragraph 24 the procedure that has been followed when dealing with in-contact animals. Those that were traced within 48 hours of their first possible contact with infection were slaughtered on the assumption that even if they had been infected, no virus would have been excreted. Those that were traced on the fourth or subsequent days after possible contact with infection were isolated and kept under observation. Those that were traced on the third day after possible contact with infection were either slaughtered or isolated and placed under observation depending on the circumstances. If such animals under observation have acquired infection they will probably excrete virus before showing clinical sings and this is serious in relation to possible further spread of the disease. Diagnostic techniques are now available which can show the presence of virus before clinical signs appear and we therefore recommended that material (including samples taken by probing) from all suspected in contact animals that have been traced should be tested in the laboratory for the presence of virus. Where the risk is high, the animals should be slaughtered.

(b) Administrative Arrangements

37. Future arrangements for controlling outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease should be designed to deal efficiently with an isolated primary outbreak or a minor series of outbreaks and yet be capable of rapid and smooth expansion to deal with an epidemic. The Ministry of Agriculture’s ability to achieve the first of these objectives has been demonstrated. It is in relation to the need for a rapid expansion of the control organization to deal with an epidemic on the scale of 1967/1968 that some criticisms and suggestions have been put forward. Many of the witness who criticized the administrative arrangements suggested that there was a need for a “supremo” to take charge at regional level.

Command in the field

38. Some of the advocates of a “ supreme ” to take charge of an outbreak thought that such a person might possibly be recruited from outside the Ministry of Agriculture and should be empowered to make decisions on the spot about the control of the disease and the deployment of resources. We do not subscribe to this view. We consider that the man who is responsible for the control and eradication of the disease should be the Ministry’s Regional Veterinary Officer in charge of the region in which the outbreak occurs. We are assured that in making appointments to the grade of regional veterinary officer the Ministry have particular regard to administrative ability and experience.

39. In conditions such as arose during the 1967/1968 epidemic, when the scale of the operation was such that additional regional veterinary officers of the Ministry were drafted in to help with the supervision of control measures, it is imperative that one man should remain in overall control; this was indeed the case in 1967/1968 and we commend the practice for the future.

Provision of manpower

40. We set out in paragraph 30 and Figure I the basic deployment of the veterinary and other services of the Ministry of Agriculture. During the 1967/1968 epidemic it was necessary to reinforce the Veterinary Field Service in order to control the outbreaks. The Ministry transferred 60 veterinary research officers and assistant veterinary investigation officers from the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, Surrey, the Veterinary Laboratory at Lasswade, Midlothian, the Cattle Breeding Centre at Shinfield, Berkshire and veterinary investigation centres throughout England and Wales. Additional assistance was provided by more than 500veterinarians in private practice (including eight from overseas), by the veterinary schools and by 85 veterinarians loaned by other Governments; the Royal Army Veterinary Corps also arranged for four officers to assist in the epidemic. These figures give some idea of the extent of the veterinary support which would be available in the future if another serious epidemic occurred.

41. It is important that the veterinary staff should have ample support both from the Ministry’s administrative, professional and technical staff and from other organisations, to assist them in implementing a satisfactory control programme and to relieve them of those tasks which need not be carried out by veterinarians. For example there is a clear case for the delegation of control of machinery and labour engaged on burial, cleansing and disinfection, a task which during the 1967/1968 epidemic became a massive operation involving the use of hundreds of items of heavy plant and the deployment of a very large number of workers. Hitherto the task of controlling foot-and-mouth disease has fallen almost entirely on the Ministry’s veterinary staff, aided by their technical assistants, but during the 1967/1968 epidemic a large number of other staff were drafted in to assist them. The Ministry of Agriculture have since reviewed their organisational arrangements for the employment of support staff in the regions on appropriate duties during foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. The relevant instructions to their veterinary officers have been revised; designated support staff in the regions have been given background training and written instructions are being provided. Comparable arrangements have been made in Scotland by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

42. The Ministry of Agriculture have standing arrangements with slaughterers and local contractors to provide labour, machinery and equipment to deal with slaughter, burial of carcases and disinfection on infected premises. These arrangements have proved adequate for most foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in the past. During the 1967/1968 epidemic, however, the Ministry received considerable additional assistance in the form of labour and equipment from such undertakings as river authorities, local authorities, large civil engineering contractors and the armed forces. Good use was made of this additional assistance when it had been mobilised but in our view there is a valid criticism that the Ministry had not made sufficient forward plans and contacts; indeed the initiative for providing assistance sometimes came from outside organisations. We consider that a greater contribution to the control arrangements would be made if there were in being a plan for the mobilisation of available resources so that it could be put into operation immediately an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurs. This plan should be prepared in consultation with all the organisations who can assist in controlling an outbreak including local authorities, river authorities and water undertakings, local contractors and the large civil engineering concerns, the Post Office, the police and the armed forces. The Ministry has prepared plans along these lines.

43. Figure II shows the organization we recommend for a control centre and the way in which resources would be utilised; some of the features are discussed in paragraphs 99, 112, 116 and 118. The organisation proposed would be well able to deal with an epidemic but the extent to which it would be mobilised would depend on the magnitude of each episode. There should be no difficulty in modifying the Ministry’s present plans to incorporate these organisational changes.

44. We recommend that there should be a handbook of guidance which could be made available to the relevant organisations so that in the event of any future outbreaks they would know at what point and to what extent their services might be required (see also paragraph 183). It would be impossible for us to lay down precisely the parts that each would play in dealing with an outbreak. The ministry’s plan for an area should predetermine these roles, and those involved should rehearse them in simulated outbreaks.

45. A suggestion was made to us in evidence that the epidemiological aspects of foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases might be the responsibility of an independent unit similar to the Public Health Laboratory Service in human medicine. We do not consider that the comparison is appropriate and we think it is essential that the epidemiologists are responsible to the Regional Veterinary Officer in charge of an outbreak.

Control centres

46. Paragraphs 19 and 20 describe the establishment of a control centre in the event of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. We cannot emphasise too strongly the need in an infected Area for bringing together all those with a part to play in the outbreak so that there can be full co-ordination of activity by the Regional Veterinary Officer in charge and his team, and proper dissemination of information. The premises should be sufficiently spacious to avoid overcrowding, and the availability of telephone facilities should be given a high priority (see paragraphs 171 to 173). The earmarking and selection of suitable premises for

control centres must form a part of pre-outbreak planning and we are glad to learn that the Ministry of Agriculture review the availability of suitable accommodation as a regular exercise. In the 1967/1968 epidemic fifteen of the 34 control centres in use were established in Civil Defence control premises. The Ministry are now losing the advantage of access to such premises, which were well equipped with telephones and which could be made available immediately in the event of an outbreak. The Civil Defence Corps has been disbanded and its centres are being run down although some are being retained on a care and maintenance basis. This change in circumstances underlines the need for a regular review of these and other premises suitable for use as foot-and-mouth disease control centres; we are glad to learn from the police and local authorities that they may be able to help in this matter, and would be very willing to cooperate.

47. We have considered the recruitment problem of the State Veterinary Service comprising the Veterinary Field Service and the Veterinary Investigation Service and find that in recent years recruitment to the Veterinary Field Service has been inadequate. The failure to recruit sufficient staff is a serious matter in relation to the control of foot-and-mouth disease. The reasons for the failure may be the low initial salary as compared with the financial rewards obtainable in veterinary practice, or in part to the nature of the duties within the Service. There does not appear to be the same difficulty in finding recruits for the Veterinary Investigation Service and, in view of the number of animal diseases that have now been eradicated, it may be an opportune moment to redistribute the duties of the two Services to produce an unified Service with wider opportunity for promotion and one in which all can participate in a greater range of veterinary work. We consider it important for future development that the Ministry of Agriculture should attract a greater number of good young veterinary graduates willing to make a career in the Service than in the past. Merit and administrative ability should be the major criteria in selecting candidates for promotion. We recommend that veterinary officers should be given in-service training in administration and epidemiology.

(d) Infected Areas

(i) Definition and size

48. As we have said in paragraph 12, an Infected Area has in the past been defined in the Order by reference to boroughs, petty sessional divisions and parishes. This practice was followed during the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, and nearly all our witnesses said it was confusing. Many people do not know the parish or the petty sessional division within which they live or work, and people who live some distance away from an Infected Area, such as hauliers or police who have an interest in routing vehicles, could not be expected to be familiar with parish or petty sessional boundaries. Maps showing these boundaries are not readily available and in any case the alignment of the boundaries with easily identifiable topographical features is sometimes difficult. An alternative and readily understood method of defining an Infected Area would be by reference to topographical features such as railways, rivers, roads and canals recorded on Ordnance Survey one-inch maps of Great Britain. Most of those concerned who were in the vicinity of the outbreak would be familiar

with such features in their locality and those outside the area could easily identify them on the map. We recommend that this method of describing Infected Areas should be adopted. Reliance on topographical features might mean that an Infected Area would have to be slightly larger than would otherwise be the case but we consider that this disadvantage is outweighed by the benefits deriving from our recommendation. Attention could be focused on the part of the country in which an outbreak has occurred and in which an Infected Area has been declared by making use of National Grid references. Ordnance Survey one-inch maps of Great Britain are published with a system of grid lines; a footnote on the maps describes the Reference System. Map III illustrates the identification of an Infected Place and the broad delineation by means of National Grid references of the part of the country in which an Infected Area has been declared.

49. Following a recommendation of the Gowers Committee the size of an Infected Area was reduced from fifteen miles radius to approximately ten miles radius from the Infected Place. We received a number of representations to reduce the area still further but we have concluded that basically an Infected Area of approximately ten miles in radius is necessary. Sometimes Infected Areas have been enlarged to include marketing and slaughtering facilities. We visualise that in future the size and the shape of an Infected Area will also be adjusted in consultation with the epidemiological team assembled to study the outbreak (as recommended in Part I of our Report). At this point we draw attention to the need to give as much advance notice as possible of a reduction in the size of an Infected Area to ensure that marketing and other activities start up again quickly and smoothly.

50. Circumstances may arise when the Ministry of Agriculture wish to restrict movement because of a rapidly developing disease threat. At such a time we would prefer to see an extension of the Infected Area rather than the use of Controlled Areas especially if the latter were to be imposed, as in 1967/1968, over a wide area and for a long time. The removal of Infected Area restrictions imposed under conditions such as these need not necessarily be subject to the timetable set out in paragraph 27; the restrictions could be withdrawn as soon as the situation was adjudged safe by the Ministry’s veterinary officials.

(ii) Restriction on movement of animals, animal products and people

Movement of animals and animal products

51. As the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic became more extensive, the Infected Areas became one large complex of contiguous areas. However, in order to prevent the spread of disease, the Ministry of Agriculture maintained each Infected Area as a separate unit and movements of susceptible animals between them were prohibited. This imposed severe limitations on the normal movement of livestock in a way that farmers thought unreasonable. For instance, some movements of bulls, boars and rams for breeding purposes, and of hill sheep for wintering in the lowlands, were precluded where farms which were under the same ownership happened to be in two different but contiguous Infected Areas. We were also told that some farmers found themselves in the position of having slaughter facilities near at hand in an adjoining Infected Area when they were either at a greater distance or not available in

MAP ILLUSTRATING THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN INFECTED PLACE AND THE BROAD DELINEATION OF A PART OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH AN INFECTED AREA HAS BEEN DECLARED. BY MEANS OF NATIONAL GRID REFERENCES

their own Infected Area. A suggestion made by some of our witnesses to over-come such problems was that where two Infected Areas have a common boundary they should be covered by one Order which would in effect merge them. We see severe disadvantages in doing this. As two adjacent areas are seldom declared at the same time, to merge them would only protract unnecessarily the period of restriction in some parts of the enlarged Infected Area. We do not recommend any general relaxation of movement restrictions to allow movements of susceptible animals from one Infected Area into an adjoining Infected Area but the movement of susceptible animals for slaughter out of one Infected Area into a contiguous Infected Area should be licensed; the movement of individual breeding animals should also be licensed exceptionally by the Ministry of Agriculture.

52. It was suggested to us in evidence that as soon as an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England and Wales was notified steps should be taken to close the Scottish border to movement of susceptible animals and that should an outbreak occur in Scotland the same procedure should be adopted to safeguard livestock south of the border. The policy of vesting the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain in the Animal Health Division of the Ministry of Agriculture is based on sound epidemiological grounds and there can be no good reason for trying to create an artificial boundary when animals normally move between the two countries. The restrictions imposed under Infected and Controlled Area Orders provide the practicable measures to guard against the spread of foot-and-mouth disease and we conclude that their application provides the necessary safeguards to prevent the spread of infection between the two countries. It does not seem that considerations relating to exports of livestock would justify closing the Scottish border.

53. It has been a long accepted practice that where there is a clear need, susceptible animals may move into an Infected Area but that once inside they would not be allowed out again. This is an essential disease control measure which we would not wish to see altered. However, there has been an exemption in subordinate legislation for susceptible animals moving through an Infected Area by rail provided they were not untrucked while within the Area. On 12^th December, 1967 the Ministry of Agriculture rescinded this exemption because of the heavy concentration of outbreaks in Cheshire and the possibility that infection was being spread by the wind. When the epidemic waned the Ministry permitted such movements to be resumed under special licence which took into account the proximity of the route to premises that were or had been infected. Although rail traffic has now greatly declined it is a mode of transport still in use in some parts of the country. We have found no evidence of animals contracting or spreading foot-and-mouth disease as a result of transit by rail through an Infected Area although such animals could be at risk to windborne virus. We consider that through movement of susceptible animals by rail should continue to be exempted from restriction in subordinate legislation provided that the animals are not untrucked while in the Infected Area.

54. The decline in the number of animals consigned by rail has been accompanied by an increase in movements by road. We see no reasons why the principles applied in the past to railways should not now apply, with suitable modifications, to motorways running through Infected Areas. We recommend that the Ministry of Agriculture should license the movement of susceptible.

animals along motorways running through Infected Areas. The condition of such movement would be that the vehicles conveying the stock would not leave the motorway in the Infected Area even for the purpose of entering a service area. We are aware that drivers’ hours are governed by law but we do not think that the rules laid down would preclude the adoption of the safeguard we advocate. Livestock hauliers would have to organise journeys to ensure that drivers’ rest periods did not occur whilst they were driving through an Infected Area.

55. We were told that a concession on motorways would be of little immediate benefit in some parts of Great Britain, particularly in Scotland, and were asked to consider whether roads of near motorway standard might be regarded as motorways for the purpose of moving susceptible animals. Several witnesses thought it would be reasonable to allow the movement of such animals on major roads running through Infected Areas. We do not consider that the relaxation we recommend should be extended beyond motorways as a general measure. We recognise that there may be occasions when an Infected Area includes other roads along which susceptible animals could be transported in conditions which would adequately segregate them from susceptible animals in the surrounding area. In such exceptional circumstances we recommend that the Ministry of Agriculture should license through traffic subject to the condition that vehicles should not stop en route.

56. In the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic local authorities differed in their interpretation of the condition in the licence for the movement of susceptible animals in Infected Areas which requires that while being moved, the animals shall be kept separate as far as practicable from all other animals. Some local authorities permitted hauliers to make up a load by collecting animals from a number of farms for delivery to the same market or collecting centre. The Ministry of Agriculture gave a clear direction that this practice should stop and that animals from one farm should go directly to the market or collecting centre and not travel with other animals. We received strong representations about this arrangement from many of our witnesses. They said that since other agricultural transport, including the bulk milk tanker, was allowed to go from farm to farm in Infected Areas, consideration might be given to allowing livestock hauliers the same facility on the strict understanding that no livestock transporters would move onto a farm and that livestock would be brought to the farm gate for loading. We do not recommend this procedure and would prefer the use of properly equipped collecting centres. There is a vital difference between vehicles carrying susceptible livestock and vehicles carrying non-susceptible animals or inert matter. The former may be carrying animals actively producing and excreting foot-and-mouth disease virus and disseminating it in large quantities, thus constituting a risk of gross contamination by virus. The latter, even if carrying contaminated materials, can only be a risk if these are brought into direct contact with susceptible animals while the virus is still viable; this constitutes an infinitely smaller risk. We recommend that movement licences should be amended to make it clear that susceptible animals in Infected Areas going to a market or collecting center from one place must be moved separately from animals from any other place. Although this may seem to be a harsh measure, the provision of collecting centres such as were introduced in the 1967/1968 epidemic (see next paragraph) should do much to alleviate the

difficulties. It is also the case that farmers who have obtained a movement licence can take their animals to abattoirs or collecting centers themselves providing they properly cleanse and disinfect their vehicles.

57. During the 1967/1968 epidemic the Ministry of Agriculture allowed susceptible animals to be gathered at licensed collecting centres in Infected Areas for onward carriage in bulk loads to slaughter-houses. This measure alleviated some of the difficulties arising from the requirement that animals in transit should be segregated as far as practicable from other livestock. We recommend that collecting centers should be used again in Infected Areas, when necessary, to gather animals for onward carriage to slaughter-houses. There was a defect in the system when it was introduced in 1967 which must be remedied in future. Some of those who organized collecting centers told us they had difficulty in obtaining adequate accommodation on reasonable terms. We hope that the difficulties experienced by a few at that time will not arise in future and that those who control the facilities needed for emergency collecting centers will be moved by a sense of public duty to make them available on reasonable terms.

58. Our attention has been drawn to an alleged weakness in the control arrangements in Infected Areas relating to the movement of animals for emergency slaughter and of those that die on farms. Such movements are subject to certain controls at all times. The controls exercised over the movement of sick animals, injured animals and carcasses to slaughter-houses and Knocker’s yards are as follows. It is an offence to bring any animal which is known or suspected to be sick into the main part of a slaughter-house; the animal has to be segregated from all other animals and carcases on the premises and it is taken to the emergency slaughter area. There is no legal requirement for the veterinary inspection of such animals before they are accepted at an abattoir or at a knacker’s yard, but some local authorities will not accept them at their slaughter-houses unless they are accompanied by a veterinarian’s certificate giving a diagnosis of the condition and the history of the medication administered. The carcases of animals that die on farms cannot be brought into a slaughter-house. The undressed carcases of animals slaughtered on farms can be taken to a slaughter-house provided they are accompanied by a certificate from a veterinarian stating the reason for slaughter and giving details of any medication administered prior to slaughter. In the case of undressed carcases of sheep or lambs a veterinary certificate is not required but the owner or person in charge must make a declaration in similar terms. Carcases of animals may be taken to a knacker’s yard without a veterinary certificate.

59. In an Infected Area, provided that the premises of origin are not within two miles of an Infected Place, are not under individual restrictions*, and where there is no suspicion of the presence of a notifiable disease, a licence issued by the local authority for the movement of animals for emergency slaughter at an abattoir or knacker’s yard is needed but no veterinary inspection is required by law. If the premises are within two miles of an Infected place the movement licence for a susceptible animal for emergency slaughter would be granted by the Ministry of

Agriculture following a veterinary inspection, and not by the local authority. Also a sick animal on a farm which is subject to

individual restrictions can only be moved by special licence in circumstances of emergency and it would be subject to veterinary inspection before moving. Dead animals on farms in Infected Areas (other than on infected premises) may be moved from farms to knacker’s yards without a licence and we recommend that in future such movement from premises under individual restrictions should be licensed after inspection by a veterinarian.

60. We consider that the arrangements described in the two preceding paragraphs, including our recommendation, provide adequate safeguards against the risks associated with the movement of sick and injured animals and the carcases of dead animals during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

61. Hitherto sales of animals on farm premises have been allowed under licence in Infected Areas provided that the farm premises were not less than two miles from any Infected Place. Only animals belonging to the farm were sold and none was moved out of the Infected Area. Those that were not sold for slaughter were detained for fourteen days at their destination. We regard such sales as a greater disease risk than markets for animals for immediate slaughter, because farmers gather among animals which may then be dispersed to a number of farms. We recommend that sales of animals on farm premises in Infected Areas should be prohibited; this accords with our general attitude that there should be a strict control over movements of susceptible animals and people in Infected Areas, and it also conforms to our criteria relating to the movement of people set out in paragraph 68.

62. We referred in Part I of our Report to the survival of foot-and-mouth disease virus on hides and skins. We recommend that the movement of hides, skins, bones and all material not for human consumption from slaughter-houses and all material from knacker’s yards in Infected Areas should be controlled by subjecting them to licensing by the Ministry of Agriculture. Licences for such movements should require the use of drip-proof vehicles or containers; the premises receiving the material should be approved. Some of our witnesses expressed anxiety about the risk from hides and skins of cattle which might have been in contact with infected animals. The risk does not arise because of the procedure for tracing and confining or killing all suspected in-contact animals; when an in-contact animal is slaughtered its hide or skin is destroyed.

63. It was suggested to us that the sale of venison from an Infected Area should be prohibited, but we cannot see any good reason for doing this. It was said in Part I of our Report that in this country wild deer have not been shown to play any part in the spread of foot-and-mouth disease; consequently the risk of the virus being present in the carcases of such animals is very small.

Movement of people

64. Under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order of 1938 an inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture or of the local authority has powers to close footpaths or rights of way in an Infected Area by serving written notice on the occupier to this effect. During the 1967/1968 epidemic the Minister exercised additional powers through the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Temporary Restrictions) Order of 1967 to enable him by notice in writing to prohibit persons from moving onto agricultural or adjoining land where this, in his opinion, involved a risk of spreading the disease; this Order has since expired.

With regard to footpaths we consider that the powers in the 1938 Order are adequate. However, there should be no need to serve prior notice on occupiers, who should be notified as soon as possible thereafter. This would obviate the complaints we received in evidence that a requirement to notify an occupier before closing a footpath often entailed an undesirable element of delay at a time when swift action was imperative. The partial reinstatement of the powers in the Temporary Restrictions Order of 1967 are discussed in paragraph 70.

65. We received evidence relating to the difficulties experienced by some farmers in Infected Areas who were cut off from part of their farm by a public road. Had it been possible to close the road, which was in many cases a minor one and of little significance as a highway, the hazard arising from allowing the farmer to use it would have been negligible. We recommend that powers should be given to the police and highway authorities, acting on the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture’s regional veterinary officers, to close little used public roads, or public roads to which there is an easily definable alternative route, in Infected Area for the purpose of controlling foot-and-mouth disease.

66. In the past the police have guarded the clean side of the entrance to infected premises until slaughter, burial, cleansing and disinfections have been completed. During this period the Ministry’s veterinary officer in charge is responsible for the disinfection of individuals before they leave the infected premises. It has been suggested to us that the police officer on guard at the farm te should have protective clothing so that he can enter the farm in order to confer with the veterinary officer when necessary. We recommend that this suggestion should be adopted.

67. With regard to sporting activities, the present subordinate legislation* prohibits hunting, point-to-point meetings and coursing or racing with dogs or hounds or their training for these purposes in an Infected Area. Greyhound racing, on the other hand, is permitted on tracks licensed under the Betting & Lotteries Act, 1934. As previously mentioned, the Minister of Agriculture exercised additional temporary powers during the 1967/1968 epidemic to prohibit persons from being on agricultural or adjoining land. However at that time control over many kinds of sporting activity was achieved through the voluntary co-operation of sporting organisations who accepted restraints that were fully supported by their members. Some of these restraints involved substantial financial losses.

68. The control of sporting events and recreational activities during an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease should be governed entirely by disease considerations. This is applicable not only to Infected Areas, which are dealt with in this section, but also to Controlled Areas, which are discussed in para-graph 96. The criteria that we think should be embodied in any code of conduct Infected Areas are as follows.

(a) In an Infected Area access to agricultural land or to premises adjoining agricultural land should be limited to access for essential purposes.

(b) Persons who live or work on agricultural land in an Infected Area, and who are in contact with susceptible animals, should not go onto other agricultural land in Infected, Controlled or clean areas.

(c) Activities which may cause susceptible wild animals, for example deer, to stray from their natural habitats in an Infected Area should be avoided; natural fauna in an Infected area should be disturbed as little as possible.

(d) Non-susceptible animals, except those within two miles of infected premises, should be allowed to leave and re-enter an Infected Area provided that they are neither housed in close proximity to nor have contact with susceptible animals.

(e) Non-susceptible animals outside an Infected Area may enter and leave that Area provided that they do not go onto land used by susceptible animals or land adjacent to land used by susceptible animals in the Infected Area.

(f) Vehicles used for the transport of susceptible animals in an Infected Area should on no account be used for the transport of any other animal or thing without first being cleansed and disinfected.

69. These criteria can be readily applied to any form of sporting or recreational activity and thus they clearly indicate where restraint should be exercised. We are confident that if wide publicity was given to the criteria outlined above, most organizers of sporting events, and individuals in pursuit of out-door sport, recreation or pleasure, would understand them and modify their movements accordingly. In cases where there is any doubt, advice should be sought from the control center.

70. The powers of the Minister of Agriculture set out in paragraph 67 are consistent with our criteria and we therefore endorse them. Although we believe that voluntary restraints will be accepted in future outbreaks as they were during the epidemic of 1967/1968, we think the Minister of Agriculture should have reserve powers available to prohibit by notice entry onto specified parts of unenclosed land and entry for the purpose of any sport or recreational activity onto specified land in an Infected Area where his veterinary officials consider it necessary to do so to avoid the risk of spreading foot-and-mouth disease. We also recommend a general prohibition on shooting in Infected Areas which should not however prevent a resident owner or occupier, or members of his household or any agricultural workers employed by him, from shooting over his land but not in organised shooting parties or using beaters.

71. Some specific problems arising from restrictions on sporting activities in Infected Areas during the 1967/1968 epidemic have been brought to our attention in evidence. In general these would be resolved by the application of our criteria but by way of illustration we discuss them below.

72. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order of 1938 prohibits the hunting of deer in an Infected Area but it does not prohibit deer stalking. Deer are susceptible animals and we consider that deer stalking should be prohibited in an Infected Area. This should not however preclude culling under licence or prevent a farmer from shooting marauding deer on his own land.

73. On 17^th November, 1967 when the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic was reaching its peak, all horse racing in Infected Areas was cancelled, although horses are not susceptible animals. With the waning of the epidemic, and always after consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture and racing interests, the restriction was progressively withdrawn and the last racecourses were released on 13^th March, 1968. The application of the criteria in paragraph 68 would mean that in future horse racing in Infected Areas would not be banned unless the course was on or adjacent to land used by susceptible animals; horses would be allowed into the larger part of an Infected Area to take part in racing and to return to their stables afterwards. Suitable cleansing and disinfection procedures would be applied on both journeys as is in any event already required under the Transit of Horses Order, 1951.

74. We have drawn attention to the difference in risk between vehicles carrying susceptible livestock and those carrying non-susceptible animals (see paragraph 56). This has been reflected in a freedom from restraint on the movement of non-susceptible animals from Infected Areas to Controlled or clean areas. During the 1967/1968 epidemic, however, restrictions on the movement of horses out of Infected Areas were imposed voluntarily by the racing authorities. No horse stabled in an Infected Area was allowed to run at racecourses where racing had been approved and no horse stabled or trained in an Infected Area was allowed to be moved to a training stable outside the Area in order to carry out such engagements. We commend all those who accepted these voluntary restraints. In normal circumstances however we do not consider that it is necessary to impose any general restriction on horses from racing establishments in Infected Areas taking part in racing events in any part of the country. It would also be permissible for the hunt staff to take the hounds and horses of a hunt establishment out of most parts of an Infected Area, subject to the proper cleansing and disinfection of vehicles used in their transit. However members of the hunt who live or work on agricultural land and who are in contact with susceptible animals or whose horses are stabled in close proximity to or have contact with susceptible animals should refrain from hunting. Similarly horses should not be moved from Infected Areas to take part in point-to-points and pony club rallies on or adjacent to agricultural land carrying susceptible livestock if they or their riders come from farms or are otherwise closely associated with susceptible livestock.

75. Anglers have access to thousands of miles of fishing on rivers, lakes and canals bounded by agricultural land. Such access may often be across pastures and along banks used by susceptible animals. During the 1967/1968 epidemic angling clubs and associations cooperated by informing their members of necessary restrictions. All anglers should be guided by the criteria laid down in paragraph 68 under which some fishing such as from a fenced-off towpath or from the side of a road or from a woodland or urban-sited bank running alongside a river, lake or canal would be permissible, provided the access thereto was not across pastures carrying susceptible livestock. We think it would in future lead to better and speedier understanding by anglers of the necessity for restraint if the staff of the control centre in an Infected Area immediately informed the secretaries of the local angling clubs and associations, who should then inform their members of the necessary restrictions. The particular problem of anglers who disregard the criteria will be covered by the additional powers we recommend in paragraph 70.

76. In the last epidemic Infected Areas extended to the open hills of the Peak District which, because they were in a national park, were a popular recreational area for the general public. Members of the public rambling in this district might have spread foot-and-mouth disease to the hill sheep in the area, and access was restricted through acceptance by the public of voluntary restraints. The voluntary efforts to control movement were co-ordinated by the Peak Park Planning Board. The procedure worked well and was repeated in other parts of the county where, with the co-operation of public bodies such as the Forestry Commission and organisers of a variety of outdoor activities, sports and recreation were curtailed when they were considered to be a disease risk. We take this opportunity to commend the public-spirited attitude of the many organisations connected with outdoor sport and recreation whose members voluntarily gave up their recreational activities in order to assist the foot-and-mouth disease control programme. The action they took is in accord with our own criteria for the future; it should be reinforced in future by the reserve powers we recommend to prevent access to unenclosed land in an Infected Area where it is considered that a disease risk exists (see paragraph 70).

77. It caused some public concern that not all football matches in Infected Areas were cancelled during the 1967/1968 epidemic and that some football teams and their supporters travelled from Infected Areas to parts of the country where there had been no outbreaks. It is our opinion that the disease risks are greatest when sporting activities are held on or adjacent to land used by susceptible animals in Infected Areas. For instance we would draw a distinction between a cricket or football match or other games when they are held in rural areas where such conditions may apply and a match held in a stadium, or on a playing field not grazed by susceptible animals, in a town. We would expect some of the former to be banned under our criteria whereas the latter would not be affected.

78. A form of recreation to which it might be difficult to apply our criteria but which could attract a particular disease hazard in Infected Areas is offered by zoos. Zoos house many species of animals some of which are susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease, but it is unlikely that they would pick up infection by direct contact with infected animals as they are in captivity and isolated from farm animals. It is possible that in cases of exceptionally severe outbreaks it would be advisable for a zoo in an Infected Area to close. The same argument could apply to susceptible animals, such as deer, in parks to which the public have access. We therefore recommend that the Minister of Agriculture should have power to close such parks and zoos.

79. The criteria we have laid down should enable all participants in sporting and recreational activities to see the extent to which their activities in an Infected Area might be affected. We emphasise that these criteria stem from veterinary considerations and we recommend that any adjustment to them in the face of a developing disease situation should have a veterinary justification. It remains for the Ministry of Agriculture to devise and publicise a code of conduct and we note that this is in course of preparation (see paragraph 183).

80. Consideration also needs to be given to the activities in Infected Areas of the public utility industries, such as the electricity and gas supply industries, and others whose projects and maintenance programmes take them onto

agricultural land. The relevant criteria set out in paragraph 68 should govern the activities of such bodies during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, and we note that the Ministry of Agriculture are preparing guidance to these industries (see paragraph 183).

(iii) Housing of livestock

81. Many of the early outbreaks in the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic began in outlying stock, and from the middle of November, 1967 the Ministry of Agriculture asked farmers to house or yard their susceptible stock where possible. Many farmers responded to this appeal and the Ministry thought that this favourably influenced the course of the epidemic. Our comments on the epidemiological aspect of housing stock are contained in paragraph 33 of our first Report and paragraph 234 of this Report: the available evidence does not enable us to assess the value of housing susceptible livestock or to make a recommendation. We can see the practical advantages if animals are already housed when foot-and-mouth disease occurs on a farm as this will tend to speed up slaughter and the disposal of carcases. Housing animals out of season can give rise to problems of herd management for the farmer particularly if it extends over a long period. On the evidence we find it impossible to give general advice on this question because the dangers will vary with weather conditions, geographical and physical features, and the concentration and distribution of airborne virus.

(iv) Restocking

82. During the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic special arrangements for phased restocking were introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture in areas where there had been heavy and persistent infection. Farmers were allowed to restock with up to fifty animals, but sheep were not allowed because of the difficulty in recognising early signs of disease in sheep. Movement controls were retained until six weeks after the start of restocking; thereafter restocking with sheep was allowed. This arrangement was not without its disadvantages. In one case of recrudescence during the 1967/ 1968 epidemic the Ministry assumed that it had taken six weeks for animals to work their way through disinfected hay to reach the level where contamination still lingered. Had there been only partial restocking on that farm it would have taken the animals twice as long to reach the contaminated material, assuming that it was still infected, and a very late recrudescence would have been far more disturbing. We are satisfied that for cattle and pigs the usual timetable for restocking, described in paragraph 26, is adequate under normal conditions. We think however that it is necessary to wait for a longer period before restocking with sheep, particularly on unenclosed land, because of the difficulties recognised by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1968. Recent scientific investigation (see paragraph 227) supports this view; the inapparent nature of the disease in sheep nands a more stringent restocking programme.

(v) Control of rats and foxes

83. In Part I of our Report we pointed out that rats can spread foot-and-mouth disease virus by acting as mechanical carriers and that the virus may persist in their gut for long periods. The Ministry of Agriculture said that rats were probably a factor in the spread of infection during the 1967/1968 epidemic

and that although little is known about their behaviour on infected premises it is reasonable to assume that when disturbed by cleansing and disinfection and changes in the availability of food they will move to adjacent undisturbed sites on farms and in hedgerows; mass movements of rats were reported by some of our witnesses. It is the usual practice of the Ministry of Agriculture to take prompt measures to destroy rats on infected premises and in 1967/1968 this task became the responsibility of a regional pests officer of the Ministry who was supported by over fifty staff. Even so, during the early stage of the epidemic, the volume of work was such that control of rats was being delayed until after the final disinfection of premises. Later on the work was carried out on confirmation of the disease. In the event of future outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease the Ministry will continue to follow its policy of exterminating rats on infected premises as soon as possible, and we consider that this is a matter of very great importance. In normal times the responsibility for the control of rats rests with occupiers of land and buildings, and local authorities have powers of enforcement where control is not exercised. The effectiveness of the arrangement varies from area to area, and whilst this is not strictly within our terms of reference it would be an advantage from the point of view of controlling outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease if rat populations were well under control in normal circumstances.

84. Some witnesses suggested that during the 1967/1968 epidemic too little attention was paid to other means of controlling foxes whilst hunting was prohibited. The Ministry of Agriculture investigated reports of scavenging by foxes before carcases could be buried or burned and found no evidence in the majority of cases; but in some cases control measures were introduced. In the circumstances that applied in the epidemic, when some carcases were lying on the ground for some time, these measures were probably necessary; but with the measures we have recommended for speeding up the disposal of carcases these circumstances are unlikely to arise in future.

(vi) Disposal of dung, litter and slurry[1]

85. The movement and disposal of dung, litter and slurry in an Infected Area should be controlled. We recommend that their removal from an Infected Area should be prohibited, and that when transported within an Infected Area these materials should be conveyed in a manner which would ensure against spillage on roads or contact with animals other than those on the premises of origin. It should also be a requirement that the vehicles and containers used to transport such materials should be cleansed and disinfected immediately after use. We consider that the aerosol created from slurry spraying is the greatest danger of all and we recommend that the spraying by trickle or otherwise of slurry from herds anywhere in Infected Areas should be prohibited. If circumstances arise in which slurry must be disposed of in these Areas we consider that it should be deposited in bulk onto the land or onto waste areas of the farm instead of being sprayed or spread; there is less danger in letting it seep over the land than running the risk of creating aerosols or spreading infected slurry over a wide area which may result in its being picked up on the feet of

birds or wild animals. We also recommend that the discharge onto the land of slurry originating from animals in a slaughter- house or knacker’s yard in an Infected Area should be subject to licensing by the Ministry of Agriculture.

(vii) Inspection of livestock

86. The regular inspection of stock, preferably both early and late each day, is to be included in the advise given in a leaflet of guidance which the Ministry of Agriculture are preparing for issue to farmers in Infected Areas. We commend their action.

(viii) Slaughter-houses and knacker’s yards

87. It is important that slaughter-houses in Infected Areas should maintain a high standard of disease security. We recommend that only those premises that are constructed and equipped to achieve this standard should be allowed to operate in Infected Areas. We appreciate the need to ensure that adequate facilities for slaughter are provided within an Infected Area and that this being so our recommendation might take some time to implement. Knacker’s yards can also constitute a disease risk and we recommend that the long term aim should be to secure an improvement in hygiene and disease security in these premises. The normal procedure for licensing Knacker’s yards might provide the means of achieving this. The provision in the Meat (Sterilisation) Regulations 1969 that in England and Wales all meat and offal unfit for human consumption, and all Knacker meat, must be sterilised before being sold will minimise the spread of many pathogens including foot-and-mouth disease virus. (The movement in Infected Areas of animals for emergency slaughter and of those that die on farms is discussed in paragraphs 58 to 60.)

(e) Controlled Areas

(i) Purpose, size and definition

88. We have already described the purpose and extent of restriction imposed in Controlled Areas (see paragraph 10 and Appendix II). Before the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic Controlled Area were imposed usually in order to permit the ministry of Agriculture’s veterinary staff to trace and deal with animals under suspicion of contact with foot-and-mouth disease virus, and with the completion of this task the restrictions were removed. In the first week of that epidemic Controlled Areas were declared in the usual way to cover the distribution of suspected in-contact animals from Oswestry and Kendal markets. Early in November, however, the incidence of outbreaks was sufficiently disquieting for the Ministry to extend Controlled Area restrictions to the counties adjacent to Infected Areas to form a barrier zone of movement restrictions. As the disease position worsened the Controlled Area was extended so that by 18^th November, 1967 it covered the whole of England and Wales; on 25^th November, 1967 a separate Controlled Area was introduced to cover the whole of Scotland. The Ministry of Agriculture said that the exceptional circumstances made the additional restrictions essential; new outbreaks might have occurred in any part of the country, and the risk of store markets becoming involved had to be avoided at all costs as additional new outbreaks would have overtaxed the Ministry’s resources. At the end of January, 1968 the Controlled Area restrictions were withdrawn in Scotland and the north of England; they were further

contracted in February, 1968 and withdrawn on 5^th March. We can appreciate the reasons for the Ministry’s action in imposing exceptionally wide controlled Area restrictions in the face of a menacing disease situation in November, 1967. It is more difficult, however, to comprehend the veterinary grounds which made it necessary to maintain the restrictions for as long as two to three months when the record shows a steady decline in outbreaks from 9th December, 1967 onwards. We recommend that in future the purpose of a Controlled Area should be to restrict the movement of livestock for the time necessary to complete the tracing of suspected in-contact animals and that the use of Controlled Area restrictions for other purposes should be exceptional. The establishment and maintenance of all controls should be based on sound veterinary reasons and not result from panic measures or pressures arising from inadequate public comprehension of animal health risks. We visualise that the epidemiological team studying the outbreak would play an important part in assessing the need for the use in exceptional circumstances of Controlled Area restrictions.

89. It is conceivable that circumstance might arise in which restrictions similar to, or slightly less than, the normal Controlled Area restrictions might need to be instituted for purposes other than merely to assist tracing of suspected in-contact animals. We think that such occasions would be rare but we note that if they do arise the present legislation is sufficiently flexible to allow the Ministry to modify its restrictions in any way necessary.

90. By their very nature, and because of their comparatively short duration, Controlled Areas are normally defined by whole counties. Thus the boundaries are generally fairly well known and easily identifiable, and the definition of Controlled Area does not constitute a problem.

(ii) Restriction on movement of animals

91. We have referred in paragraph 56 to the confusion that arose over the interpretation by local authorities of the condition in the licence for the movement of animals in Infected Areas which requires that while being moved, animals shall be kept separate as far as practicable from animals from any other premises. This condition also applies to licences for the movement of animals in Controlled Areas, and similar confusion arose over its interpretation by local authorities. We have already recommended that movement licences for Infected Areas should be amended to make it clear that susceptible animals going to a market or a collecting centre from one place must be moved separately from animals from any other place (see paragraph 56) and this should be extended to cover movement licences for controlled Areas. However we note that in December, 1967 by which time Controlled area restrictions covered the whole country and had been prolonged, the Ministry relaxed this licensing provision in so far as it applied to the collection of fatstock for slaughter in those counties in the Controlled Area which were not immediately adjoining Infected Areas. Vehicles collecting animals from more than one farm had to load at the farm gate or where the farm road joined a public highway. In mid-January, 1968 the Ministry extended the relaxation to cover the collection of store animals in specified parts of the Controlled Area. We would hope that this relaxation would be repeated if in the future Controlled Areas became extensive or of long duration, but we recommend that in such circumstances, animals should not be collected at the farm gate; facilities for loading animals are much better on

the farm premises where the danger of an animal escaping would be very much less. We also recommend that in such circumstances, collecting centres should be established; these are discussed in paragraph 57 in relation to Infected Areas, and we recommend their use when necessary in Controlled Areas.

92. In paragraphs 53 to 55 we recommend that movements of livestock by rail and on motorways through an Infected Area should be allowed subject to certain safeguards. The through movement of livestock by rail in Controlled Area is already permitted in the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Controlled Areas Restrictions) General Order of 1938, provided that the animals are not untrucked, and we recommend that this should continue. We further recommend that through movement of livestock on motorways in Controlled Area should be allowed on licence from the Ministry of Agriculture who should impose the safeguards we envisage for this form of movement through Infected Areas. Exceptionally, the Ministry of Agriculture should issue licences for such movement on other roads in Controlled areas where the livestock in transit would be adequately isolated from susceptible animals in the surrounding area and on the condition that vehicles should not stop en route.

93. Hitherto animals have not been permitted to move from free areas to markets, sales or certification centres in Controlled Areas. We recommend that this restriction should be relaxed to the extent of licensing movements of animals for immediate slaughter from a free area to a fatstock market or a collecting centre in a Controlled Area.

94. The General Order of 1938 regulating the movement of livestock in Controlled Areas provided that fat animals which were not sold at a licensed market were to be returned to the premises from which they were brought and detained there for six days. On 21^st November, 1967 the Ministry of Agriculture made an Order providing that unsold animals at fatstock markets in Controlled Areas could only be licensed to a slaughter-house and not back to their premises of origin as had been the case previously. This was intended to eliminate any unnecessary risk of disease spread. We agree with this change in the arrangements which should apply in future provided that Controlled Area are used for short periods.

95. The Controlled Areas Restrictions Order of 1938 prohibited sales of store animals (except sales of such animals on farm premises) but on 15^th January, 1968 when the epidemic was waning, the Minister of Agriculture made an Order allowing local authorities to license store sales with his written consent. The object was to alleviate the severe disruption of the livestock industry resulting from the application of Controlled Area restricition over a wide area for a prolonged period. We recommend that this power should be retained and we hope that if it is ever necessary to use Controlled Area restrictions over a long period, the Minister’s power to authorise local authorities to license sales of animals not intended for immediate slaughter will then be used liberally. This hope arises from our belief that the main object of Controlled Area restrictions should be to assist in tracing in-contact animals and should normally be of short duration. A rapidly developing disease threat should be countered not by wide-spread Controlled Area restrictions but by Infected Area restrictions in areas of special risk (see paragraph 50).

FM-B*

(iii) Restriction on movement of people

96. In paragraph 68 we set out the criteria for controlling sporting events and outdoor recreation in Infected Areas and we have emphasized that these should be determined by veterinary consideration alone. On these grounds there would be no general requirement limiting sporting and outdoor recre-ational activities in Controlled Areas. It follows therefore that hunting of animals other than deer would take place in a Controlled Area but the hunts should accept a voluntary restraint not to draw covers so close to an Infected Area as to run the risk of crossing its boundaries. We endorse the present prohibition on the hunting of deer in Controlled Areas. We think that deer hunting should be defined to include deer stalking but culling should be allowed under licence and a farmer should not be prevented from shooting marauding deer on his own land. This accords with our views on deer hunting in Infected Areas (see paragraph 72).

97. We have already pointed out that if criteria in relation to Infected Areas are clearly defined and publicised, the confusion that arose over sporting and outdoor events during the 1967/1968 epidemic is unlikely to occur again in future outbreaks. It is equally important that those organizing events and participating in sports in Controlled Areas should be aware of their freedom of action so that Ministry control centres and veterinary staff are not inundated with enquiries at a time when their efforts should be directed to the immediate tasks of disease control (see paragraph 183).

(f) Animals Exposed to Infection

98. The Ministry of Agriculture have power to impose restrictions on specified animals considered to be at risk on premises to which in-contact animals have been traced whether in clean, Controlled or Infected Areas; and on animals on premises which are close to infected premises. We recommend that this power should be extended to cover the premises as well as the animals and that the movement of things, such as milk, from the premises should be prohibited except under licence. An extension of their powers would enable the Ministry to impose such conditions on the premises as they considered necessary to prevent the spread of disease. These would include posting notices to indicate that premises were under restriction, requiring disinfection to be carried out, and controlling in the manner described in paragraph 85 the disposal of slurry produced on the premises.

(g) Licensing Arrangements

99. Movements of susceptible animals require a licence in both Infected and Controlled Areas. Movements within two miles of infected premises are licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture and elsewhere in Infected Areas and in Controlled Areas by local authorities. Licences for fatstock markets are issued by local authorities who also issue licences for store markets in Controlled Areas if the Ministry have given their specific approval. It is to be expected that when a number of outbreaks occur near to each other it may not be clear whether the responsibility for movement licensing rests with the Ministry of Agriculture or the local authority. It has been suggested that the Ministry should assume responsibility for all licensing during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We see some disadvantage if this course were followed; it would be an extra

call on staff that could severely tax the Ministry’s resources; also it would involve the loss of a valuable link with local authorities who would still be closely concerned with disease control arrangements. The advantages that would accrue from a change would be the removal of any uncertainty as to where the authority for licensing rested in the event of an outbreak and the elimination of any unevenness in the interpretation of the regulations. On balance we think it important that local authorities should be involved in the control of foot-and-mouth disease, and we recommend that they should continue in general to discharge their responsibilities for licensing markets and movements of livestock. The Ministry of Agriculture offer guidance on licensing procedures to local authorities and have encouraged them to post one of their disease of animals inspectors at each control centre to ensure close liaison with the veterinary staff. We recommend that in future this arrangement should be carried further, by accommodating at the control centre the staff of the local authorities involved in the licensing arrangements in the Infected Area. This arrangement should ensure consistency in the interpretation of the legislation, and it would also eliminate any confusion as to where an applicant should apply for a licence to move animals into or within an Infected Area.

100. There will be occasions on which it would be unreasonable to prohibit the movement into an Infected Area of store animals for fattening and animals to be used for breeding purposes, and under the present arrangements local authorities are empowered to license the movement of such animals from Controlled and clean areas onto farms in Infected Areas. Notwithstanding our comments in the preceding paragraph we consider that this particular power should be withdrawn and that such movements should only be allowed under licences issued by the Ministry of Agriculture.

101. We attach so much importance to cleansing and disinfection of markets and collecting centres that we think the licensing of individual fatstock markets and collecting centres in Infected and Controlled Areas by local authorities should be subject to approval by the Ministry of Agriculture. This should only be given if the facilities available for cleansing and disinfecting the premises and vehicles carrying livestock are considered to be adequate (see paragraph 139).

102. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 a local authority is empowered to carry out its animal health responsibilities through diseases of animals inspectors whom it may appoint. While many local authorities have in the past appointed police officers as inspectors under the Act, others have preferred to discharge their licensing functions by appointing as part-time inspectors local authority employees such as market officials, meat inspectors and public health inspectors. Many of our witnesses complained that confusion arose because the licensing officer in the local authority was not well known to farmers and they did not well know whom to approach. If the situation could be rationalised this would be an advantage, but while local authorities retain licensing responsibilities under the foot-and-mouth disease Orders, as we think they should, they should be allowed freedom to appoint whomsoever they consider are the most appropriate officers to discharge these duties. Many police authorities are anxious to disengage from routine diseases of animals work, such as the issue of movement licences, and some local authorities have appointed full-time diseases of animals inspectors to their staff. Retired police officers are well

qualified as disease of animals inspectors and their appointment in this capacity is a helpful development which we hope will continue. The public should be made aware of the name and address of the person responsible for licensing work.

103. We received many suggestions from witnesses for alterations to the present arrangements for obtaining movement licences. The rule currently applying is that licences for the movement of stock must be obtained from the local authority at the destination of the animals. We were told that during the 1967/1968 epidemic some farmers had been unable to obtain licences from the point of destination in time to move their stock without unnecessarily delaying them at the loading point, We recognise the need to exercise movement control from the destination particularly when animals are consigned to slaughter-houses, markets and collecting centres, as is generally the case during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. It is essential to avoid overloading the facilities at the destination particularly where this might involve delays in slaughtering, with the attendant animal health risks. Some of the delays which occurred in the last epidemic could have been overcome if more applications for licences had been accepted by post or telephone. We accordingly commend to local authorities the practice of issuing licences by post or on receipt of requests by telephone, and we note that the Ministry of Agriculture are proposing to include this advice in advisory pamphlet.

104. Although licences should continue to be issued by the local authority at the proposed destination, the suggestion has been made that it should be possible in exceptional circumstances to obtain a duplicate from the local authority at the dispatching point who would consult the licensing authority before meeting such a request. We recommend that where considerable distances are involved, and postal deliveries normally take some time, this procedure should be followed.

105. Certain commercial organisations whose business involves the daily movement of large numbers of livestock and who document these movements for accounting purposes suggested that if copies of these documents were given to the licensing authority this would eliminate the need for the duplication of the details on movement licences. Clearly the less duplication of work the better. At present movement licences are issued in the form prescribed in the relevant Orders, copies being given to the applicant and retained by the issuing authority. We understand that at present it would not be legally possible to use any other document. We think however that the Ministry of Agriculture should look into the matter and see whether it would be practicable to make some adjustment in order to save time and duplication of work.

106. In so far as the conditions of licence are concerned, we are in general satisfied that they provide adequate safeguards against the spread of infection. However two changes have been suggested additional to those discussed elsewhere in this report, and these are as follows:

(a) movement licences should require that animals in both Infected and Controlled Areas when moved to a slaughter-house should be slaugh- tered within 48 hours of arrival;

(b) the licence for a market in both Infected and Controlled Area should specify the hours within which animal may be accepted; this would enable veterinary inspection to be completed; the licence should also provide that no animals should be allowed to remain on market premises overnight except with the authority of a veterinary inspector.

We discussed the proposal in (a) with many witnesses and there does not seem to be any insuperable problem in its application. The requirement might not be met if animals were delivered to a slaughter-house on a Friday but we were told that this situation could be, and was, avoided in the normal pattern of slaughter-house management. The exception would be animals for emergency slaughter which might have to be received at any time, but in any event these would not be left standing over for long periods. We have received no evidence that the other proposal is impracticable. We regard both suggestions as desirable and recommend accordingly.

(h) Records of Movements and Sales

107. Accurate records of the movement of susceptible animals can be of paramount importance in controlling an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and we cannot impress this too strongly on all those with a duly to maintain such records. There are two Orders requiring that records should be maintained: the Swine Fever Order, 1963 requiring pig dealers to keep records of their transactions, and the Movement of Animals (Records) Order, 1960 requiring persons who move, or permit to be moved, animals to or from any premises to keep records (auctioneers are excluded from the provisions of this Order). In addition, the licensing requirements of the Regulation of Movement of Swine Order, 1959 provide a means of tracing the movement of pigs sold in markets.

108. Dealers attending a cattle market frequently buy and sell the same animals during the course of the day and they do not actually move the animals from the market premises. The Order of 1960 does not require the movements following such transactions to be recorded by the dealers. This gap in the records is potentially dangerous should the need arise to trace through a market the movements of animals which might have been infected with foot-and-mouth disease. We recommend that dealers should be required to keep records of all transactions and not only of those where they cause animals to be moved to other premises as at present. We further recommend that every livestock auctioneer should in future be required by law to keep records of sales. We also recommend that there should be a legal obligation on persons who engage in private treaty sales on market premises to report the details to a specified foot-and-mouth disease control centre immediately if the Ministry of Agriculture so require.

(i) Milk

109. We have already drawn attention in Part I of our report to the risk that foot-and-mouth disease might be transmitted through liquid milk and milk products. Foot-and-mouth disease virus can be present in milk from infected cows several days before they show clinical signs of disease, so infected milk could leave a farm before disease was even suspected. Moreover those who had handled this milk, and the containers and vehicles in which it had been trans-

ported, could also become mechanical carriers of the virus. The dangers associated with the movement of infected milk have been recognised for a long time, and for many years it has been the practice of the Ministry of Agriculture to advise the farming community and the milk industry on the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of infection. A code of practice has been operated on the basis of an agreement reached in 1957 between the Ministry and the Milk Marketing Boards; this code related to the handling of milk produced in Infected Area either for human consumption or for stockfeeding.

110. The agreed emergency procedure for a foot-and mouth outbreak was instituted at the beginning of the 1967/1968 epidemic, but the rapid increase in the number of outbreaks prevented the veterinary staff pf the Ministry of Agriculture from carrying out the advisory visits to dairies necessary to implement the agreement. As a consequence, from mid-November, 1967 onwards, 200 dairy husbandry advisers of the Ministry’s National Agricultural Advisory Service (N.A.A.S) assisted with this work of emphasising the importance of observing correct disease control procedures to all milk hauliers and dairymen. The existing code of practice was improved and revised during this period.

111. In spite of the application of the code of practice several outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in November, 1967 were traced to skim milk. A new Order was made in November, 1967 requiring that any milk or milk products fed to susceptible animals (other than animals on the farm from which the milk originated) should be pasteurised or boiled; this Order applied throughout Great Britain. However in February, 1968 it was amended to apply only to Controlled Areas. The Ministry of Agriculture continued to rely on the code of practice in Infected Areas because its provisions as a whole provided wider safeguards than the limited provisions in the Diseases of Animals (Milk Treatment) Order.

112. The experience of the epidemic has been reviewed by the Ministry and by the Milk Marketing Boards and the code of practice has been revised and strengthened; the Ministry also propose to hold annual consultations with the milk industry. In future outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease dairy husbandry officers of the N.A.A.S. will help to supervise the arrangement as they did during the 1967/1968 epidemic. We are satisfied that the new code, the plans for supervision andproposals for regular consultations with the milk industry cover the measures necessary to ensure the safe handling of milk and milk products during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Appendix III consists of extracts from the milk code giving advice to:

(a) haulier and buyers of milk and those who deliver dairy by-products to

farmers,

(b) milk producers in Infected Area,

contact in any way with foot-and-mouth disease.

This Appendix also sets out the treatments for milk and milk products for stock feeding to be applied by dairies in, or receiving milk from, Infected Area and dairies receiving milk from premises under restriction because of the presence of susceptible animals that may have been in contact with foot-and-mouth disease. The code, which already gives effect to some of our recommendations, should be reviewed in the light of this Report.

113. It is desirable that there should be some legislative support to the guidance given in the code of practice. Foot-and-mouth disease virus present in milk can be destroyed by processes involving varying combinations of time and temperature. We recommend a requirement that all milk, milk products and churn washings derived from animals in an Infected Area should be treated, before being fed to susceptible animals on any premises other than the farm of origin, in such a manner as to ensure the destruction of the virus if it should be present in milk from infected cows. It was also suggested that:

(a) premises under restriction because of possible contact with or proximity to infection should send milk direct to a dairy for suitable heat treatment; alternatively, milk and milk products should only be moved from such premises under license from Ministry of Agriculture;

(b) no milk should be moved from infected premises or premises where foot-and-mouth disease is suspected except under authority of a Ministry licence.

We support these proposals and recommend accordingly. We think they effectively tighten the safeguards necessary for handling milk on infected and suspect premises and those nearby, although we can conceive of few circum-stances where milk would be allowed to move from infected or suspect premises (see paragraph 158).

114. Our attention has been drawn to the special problems posed by the increased use of bulk milk tankers which has been developed to such an extent that, in certain areas, the industry could not revert to the use of churns during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. In the 1967/1968 epidemic it was thought that contaminated air might be expelled from bulk milk tankers when drawing a vacuum, and in order to deal with this possibility filters were fitted to the air exhaust systems of tankers collecting milk in Infected Areas. We have considered the feasibility of requiring that such filters should be fitted to tankers permanently but have concluded that the best arrangement would be for them to be kept in readiness and fitted to tankers should they have to operate in an Infected Area. We reached this conclusion because the full efficiency of filters cannot be maintained over long periods when they are fitted permanently and are in constant use. We recommend that there should be a legal requirement to fit filters to bulk milk tankers on any occasion in the future when they are operating in Infected Areas. We note that the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales now holds sufficient stocks of filters to fit out one third of its total tanker fleet. The older type of tanker, which depends on a pump, has an outlet valve to let air escape to make room for the milk. Unfortunately it has not been possible to devise a satisfactory filter but research work is in progress and the problem is likely to be solved soon. With regard to the risks attendant upon the entry of tankers onto farm premises in order to collect milk, the disinfection procedures described in the code of practice (Appendix III) substantially reduce the risks involved, and we endorse them. It is desirable during outbreaks and at all other times to cleanse and disinfect areas where milk spillage occurs.

115. An hour or so may elapse between the first suspicions of a veterinarian or an occupier that an animal has foot-and-mouth disease and the formal imposition of movement restrictions on the premises. This period constitutes a danger, particularly in relation to milk, and the Milk Marketing Board suggested that a KEEP OUT notice should immediately be placed by the farmer at the

entrance to the farm to stop any vehicle or person from entering the premises. If the suspicion proved to be unfounded any milk could be collected later. We think that this is important enough to justify placing a legal obligation on an occupier to post a KEEP OUT notice at the entrance to his premises as soon as he or his veterinarian suspects foot-and-mouth disease.

(j) Labour, Machinery and Equipment

116. We have already referred to the need to prepare for the mobilisation of men and equipment as part of pre-outbreak planning. The plan should take into account local resources and those of major civil engineering contractors and others, and should cover disease situations ranging from an isolated outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to a major epidemic. The Ministry of Agriculture have had discussions with river authorities, water boards in Scotland and major civil engineering contractors who, together with local authorities, have displayed a willingness to participate in arrangements for the supply of labour, machinery and equipment. We recommend that the resources of local authorities, river authorities, water boards in Scotland and major contractors should always be taken into account by the Ministry in drawing up plans for control of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. We would expect the Ministry to continue to place great reliance on the facilities immediately available within the area of an outbreak for slaughter, disposal of carcases and disinfection and to develop the practice of looking to major civil engineering contractors, river authorities and water boards for additional assistance against the possibility of an epidemic.

117. In the 1967/1968 epidemic the Ministry of Agriculture exhausted the resources of suitable civilian labour available at local labour exchanges; further more, some of the teams recruited were insufficiently disciplined for the work in hand, and their indifference to disease precautions gave rise needlessly to a risk of spreading foot-and-mouth disease virus. The Ministry called on the assistance of soldiers and airmen to help with the burial of carcases, cleansing and disinfection. A small number of soldiers from the Army School of Butchery and some volunteers from other units assisted with slaughtering livestock. The work done by the Army and the Royal Air Force has been praised by many of our witnesses.

118. We have discussed with the Ministry of Defence the criteria which govern the release of troops for use in civil emergencies. It appears that assistance from the armed Services is normally available to Government Departments when all other suitable labour resources have been exhausted. Troops had not been used to assist with the control of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease for some years prior to the 1967/1968 epidemic, so discussions were held between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Defence in 1966 and 1967 leading to an agreement in the summer of 1967 that troops would assist in any animal disease emergency which had exhausted civilian resources. As a result there was no delay or difficulty in obtaining Service assistance when the 1967/1968 epidemic became wide-spread. However, in future it should not be necessary to wait until an outbreak is wide-spread before obtaining the assistance of military personnel. Circumstances could arise making it highly desirable to call on the Army for some forms of assistance to control the disease even during the course of a single outbreak or a small number of outbreaks; speed and efficiency in slaughter of infected and in-contact animals, disposal of carcases and disinfection of premises are the most vital elements in controlling an out-

break and these will not be achieved without disciplined workers under experienced and trained supervisors. After the 1967/1968 epidemic there were further negotiations between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Defence, and agreement was reached that in outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease any of the Ministry’s regional controllers or the Deputy Director of the Veterinary Field Service in Scotland could approach Army Commands for assistance as soon as they considered that all suitable civilian labour resources had been committed. We recommend that the approach should not be delayed; liaison should be established forthwith and before foot-and-mouth disease appears in the country, and should be maintained.

119. If troops have to be used to help control foot-and-mouth disease out-breaks they will on many occasions be drawn from outside the Infected Area. In the 1967/1968 epidemic the troops engaged in cleaning-up operations did not return to their stations until they had undergone stringent disinfection and a period of quarantine. It is essential that the farming community should know the conditions under which troops operate in Infected Areas and that their return to clean areas does not constitute a disease risk.

120. Catering facilities are important for a satisfactory labour force during an epidemic. In 1967/1968 in Cheshire the police set up a meals service using eight police vans to distribute between 600 and 700 hot meals each day to police on duty and to workers engaged in slaughtering animals, burying carcases and disinfecting farms. This did much to expedite the control arrangements by minimising the movement of workers off inflected premises. Clearly this is a matter for consideration in drawing up plans for the future and we have no doubt that those who are in a position to provide facilities will cooperate to the full extent.

121. The methods of slaughtering animals are discussed in paragraph 124 and we have concluded that the captive-bolt pistol is the best weapon, combined with the use of a pithing cane. However it has been pointed out that the pistol can become overheated when it is fired rapidly over a long period, especially in field conditions. The solution is to have a reasonable rotation system, to allow the pistols in use to be maintained at a working temperature and we recommend that there should be a sufficient reserve of weapons to make this always possible.

122. We have discussed with many of our witnesses not only the supply of protective clothing but also its suitability for the purpose for which it is designed. At present stout personal protective clothing is the rule; for example, the veterinary staff on infected premises are equipped with a sou’wester, long rubber coat, rubber gauntlets, rubber boots and leggings. It was suggested that disposable protective clothing should be used, but while this might some day be possible, the disposable clothing we were shown would not stand up to use in the filed. So far as supplies of protective clothing are concerned we are satisfied from our enquiries that adequate stocks are available at the Ministry of Agriculture’s local offices.

123. We also received a number of suggestions relating to radio and telecommunications equipment and our comments on these are recorded in paragraphs 171 to 175.

(k) Slaughter and Disposal of Carcases

124. We have reviewed various methods of slaughter but have found nothing more effective than the captive-bolt pistol used in conjuction with a pithing cane. On rare occasions rifles have been used by expert marksmen where it would have been impossible to use a captive-bolt pistol. There may be similar occasions in the future when animals cannot be approached closely enough to use the captive-bolt pistol and when slaughtermen may have to have recourse to the use of a suitable caliber rifle.

125. Tranquillising drugs can be given by a hypodermic syringe or by a dart fired from a special gun; they can be used to sedate an animal to allow a thorough examination for diagnosis or in the case of an animal which is difficult to handle they may be used prior to slaughter. Dart guns must be handled by an expert if they are not to constitute a human hazard as the dose that would be satisfactory for tranquillising a bull would be lethal to man. We recommend that equipment for administering tranquillising drugs should be available for use by experts whenever the need arises. Veterinary officers should be trained in the use of this equipment.

126. We discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture the desirability of slaughtering of animals in a corral next to a prepared grave, to obviate unnecessary handling and movement of carcases; such an arrangement, while acceptable from the aesthetic point of view, is impracticable in that it would on a number of occasions give rise to delay in the slaughter of animals. The method is not one therefore that we advocate.

127. We received some complaints about delays in disposal of carcases during the 1967/1968 epidemic; Table IV shows the extent to which they occurred in a sample of outbreaks from 25^th October to 31^st December, 1967. We do not consider that there are any fundamental weaknesses in the methods used for slaughter and disposal of carcases employed by the Ministry of Agriculture. There were delays but they were probably inevitable in the conditions of the epidemic when, in mid-Cheshire alone, the stage was reached at which about 140 excavators and cranes, supported by about 100 vehicles and other machines, were in daily use on infected premises. Our proposals for pre-outbreak planning and for an organisation capable of rapid expansion to deal with epidemics should reduce delay to the minimum in the future.

Table IV

Period between Completion of Slaughter and Disposal

of Carcases in a Sample of Outbreaks from

25^th October to 31^st December, 1967

A. Disposal by Burial in 836 Outbreaks

Disposal completed

Number of

outbreaks

Percentage of

total outbreaks

analysed

On day of slaughter … … …

On day after slaughter … … …

2 days after slaughter … … …

3 days after slaughter … … …

More than 3 days after slaughter …

334

382

39.9

45.7

11.8

1.8

0.8

Table IV―continued

B. Disposal by Burning in 318 Outbreaks

Disposal completed

Number of

outbreaks

Percentage of

total outbreaks

analysed

On day of slaughter … … …

On day after slaughter … … …

2 days after slaughter … … …

3 days after slaughter … … …

More than 3 days after slaughter …

114

145

2.2

35.8

45.6

9.8

6.6

Source : Ministry of Agriculture

128. We have considered the merits of burial as opposed to cremation and we accept that burial is preferable because of the relative speed of the operation. It takes approximately four hours to prepare a grave for 100 animals and normally slaughter and burial would be completed well within 24 hours. Cremation, on the other hand, involves the preparation of a pyre, usually with straw, tyres, wood and coal. At least a day is required to prepare a pyre for 100 ad of cattle and a further two days are then necessary to complete burning. This delay adds to the risk of spreading infection from the carcases despite the fact that they are sprayed with disinfectant immediately after slaughter. Body excretions continue to exude from the carcases and add constantly to the risk of the virus being disseminated. We asked the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence about other methods of burning which might be more satisfactory than the use of coal and wood, but none was available. Napalm for instance would not be successful because of the high water content of carcases; the water must be evaporated before combustion takes place and since the rate of heat transfer from outside to inside the carcases is slow the process of evaporation is also slow. It has not yet been possible to improve on the method of burning other than by using “Isokal 1” (an exothermic product used in the iron smelting industry) to enhance the heat and burning qualities of coal and wood. This material was used extensively during the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic to replace tyres which leave an inconvenient residue of wire.

129. A further possible disadvantage to burning is the risk that foot-and- mouth disease virus might sometimes be carried by thermal air currents from the burning carcases. We referred in Part I of our Report to three outbreaks in Derbyshire during December, 1967 which might have been associated with this hazard. On the other hand there were other outbreaks in Derbyshire where conditions appeared to favour the spread of the virus while carcases were being burned and yet there were no subsequent related outbreaks. We conclude that there is insufficient scientific evidence to enable us to quantify the danger of spreading the virus by thermal air currents and we can only draw attention to the possible danger, and use it as a further argument for burying in preference to burning.

130. The Ministry of Agriculture have resorted to cremation where land on an infected farm is unsuitable for burial, for example because of rock near the surface or the presence of a high water table or where there is a risk of polluting water supplies. Before burying carcases the Ministry consult water undertaking about the pollution risk and it was represented to us by those involved in water supplies that there is considerable scope for liaison as a part of pre-outbreak planning. The Ministry assured us that pre-outbreak and post-outbreak consultations will include all those concerned with water supply. They also assured us that maps are maintained showing areas where burial would have an adverse effect on water supplies. We endorse the need for consultations and stress the importance of keeping maps up to date. It is important that the location of burial sides should be recorded and the information made available to river authorities and water supply undertakings.

(l) Disinfection

131. In the past it has been the policy of the Minister of Agriculture to give approval to general purpose disinfectants based on coal tar, lysol or halogenated phenols all of which maintain a high level of germicidal efficiency. These materials were tested by an approved laboratory test which assessed their germicidal properties against one type of pathogenic bacterium. Over the years a large number of proprietary disinfectants have been approved by the Minister after satisfactory tests and published in a list of approved disinfectants for the general guidance of local authorities, hauliers, railway and port authorities, farmers and other who might be involved in the control of animal diseases. Where the use of disinfectant is required under an Order relating to the control of animal diseases there is provision* that the disinfectant must be either a standard phenol or one of the other approved disinfectants.

132. The approved disinfectants were intended for use against a variety of pathogenic bacteria and were not tested against viruses. Phenol-type disin- fectants take longer to destroy foot-and-mouth disease virus than would acids and alkalis, and for many years it has been the practise of the Ministry of Agriculture’s veterinary officers to use a four per cent sodium carbonate (washing soda) solution for the general disinfection of buildings, roads, paths, and farm equipment on premises contaminated with foot-and-mouth disease virus. This solution, although very effective against the virus, has not been approved under the Order of 1936 because it is not effective as a general purpose disinfectant. Preparations of formaldehyde, which are not on the approved list, have also been used satisfactorily in infected premises to treat feeding stuffs, clothing and any other material on which a soda solution would be harmful.

133. The situation described in the preceding paragraph gave rise to confusion during the 1967/1968 epidemic, and there was some valid criticism from many of our witnesses that they did not receive clear guidance on the use of suitable disinfectants. This underlines the need for bringing the legislation up to date and for approving disinfectants with specific properties for use against foot-and-mouth diseases virus. Recent work at the Animal Virus Research Institute has confirmed that acids and alkalis rapidly destroy the foot-and-mouth disease virus provided the degree of acidity or alkalinity is maintained. Those who use

these materials should bear in mind that they rapidly lose their effectiveness by contamination from organic matter or by dilution. The Ministry of Agriculture have now made arrangements for approving certain disinfectants for use against foot-and-mouth disease and others for use against other animal diseases. These will be embodied in a new Order in due course, and if an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurs in the meantime a temporary Order will be made listing the disinfectants to be used against foot-and-mouth disease. At present this list comprises:

(a) sodium carbonate (decahydrate), complying with British Standard

3674 of 1963 (i.e. washing soda),

(b) citric acid BP,

(d) the products Vanodine R62 FAM and Resiguard F.

All of these are already known to be effective against foot-and-mouth disease virus; other disinfectants which are shown to be effective on test will be added to the approved list. We commend this arrangement which removes all doubt about the disinfectants that should be used against foot-and-mouth disease. We would also like the Ministry of Agriculture to have power to approve other methods of destroying foot-and-mouth disease virus to meet special circum- stances. For example steam can be a very effective agent for cleansing and disinfecting; formaldehyde has been shown to be useful and a blow lamp can be a convenient method of destroying the virus. Such methods should be used when circumstances warrant. Detergents are an aid to cleansing, and the efficiency of some disinfectants is improved when mixed with certain detergents.

134. It must be emphasised that disinfectants which are known to be effective against foot-and-mouth disease may not be effective against a wide range of pathogenic bacteria and viruses and may be rendered ineffective against the foot-and-mouth disease virus itself if mixed with general purpose disinfectants. Washing soda and citric acid both suffer from this disadvantage. It follows that in Infected Areas the method of disinfecting lorries and markets ―which would normally be carried out with a general purpose disinfectant― should be prescribed by the Ministry of Agriculture to include satisfactory cleansing followed by the use of an approved disinfectant against foot-and-mouth disease virus.

135. The Foot-and-mouth Disease Order of 1928 and the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order of 1938 require the complete disinfection of yards, paths, roads and buildings on infected premises, of equipment and materials on those premises, and of any vehicle conveying livestock within an Infected Area. Persons living or working on infected premises are also required to disinfect themselves when moving on or off the farm. It is essential that these requirements are followed conscientiously by all those concerned but it appears from the evidence that this was not always so during the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth epidemic. In particular the attitude to disinfection of some casual labour gangs employed in disposal operations was widely criticised and it was thought by some of our witnesses that failure to carry out personal disinfection may have contributed to disease spread. (We refer in paragraph 118 to the need for disciplined labour when dealing with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.)

136. Because of the large number of outbreaks in the 1967/1968 epidemic the Ministry of Agriculture expected that there would be recrudescences of the disease; disinfection of premises and feedingstuffs was therefore repeated at an early stage in the epidemic. Nevertheless twelve outbreaks of disease were thought to have been due to the persistence of the foot-and-mouth disease virus from the earlier outbreaks on the premises or on premises nearby. The Ministry’s investigations suggested that infected hay was the most likely cause of recrudescenses. Hay is difficult to disinfect, particularly when baled, and we refer to this matter in paragraph 159.

137. During the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic a number of local authorities, organizations and individuals took the initiative to install disinfectant pads on public roads. The Ministry of Agriculture, when asked, advised that such measures would contribute little if anything to preventing the spread of the disease. But many of our witnesses claimed that these pads were of psychological value because they impressed on travelers that they were entering an area of special disease risk. On the other hand it may be argued that these measures couldinstil a false sense of security and to that extent they could be dangerous. The scientific evidence is that disinfectant pads on public roads would do nothing to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease virus.

138. The desire of people to take measures to protect their livestock is understandable but it is in their interests that their efforts should afford them the greatest possible degree of protection. The most valuable protective measure that an individual farmer can introduce is to establish close supervision over access to his farm, to restrict this to essential traffic and to insist on thorough cleansing and disinfectant of persons and vehicles entering the farm. Straw mats soaked in disinfectant are inadequate as they only apply disinfectant to the treads of the tyres of a vehicle and it is difficult to ensure that the disinfectant when used in this manner retains the correct degree of acidity or alkalinity. The mats do nothing to diminish the hazard associated with the presence of virus on other parts of the vehicle or on the driver. The best method of disinfection, and indeed the one that is prescribed for use on an infected farm, is the combination of thorough cleansing, preferably with a pressure hose, followed by the use of an approved disinfectant. This method removes organic matter and grease and enables the disinfectant to work on the exposed surfaces; it should be used to cleanse and disinfect the wheels and superstructure of all vehicles and areas that might have been contaminated by seepage or spillage, for example spillage or milk. Where a pressure hose is not available, thorough washing down and the application of disinfectant with a spray is recommended. Properly constructed deep troughs at the farm gate play a limited role in disinfection but they need to be long enough to apply the contents to the full circumference of large wheels, and wide enough to accommodate the full width of the tyres of a heavy vehicles. It has been suggested to us that two troughs sixteen feet in length and three feet in width would be adequate for this purpose; their contents would require to be regularly topped up to make good any loss due to surging, and measures would be necessary to prevent freezing. Such troughs would be costly to construct and maintain, and as their use is limited it would be more profitable to arrange for thorough disinfection as suggested above.

139. We have already recommended in Part I of our Report that adequate facilities for cleansing and disinfecting vehicles and persons engaged in the

transport of livestock should be a legal requirement at appropriate points of entry into Great Britain. It would also be desirable that all vehicles used for the transport of animals should be cleansed and disinfected before leaving any livestock market. We realise that existing facilities could not cater for this in some instances but we consider that the general provision of facilities and the enforcement of their use should be the aim for the future. We recommend that a licence for a market or a collecting center in an Infected or a Controlled Area should only be granted when the facilities for washing and disinfecting vehicles are adequate.

140. The normal method of disinfection for vehicles in market should be a combination of cleansing and disinfection. This has been the practice in the past. The Ministry of Agriculture’s new proposals for approving disinfectants resolve problems in relation to specific diseases but they leave a problem in relation to general disinfection against a range of diseases. In the present state of knowledge it is not possible to recommend a disinfectant that would be effective against a wide range of organisms pathogenic for animals. In the circumstances we recommend that research should be carried out to devise a disinfectant preparation or a method of disinfection effective against many pathogenic organisms, which would include foot-and-mouth disease virus.

141. In addition to the provisions for cleansing and disinfection which are laid down for Infected Areas, there are Orders which impose obligations to carry out routine cleansing and disinfection as a general precautionary measure in the normal course of handling livestock and livestock products. The Transit of Animals Order lay down such requirements for railways trucks and some motor vehicles used to convey animals. The Markets, Sales and Lairs Orders deal with the cleansing and disinfection of such premises. The Disease of Animals (Waste Foods) Order 1957 requires the disinfection of vehicles and containers used to carry unboiled waste foods (see paragraphs 199). The cleansing and disinfection for which these Order provide is of the utmost importance in the control of animal diseases generally, and a failure to comply with them could seriously affect the spread of infection. Those with a duty in this respect should be scrupulous at all times in discharging their responsibilities.

142. We have described the Ministry of Agriculture’s new arrangements for approved disinfectants for foot-and-mouth disease. Which will eliminate con- fusion such as arose during the 1967/1968 epidemic. We have emphasised the importance of cleansing and disinfection in Infected Areas. We have also stressed the need for strict compliance with similar provisions required under other Orders as a matter of routine and we have discussed the measures that farmers might take to protect themselves so far as possible against the risk that infection may be carried onto their premises. It remains for the details to be extensively publicised in the from of general advice which should be reissued on the occasion of any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. This advice should extend to cover methods of cleansing and disinfection. The advisory leaflets referred to in paragraph 183 would afford one means by which such advice should be promulgated. We recommend that full publicity be given to approved disinfectants and to methods of disinfection.

(m) Compensation and Associated Matters

143. A considerable volume of the evidence we received related to compen- sation and matters associated with it, such as valuation, taxation and insurance.

The evidence concerned not only farmers whose stock had been slaughtered, but also those on whose farms there had been no outbreak but who had suffered financially in various ways. Many individuals and business not directly engaged in farming also suffered considerable losses as a result of the wide- spread epidemic of 1967/1968. In this section we review the practice regarding payment of compensation and valuation, and comment upon those aspects of it which do not appear to us to be satisfactory. Thereafter we deal with taxation and insurance matters.

(i) Compensation and valuation

144. The basis of compensation for animals slaughtered in order to control foot-and-mouth disease is set out in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 as follows:

“(a) where the animal slaughtered was affected with foot-and-mouth disease the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it became so affected:

(b) in every other case the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered.”

145. It is important to maintain a clear distinction, in relation to compen- sation and valuation, between the ordinary circumstances arising from a single outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or a relatively small number of outbreaks and the extraordinary set of circumstances which may arise in a major epidemic such as occurred in 1967/1968. The latter inevitably involves certain complications which fortunately arise only rarely, but for which nonetheless we think it necessary to provide.

Valuation and compensation for livestock in ordinary circumstances

146. Apart from the special case of valuations of moorland and hill sheep, compensation received by farmers for animals slaughtered in foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks has generally been accepted as fair and satisfactory in ordinary circumstances. In practice the value referred to in the Act, as interpreted by valuers and accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture, has been satisfactory.

147. The valuation of moorland and hill sheep presents special problems. We support the need to make special provisions to compensate for such flocks. Following the slaughter of a flock of hill or moorland sheep many years may elapse before a new flock can be established. During those years the farmer will inevitably lose many of his sheep owing to hefting and acclimatisation difficulties. Following the experience of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland in 1966 which involved the slaughter of many hill sheep the Ministry of Agriculture, after consultation with the National Farmers’ Unions, have recommended what appears to us to be a satisfactory method of valuation for such flocks. The value contains two special components, hefting and acclimatisation. We fully endorse the Ministry’s action.

148. Another special problem arises where artificial insemination (A.I.) stud bulls, included in progeny testing programmes, are slaughtered; such bulls are virtually never sold, and their value is obviously very different from that of bulls which are not being so tested. During the 1967/1968 epidemic, when some A.I. stud bulls were compulsorily slaughtered, this problem was satisfactorily solved

on lines which appear to us to be reasonable. We recommend that the same general basis should be adopted in future.

Compensation for livestock and valuation in the extraordinary circumstances of an epidemic

149. In the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic store markets were closed in Shropshire and five surrounding counties from the outset and from 18th November, 1967 the ban was extended to the whole of England and Wales. On 25th November this ban was also imposed on Scotland and it continued in force throughout Great Britain for a period of two months. Valuers were thus deprived of the element of current market prices in making their assessments, and valuations tended to rise as more and more animals were slaughtered; the valuers anticipated that the shortage of stock would be reflected in the ruling price of markets when they opened again. The average compensation value of cattle had increased by more than five per cent by the third week of the epidemic and this percentage rose to thirteen per cent in the fourth week and to over twenty per cent in the sixth week.

150. The epidemic also resulted in many more people than usual being needed to conduct valuations at about the same time; the available supply of valuers was stretched and necessarily some less experienced valuers than would normally have been working for the Ministry of Agriculture had to be employed. Another feature was that the interval between slaughter and restocking was much longer than usual.

151. These features together produced special difficulties for which the system of valuation and compensation was never designed to cope and led to a lack of uniformity in the valuations arrived at. During the period in which restocking was not allowed the values of some classes of livestock continued to rise. In the event it became necessary for valuers to make some sort of guess at the way in which these extraordinary circumstances would affect values. This was an almost impossible task and not unnaturally valuations showed a lack of uniformity. The Ministry of Agriculture propose to appoint in each area a senior valuer will act as monitor, adviser and liaison officer between the Ministry and the approved valuers. The senior valuer will inform himself of any deviations by individuals valuers from the generally acceptable level of values in the area and will be in a position to ensure a sensible degree of uniformity.

152. Another special difficulty arose owing to the different dates when animals were slaughtered during the period when restocking was not allowed. If, for example, three farmers in the same area each with stock of substantially equal worth had their herds slaughtered out in the first, fourth and sixth weeks of the epidemic it follows, on the basis of the percentages mentioned in paragraph 149, that for each £100 of compensation for stock slaughtered received by the first farmer, the second and third farmers would have received £113 and over £120 respectively. This is manifestly inequitable.

153. In an attempt to mitigate these difficulties a scheme of supplementary payments was introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture. Should these extra- ordinary circumstances arise again we are convinced that it would be wrong to rely on any such ad hoc arrangements for supplementing compensation payments in the future. We are also sure that any system of compensation ought to be

firmly based on statutory provisions in an Act of Parliament and that it would be wrong to have recourse in future to any non-statutory scheme.

154. We have considered how in such circumstances a fair result can be achieved. There may be other ways of doing this but one which might prove satisfactory is set out in Appendix IV. This is intended only as an illustration of what we have in mind and not as a positive recommendation in detail. We discussed this with valuers’ representatives and while there was some conflict of view we think that the underlying principle should be accepted and that a system on these lines could work with a reasonable degree of equity in practice. It would however involve amendment of the 1950 Act. We recommend that some system of this nature should be introduced.

Withholding compensation for livestock

155. Some of our witnesses suggested that compensation ought to be with- held, wholly or in part, where it could be established that full care was not taken to avoid foot-and-mouth disease. Far the most important case of failing to take full care would normally be failure to report promptly (see paragraphs 11 and 34), but there could be other contraventions of the Act itself or of Ministerial Orders or local authority regulations under the Act, which might constitute failure to take full care, for example moving an animal without a licence when one is needed or without fully complying with the conditions of any licence.

156. Legal sanctions of a criminal nature already exist which cover failure to report and many other offences too (as for instance those listed in Section 78 of the 1950 Act). These appear to us fully adequate for penalising all forms of failure to take full care including failure to report, and we can see no reason to extend these provisions in any way.

157. In addition to criminal sanctions there exists a power of the Minister in Section 19(6) of the 1950 Act to withhold compensation or any other payment wholly or in part where either the owner or the person in charge of an animal has in the Minister’s judgment been guilty of any offence in relation to the animal under the Act, Orders or Regulations. This can in theory be exercised regardless of whether or not there has been conviction or acquittal for any such offence. We consider that the criminal sanctions are amply sufficient without any additional power to withhold compensation, and agree with the Gowers Committee (paragraph 204 of their Report) that this particular form of power is in any event not a desirable one. Since the Gowers Committee’s emphatic recommendation that this withholding power should never be used and should be abrogated at the first convenient opportunity, we are glad to note that the Ministry of Agriculture have accepted that view and have never used this power and intend to revoke it as soon as possible. We agree with the view of the Gowers Committee and with the attitude adopted in practice by the Ministry and recommend that section 19(6) should be repealed as soon as possible.

Compensation other than for livestock

158. Up to the time of the 1967/1968 epidemic compensation had not been paid for milk which was destroyed on a farm affected by foot-and-mouth disease. During the epidemic it was decided that milk on infected premises when disease was confirmed, and contaminated milk and milk products from the Infected Area which could not be heat treated, should be destroyed and compensation paid. We consider that rigid control of such milk and milk products is of prime

importance in controlling foot-and-mouth disease (see paragraph 113). We recommend that in future milk produced on infected premises should be destroyed and the owners compensated. On premises where foot-and-mouth disease is suspected, or on premises under restriction because of possible contact with or proximity to infection, milk that cannot be utilised in a manner that eliminates the risk of spreading the virus should also be destroyed, and the owners compensated. The Disease of Animals Act, 1950 should be amended to provide for such compensation.

159. We refer in paragraph 136 to twelve outbreak in the 1967/1968 epidemic that were regarded by the Ministry of Agriculture as recrudescences of disease. These recrudescences occurred notwithstanding a second round of disinfection and in a number of outbreaks were attributed to residual infection in hay. These outbreaks illustrate the difficulty of ensuring that all contaminated material on a farm is either destroyed or disinfected. Prior to the 1967/1968 epidemic the Ministry’s headquarters delegated authority to control centers for the destruction of contaminated material on infected premises up to a limit of £10; this was increased to £50 during the epidemic. We consider that the assessment of the disease risk associated with the possible contamination of materials on infected premises is one that should be made in the light of all the local evidence by a responsible veterinary officer and that there should be no hesitation in destroying potentially dangerous material which could not be disinfected effectively. We recommend that regional veterinary officers should be authorised to destroy any material which they consider on veterinary grounds to be dangerous.

Valuation procedure

160. Some comments we received related to the valuation procedure. Veter- inary officers of the Ministry of Agriculture are authorised to agree to a valuation for infected animals and their immediate contacts and to proceed with slaughter without delay. Our concern therefore is confined to the methods of dealing with valuation of other animals on the infected premises. Because it was alleged that delay in slaughter of potentially dangerous in-contact animals sometimes occurred whilst the Ministry of Agriculture sought the service of a valuer, we considered whether in these circumstances it was necessary that the animals should remain alive until they had been valued. Valuers are not trained to value dead animals and their organisations told us that they would not welcome such a procedure if it became the general practice. They could see no reason why valuation of the animals alive should give rise to any delay in slaughter. Nevertheless they have said that although there are problems in valuing dead animals these are not insurmountable. We consider it so important to destroy as quickly as possible any animal in which foot-and-mouth disease virus may be multiplying and from which there may be excretion that if a valuer has not arrived on the premises to value animals for slaughter within two hours of being called we recommend that slaughter should proceed, and the valuer should then value the dead animals.

161. The suggestion was made that to avoid unevenness in valuations two valuers rather than one should carry out the valuation, one representing the Ministry of Agriculture and the other representing the farmer. We would not recommend this because we consider that it would only lead to further delays.

Moreover, and as already indicated in paragraph 151, the Ministry of Agricul- ture propose to appoint senior valuers to act as monitors.

162. We have discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture the steps they are taking to expand their lists of qualified valuers to be employed in the event of any future outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. These lists will comprise the names of individual valuers and not names of firms. We consider that the Ministry’s arrangements are satisfactory.

163. Several witnesses suggested that the present period of fourteen days within which the owner of animals slaughtered may appeal against the valuation should be extended. They felt that the mental strain on a farmer at the time of an outbreak was such that he should be allowed a longer period to consider the matter. We do not underestimate the stress to which a farmer is subject at such a time, but we do not consider that any extension of the fourteen day period is necessary.

(ii) Consequential loss

164. We have considered many arguments for extending compensation to cover other losses for which in the past compensation has not been paid. Many examples of such loss were represented to us, for example the losses sustained by bacon-pig producers who were prevented by movement restrictions from sending their pigs to bacon factories when they had reached the optimum weight and who consequently lost the considerable bonus of marketing a bacon pig as opposed to a pork pig for which there might well have been little or no demand locally. We envisage that the relaxations in movement controls on susceptible animals which we have recommended will considerably ease the difficulties of pig producers and others who have to market a product at a critical time. Another example was the losses sustained when farmers whose stock had been slaughtered were unable to give full employment to workers for the period in which there were no animals to tend. We have every sympathy for farmers and workers who found themselves in this predicament in the 1967/1968 epidemic. We were reminded that the man who had the daily task of tending and often of rearing the stock that had to be slaughtered was bound to be affected psychologically. In spite of this many such men took part in arranging for slaughter, preparing for burial and the subsequent cleaning up operations on infected farms and it was the consensus of opinion that they were among the best workers performing such tasks. It was an additional hardship that some of them had to face a reduction in income to the bare minimum wage or found themselves without employment altogether. Others left agriculture permanently although we cannot say how many did so. Nevertheless we are forced to the conclusion that to pay additional compensation to farmers whose animals are slaughtered to enable them to retain their workers during the period that they are without livestock could not be distinguishable from many other cases. For example the small farmer providing his own labour and not employing workers would then have to be considered; his enterprise could conceivably be harder hit financially than a large farm employing a considerable number of farm workers.

165. We have much sympathy with the many people who have suffered such losses but we do not consider that compensation payments should be extended to cover them. Such losses are consequential ones and consequential losses are also incurred not only by farmers and stockmen but also by numerous other

people both inside and outside the agricultural industry. We agree with the conclusion of the Gowers Committee that if the principle of compensation were extended to cover consequential losses “it would be almost impossible to define the numerous classes of people who would have some claim for its being applied to them”.

(iii) Taxation

166. The Income Tax Act, 1952 provides that a farmer’s animals shall, with certain exceptions, be treated as trading stock. For tax purposes this means that, in calculating a farmer’s taxable profits, the cost of his animals is deducted as an expense and the price at which they are eventually sold is regarded as a trading receipt. The exception to this rule is where a farmer is running a “production herd”, that is a dairy herd or a breeding herd, or a ewe flock. A farmer can elect shortly after he begins to keep such a herd or flock to treat these animals as a “production herd” for tax purposes on what is known as the “herd basis”. Where the “herd basis” applies the valuations of production animals are not in general taken into account in computing trading profits. An election by a farmer to adopt the “herd basis” can only be made once, and applies to all his production herds or flocks of the same class; separate elections can be made for herds or flocks of different classes. If, however, a farmer’s stock has to be destroyed as a result of foot-and-mouth disease and compensation is payable, the farmer is given a further opportunity to elect for the “herd basis”. The effect of electing for the “herd basis” is that mature animals cease to be treated as trading stock, and any compensation is regarded as capital and accordingly not liable to income tax, surtax and corporation tax; it also in most cases avoids capital gains tax. It is brought in as a trading receipt to offset the cost of animals acquired within five years. In all other cases, where animals are regarded as trading stock, compensation is treated as a normal revenue receipt and taxed accordingly.

167. It follows that difficulties and inequities can occur where a sum of compensation for stock is brought into trading accounts and credited in a single year’s account. We recommend that in such cases the farmer concerned should have a statutory entitlement to spread compensation received over the same number of years as those over which it would probably have been received had there been no outbreak. Otherwise an unfairly large part of this compensation is brought into tax and will fail to achieve the object for which it has been awarded.

(iv) Insurance

168. Insurance for losses incurred as a result of foot-and-mouth disease originated in the 1920’s but the present standard practice did not develop until after 1945. Government compensation is payable for animals slaughtered, and for carcases, fodder, litter and fertilizers seized and destroyed during an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Insurance can be taken out to cover other losses, for example loss of income. Insurance companies in practice apply a nominal rate of premium to the amount of indemnity selected, or alternatively to the market value of the herd. Farmers can elect to insure for up to 25 per cent of the amount of compensation they would hope to receive from the Ministry of Agriculture, and this amount is generally thought to be adequate cover for commercial herds. They can elect to increase their insurance up to 50 per cent

in exceptional circumstances, for example to cover pedigree herds. Farmers can also insure, although for a limited period of time, against losses they might sustain through foot-and-mouth disease without having had their own stock slaughtered. In addition a number of businesses that are closely associated with the agricultural industry insure against losses resulting from foot-and-mouth disease. Although there was no general market agreement on insurance rates they had been progressively reduced until the 1967/1968 epidemic. Farmers who had maintained their insurance premiums for foot-and-mouth disease received the benefit of normal renewal terms irrespective of local conditions. Premiums for foot-and-mouth disease cover are for tax purposes allowed as expenses. The extent of insurance varied with the disease situation in Great Britain, increasing after an epidemic and diminishing with periods of freedom from the disease. ‘Panic’ requests for insurance during the 1967/1968 epidemic were frequent but cover was only available at greatly increased rates, if at all.

169. The effect of the 1967/1968 epidemic on the level of insurance rates was dramatic; premiums rose from about 2s. 6d. per head of cattle (and lesser amounts per head for sheep and pigs), or 2s. 6d. per cent of the total value of all animals, to as much as £5 per head or per cent for cover to the value of 25 per cent of the Ministry of Agriculture’s compensation. We were told that rates are based on experience over a considerable period, and current premiums are 7s. 6d. per cent or per head of cattle. It is likely that normal competition will ensure a reduction in premium rates if the continuing experience of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain shows that there is a reduced risk. We are satisfied that adequate arrangements exist to enable those who wish to do so to insure against any loss arising arrangements exist from foot-and-mouth disease for which State compensation is not payable. It is unlikely that a scheme of compulsory insurance could be devised within the framework of a free market and such a scheme would be likely to involve State support. We conclude that there is no case for compulsory insurance.

(v) Grants and subsidies

170. It was accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture during the 1967/1968 epidemic that where farmers were prevented from fulfilling the requirements of a grant or subsidy scheme because their stock was slaughtered or because of movement restrictions imposed on them, their stock or products as a result of the epidemic, special measures should be introduced relaxing the existing rules which if strictly applied would have caused them serious hardship. This was also the case where inspections by Ministry officials under grant and subsidy schemes had to be suspended. We commend this policy which we hope the Ministry will continue to apply. The extent to which such special measures are necessary must clearly depend on the circumstances of an outbreak, particularly its extent and duration. It would in our view be unreasonable for a farmer to lose a claim under a scheme through failure to comply with the rules because of restrictions imposed by the Ministry in order to control foot-and-mouth disease.

(n) Communication and Information Services

Communications

171. An essential requirement in a foot-and-mouth disease control center is adequate communications. The needs are of two kinds. The first is for adequate telecommunication facilities to ensure a swift and reliable service from and into

the control center. The second is for rapid and reliable means of communication between the control center and all those engaged on control measures in the field.

172. Our proposals in paragraph 46 for an adequately manned control centre, at which the police, local authorities and if necessary the armed forces will be represented, make it even more necessary for adequate telephone lines to be provided and for exchange facilities within the center itself. The Post Office have told us that an exchange line for emergency use in a control centre would be accorded top priority, and there is no doubt that the requirement would be met. The provision of three to five exchange lines in a group could prove more difficult if they had to be provided at short notice. The difficulties could be overcome if the Ministry of Agriculture permanently reserved line plant and exchange equipment, but we note that the cost of doing so at a number of points throughout Great Britain might be very considerable. Many of our witnesses said that the telephone lines during the 1967/1968 epidemic were hopelessly overloaded and that they had experienced considerable difficulty on occasions in getting through to control centers. This illustrates the difficulty to which the Post Office referred. We are advised that the choice of location of a control center dictates the number of telephone lines that can be provided, that there could be variations in availability at any one place over a period of time and that through regular consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Post Office the most favourable locations could be identified and kept under review. Such reviews are an essential component of pre-outbreak planning, and although there are other factors to be taken into account when selecting the location of a control center, such as proximity to the area of the outbreak, we recommend that the availability of sufficient telephone exchange lines should have a very high priority.

173. We were told that the Ministry of Agriculture’s headquarters, regional and divisional offices are interlinked on the teleprinter system (Inland Telex Service) which offers a rapid means of communication with some distinct advantages over the telephone system. The installation of Telex in foot-and-mouth disease control centers would be an obvious advantage. The Post Office have told us that the provision of a temporary Telex service at control centers would be subject to the availability of circuits and equipment at the nearest Telex exchange. The Ministry are discussing with the Post Office the possibilities of installing Telex at control centers and they will no doubt bear in mind the availability of this service when earmarking premises for control centres.

174. While telephones have a part to play in communication between the control centres and those engaged in control measures in the field they cannot be relied upon as the sole means of communication, not only because of the demand on lines but also because an officer in the field may not have access to a telephone. During the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic this problem was mitigated by the provision by the police and local authorities of radio cars and pocket radios. Army walkie-talkie sets were also brought into use, and in Cheshire an observer in a helicopter helped to coordinate the deployment of earth-moving plant and other items of heavy equipment. We recommend that in future there should be standing arrangements to utilise fully these means of communication.

175. It is generally the case that officers of the Ministry of Agriculture when traveling on official business use their own cars. There is however a small pool of official vehicles, and we recommend that the Ministry should explore with the Post Office the practicability of equipping these with radio telephones which could be used during an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to supplement the equipment that other orgnisations could place at the Ministry’s disposal.

Information services

176. The information service required during a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak must ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture’s staff controlling the disease are kept in touch, at all levels, with developments. We received some evidence that during the 1967/1968 epidemic this was not always accomplished, but due to the rapid increase in the number of outbreaks and the number of staff involved during the epidemic this is not surprising. Such a situation is likely to have taxed the resources of any organization to the utmost. However there is an aspect of the Ministry’s accommodation arrangements that is likely to have added to their difficulties. The Ministry’s Animal Health Division dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, and the Headquarters of the Veterinary Service, are at Tolworth, Surrey whereas the Minister and his senior advisers are in Whitehall. This physical separation must make it less easy to maintain liaison than would be the case if all were housed under the same roof.

177. An information service must also provide up-to-date information to the press, radio and television, and advice and guidance to farmers, sporting and other organisations and the public. In recent years foot-and-mouth disease control centres have had an officer specifically responsible for public relations attached to them, usually a trained information officer, though this was not possible at all the centers in the 1967/1968 epidemic. The Ministry propose that information officers will be so assigned in future. During the epidemic contributions were made by individuals and organisations outside the Ministry of Agriculture to the establishment of a public relations service; for example county branches of the National Farmers’ Union established a liaison service, and the Union also provided a trained public relations officer for the Oswestry area. In Cheshire the County Land Agent acted as liaison and local publicity officer. It may not always be possible for this additional assistance to be provided from outside the Ministry of Agriculture but Ministry’s information officers should establish close personal liaison with the organisations concerned and with the press, radio, television and all other local information services.

178. There may also be a need for an information unit at the national level during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. The Ministry of Agriculture already have a press unit in London which deals with the full range of the Ministry’s business; but in addition, during the 1967/1968 epidemic, they found it necessary to set up a special information unit at their Animal Health Headquarters at Tolworth to deal entirely with the epidemic. As a result of this experience the Ministry intend to establish a press enquiry unit and a public enquiry unit at Tolworth when outbreaks occur in future, if they consider that these steps are necessary. The B.B.C. will be asked to set up a land-line transmitter at Tolworth for the use of senior veterinary officers of the Ministry wishing to broadcast over B.B.C. radio networks. The B.B.C. did this during the 1967/1968 epidemic and it proved to be a most valuable asset. In addition

there will be a working group under the Ministry’s Chief Press Officer comprising members of the Guild of Agricultural Journalists and the B.B.C.; the group will keep the public relations machine under review during a serious outbreak. We regard these arrangements as satisfactory.

179. The press, radio and television all have a part to play in disseminating information about outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and each medium has its advantages which should be exploited to the full in an emergency. Many of our witnesses commented on the great importance they attached to daily radio bulletins on the location of fresh outbreaks and on the whereabouts and extent of Infected and Controlled Areas; some of them criticized the times at which, during the 1967/1968 epidemic, the news was released. We have discussed timing with farmers and others and it seems that about 06.30 and between 18.00 and 18.30 hours would be generally accepted as the most suitable times for such news bulletins. Other witnesses suggested that the television screen afforded a valuable means by which the boundaries of Infected Areas, if identified by topographical features, could be presented graphically to the public. We commend these suggestions.

180. There is a legal requirement on all diseases of animals authorities to advertise Orders relating to foot-and-mouth disease. It was suggested to us that this requirement could involve a local authority in arrangements which were unnecessarily complicated and expensive, when the Ministry of Agriculture could undertake so much more easily and quickly any advertising they considered necessary. The point was also made to us by some local authorities that because of the speed at which events moved during the 1967/1968 epidemic the announcement of Orders in local newspapers was not worthwhile. We can appreciate that this might have been the case during the 1967/1968 epidemic when the situation was changing daily but, as we have already said, it is necessary to exploit every publicity medium if there is to be a fully comprehensive information service. We consider that announcements about outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and control measures should continue to be inserted in local newspapers and we do not think there are grounds for transferring responsibility for their publication from local authorities to the Ministry of Agriculture.

181. The Ministry of Agriculture must be able to rely on the good will of the press and broadcasting services to play their part in communicating information and guidance to all concerned. Nevertheless we realize that matters relating to the control of foot-and-mouth disease do not always have popular appeal and may require more broadcasting time or newspaper space than they might be considered to merit as news items. We hope that the press and broadcasting agencies, who are always ready to provide news and information on matters of national importance, will appreciate the seriousness of foot-and-mouth disease and be generous in providing coverage.

182. All those who are concerned with maintaining a state of readiness to deal with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease impressed on us the difficulty of keeping the emergency organisation at a high pitch when there are few outbreaks. We have already drawn attention to the need for regular exercises (see paragraph 44) and several of our witnesses felt that a documentary film on foot-and-mouth disease control would be invaluable for the purposes of education and training. The Ministry of Agriculture have already made such a film,

FM-C

and we recommend that its release for viewing by interested bodies should be given high priority.

183. Advisory leaflets are clearly essential. The Ministry of Agriculture have issued an advisory leaflet on foot-and-mouth disease and this is being revised. They are also preparing additional material giving guidance to:-

(a) farmers in Infected Areas;

(b) farmers whose farms are under restriction because of possible contact with infection.

(d) local authorities and the police;

(e) contractors working in Infected Areas;

(f) slaughter-house operators in Infected Areas;

(g) livestock hauliers;

(h) persons and organizations concerned with sport and recreation in the countryside in Infected Areas;

(i) persons concerned with milk collection and utilization and with milk recording. (See Appendix III.)

These leaflets will be valuable in connexion with the handbook of guidance we recommend in paragraph 44. They should also provide the majority of persons affected by control restrictions with the advice they would need during foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. However we consider that the leaflet dealing with outdoor sporting activities should refer also to the position in Controlled Areas, as set out in paragraph 96 of this Report. We also consider that the legislation on foot-and-mouth disease should be the subject of an explanatory booklet, and that a note of guidance should be prepared for the knacker industry.

184. Many witnesses, and in particular the police and livestock hauliers, drew attention to the signs in general use during the 1967/1968 epidemic indicating infected premises and Infected Areas. The signs were said to be too small and too flimsy for use out of doors. The Ministry of Agriculture in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport are developing a series of new road signs, and we urge that this will be given high priority.

185. The Ministry of Agriculture and local authorities share the responsibility for erecting notices and posters to indicate an Infected Place, to warn the public to keep away from land, and to announce the closure of footpaths. Our attention was drawn to the procedures adopted in different areas for posting and removing these notices. It is important to ensure that notices are promptly posted and that they are removed immediately the restrictions have been withdrawn; otherwise the effectiveness of the notices is diminished.

186. There is a particular difficulty in establishing communications when a market which is in progress becomes involved in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The Ministry of Agriculture told us that the usual practice on such occasions is to close the exits and to issue information over loud hailers but it

70
was represented to us that these arrangements have not always been satisfactory. When markets become involved in outbreaks there is a clear need for guidance and instruction to farmers whose animals are still in the market. The Ministry of Agriculture should ensure that market authorities are given information as soon as possible so that they can pass it on to those in the market.

o) Artificial Insemination (A.I.)

187. It has been demonstrated experimentally that foot-and-mouth disease virus can be present in bull semen before the infected animal has shown clinical signs and that infected semen can give rise to the disease in an inseminated cow. The practice of storing semen at low temperatures is conducive to the survival of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Thus there is a considerable hazard in continuing A.I. services during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, particularly if semen from A.I. centers within an Infected Area were used without suitable precautions. There is also the special risk that an A.I. operator may act as a mechanical carrier of the virus from farm to farm particularly if he inseminates a cow excreting virus during the incubation period of foot-and-mouth disease.

188. The Ministry of Agriculture provided us with an outline of the extent of the A.I. service and of the general veterinary control exercised; their memorandum is included as Appendix V. In an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, A.I. in an Infected Area is suspended until authority is given by the veterinary officer in charge of the control center for the service to be resumed. Normally authority is given for farms more than five miles from an Infected Place within three to seven days after the last outbreak; it is extended to farms more than two miles from an Infected Place seven days later and to farms within two miles of infected premises after a lapse of not less than three weeks. The following additional safeguards are also applied:

(a) Iinsemination is only carried out with semen from bulls outside an Infected Area and in no way connected with an outbreak;

(b) inseminators working in an Infected Area are not employed outside the Area, and must have no contact with A.I. centers at which susceptible animals are kept;

(d) inseminators must not come into contact with susceptible stock at their homes;

(e) scrupulous attention must be paid to personal disinfection and disinfection of vehicles and all equipment at each farm visit.

189. In the early stages of the 1967/1968 epidemic, and because of the very considerable risk, A.I. was permitted only on premises which were at least ten miles from the nearest outbreak and which were not under individual restrictions. Additional stringent disinfection and control measures were imposed and the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales increased their veterinary officers in the area to supervise these procedures. In early January, 1968 when the disease position had improved considerably, these severe restrictions were gradually relaxed, and inseminators were allowed to visit farms closer to infected

premises. By mid-February, 1968 they were allowed to visit farms more than two miles from infected premises fourteen days after confirmation of the disease. Where there was a special risk the waiting period was extended beyond fourteen days.

190. Many farmers felt that the restrictions on A.I. in the 1967/1968 epidemic were unjustifiably harsh, and emphasized that the suspension of insemination services seriously affected the breeding policy in dairy herds with consequent substantial loss. The Milk Marketing Board in their evidence suggested that their inseminators should be allowed greater freedom in future to operate inside Infected Areas. The Board based their case on the fact that no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease had ever been attributed to movement between farms of their inseminators. They stressed that stringent personal disinfection procedures were always applied, and that in several instances where their inseminators had been in contact with herds in which animals had been incubating foot-and-mouth disease infection had not been carried to other farms which had been visited on the same day. On the other hand the Ministry of Agriculture’s usual practice, when foot-and-mouth was confirmed on the first or second day following a visit by an inseminator to the infected premises, has been to slaughter all the animals which he subsequently inseminated on the day of that visit if this could be done within 48 hours of contact. If an outbreak occurred on the third day after an inseminator’s visit to the infected premises, all the animals he subsequently inseminated on the day of that visit were either slaughtered or isolated and placed under close observation depending on the particular circumstances of each animal. The Ministry’s procedure was based on their observation that foot-and-mouth disease virus is unlikely to be carried by man for longer than 24 hours and their policy diminishes to some extent the strength of the Milk Marketing Board’s argument. Having regard to the dangers, we do not consider that the present safeguards described in paragraph 188 and Appendix V are unduly stringent or that they should be relaxed. We are very conscious of the economic loss associated with restrictions on A.I. and hope to see these reduced to a minimum compatible with safety. It may be that the advice of epidemiological teams could in future outbreaks be of value in deciding on the extent of control of A.I. which would be necessary throughout the outbreak.

191. The Ministry of Agriculture’s present policy is to stop all artificial insemination within a five mile radius of premises on which foot-and-mouth disease is suspect. The Milk Marketing Board drew attention to the possibility that when diagnosis entailed the use of laboratory tests, the period of uncertainty before suspicion was confirmed or allayed might extend over several days. Nevertheless we consider that the risk of early excretion of the virus during the incubation period of foot-and-mouth disease is such that a suspect case of the disease which cannot be dismissed without recourse to laboratory tests is sufficient justification for the Ministry’s action which we endorse for the future.

192. The distribution of semen from an A.I. center situated within an Infected Area is not usually allowed. In the 1967/1968 epidemic the Milk Marketing Board envisaged the possibility of a shortage of semen and asked the Ministry of Agriculture to agree to a quarantine procedure to enable semen produced in an Infected Area to be used. The Ministry agreed to a scheme whereby semen produced in an Infected Area could be stored outside the Area for 28 days, that is for longer than the incubation period usually encountered in foot-and-mouth

disease. The semen could then be used provided the bulls at the A.I. centre had remained free from the disease. If in the future it is necessary to use semen from bulls in Infected Areas we recommend that the same procedure should be adopted with a minimum quarantine period of 28 days.

193. The Milk Marketing Board considered that inseminators working in an Infected Area should be allowed to make use of the facilities for disinfection available at the Board’s sub-centres which, even though they may be within two miles of an infected farm, are mostly situated in small country towns and some distance away from livestock enterprises. They said that this would be preferable to setting up temporary premises which may well not be suited to the proper sterilisation of equipment and disinfection of vehicles. We recommend that in future inseminators should be allowed to continue to use the Board’s subcentres unless they are in very close proximity to infected premises.

194. The damaging effect of the suspension of the A.I. service in Infected Areas was mitigated during the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic by the delivery of semen to the farm gate. With this procedure the staff from the A.I. center did not go on to the farm; they delivered the semen and the necessary instruments at the farm gate for the farmer to carry out the inseminations. This service had been first introduced in the Hampshire series of outbreaks in 1967. Over 31,000 farm gate kits were issued by A.I. centres during the epidemic, and we understand that the conception rate achieved was under forty per cent. In one case reported to us however a conception rate of fifty per cent was achieved, and the Milk Marketing Board are taking steps to provide advice to farmers on the technique and thus improve the conception rate should it be necessary to use this procedure again. We recommend that the farm gate service should be used again in the event of a prolonged series of outbreaks.

195. The Milk Marketing Board drew attention to the ban imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture during the 1967/1968 epidemic on the use of large flasks in which up to 1,000 doses of frozen semen were carried. The Ministry took this step because foot-and-mouth disease virus would have survived for a long period if it had been introduced into such a flask, and the risk that it would have been widely distributed would have been high. The Ministry asked the Board’s inseminators to carry only a day’s supply of semen in a small vacuum flask and at the end of each day to destroy the unused semen and to cleanse and disinfect the container. The Board found technical difficulties in complying with these restrictions and in the event switched from using frozen semen to using fresh semen; they expressed some anxiety that with their present reliance on frozen semen it would become increasingly difficult for them to effect such a change in the future. We agree that there is a serious risk in the use of large flasks and we approve the prohibition on their use. We understand that there are a number of methods of storing the semen in liquid nitrogen flasks. It may be in ampoules, capillary tubes or in the form of pellets. All could be dangerous but the greatest risks would be with the pellets. The Milk Marketing Board, in exploring methods of transporting small quantities of semen, came to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to organise, particularly with regard to the distribution of liquid nitrogen to their centres and sub-centres. We think that it should be possible to devise alternative methods for retaining small quantities of semen in the frozen state (for example with dry CO₂) for use in an emergency. We recommend that research should be carried out to find a

practical and effective method of doing this so that it could be used should there be a further epidemic. We also recommend that large quantities of frozen semen should not be carried in Infected Areas. Inseminators should carry no more than a day’s supply of semen; containers should be cleansed and disinfected daily, and unused semen should be destroyed at the end of the day.

196. From 27^th November, 1967 the Milk Marketing Board suspended the collection of semen from bulls kept by private breeders on their own farms in Controlled Areas; these animals were not subject to constant veterinary supervision. From the same date stored semen from such bulls was subjected to 28 days quarantine and only distributed if the herd of origin remained free from foot-and-mouth disease. These restrictions should be imposed on the collection and use of semen from such bulls in Controlled Areas during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. They might however be relaxed if Controlled Areas last for a long time.

197. The Milk Marketing Board drew attention to the risk that might be associated with a primary outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease affecting a stud bull in an A.I. center. The spread of infection that might take place through the distribution of semen taken from a bull before it had shown clinical signs might be immense. This could be prevented by keeping all semen produced in A.I. centres in the frozen state for at least 28 days. This procedure would allow time to establish whether donor bulls had become infected with foot-and-mouth disease. We recommend that the feasibility of doing this should be investigated.

198. A possible development in the A.I. service was drawn to our attention, namely the use of diluted fresh semen. With this procedure, which is being practiced on an increasing scale in New Zealand, one bull may provide semen to inseminate up to 80,000 cows each year. If the procedure were adopted in this country fewer bulls would be left at stud and the number of centres producing semen would be greatly reduced. If semen became infected in these circumstances one bull could infect hundreds of cows over a wide area before the disease was detected. We regard this development as presenting a considerable problem in relation to foot-and-mouth disease. Moreover if a protracted series of outbreaks occurred there could be great difficulty in maintaining an A.I. service because such semen could not be frozen and kept in quarantine. We draw attention to the dangers inherent in this technique.

(p) Swill

199. In their report the Gowers Committee discussed the dangers associated with feeding swill to susceptible animals and they made recommendations which were subsequently embodied in the Disease of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957. The Order prohibits in general the feeding to cattle, sheep, pigs, goats or poultry waste foods which contain or have been in contact with meat, bones, offal or other parts of a carcase of any animal or poultry unless the food has been boiled for at least one hour. The Order also makes it an offence to permit these animals to have access to unboiled waste food. It provides that, where a person collects or receives waste food for feeding to animals or poultry, or for processing and redistributing it for this purpose, boiling must take place in a plat operated in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the local authority. Persons possessing not more than four weaned Pigs and fifty

head of poultry who collect or receive waste food for feeding on their own premises are exempted from the licensing provisions of the Order. The Order also provides for cleansing and disinfection of vehicles, bins and containers used for the carriage of waste food before they are used to carry animals, poultry, feedingstuffs or other materials that might come into contact with susceptible animals or poultry. It is also unlawful to carry animals, poultry and feedingstuffs, or other materials which might come into contact with animals or poultry, in vehicles carrying waste food or empty containers which have not been disinfected.

200. The Ministry of Agriculture’s veterinary staff advise local authorities on their responsibilities under the Waste Foods Order; they also assist local authorities in their inspection of licensed swill boiling plants of which there are at present about 7,500 in Great Britain. Swill has in the past proved to be a specific danger in introducing foot-and-mouth disease and we are not satisfied that the arrangements for licensing and inspecting these plants are as effective as they should be. We recommend that the present arrangements for the control of swill feeding should be tightened up by providing for the issue of licences (which are not at present subject to renewal) on an annual basis subject to inspection of the plant, and for the revocation of licensing should remain with local authorities but we would expect that the Ministry’s veterinary officers would continue to be associated with the inspection of plant.

201. Many of our witnesses considered that it was desirable to apply the licensing provision of the Waste Foods Order to all swill feeders and we have considered whether the exemption in the Order relating to persons feeding swill to small numbers of pigs and poultry should be withdrawn. We have concluded, however, that this should be withdrawn. We have concluded, however, that this would not be practicable. The number of people who keep a few pigs or poultry, and who make use of swill, is not known but it must be very large; it would be unrealistic to attempt licensing and impossible to enforce the licensing provisions. We think that a more sensible approach is to give greater publicity to the requirement that those who feed swill to cattle, sheep, pigs, goats or poultry must boil it first and we recommend accordingly.

202. The Diseases of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957 relates to cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry. We recommend extending the provisions of the Order so that it would be an offence to allow dogs, cats, wild birds and vermin to have access to unboiled waste food collected by a licensed operator. This was a recommendation by the Committee on Fowl Pest Policy (1962, Cmnd. 1664) which has not been implemented.

203. There are no legal provisions governing the transit of waste foods in such a manner as to prevent spillage. We regard seepage from a vehicle carrying unsterilised waste foods as a sufficient risk of spreading foot-and-mouth disease to justify laying down a legal requirement that all waste food in transit should be securely enclosed in drip-proof containers which should be capable of being easily cleansed and disinfected. We recommend accordingly.

204. Referece is made in paragraph 199 to the requirements under the Diseases of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957 with regard to cleansing and disinfection of vehicles, bins and containers used to carry waste food. We emphasise the need to ensure that these powers are enforced.

(q) Legislation

205. The existing legislation consists of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, which is the only Act of Parliament applicable and covers all other diseases of animals as well foot-and-mouth. The first two Sections of the Act give the Minister of Agriculture wide powers of subordinate legislation, which is the only practice way of achieving what is needed, and these have resulted in a large number of Orders, some of considerable length and importance. We do not attempt to describe the technical legal details of legislation, either at present in force or which will be needed if our recommendations are accepted, but we are concerned with how legislation works out in practice, and with the results which we would like to see achieved.

206. The basic aim of legislation for the control of foot-and-mouth disease should be to provide the Minister with adequate powers enabling him to take swift action to control the disease. It is also desirable that his powers should be sufficiently wide and flexible to enable him to deal effectively with any critical disease situation immediately it is established and to aniticipate possible developments. We are satisfied that the present powers need some reinforcement as recommended in other places in this Report, and that, if so reinforced, they will meet these desiderate. The legislation in force relating to the control of foot-and-mouth disease is listed in Appendix VI and Appendix VII.

207. The powers and detailed provisions are not however at the present time easily ascertainable by anyone who has not had a long experience of the various Orders and amendments. Whatever the reasons may be for the persistence of what has become a very complicated mass of statutory and subordinate legislation, we consider that the time has now come for the Act itself and all subordinate legislation, in so far as they concern foot-and-mouth disease, to be clarified, amended and brought up to date in one single operation as soon as possible. This seems to us increasingly important when so many persons of such diverse types of occupation are concerned with these complicated provisions. We recommend accordingly.

208. The Gowers Committee in 1954 recommended an increase in the maximum fine that a Court could impose for violating the requirements of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 from £50, or £5 per animal where more than ten animals were concerned, to £500 and £50 respectively; and that the liability to imprisonment for a second offence should not be limited to a second offence only if committed within twelve months. The effect foot-and-mouth disease the Criminal Justice Act, 1967 has been to increase the maximum fines to £200 and £20 respectively, and to require any first sentence of imprisonment (for any offence with certain here irrelevant exceptions) to be suspended. However, we endorse both these recommendations of the Gowers Committee since compliance with these requirements is a matter of first importance in control of foot-and-mouth disease, and since the general provisions for suspension of imprisonment sufficiently mitigate the case of a first offender

CHAPTER IV

VOLUNTARY VACCINATION

209. The Gowers Committee, following representations made to them, considered whether voluntary vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease should be permitted in Great Britain. They concluded that such a procedure should not be allowed until the problems associated with masked infection had been resolved. We have considered whether the advances in scientific knowledge since the Gowers Report relating to problems in diagnosis and the improved vaccines now available would make it desirable for us to recommend the inclusion of voluntary vaccination in a foot-and-mouth disease control programme.

210. Although the problem of delayed diagnosis through failure to detect foot-and-mouth disease in vaccinated animals remain, we think the hazards presented by carriers have probably been over emphasized. Even if some vaccinated animals did become carriers it is unlikely that they would constitute a serious risk to neighbouring animals. There is no doubt that voluntary vaccination properly carried out would decrease the risk of infection in those animals that had been vaccinated. If, however, voluntary vaccination were permitted a strict vaccination schedule would have to be enforced and it would be desirable to control and record the movement of vaccinated animals. If the disease appeared in the neighbourhood of a farm where voluntary vaccination had been done, it would be necessary in many instances to carry out probing testing of vaccinated animals to determine whether infection had spread to them. All these considerations could add considerably to the work of those responsible for controlling outbreaks. In addition, the presence of vaccinated animals would complicate the epidemiological studies which would have to be carried out. We consider that voluntary vaccination of domestic herds should not be permitted.

211. It was represented to us that there might be a special case for vaccinating on a voluntary basis animals in special categories particularly those in zoos where the loss of rare species through foot-and-mouth disease could cause irreparable damage to zoological collections. As very little is known of the protective effect of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in such animals, vaccination carried out in zoos would be of an experimental nature and part of a programme of long-term research. The risk of infection form foot-and-mouth disease occurring in zoo animals must be minimal; such animals are isolated from domestic stock and it is unlikely that they will be given swill. In addition, the restraint it would be necessary to impose on the animals when injecting vaccine and carrying out subsequent sampling would constitute a considerable risk of injury to animals that are not normally handled in this way. Although we accept that the preservation of rare species may on some occasions demand special treatment in which vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease might form a part, on balance we consider that voluntary vaccination of animals in zoos has little to recommend it.

FM-C”

212. A further objection to voluntary vaccination in Great Britain is that if vaccine is used in any circumstances some countries would apply additional restrictions on exports of livestock and livestock products from this country.

213. We note that the voluntary vaccination scheme which has been in operation for sometime in Denmark is to be discontinued in 1970 as with the reduction in the incidence of the disease the number of applications for voluntary vaccination has become negligible.

214. In conclusion we recommend that voluntary vaccination should not be permitted in Great Britain either for domestic animals or for animals in zoos. If, however, it became necessary to apply ring vaccination, certain special categories of animals in close proximately to the vaccination area might be included in the vaccination programme. This might apply to zoo animals, herds of wild cattle and valuable pedigree livestock; but in these circumstances vaccination would be a “once only” operation.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) Basis of Recommendations

215. In part of our Report recommendations relating to meat imports were made which were designed to reduce the risk of introducing foot-and-mouth disease into Great Britain. Now that these recommendations have been implemented we believe that the number of outbreaks of the disease of the disease will be considerably less than in the past. Nevertheless a single primary outbreak could, if conditions are favourable, lead to secondary outbreaks and even to an epidemic; it is therefore imperative that the control procedures for dealing with outbreaks should be such as to minimize as far as practicable the possibility of the disease becoming wide-spread; these procedures have been discussed in Chapters II and III.

216. In considering the methods which have been employed in the past, as well as modification for the future, we have attached great importance to the early recognition of the disease and the need for immediate action in stamping it out by slaughter and by the destruction of infected material. We have also attached great importance to measures designed to limit the spread of disease by controlling the movements of people, animals and materials. We also stress the need rapidly to define the areas of special risk on the advice of an epidemiological team who can take into account all the factors which may contribute to the spread of the disease.

217. It should be emphasized that the control procedures necessary to comply with these principles should be based on veterinary considerations only and that they should give rise to as little disturbance of normal commercial and public activities as such considerations would allow. We have therefore taken into account what is justifiable and practicable bearing in mind the hardships which some measures may impose on the farming community and others. We have also taken into account the degrees of risk associated with the various means by which foot-and-mouth disease may be spread (see Part I, Chapter II). The greatest risk is from infected animals and their products. There is a serious though lesser risk from persons who have been in contact with the disease or materials that have been contaminated and vehicles that have been used for the transport of such animals, products or materials. By contrast, a low and sometimes negligible risk is associated with non-susceptible animals (such as dogs and horses under proper control and not in contact with susceptible animals), vehicles that are not used for carrying susceptible livestock or materials that might be contaminated, and people from towns traveling through agricultural areas. There are other risks against which it is difficult to apply control procedures, such as the spread of the virus by wind, but we are sure that a knowledge of such factors can assist in defining rational control measures.

218. We have studied carefully the control procedures laid down by the Ministry of Agricultural and which have been put into operation in the past when outbreaks of the disease have occurred. We consider that these procedures in

general have been satisfactory but were not adequate during the unprecedented epidemic of 1967/1968. Our main recommendations and suggestions therefore relate to the need for more detailed pre-outbreak planning for the mobilisation of manpower and equipment to deal with an outbreak wherever it may occur. The plans should provide for the swift and effective mobilisation of manpower and resources, including the epidemiological team which we refer to in Part I of our Report, and for smooth expansion to deal with outbreaks no matter what dimensions they assume.

219. There is difficulty in recruiting veterinarians to the Veterinary Field Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and it is essential that the Ministry should attract a reasonable number of good veterinary graduates who will later be available for promotion to the important posts which carry responsibility for controlling animal diseases like foot-and-mouth disease. Satisfactory disease control depends on a strong State Veterinary Service.

220. The remainder of the conclusions and recommendations deal with measures designed to contain outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and with ancillary matter such as compensation. Some of the changes recommended were introduced during the 1967/1968 epidemic either on a voluntary basis or by Order. The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland considered that some of these are essential to the control of any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and that they should be introduced in advance of the publication of our Report. We were consulted about the form of the necessary amendment Order which came into operation on 20th October, 1969 and which substantially implement those recommendations that are marked with an asterisk in paragraph 222. The scope of the amending Orders is set out in Appendix VII.

221. There remain those statutory and other changes which we believe to be desirable but which did not carry the same degree of urgency. From our discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture’s witnesses we are aware that they were already considering some of these; many of them will involve detailed consultation with other organizations and interests.

(b) Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

222. Our conclusions and recommendations are summarized as follows:

Initial reporting and diagnosis of the disease

1. It is of the utmost importance that farmer should report any suspicions of foot-and-mouth disease without delay (paragraph 34).

2. Diagnosis should not depend upon confirmation on the telephone from the Veterinary Headquarters at Tolworth. It is however essential to keep headquarters informed immediately the disease is suspected and of all subsequent developments (paragraph 35).

3. Material, including samples taken by probing, from all suspected in-contact animals that have been traced should be tested in the laboratory for the presence of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Where the risk is high the animals should be slaughtered (paragraph 36).

Administrative arrangements

4. The person in charge of operations during a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak should be a regional veterinary officer of the Ministry of Agriculture (paragraphs 38 and 39).

5. A comprehensive plan should be in readiness for the mobilisation of resources within and outside the Ministry of Agriculture in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. One of the main objects of the plan should be to relieve veterinary officers of non-veterinary work. There should be a handbook of guidance for all those with a part to play in the control of outbreaks, and the arrangements should be rehearsed during disease-free periods (paragraphs 41 to 44).

6. All those concerned with controlling a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in an Infected Area should operate from the control center to ensure full coordination of activity and a proper flow of information (paragraphs 46 and 99).

7. The selection of suitable premises for control centres should form a part of pre-outbreak planning (paragraph 46); in selecting premises particular consideration should be given to the availability of telephones and, where possible, Telex facilities; these and other suitable facilities are more important than proximity to the outbreak (paragraphs 46, 172 and 173).

Recruitment to the Veterinary Field Service

8. It is important that the Ministry of Agriculture should attract well qualified recruits to the Veterinary Field Service. It may be necessary to reorganize the Veterinary Field Service and the Veterinary Investigation Service in order to achieve this purpose (paragraph 47).

Infected Areas

9. Infected Areas should be defined by reference to topographical and other easily identifiable physical features which can be found on Ordnance Survey one-inch maps of Great Britain (paragraph 48).

10. Initially an Infected Area should be of not less than ten miles radius from the infected premises. The size and shape of the Infected. Area should be adjusted in consultation with the epidemiological team assembled to study the outbreak. In the face of a menacing disease situation the Ministry of Agriculture should use Infected Area restrictions over a wider area than is usually the case. Such restrictions should be removed as soon as the threat diminishes (paragraphs 49 and 50).

Restriction on movements of animals and animal products

*11. Movement of susceptible animals for slaughter from an Infected Area to one adjoining should be allowed under licence. The movement of individual breeding animals should also be licensed exceptionally by the Ministry of Agriculture (paragraph 51).

12. There can be no advantage in closing as a routine measure the border between England and Scotland to the movement of susceptible animals whenever foot-and-mouth disease occurs in either country (paragraph 52).

13. *(a) Exemption from restrictions should continue for susceptible animals carried by rail through Infected Areas provided they are not untrucked. Through carriage of susceptible animals on motorways in Infected Areas should be licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture provided that the vehicles in which the animals are carried do not leave the motorway while in an Infected Area even for the purpose of entering a service area (paragraphs 53 and 54).

(b) Exceptionally, the Ministry of Agriculture should also license such through traffic in Infected Areas along roads which adequately isolate the livestock in transit; the vehicles should not be permitted to stop within the Infected Area (paragraph 55).

*14. In an Infected Area susceptible animals in transit to a market or collecting centre from one point of dispatch should be kept separate from animals dispatched from any other point (paragraph 56).

*15. When necessary there should be approved collecting centres in Infected Areas at which susceptible animals would be assembled before being dispatched with other animals to a slaughter-house (paragraph 57).

*16. Carcases of dead animals should not be removed from farms subject to individual restrictions in Infected Areas until there has been a veterinary inspection (paragraph 59).

*17. Sales of animals on farm premises in Infected Areas should be prohibited (paragraph 61).

*18. Hides, skins, bones and slaughter-house waste, and all material from knacker’s yards, should only be moved under licence in Infected Areas; they should be conveyed in drip-proof containers to approved premises (paragraph 62).

Restriction on movements of people

19. Powers to close footpaths or rights of way in Infected Areas should be exercisable without the need to serve prior notice in writing on occupiers who should however be notified as soon as possible (paragraph 64).

20. Powers should be given to the police and highway authorities to close seldom-used public roads, or public roads to which there is an easily definable alternative route, in Infected Areas on the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture (paragraph 65).

21. Police on guard duty outside the entrance to infected premises should be issued with protective clothing (paragraph 66).

22. Restrictions on sporting events and recreational activities in Infected Areas should be governed entirely by disease considerations (paragraph 68). A code of conduct should be based on the following criteria.

(a) In an Infected Area access to agricultural land or to premises adjoining agricultural land should be limited to access for essential purposes.

(d) Non-susceptible animals, except those within two miles of infected premises, should be allowed to leave and re-enter an Infected Area, provided that they are neither housed in close proximity to nor have contact with susceptible animals.

*23. The powers relating to Infected Areas prohibiting hunting, point-to- point meetings and racing of dogs or hounds or coursing of dogs or hounds or their training for these purposes should be retained. The Ministry of Agriculture should also have powers to restrict out-door activities in Infected Areas if they constitute a disease risk (paragraph 70).

*24. In general shooting in Infected Areas should be prohibited but the resident owner or occupier or members of his household or any agricultural workers employed by him should be allowed to shoot over his land but not in organised shooting parties or using beaters (paragraph 70).

*25. Deer stalking should be prohibited in an Infected Area but this should not preclude culling under licence or prevent a farmer from shooting marauding deer on his own land (paragraph 72).

26. The Minister of Agriculture should have power to close parks and zoos in Infected Areas (paragraph 78).

27. The activities of public utility industries and other contractors undertaking works on agricultural land in Infected Areas should be governed by the relevant criteria in recommendation 22 above (paragraph 80).

Restocking

28. The usual timetable is satisfactory for restocking with cattle and pigs and it should not be changed. A longer period is however necessary before restocking with sheep, particularly on unenclosed land (paragraph 82).

Control of rats

29. The extermination of rats on infected premises is a matter of urgency and very great importance. Steps should be taken to ensure that farmers keep rats under control at all times (paragraph 83).

Disposal of dung, litter and slurry

30. *(a) The removal of dung, litter and slurry from an Infected Area should be prohibited and there should be safeguards against spillage in transit or contact with any susceptible animals other than those on the

premises of origin. Vehicles and containers which are used to carry such materials should be cleansed and disinfected immediately after use. The disposal of slurry originating from animals in slaughter-houses or knacker’s yards in Infected Areas should be subject to licensing by the Ministry of Agriculture (paragraph 85).

(b) Slurry produced by susceptible animals in Infected Areas should not be sprayed or spread, by trickle or otherwise (paragraph 85).

Slaughter-houses and knacker’s yards

31. In Infected Areas only those slaughter-houses equipped to maintain a high standard of disease security should be allowed to operate; in the long term this should apply also to knacker’s yards (paragraph 87).

Controlled Areas

32. Controlled Area restrictions should be applied to restrict the move- ment of susceptible livestock for as long as is necessary to complete the tracing of suspected in-contact animals. Their use for other purposes should be exceptional and should be based on sound veterinary reasons. If restrictions other than the normal Controlled Area restrictions are required the Ministry of Agriculture has the necessary power to effect modifications (paragraphs 88 and 89).

*33. Susceptible animals licensed to move from premises in a Controlled Area should be kept apart from susceptible animals from any other premises throughout their journey, and this requirement of the licence should be made quite clear. However, if Controlled Area restrictions are applied extensively, or if they last for a long period, this condition of the licence could be relaxed (paragraph 91).

*34. If Controlled Area restrictions are applied extensively or over a long period collecting centres should be approved in such areas at which susceptible animals would be assembled before being sent with other animals to slaughter-houses (paragraph 91).

35. *(a) Exemption from restrictions should continue for susceptible animals carried by rail through Controlled Areas provided they are not untrucked. Through carriage of susceptible animals on motorways in Controlled Areas should be licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture provided that the vehicles in which the animals are carried do not leave the motorway while in a Controlled Area, even for the purpose of entering a service area (paragraph 92).

(b) Exceptionally, the Ministry of Agriculture should also license such through traffic in Controlled Areas along roads which adequately isolate the livestock in transit; the vehicles should not be permitted to stop within the Controlled Area (paragraph 92).

36. The movement of susceptible animals from clean areas to fatstock markets or collecting centres in Controlled Areas should be allowed under licence (paragraph 93).

37. Unsold animals at fatstock markets in Controlled Areas should be licensed only to a slaughter-house. This restriction should be relaxed if a Controlled Area is in force for a long period (paragraph 94).

38. In Controlled Areas local authorities should be allowed to license markets for livestock not intended for immediate slaughter with the written consent of the Ministry of Agriculture (paragraph 95).

39. Outdoor activities should normally be allowed in Controlled Areas (paragraph 96).

40. Deer hunting and deer stalking should be prohibited in Controlled Areas but this should not preclude culling under licence or prevent a farmer from shooting marauding deer on his own land. Other hunts should be careful to avoid the risk of entering contiguous Infected Areas (paragraph 96).

Animals exposed to infection

41. *(a) Premises to which in-contact animals have been traced or premises which are in close proximity to infected premises should be subject to movement restrictions on susceptible animals and things, for example milk, to the extent that these are considered necessary to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease (paragraph 98).

(b) Slurry produced on such premises should not be sprayed or spread by trickle or otherwise (paragraph 98).

Licensing arrangements

42. Local authorities should continue in general to play a part in licensing markets and movements of susceptible animals (paragraph 99). It will be necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture to continue to reserve licensing powers where there are particular disease risks. Their present powers should be extended to take in responsibility for the approval of licenses issued by local authorities for fatstock markets and collecting centres in Infected and Controlled Areas and the issue of licences for the movement of store animals, and animals to be used for breeding purposes, into Infected Areas (paragraphs 100 and 101).

43. Licences for the movement of susceptible animals should continue to be obtained from the local authority at the destination of the animals. Local authorities should however be encouraged to issue movement licences on receipt of applications by post or requests by telephone. In the exceptional circumstance of a movement of animals taking place over a long distance from an area to which postal communication is slow it should be possible to obtain a duplicate licence from the licensing authority at the dispatching point who would be authorised by the issuing authority (paragraphs 103 and 104).

*44. Generally the conditions of licences authorising the movement of susceptible animals in Infected or Controlled Areas provide adequate safeguards against the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. The following changes are however recommended (paragraph 106):

(a) movement licences should require that susceptible animals moved

to slaughter-houses in Infected or Controlled Areas should be slaughtered within 48 hours of arrival;

(b) the licence for a market in Infected or Controlled Areas should specify the hours within which animals may be accepted. It should also provide that no susceptible animals should be allowed to remain on market premises overnight except with the authority of a veterinary inspector.

Records of movements and sales

45. Dealers should be required to keep records of all transactions involving susceptible livestock. Livestock auctioneers should be required by law to keep records of sales (paragraph 108).

46. There should be a legal obligation on persons engaging in private treaty sales on market premises to report the details to a specified foot-and- mouth disease control centre immediately if the Ministry of Agriculture so require (paragraph 108).

Milk

47. The arrangements now in force for the handling of milk and milk products during outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease are generally satis-factory but they should be reviewed in the light of this Report and they should be strengthened as follows (paragraphs 112 to 114):

*(a) there should be a requirement for all milk, milk products and churn washings derived from animals in Infected Areas to be treated, before being fed to susceptible animals other than on the farm of origin, in a manner which would destroy foot-and-mouth disease virus if it should be present in milk from infected cows;

*(b) milk from premises under restriction because of possible contact with or proximity to foot-and-mouth disease should be moved from the premises direct to a dairy for suitable heat treatment; movement of milk and milk products for other purposes should be licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture;

(c) no milk should be moved from infected premises, or premises where foot-and-mouth disease is suspected, except under authority of a Ministry licence;

*(d) there should be a requirement to fit filters to the air exhaust in milk tankers when they are operating in Infected Areas.

48. An occupier should be required to post a KEEP OUT sign at the entrance to his premises as soon as he or his veterinarian suspects foot-and-mouth disease (paragraph 115).

Labour, machinery and equipment

49. The resources of local authorities, river authorities, water boards and major contractors should be taken in to account as part of pre-outbreak planning for foot-and-mouth disease control (paragraph 116).

50. Arrangements should be made to seek assistance from the armed Services at an early stage in a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. These arrangements should form part of pre-outbreak planning and should be at regional level (paragraph 118).

51. When slaughter is carried out there should be sufficient captive- bolt pistols available to enable pistols to be set aside for cooling without holding up the slaughtering process (paragraph 121).

Slaughter and disposal of carcases

52. The use of the captive-bolt pistol, combined with the use of the pithing cane, is the best method available for the slaughter of animals affected by foot-and-mouth disease. A suitable rifle should only be used in exceptional circumstances when the captive-bolt pistol could not be used (paragraph 124).

53. Equipment for administering tranquillising drugs should be available for use by experts when the need arises. Veterinary officers of the Ministry of Agriculture should be trained in the use of this equipment (paragraph 125).

54. Burial of carcases is preferable to burning. When burning is unavoid- able there is as yet no better means of making a pyre than with coal and wood; a substance such as “Isokal 1” can be used to enhance combustion (paragraphs 128 and 129).

55. There should be liaison between the Ministry of Agriculture and water undertakings and river authorities to ensure that suitable sites for burial are chosen. The location of burial sites should always be recorded and the information should be made available to river authorities and water supply undertakings (paragraph 130).

Disinfection

56. Arrangements made by the Ministry of Agriculture to approve disinfectants specifically for use against foot-and-mouth disease virus will avoid confusion over the selection of suitable disinfectants. The Ministry should be prepared to approve other methods of destroying the virus in special circumstances (paragraph 133).

57. In Infected Areas the Ministry of Agriculture should prescribe the method of disinfecting lorries and markets which should include satisfactory cleansing followed by the use of an approved disinfectant against foot-and-mouth disease virus (paragraph 134).

58. Disinfectant pads on public roads are not effective in preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease (paragraph 137).

59. Farmers wishing to take precautions to prevent the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease virus onto their farms should restrict access to essential traffic and arrange for thorough cleansing and disinfection of vehicles, persons and things arriving on the farm premises (paragraph 138).

60. The general provision in livestock markets of facilities to cleanse and disinfect vehicles used for the transport of animals should be the aim for the future. Licences for markets and collecting centres in Infected or Controlled Areas should only be granted when there are adequate facilities for washing and disinfecting vehicles (paragraph 139).

61. Research should be carried out to devise a disinfectant preparation or a method of disinfection effective against a wide range of organisms pathogenic for animals, including the foot-and-mouth disease virus (para-graph 140).

62. The legislation relating to cleansing and disinfection, the methods of cleansing and disinfecting vehicles and premises, and the cleansing and disinfection that farmers might undertake on their own farms when foot- and-mouth disease occurs in their neighbourhood, should all be given wide publicity which should be repeated whenever outbreaks occur (paragraph 142).

Compensation and associated matters

63. In practice the value referred to in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, as interpreted by valuers and accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture, has been satisfactory in ordinary circumstances (paragraph 146).

64. Special provisions should continue to be made for compensation for moorland and hill sheep slaughtered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, taking into account the special difficulties of hefting and acclimatisation (paragraph 147).

65. During the 1967/1968 epidemic the valuation of A.I. stud bulls included in progeny testing programmes was resolved satisfactorily on lines which appear to be reasonable. The same general basis should be adopted in future (paragraph 148).

66. The system of compensation and valuation was never designed to cope with the extraordinary circumstances of the 1967/1968 epidemic (paragraph 151).

67. Senior valuers should be appointed to act as monitors within areas to help to secure uniformity in valuations (paragraph 151).

68. The correction of disparities in compensation which might arise in extraordinary circumstances should not be based on ex gratia payments. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 should be amended as soon as possible to give the Minister power to make adjustments on the lines indicated and thus remove the present inequities (paragraphs 152 to 154).

69. The power in Section 19(6) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 enabling the Minister to withhold compensation where a person has been guilty of an offence against the Act, should be repealed as soon as possible (paragraph 157).

70. Milk produced on infected premises should be destroyed and the owners compensated. On premises where foot-and-mouth disease is suspected, or on premises under restriction because of possible contact with or proximity to infection, milk that cannot be utilised in a manner that eliminates the risk of spreading the virus should also be destroyed and the owners compensated. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 should be amended to provide for such compensation (paragraph 158).

71. The Ministry of Agriculture’s regional veterinary officers should be given full discretion to authorise the destruction of any material which they

consider to be contaminated on farms affected by foot-and-mouth disease and for which the owner would be compensated. There should be no hesitation in destroying potentially dangerous material which could not be disinfected effectively (paragraph 159).

72. If the valuer has not arrived on the premises to value in-contact animals within two hours of being called, slaughter should proceed, and the valuer should then value the dead animals (paragraph 160).

73. It is unnecessary to have more than one valuer present at a valuation, particularly in view of the Ministry of Agriculture’s proposal to appoint senior valuers to act as monitors within individual areas (paragraph 161).

74. The period for appeal against a valuation should remain at fourteen days (paragraph 163).

75. Compensation should not be extended to cover consequential losses (paragraphs 164 and 165).

76. Where compensation for stock is brought into trading accounts and credited in a single year’s account the farmer concerned should have statutory entitlement to spread the sum, for tax purposes, over the same number of years as those over which the income would probably have been received had there been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (paragraph 167).

77. There are arrangements available to farmers wishing to insure against losses incurred as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, and there is no case for the introduction of compulsory insurance (paragraph 169).

78. Depending on the circumstances of an outbreak, particularly its extent and duration, the existing rules for grant and subsidy schemes should be relaxed for farmers who are unable to comply because of foot-and-mouth disease restrictions. This should also apply where inspections by Ministry of Agriculture officials are suspended on disease grounds (paragraph 170).

Communications and information services

79. The availability of communication lines should have high priority in selecting the location of a foot-and-mouth disease control centre. Telex should be installed in foot-and-mouth disease control centres whenever possible (paragraphs 172 and 173).

80. Full use should be made of other means of communication such as car and pocket radio telephones, walkie-talkie sets, and radio links with observers in helicopters. There should be standing arrangements for the use of such equipment as part of pre-outbreak planning (paragraph 174).

81. The possibility of installing radio telephones in the Ministry of Agriculture’s official vehicles should be investigated (paragraph 175).

82. There should be a trained public relations officer at each foot-and- mouth disease control centre who should keep in close touch with all organisations who have an interest in the control of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (paragraph 177).

89.

83. The most convenient and generally acceptable times for radio or television news on foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks would be about 06.30 and between 18.00 and 18.30 (paragraph 179).

84. Announcements about foot-and-mouth disease control Orders should continue to appear in the local press, and the responsibility for inserting them should remain with local authorities (paragraph 180).

85. A documentary film on the control of foot-and-mouth disease is necessary for education and training, and the film which the Ministry of Agriculture have made should be widely shown (paragraph 182).

86. Leaflets giving advice to those taking part in control arrangements, and to those affected by them, are essential (paragraph 183).

87. It is important to provide durable signs of suitable size to indicate the boundaries of Infected Areas and for posting on infected premises and footpaths. It is also important to ensure that notices are promptly posted and are removed immediately restrictions are withdrawn (paragraphs 184 and 185).

88. The Ministry of Agriculture should ensure that market authorities whose premises are involved in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease are given information at the first opportunity so that they can pass it on to those attending the market (paragraph 186).

Artificial insemination

89. The present restrictions on artificial insemination (A.I.) in Infected Areas should be maintained for the future. However the advice of epide- miological teams could in future outbreaks be of value in deciding on the extent of control of A.I. which would be necessary throughout the outbreak (paragraphs 188 to 190).

90. The cessation of A.I. services within a five mile radius of premises where foot-and-mouth disease is suspected should continue to be enforced (paragraph 191).

91. Semen from bulls at A.I. centres in an Infected Area should be stored outside the Area for at least 28 days and only used provided the bulls at the A.I. centre have remained free from foot-and-mouth disease (paragraph 192).

92. The Milk Marketing Board’s inseminators working in an Infected Area should be allowed to use the Board’s sub-centres in that Area for the purpose of cleansing and disinfection unless they are in very close proximity to infected premises (paragraph 193).

93. An improved farm gate A.I. service should be used in the event of a prolonged series of outbreaks (paragraph 194).

94. Large quantities of frozen semen should not be conveyed from farm to farm in Infected Areas. Research should be carried out to find a practical and effective method of retaining small quantities of semen in the frozen state, and inseminators should carry no more than a day’s supply of such semen; the container in which it is carried should be cleansed and disin- fected daily, and unused semen should be destroyed at the end of the day (paragraph 195).

95. In Controlled Areas semen from bulls kept by private breeders on their own farms should not be collected. Semen in store at A.I. centres donated by such bulls in Controlled Areas should be subjected to at least 28 days quarantine and should only be distributed if the herd of origin has remained free of foot-and-mouth disease. It might however be possible to relax this rule if Controlled Area restrictions are in force over a long period (paragraph 196).

96. Consideration should be given to the possibility that all semen produced in A.I. centres should be held in quarantine in the frozen state for at least 28 days before being used (paragraph 197).

Swill

97. Swill boiling plants should be licensed for periods of one year and renewal should be subject to inspection of the plant; there should be provision for the revocation of licences if the regulations governing the handling of swill are contravened (paragraph 200).

98. Responsibility for licensing and inspecting swill boiling plants should remain with local authorities but the Ministry of Agriculture’s veterinary officers should continue to assist with inspections (paragraph 200).

99. Greater publicity should be given to the requirement that all those who feed swill to cattle, sheep, pigs, goats or poultry must boil it for at least one hour (paragraph 201).

100. It should be an offence to allow dogs, cats, wild birds or vermin to have access to unboiled waste food collected by a licensed operator (para-graph 202).

101. There should be a requirement for all waste food in transit to be securely enclosed in drip-proof containers which should be capable of being easily cleansed and disinfected (paragraph 203).

Legislation

102. The Minister should be provided with adequate powers enabling him to take swift action to control foot-and-mouth disease; the powers should be sufficiently wide and flexible to enable him to deal with any disease situation (paragraph 206).

103. The legislation relating to foot-and-mouth disease should be consolidated and brought up to date at the earliest possible opportunity. This should be done in one operation which should include any other legislation at present contemplated (paragraph 207).

104. The recommendations of the Gowers Committee on maximum penalties and imprisonment should be adopted (paragraph 208). These recommendations read as follows:

(a) “The maximum fines should be increased to £500, or where the offence is committed with respect to more than ten animals, £50 for each animal.”

(b) “The liability to imprisonment for a second offence should not be limited to a second offence committed within 12 months.”

Voluntary vaccination

105. Voluntary vaccination should not be permitted in Great Britain but should it become necessary to apply ring vaccination certain categories of animals such as zoo animals, herds of wild cattle and valuable pedigree livestock in close proximity to a vaccination area might be included in the vaccination programme (paragraph 214).

CHAPTER VI

POSTSCRIPT TO PART I OF THE COMMITTEE’S

REPORT

(a) General

223. Since the submission of Part I of our Report on 7^th March, 1969 considerable advances have been made in research on foot-and-mouth disease many of which followed the opportunity given to the staff of the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, Surrey in the 1967/1968 epidemic to go into the field for the first time. The Institute already had considerable epidemiological experience in countries overseas where the disease is both endemic and epidemic. However, the study of the disease in Great Britain, with its completely susceptible livestock population, presented entirely different problems which in the event were not solved by field investigations. Nevertheless, the opportunities for study of epidemiological problems presented by the epidemic made it possible to define a number of the problems more clearly. They have since been studied intensively by the staff of the Institute in collaboration with veterinary staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Microbiological Research Establishment, the Meteorological Office, and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment. Some of the not inconsiderable results obtained so far are given in the following paragraphs. In general they reinforce the conclusions drawn in Part I of our Report. It should be emphasised that the work provided information on how individual and small groups of animals behave under experimental conditions but could not show precisely how animals would react to the disease under normal farming condi-tions.

(b) Characteristics of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus

224. Strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus from the 1967/1968 epidemic were studied in susceptible animals under experimental conditions. In brief, the experiments indicated that:

(a) the virus could be excreted by cattle for five days, by sheep for five days and by pigs for ten days before clinical signs of the disease appeared;

(b) the virus was excreted in milk at an earlier date in a higher concen-centration than had previously been thought; it was also more difficult to destroy than laboratory experiments had shown;

(c) the strain of the virus isolated during the 1967/1968 epidemic was particularly stable under certain laboratory conditions.

225. Speculation arose as to whether these characteristics contributed to the serious nature of the 1967/1968 epidemic, Since then, however, other strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus have been similarly examined and it is clear that the early excretion shown by the 1967/1968 strain is common to a number of strains isolated both in this country and abroad. It was found that strains can nevertheless show considerable variation in such properties as stability under laboratory conditions and it may be that such characteristics will provide useful markers in future in identifying the origin of strains responsible for outbreaks.

226. It has been known for some time that foot-and-mouth disease virus is excreted from infected animals before the appearance of clinical signs and the slaughter policy as practised by the Ministry of Agriculture over the years has been based on this knowledge. The precise periods of excretion were, however, not known and neither was it realised that they could be of such long duration.

227. Experiments have now provided precise information on the amount of virus excreted as an aerosol by cattle, sheep and pigs infected with foot-and-mouth disease virus. Pigs were found to excrete a much larger amount of the virus than either cattle or sheep. Further the maximum recovery of virus from cattle and pigs occurred before the vesicles had ruptured and in sheep even before the appearance of lesions. The lesions in sheep when they did develop were often not obvious and were thus difficult to detect; this could be a very significant factor in the epidemiological pattern. In summarising the epide- miological position the Animal Virus Research Institute state that in general “sheep act as maintenance hosts, pigs as amplifiers and cattle as indicators”.

228. Naturally it has not been possible to carry out experiments in the field to investigate the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus by wind because of the obvious risks involved; however experiments in the laboratory have shown that the virus in the aerosol form is very fragile when humidity is low and persists for long periods when the humidity is high. There was evidence from the 1967/1968 epidemic to indicate that rain-bearing winds played an important part in spreading the disease. Furthermore retrospective studies have been made of previous outbreaks of the disease in relation to the meteorological conditions existing at the time and these support the important part played by wind and humidity in the spread of infection. For example, in one of the studies made of an outbreak which occurred in East Keswick (between Wetherby and Leeds) in October, 1960, meteorological experts, without any knowledge of the pattern of spread, on the basis of the wind tracks and humidity as well as other weather conditions prevailing at the time, indicated where the outbreaks should have occurred. Their indications were correct but of equal importance, they were also able to indicate correctly those areas which remained free of the disease. It is considered that the virus can be carried by wind, if the conditions are ideal, over distances of more than sixty miles. This approach will be valuable in dealing with future outbreaks particularly in indicating where to look for secondary outbreaks associated with wind spread once a primary outbreak is reported.

229. In the 1967/1968 epidemic, very few outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease occurred to the south and west of the initial outbreak, that is into the wind, compared with outbreaks to the north and east of Oswestry. We commented in Part I of our Report that this could not be accounted for, at least over a ten mile range, either by a difference in concentration of holdings or of concentration in livestock. Since then further analysis of livestock densities in sectors emanating from the initial outbreak over a wider range has been undertaken and the results are recorded in Map IV. This, read in conjunction with Map V, provides further support for the theory that wind was a significant factor in spread during the first month of the epidemic.

230. Recent work has shown that disposal of slurry from animal houses by spreading it on farm land can give rise to aerosols which, under suitable condi- tions of wind and moisture, would distribute micro-organisms over long dis- tances. Although the investigation was not done with slurry containing foot-and-mouth diseases virus, it is nevertheless clear that the virus, if present, could become airborne and travel over considerable distances.

(d) Carrier State

231. In Part I of our Report we referred to the carrier state and concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that carriers play an important part in the spread of foot-and-mouth disease under natural conditions. Recent work has only marginally added to our information. Observations in Botswana have shown that vaccinated cattle exposed to infection may become carriers for long periods but there is no evidence that such animals have spread the disease to other susceptible animals. It has also been shown that the carrier state lasts longer in cattle than in sheep. As long as the problem of carriers exists and cannot be fully understood it still presents a risk which cannot be entirely dismissed.

(e) New Vaccines

232. Although routine vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease was not recommended in Part I of our Report, it is worth mentioning that recent investigations with vaccines containing an oil adjuvant have shown that a high degree of protection can be induced in pigs. Previously it was difficult to protect pigs for more than a few weeks but now it is possible with the oil adjuvant vaccines to give a solid and durable protection for periods of up to nine months. Unfortunately such vaccines sometimes produce a lesion at the site of injection and this makes their routine use in countries which practise a vaccination policy unacceptable at present for animals used for meat production; these vaccines could, however, be used to protect valuable herds.

(f) Other Problems

233. There are many problems in the epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease that are not yet solved but because of the importance of the disease, research is going on in many parts of the world. If this country remains relatively free from epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease it will not be possible for the Animal Virus Research Institute to carry out operational research but there are nevertheless many important applied problems which can be investigated in the laboratory. Furthermore the staff of the Institute have a long tradition of working overseas, in developing countries, to the mutual benefit of those countries and to ourselves.

234. An important question yet to be resolved is whether it is better to house stock or allow them to remain at pasture, when there is evidence of windborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Information on this matter would be most helpful should another serious epidemic occur. Unfortunately we have no direct evidence on which guidance can be based. Recent work has confirmed what has been known for some time; namely, that the quantity of foot-and-mouth disease virus required to produce infection by inhalation is only a small

fraction of that required to produce infection by ingestion. However, in any given outbreak it would be extremely difficult to quantify the relative risks to animals at pasture as compared with animals housed indoors, and thus we are unable at present to give any advice as to whether stock should be housed or left at pasture when at risk.

Signed NORTHUMBERLAND (Chairman)

ANTHONY CRIPPS

DAVID G. EVANS

HENRY PLUMB

ERIC L. THOMAS

EDWARD THOMPSON

DAVID WALKER

WILLIAM L. WEIPERS

JOHN N. JOTCHAM (Secretary)

MELBA D. WHITE (Assistant Secretary)

3rd November, 1969

APPENDIX I

LIST OF THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN WRITTEN AND ORAL EVIDENCE

The following is a full list of bodies and individuals who submitted evidence since our appointment on 28^th February, 1968. Those who contributed both written and oral evidence are marked with an asterisk.

Aberdeen County Council

Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board

Accles and Shelvoke Ltd.

*Agricultural Research Council―

Represented by Sir Gordon Cox, K.B.E., T.D., LL.D., D.Sc., F.Inst.P.,

F.R.I.C., F.R.S.

Anglers’ Co-operative Association

Animal Health Trust

*Animal Virus Research Institute―

Represented by Dr. J. B. Brooksby, D.Sc., Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S. F.R.S.E.

Dr. F. Brown, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.

Mr. R. Burrows, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. J. Davie, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Dr. G. N. Mowat, Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S.

Dr. R. F. Sellers, M.A., B.Sc., Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. H. H. Skinner, F.R.C.V.S.

Association of Abattoir Owners and Meat Wholesalers Ltd.

*Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry―

Represented by Dr. P. B. Stones, M.B., B.S., F.C. Path.

*Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales—

Represented by Chief Constable J. A. Willison, O.B.E., D.L.

*Association of County Councils in Scotland―

Represented by Mr. T. McCallum, O.B.E.

Mr. J. F. Niven

Mr. G. H. Speirs, M. A., L.L.B.

Association of Multiple Retail Meat Traders

*Association of Municipal Corporations―

Represented by Alderman L. Bailey

Mr. C. J. Berry

Mr. N. R. Cave

Mr. W. R. G. Davey

Mr. J. A. Rixon, O.B.E., A.C.I.S., M. Inst.M.O.

Councillor J. W. Stanley

*Association of River Authorities―

Represented by Mr. W. A. Allen, B.Sc., M.S.W.T.E.

Mr. G. E. Bowyer

Mr. D. G. Bradford, M.I.C.E., A.M.I.W.E.

Mr. J. C. R. Cook, F.I.C.E., M.I.W.E.

101

Association of River Authorities―continued

Mr. T. H. Day, F.R.S.H., M.I.W.P.C.

Mr. E. J. Gilliland, F.I.M.T.A.

Mr. H. A. Glover, B.Eng., M.I.C.E., A.M.I.W.E.

Major J. R. E. Harden, D.S.O., M.C.

Mr. A. R. Hardy, D.L.C., C.Eng., M.I.C.E., A.M.I.W.E.

A.M.I.P.H.E.

Mr. D. Harrison, M.I.C.E., A.M.I.W.E.

Mr. M. A. Liddell, O.B.E.

Col. S. V. Misa, T.D.

Mr. J. R. Stribling, M.I.P.H.E., M.R.S.H., A.I.W.P.C.

Bank of London and South America Ltd.

Bedford County Council

Belted Galloway Cattle Society

*Birds Eye Foods Ltd. ―

Represented by Mr. A. E. Hardwick, M.Inst.M.

Mr. H. W. Symons, M.A.

Board of Inland Revenue

Borough of Dukinfield

*British Agricultural Export Council―

Represented by The Hon. F. N. W. Cornwallis, O.B.E.

Mr. C. Austin Jenkins

Mr. I. R. Wylie

*British Association of Meat Wholesalers Ltd.―

Represented by Mr. E. W. P. Rimer

*British Bacon Curers Federation―

Represented by Mr. K. T. J. Green, M.B.E.

Mr. A. J. Pegram

*British Broadcasting Corporation―

Represented by Mr. J. C. Crawley, M.B.E.

Mr. A. M. MacPhee

Mr. G. R. Sigsworth

*British Cattle Breeder’s Club―

Represented by Mr. P. Dixon-Smith, N.D.A.

Mr. D. Fattorini

British Cycling Federation

British Deer Society

*British Field Sports Society―

Represented by The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Dilhorne

Major B. H. Mylne, M.B.E.

British Friesian Cattle Society

102

*British Homoeopathic Association―

Represented by Mr. J. B. L. Ainsworth, M.P.S.

Mr. G. Macleod, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.S.M.

Mr. E. S. Ponsford-Raymond

Mr. A. L. Wagland

Miss E. Walker

*British Insurance Association―

Represented by Mr. C. E. Abel, A.C.I.I.

Mr. A. L. McCrindell, F.C.I.I.

Mr. J. Morgan, F.C.I.I.

*British Livestock Exports Ltd.―

Represented by Colonel D. Kennedy

British Railways Board

British Semen Exports Ltd.

*British Veterinary Association―

Represented by Mr. J. A. Anderson, M.R.C.V.S.

Professor W. I. B. Beveridge, M.A., D.V.Sc., D.V.M.,

M.R.C.V.S.

Miss W. M. Brancker, O.B.E., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. P. B. Capstick, B.V.M.S., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. J. A. Pasfield, O.B.E., M.R.C.V.S.

*British Waterworks Association (Incorporated)―

Represented by Mr. J. R. Buckenham, M.B.E.

Mr. J. Henderson, B.Sc. (Hons.), F.R.I.C.

Mr. J. H. Sabido, B.Sc, C.Eng., M.I.C.E., M.I.W.E.,

M.B.I.M.

Dr. E. Windle Taylor, C.B.E, M.A., M.D., D.P.H., F.C.Path.

Mr. C. N. Ward

*Central Association of Agricultural Valuers―

Represented by Mr. P. S. Atkinson, F.A.I.

Mr. C. Hayhurst-France, F.A.I.

Mrs. D. M. Scott

Mr. L. M. Seymour

Mr. T. G. Shearman, F.R.I.C.S., F.A.I.

Central Council of Physical Recreation

*Chandler, Hargreaves, Whittal & Co. Ltd. ―

Represented by Mr. T. Hall (a Lloyds’ Underwriter)

Mr. K. A. Low

Mr. J. Morton

Chartered Land Agents Society

*Cheshire Agricultural Society―

Represented by Mr. F. Hughes

*Cheshire County Council―

Represented by Mr. J. K. Boynton, M.C., LL.B., L.M.T.P.I.

Mr. G. R. Finlow, LL.B.

Mr. C. W. Hobson

Mr. J. H. Lord, F.L.A.S

103

*Chief Constables’ (Scotland) Association―

Represented by Chief Constable T. Chasser, C.V.O.

Chippenham Christmas Fatstock Show Committee

*Compound Animal Feeding Stuffs Manufacturers National Association Ltd.—

Represented by Mr. I. Bond

Mr. N. A. H. Kitchiner, O.B.E., T.D.

Counties of Cities Association

*Country Landowners’ Association―

Represented by Mr. J. Maher

Mr. N. E. Strutt, T.D., D.L.

*Country Councils’ Association―

Represented by Mr. J. Clymow, D.M.A.

Major T. H. Ives, C.B.E.

Mr. T. A. Nelson, M.A., LL.B.

Mr. F. M. Woollard

Crofters Commission

Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society

Deneside School Youth Association

*Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dublin—

Represented by Mr. M. J. Barry

Mr. H. G. Foster

Mr. M. G. Hynes, M.R.C.V.S.

Department of Education and Science

Devon Cattle Breeders’ Society

Devon County Council

English Cross Country Union

*Farmers and Stockbreeder―

Represented by Mr. P. J. Bell, B.A.

*Farmers’ Union of Wales―

Represented by Mr. R. P. Davies

Mr. W. H. Jones

Mr. G. Pugh

*Farmers’ Weekly―

Represented by Mr. M. Leyburn, B.Sc.

Mr. M. R. Williams, B.Sc.

*Fatstock Marketing Corporation―

Represented by Mr. J. L. Cochrane

Mr. G. R. Colvin

Mr. E. P. Deakins

Mr. H. G. Ofield

104

*Federation of Wholesale Fresh Meat Traders of Great Britain and Ireland―

Represented by Mr. J. D. Blandford, M.Inst.M.

Mr. H. E. Bywater, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. A. W. Clift

Mr. J. F. Moore, F.C.A.

*Flintshire Agricultural Executive Committee―

Represented by The Rt. Hon. Lord Kenyon, D.L., J.P.

Flintshire County Council

*Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations―

Represented by Dr. P. R. Ellis, M.P.H., B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

*Food-and-Mouth Disease Sub-Committee of Conservative Party’s Agriculture

Committee―

Represented by Mr. J. M. Temple, J.P., M.P.

Gaskell Bros. Ltd.

*George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. ―

Represented by Mr. C. J. Chetwood

Mr. R. N. Oliver

*Granada Television Ltd. ―

Represented by Mr. R. Greaves

Hereford Herd Book Society

H. Hobson & Co.

*Home Office―

Represented by Mr. N. E. V. Short, M.B.E., M.C.

Horserace Betting Levy Board

*Imported Meat Trade Association Incorporated―

Represented by Mr. R. J. Collis

Mr. W. M. Pooley, O.B.E.

*Institute for Research on Animal Diseases―

Represented by Dr. W. M. Henderson, D.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

*Institution of Professional Civil Servants―

Represented by Mr. N. McGregor Burns, M.R.C.V.S.

Dr. P. S. Dawson, B.Sc., Ph.D., B.V.M.S., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. W. H. Palmer

Mr. A. M. Taylor, M.R.C.V.S.

Jockey Club

John Morrell & Co. Ltd.

*Joint English and Scottish Livestock Auctioneers’ Consultative Committee―

Represented by Mr. F. K. Ikin, F.A.I.

Mr. H. Lacy Scott, T.D., J.P., F.R.I.C.S., F.A.I.

Mr. R. F. H. Stevenson, F.R.I.C.S., F.A.I.

Mr. J. A. Thomson, F.I.A. Scot.

Mr. J. Munir Watt, O.B.E., M.A.

105

*Joint Turf Authorities―

Represented by Major General Sir Randle Feilden, K.C.V.O., C.B.,C.B.E.

Mr. P. M. Weatherby

Kidderminster Rural District Council

Laboratory of the Government Chemist

Leicestershire Schools Canoeing/Sailing Association

*Licensed Animal Slaughterers and Salvage Association―

Represented by Mr. A. L. Carter

Mr. W. G. Price

Lloyds’

*Master of Foxhounds Association―

Represented by Lt. Col. J. E. S. Chamberlayne

Captain R. E. Wallace, M.F.H.

Meat Research Institute

*Mersey and Weaver River Authority―

Represented by Mr. M. C. Doody, M.B.E., M.Sc., M.I.C.E., A.M.I.W.E.

*Meteorological Office―

Represented by Mr. G. W. Hurst, B.Sc., A.R.C.S., D.I.C.

Mr. P. J. Meade, O.B.E., B.Sc., A.R.C.S.

Mr. L. P. Smith, B.A.

Mr. P. B. Wright, B.Sc.

Metra Consulting Group Ltd.

*Microbiological Research Establishment―

Represented by Dr. C. E. Gordon Smith, M.D., M.R.C.P., F.C.Path.

*Midlands Marts Ltd. ―

Represented by Mr. F. R. Barker

*Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales―

Represented by Mr. C. R. Garnham

Mr. J. Jackson

Mr. P. Jackson, M.A.

Mr. H. J. Richards

Mr. G. F. Smith, M.R.C.V.S.

Sir Richard Trehane, B.Sc.

Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland

*Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food―

Represented by Mr. G. H. C. Amos

Mr. A. G. Beynon, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.S.M. (Vict.)

Mr. E. H. Bott, C.B.E.

Mr. J. G. Carnochan

Mr. D. J. Drummond, M.R.C.V.S.

106

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food―continued

Mr. R.H. Ewart, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. I. A. Graham, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. S. A. Harris, B.Sc. (Agric.)

Mr. A. G. Hills

Mr. M. E. Hugh Jones, M.A., Vet.M.B., M.P.H.,M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. J. G. Kelsey

Mr. J. R. Kerr, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. E. Lowers, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. W. T. L. Neal, M.A., A.R.I.C.

Mr. W. G. Parkinson, B.V.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. P. A. Power, M.A.

Mr. J. Reid, C.B., M.R.C.V.S., D.V.S.M.

Mr. P. G. M. Riding, F.L.A.S.

Mr. T. Whyte Stobo, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. R. G. Taylor

*Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland―

Represented by Mr. E. Conn, M.R.C.V.S.

Professor C. Dow, Ph.D., B.V.M.S., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. J. M. C. Parke, B.A., B.Sc.,(Econ.), Dip.Ed.

*Ministry of Defence―

Represented by Brigadier G. L. C. Cooper, M.C.

Mr. D. R. Morris

*G.O.C. Western Command

Represented by Major General P. B. Gillett, C.B., O.B.E.

Ministry of Housing and local Government

Morville and District Agricultural Club, Shropshire

Nantwich Young farmers’ Club

*National Association of British Market Authorities―

Represented by Mr. M. O. Garner, M.Inst. M.O.

Mr. G. E. Mildon

Mr. T. G. Morris

Alderman G. R. Moyes

*National Association of Corn and agricultural Merchants Ltd.―

Represented by Mr. R. A. S. Evans

Mr. P. H. Griffiths

Mr. H. S. Leech

National Association of Wholesale Meat Salesmen of Scotland

National Cattle Breeders’ Association

Represented by Mr. M. O. K. Day

Mr. A. Greenhalgh

Mr. C. H. R. Reeves, D.L.

Mr. N. E. Simper

Mr. J. A. Taylor

Lt. Col. J. M. Wood

107

*National Farmers’ Unions of England and Wales, and Scotland―

Represented by Mr. P. R. Butcher, B.Sc.(Agric.)

Mr. G. A. Catchpole

Mr. T. J. Cowen, B.A., M.B.E.

Mr. J. Drinkall

Mr. R. P. Francis

Mr. A. Grieg, N.D.D. England and Wales

Mr. T. B. Jones, J.P.

Major G. Knight, M.C.

Mr. J. M. McKeand

Mr. J. S. Thomas

Mr. J. Cameron

Mr. R. C. Stewart Scotland

Mr. D. G. Lloyd, M.B.E. (Welsh Regional Information

Officer)

Mr. W. H. Newton Young (N.F.U. Welsh Secretary and

Executive Officer)

*National Farmers’ Union (Cheshire County Branch)―

Represented by

Mr. B. Asbury Mr. F. Lancaster

Mr. J. S. Brentnall Mr. R. F. Lawrence

Mr. H. B. Brown Mr. E. Lees

Mr. F. N. Craddock Mr. J. C. Lievesley

Mr. F. W. Cureton, F.C.C.S., J.P. Mr. P. B. Mayer

Mr. W. G. Fair Mr. A. Plumbley

Mr. G. J. Ford Mr. J. Richardson

Mr. L. Ford Mr. F. W. Simms

Mr. S. J. Harden Mr. H. S. Stannard

Mr. J. Hough Mr. G. T. Yoxall

National Farmers’ Union (Chester Branch)

*National Farmers’ Union (Denbighshire County Branch)―

Represented by Mr. E. E. Evans

Mr. D. Griffith

Mr. R. H. Hughes

Mr. J. E. Morris

Mr. A. H. Roberts

Mr. J. E. Roberts

Mr. F. J. Tomlinson

*National Farmers’ Union (Derbyshire County Branch)―

Represented by Mr. B. Baker

Mr. D. C. Harris

Mr. G. W. Johnson, F.C.C.S.

Mr. G. D. Lea

Mr. J. E. McDonald

Mr. F. R. Platts

Mr. P. R. J. Spencer

National Farmers’ Union (Ellesmere, Prees and Wem Branches)

108

*National Farmers’ Union (Flintshire County Branch)―

Represented by Mr. J. R. Craddock

Mr. J. Done

Mr. W. B. Evans

Mr. W. Jones

Mr. S. R. Kay

Mr. G. L. Price

Mr. R. S. Thomas

Mr. W. J. Wearne

Mr. D. E. Williams, J.P.

*National Farmers’ Union (Montgomeryshire County Branch)―

Represented by Mr. T. M. Edwards

Mr. J. E. Griffiths

Mr. F. Hughes

Mr. D. A. Jones

Mr. E. Lloyd Jones

Mr. R. N. Jones

Mr. J. Lowarch

Mr. L. T. Roberts

*National Farmers’ Union (Shropshire County Branch)―

Represented by:

Mr. B. E. Boot Mr. T. B. Jones, J.P.

Mr. A. Boughey Mr. R. P .Leighton

Mr. D. J. Bridge Capt. M. K. Mainwaring

Mr. A. R. Brisbourne Mr. R. T. Matson

Mr. J. E. Cooke Mr. J. Parker

Mr. R. A. Coope Mr. M. C. Pate

Mr. J. A. Davies Mr. J. S. Rowland

Mr. R. W. Edwards Mr. K. C. Scarlett

Mr. W. R. Horrell Mr. W. W. Towers

Mr. E. P. Jones Mr. R. W. Ward

Mr. J. C. R. Jones Mr. B. J. Whittingham, O.B.E.

*National Farmers’ Union (Staffordshire County Branch)―

Represented by Mr. J. F. Beesley

Mr. P. Capener

Mr. W. Kenny

Mr. A. D. Loweth

Mr. K. Parrott

Mr. A. L. Stickland, M.B.E.

Mr. W. Thompstone

National Federation of Anglers

*National Federation of Meat Traders’ Associations (Incorporated)―

Represented by Mr. W. Bloor, M.Inst. M.

Mr. L. Dennis, M.Inst. M.

Mr. K. J. Forder, M.A.

Mr. F. D. Johnson, B.E.M., M.Inst. M.

Mr. J. Partington, M.Inst. M.

Mr. T. Tasker, M.Inst. M.

National Federation of Women’s Institutes

National Hunt Committee

109

*National Sheep Breeders Association―

Represented by Mr. R. E. Dowse, F.R.I.C.S., F.L.A.S.

National stud

*National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers―

Represented by Mr. J. Hockenhull

Mr. D. F. Hodsdon, O.B.E.

Mr. G. Neish, J.P.

North-Western British Friesian Breeders’ Club

*Office International des Epizooties―

Represented by Dr. G. A. Moosbrugger

Office of the High Commissioner for Canada

Peak Park Planning Board

C. J. Pearce & Co. Ltd.

*Pig Industry Development Authority―

Represented by Mr. R. A. Mackness

Dr. D. R. Melrose, D.V.M.&.S., B.Sc.

Porcofram Ltd.

Post Office

*Public Health Laboratory Service―

Represented by Dr. R. J. Henderson, M.D. (Edin.)

Sir James Howie, M.D., F.R.C.P., F.C.Path.

Dr. A. D. Macrae, M.D., M.C.Path., Dip.Bact.

Dr. T. M. Pollock, M.D., M.R.C.P.

Racecourse Association Limited

Red Deer Commission

*Road Haulage Association Limited―

Represented by Mr. R. J. Carpenter

Mr. R. Cooling

Mr. F. G. Garrood

Mr. G. C. Harvey

Mrs. G. Ivory

Mr. H. C. Love

Mr. J. Mallinson

Mr. G. H. Mitchell, F.C.C.S.

*Royal Agricultural Society of England―

Represented by Lt. Col. Sir Walter R. Burrell, Bt., C.B.E., T.D., D.L.

Mr. J. Cumber, B.Sc., D.L., J.P.

Mr. C. V. T. Dadd, M.A., Dip.Agric.(Cantab.)

Lord Woolley, C.B.E., D.L.

Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment

*Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers―

Represented by Mr. F. R. Francis

Mr. D. Gemmill, O.B.E.

Mr. H. C. Mills

Mr. J. Pasfield, O.B.E., M.R.C.V.S.

Lord Rowallan, K.T., K.B.E, M.C., T.D.

Mr. P. G. Snell

110

*Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons―

Represented by Mr. T. A. M. Chambers, M.R.C.V.S.

Professor D. L. Hughes, Ph.D., F.R.C.V.S., Dip.Bact.

Professor E. G. White, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.R.C.V.S.

Mr. A. J. Wright, J.P., M.R.C.V.S.

*Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland―

Represented by Mr. R. Dunlop

Mr. J. K. M. Oliver

Mr. R. H. Watherston, C.B.E.

Mr. W. Young, C.B.E.

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

*Royal Veterinary College―

Represented by Sir John Ritchie, C.B., B.Sc., D.V.Sc., LL.D., F.R.C.V.S.,

D.V.S.M., F.R.S.E.

*Royal Welsh Agricultural Society Ltd.

Represented by Mr. I. G. Evans

Mr. J. A. George, F.C.C.S.

The Hon. Neville Hill-Trevor

Mr. F. V. John, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.S.M.

Mr. A. T. Morgan, M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. H. Richards

Mr. T. D. Steadman

*Salop County Council―

Represented by Mr. G. A. Dawson

Lt. Col. A. Heywood-Lonsdale, C.B.E, M.C., J.P., D.L.

Mr. W. N. P. Jones, M.A.(Cantab.)

Mr. H. S. Wainwright

*Sausage and Meat Pie Manufacturers’ Association―

Represented by Mr. G. I. Banks

Mr. R. Bazen, A.C.I.S.

Mr. A. F. Brobyn

Mr. D. S. Munro

Mr. H. Whittle

*Scottish Landowners’ Federation―

Represented by Major the Hon. Colin Dalrymple, D.L.

Capt P. L. Mackie-Campbell, J.P.

*Scottish Milk Marketing Board―

Represented by Mr. A. R. Campbell, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Scottish Pig Producers’ Federation

*Shropshire Agricultural Executive Committee―

Represented by Mr. F. W. Ward, O.B.E.

Soil Association

111

*South American Freight Committee―

Represented by Mr. A. B. Barrio

Mr. K. V. Epstein

Mr. A. G. Gordon, B.A.

Mr. D. B. Johnson

Sir Derek Vestey, Bt.

Mr. H. Warburton

South-Western Farmers Ltd.

Staffordshire County Council

Temple Cox Development Co. Ltd.

Traders Road Transport Association Ltd.

G. Percy Trentham Ltd.

Vanodine Ltd.

Veterinarians’ Union

Wantage Rural District Council

Water Pollution Research Laboratory

Messrs. E. W. Watts (Haulage) Ltd.

*Wellcome Foundation Limited―

Represented by Mr. A. A. Gray, M.C., M.A., B.Sc.

Mr. S. L. Hignett, B.Sc., F.R.C.V.S.

Mr. T. W. F. Pay, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. A. Thomson, M.R.C.V.S.

Welsh Office

*West Mercia Constabulary―

Represented by Chief Superintendent A. Nichol

Chief Constable J. A. Willison, O.B.E., D.L.

Worcestershire County Council

Wynnstay and Montgomeryshire Farmers Limited

Youth Hostels Association of England and Wales

*Zoological Society of London―

Represented by Dr. L. G. Goodwin, M.B.B.S., M.R.C.P., B.Pharm.,B.Sc.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, M.P.

Sir Solly Zuckerman, O.M., K.C.B., F.R.S., M.A., M.D.,

D.Sc., M.R.C.S., F.R.C.P.

Private Individuals

*Mrs. A. M. Allen, N.D.D. (Hons.)

Mr. T. E. Appleby

The Hon. Anthony Berry, J.P., M.P.

Mr. J. J. Bowes

Mr. R. H. Bradley, B Vet.Med., M.R.C.V.S.

Miss M. Brand, M.A.

Mr. W. Brock

Sir Evelyn Delves Broughton, Bt.

112

Private Individuals―continued

Mrs. J. Burrows, S.R.N.

Dr. H. M. E. Cardwell, M.A., Ph.D.

Mrs. E. G. Cawdrey

Dr. D. S. Dane, B.A., M.B., B.Chir., M.R.C.P., M.C.Path.

Mr. B. W. Dawes

Mr. R. Dean, LL.D., LL.B.

Mr. D. J. B. Denny, B.Vet.Med., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. J. Dickin

*Mr. R. N. Ellis (oral evidence only)

Dr. C. W. A. Emery, C.B.E., M.B., B. Ch.

Mr. M. I. Evans, B.Sc.

Dr. P. R. C. Evans, G.M., J.P., M.D., F.R.C.P.

Mr. W. G. Fair

*Mr. W. B. Faull, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Lt. Col. A. Forbes

*Capt. J. Fox, M.C., M.R.C.V.S.

Mrs. E. C. Gibson

Mr. M. T. Greenwood, B.Vet.Med., M.R.C.V.S.

Dr. P. H. Gregory, D.Sc., D.I.C., F.R.S.

Mr. J. N. Gripper, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S., J.P.

Mr. W. E. Grund

Mr. S. R. Hart

Mr. F. A. Irving, B.Sc., D.P.A., F.A.P.H.I.

Mr. J. S. Jones

Professor H. D. Kay, C.B.E, D.Sc., F.R.S.

Mr. A. J. C. Kerr, M.A., Dip.Ed.

Mr. K. P. Lea

Mr. A. Lepeudry

Dr. H. R. Lillie, M.B., Ch.B.(St.A.), B.Sc., M.I.C.E.

Mrs. M. Livesley

Mr. W. L. R. Mather, M.H.C.I.

Mr. J. M. Meier

Mrs. J. Milne

Mr. J. H. Monie, M.B.H.U., M.I.P.I., M.B.S.D.(U.K.), A.G.P.(India)

Mr. P. R. Ord

Mr. R. Parker

Mr. H. W. Phillips

Mr. G. W. Power, C.Eng., M.Eng., M.I.C.E.

Mr. A. J. Proud, B.V.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. G. K. Ridley, F.L.A.S.

*Mr. H. E. Ritchie, B.V.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. R. Roberts

Mr. A. Rosen

Mrs. L. M. Rutter

Mr. J. L. Sleigh

Mr. J. Smith, M.R.C.V.S.

Miss C. Soames

Mr. C. J. N. Stanford

*Mr. B. Keys Statham, B.Sc.(Agric.), N.D.A.

Mr. J. Stewart, B.Sc.

Mr. W. J. Stopford, M.C.

Professor W. J. Thomas, M.Sc., M.A.

Dr. J. R. T. Turner, M.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., J.P.

*Lt. Col. Sir Richard Verdin, O.B.E., T.D., D.L., J.P.

113

Private Individuals―continued

Mr. G. C. Vickers, B.V.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. W. O. Wade

Mr. T. G. W. Wiles

Lt. Col. Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, Bt., C.B.E, J.P.

*Dr. A. J. Wilsdon, B.Sc., Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S. (Oral evidence only)

*Sir John Winnifrith, K.C.B. (Oral evidence only)

Mr. G. A. Wright

Foreign Countries visited by the Committee, and Persons who gave Evidence

to Them.

Europe

Denmark Mr. S. Anderson

Mr. V. Bugge

Mr. V. Hornslet

Dr. E. Michelson

Dr. C. Werdelin

Federal Republic of Germany Dr. W. Eckerskorn

Dr. Grissler

Herr Rojahn

France Mr. A. Cortez

Mr. L. Dhennen

Dr. E. Matthieu

Mr. J. Santamaria

The Netherlands Dr. J. G. van Bekkum

H. A. Van den Berg

Dr. K. G. Robijns

Mr. W. Wagenvoort

Dr. J. Vervoon

South America

Argentina Sr. A. Reichart―Under Secretary for Agri-

culture and Livestock.

Dr. Jorge Borsella, Director General of Animal

Health, and a team of officials from the

Argentine Ministry of Agriculture, Animal

Health Service, and S.E.L.S.A. (Animal

Health Field Service).

[Discussions were also held with the Director and Officials of the laboratories of I.N.T.A. (National Institute of Technology) and S.E.L.S.A. which the Committee visited, and with local representatives and officials of S.E.L.S.A. during visits to the estancias of Sr. Jaun Harriet, Senora Inchauspe and Sr. Eduardo Pereda. The committee also met Dr. Lius Firpo Miro, President of the Argentine Rural Society and some of its members and members of A.A.C.R.E.A. (Argentine Association of Regional Agricultural Experimental Stations).]

114

Brazil Dr. Jose Fredre de Faria, Federal Chief Vet-

erinary Officer, and a team of officals from

the Federal Veterinary Service and the

Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture; also

Federal veterinary officials stationed in

Porto Alegre.

(Rio Grande do Sul),

Dr. Jose Augusto Muller, Head of the Depart-

ment of Animal Health for the State of Rio

Grande do Sul, and a team of officials from

the Department and from the State Vet-

erinary Service.

Uruguay Sr. Frank Davie, Minister of Agriculture.

Sr. M. Capurro, Under Secretary of Livestock

and Agriculture.

Dr. de Freitas, Chief Veterinary Officer, and

a team of officials from the Ministry of

Agriculture and Veterinary Service.

Pan American Foot-and – Dr. Carlos A. Palacios, Director

Mouth Disease Centre, Dr. M. Fernandes

Rio de Janiero Dr. Lambardo

United States of America Dr. R. J. Anderson, Associate Administrator

Of the U.S. Agricultural Research Services,

and a team of officials from the Service.

Dr. J. Callis, Director of the Plum Island

Animal Disease Laboratory, and team of

officials.

Dr. Shahan, past Director of the Laboratory.

Countries whose Governments submitted written evidence.

Argentina Malawi

Australia Malaysia (West)

Austria New Zealand

Belgium Netherlands

Botswana Nigeria

Brazil Norway

Canada Pakistan (West)

Ceylon Poland

Chile Republic of South Africa

Cyprus Singapore

Czechoslovakia Sweden

Denmark Switzerland

Finland Tanzania

France Turkey

Federal Republic of Germany U.S.A

Ghana U.S.S.R.

Greece Uruguay

Italy Zambia

Kenya

115

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF INFECTED AREA AND CONTROLLED AREA

RESTRICTIONS IN FORCE BEFORE THE 1967/1968 EPIDEMIC OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

INFECTED AREA

CONTROLLED AREA

Restrictions on Movements of Susceptible Animals

(a) Movement out of Area

Prohibited without exception.

(b) Movement into Area

Prohibited except into a contiguous Infected Area and then only if accompanied by a license.

Movement by road or water within two miles of an Infected Place was prohibited. Movement which was absolutely necessary from a free area or from a contiguous Controlled Area was allowed under licence. In the case of movement to premises other than a slaughter-house, the animals had to be detained on the premises for fourteen days after arrival. No movement was permitted to any market, sale or certification centre.

Movement to a farm or slaughter-house from free areas was allowed under licence. In the case of movement to premises other than a slaughter-house, the animals had to be detained on the premises for fourteen days after arrival. No movement was permitted to any market, sale or certification center.

(c) Movement within Area

Necessary movement was allowed under licence provided that the animals, while being moved, were kept separate as far as practicable, from other susceptible animals from other places. There were, however, the following exceptions:

(i) no movement was allowed to a market, fairground, saleyard or certification centre unless the local authority had licensed the receiving premises;

(ii) no movement was allowed from any place which was being used, or had immediately beforehand been used, for a market, fairground, saleyard or certification centre unless the animals were going direct to a slaughter-house in the same Infected Area;

116

Necessary or desirable movement was allowed by licence provided that the animals, while being moved, were kept separate as far as practicable, from other susceptible animals from other places. There were, however, the following exceptions:

(i) no movement was allowed to a market, fairground, saleyard or certification centre unless the local authority had licensed the receiving premises;

(ii) no movement was allowed from any place which was being, or had immediately beforehand been used, for a market, fairground, saleyard or certification centre unless the animals were going direct to a slaughter-house; except that unsold animals were allowed to move back from a market to the premises from which they were brought where they had then to be detained for six days;

APPENDIX II

EXTRACTS FROM THE MILK CODE OF PRACTICE AS PREPARED IN 1969 BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES & FOOD

In this Appendix animals mean cattle, sheep and goats and all other ruminating animals and swine.

CODE A

Part 1 Precautions to be implemented by hauliers and buyers operating in or receiving milk from Infected Areas.

Part 2 Precautions to be implemented by hauliers and buyers receiving milk from premises and producers situated inside or outside the Infected Area which are subject to the requirements of a Foot- and-Mouth Disease Form D Restriction Notice.*

Part 3 Precautions to be implemented by hauliers and buyers delivering dairy by-products to farms.

Part 4 Disinfectants to be used by buyers, hauliers and producers.

PART 1

Precautions to be Implemented by Hauliers and Buyers

Operating in or Receiving Milk from Infected Areas

These precautions will be introduced immediately following notification by the Milk Marketing Board regional office to all hauliers and buyers operating in, and receiving milk from, Infected Areas. Urgent action is imperative.

(i) Disinfectants

For particulars of suitable disinfectants see Part 4.

(ii) Protective clothing of personnel on vehicles, deck workers and samplers

(a) All personnel should wear:

waterproof boots,

waterproof coats,

waterproof leggings or over-trousers.

In addition those visiting farms should wear waterproof headgear. Waterproof clothing means clothing made of rubber, plastic or similar material capable of being disinfected.

All personnel are advised to consider wearing rubber gloves to protect their hands from disinfectant.

(b) The protective clothing of personnel on vehicles should be disinfected between pick-ups and thoroughly cleansed and disinfected at the commencement and completion of each run. The protective clothing of dairy staff should be disinfected prior to removal or immediately after removal.

(iii) Vehicles

Before the vehicle starts from base, creamery or dairy:

(a) The whole vehicle should be seen to be in a clean condition.

(b) The vehicle deck, churns/cans and fittings (chains, etc.), on the body of the bulk tanker, and the steps, wheels, hub caps, mudguards and underside of the vehicle should be thoroughly sprayed with disinfectant.

(c) The inside of the cab and the driver’s boots and protective clothing should be cleansed and washed with disinfectant.

(d) An approved filter (in England and Wales supplied from stocks held centrally by the M.M.B.) must be fitted to all tankers. Whenever a filter is removed from a milk tanker it must be soaked in an approval disinfectant for at least 2 hours before it is discarded or sent to have the filter component renewed.

(e) Each tanker should be supplied with spray equipment or stirrup pump and a supply of disinfectant.

(f) Each churn/can carrying vehicle should carry a supply of disinfectant.

(g) Sample boxes carried by bulk tankers must be cleansed and disinfected in the creamery or dairy laboratory prior to the insertion of the sample bottles, and the sample pannier on the vehicle must be disinfected by the driver.

(iv) On the Round>Churn/Can Collection

(a) On the first day farmers should be asked to bring churns/cans to a roadside collection point until further notice.

(b) Unload empties.

(c) Thoroughly wash the outside of full churns/cans including the bases, handles and over the top of the churn/can with disinfectant before loading them on the vehicle.

(d) Wash hands, waterproof boots and outer protective clothing with disinfectant solution carried on vehicle.

(e) If vehicle has entered farm (first day only) steps, wheels, mudguards and underside of vehicle should be thoroughly sprayed with disinfectant.

(f) Take note of any producers not fulfilling requirements of Code B.

(v) On the Round>Bulk Collection

(a) Upon arrival at farm dairy, and again on leaving, cleanse and disinfect waterproof boots and outer protective clothing.

(b) Enquire daily before commencing collecting procedure whether the producer has reported any suspect animals> if so do not collect milk but remain on the farm until the veterinary officer arrives and ask his advice. If the milk has to be retained on the farm and subsequently disease is not confirmed, the veterinary officer will telephone the haulage depot (Regional Officer in Scotland) so that alternative collection arrangements can be made.

(c) Thoroughly wash the outside of the milk delivery pipe, and in particular the coupling attachment, with disinfectant as it is withdrawn from the vehicle and again after collection as it is returned to the vehicle.

(d) Proceed to collect supplies. Driver should confine his movements strictly to the minimum area necessary to carry out the collection task.

(e) Any milk drainings from farm vat/tank or tanker hose or any milk split anywhere should be thoroughly sprayed at once with disinfectant solution.

(f) On the days when samples are to be taken ensure that the sample bottle, stopper and dipper do not come in contact with any solid base on the farm.

122

(g) The outside of sample bottles should be disinfected after taking the sample and on the vehicle the full bottles should be segregated from the empty bottles.

(h) Take note of any procedure not fulfilling requirements of Code B.

(i) Before leaving the collecting point the driver must thoroughly cleanse and then wash disinfectant any farm equipment, taps, etc., that he has handled.

(j) After reading the dipstick on the farm vat/tank the stick should be wiped with the tissue provided and great care should be taken that the dipstick does not come into contact with the driver’s clothing. Used tissues should be left on the farm.

(k) Before leaving each farm the steps, wheels, mudguards of the tanker should be thoroughly sprayed with disinfectant.

(vi) At the Creamery or Dairy

(a) Disinfectant wheel/baths or mats should be placed at exits and the disinfectant strength maintained.

(b) The following should be cleansed and disinfected at regular intervals during each day with a disinfectant solution:

vehicle unloading and turning area;

churn/can deck;

reception platform;

exterior of all equipment on platform (i.e. tipping, weighing, draining and churn/can washing equipment);

sampling equipment;

deck office floors and working surfaces;

laboratory floors and working surfaces;

toilets.

(c) Before sterilizing the churns/cans all labels and string must be removed and retained on the premises.

(d) Ensure that the churn/can washer is operating efficiently and that all churns/cans and lids are being thoroughly sterilised.

(e) Any milk spilled in tipping churn/can milk or unloading bulk tankers should be thoroughly diluted at once with disinfectant solution.

(f) The sampling of all churn/can and bulk supplies for compositional, hygiene and antibiotic testing should be limited to once monthly.

(g) If a churn/can vehicle or tanker has collected milk from an infected farm special disinfection and sterilization of all churns/cans, the vehicle and ancillary equipment will be carried out under supervision arranged by the veterinary officer in charge of the control centre.

(vii) At Haulage Base

Drivers should report to transport manager or employers details of producers as noted under (iv)(f) and (v)(h).

PART 2

Precautions to be Implemented by Hauliers and Buyers Receiving Milk from Farm Premises inside and outside the Infected Area which are subject to the Requirements of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Restriction Notice Form D

These precautions should be introduced immediately following notification by M.M.B. Regional Manager/Officers or by producers to hauliers and buyers collecting milk from premises subject to Form D restrictions. Urgent action is imperative.

123

(i) Premises and Producers situated within the Infected Area

(a) The full requirements of the milk codes of practice will apply.

(b) The owner is obliged to display a notice at the entrance to his premises to indicate that the premises are subject to Form D restrictions.

(c) Milk may be removed from the premises for pasteurisation or otherwise must only be moved by the authority of a licence issued by an inspector of the Ministry.

(ii) Premises and Producers situated outside the Infected Area

(a) The owner is obliged to display a notice at the entrance to his premises to indicate that the premises are subject to Form D restrictions.

(b) Milk may be moved from the premises for pasteurisation or otherwise must only be moved by the authority of a licence issued by an inspector of the Ministry.

(c) Where there is the possibility of any resultant by-product of this pasteurisation (liquid skim, whey or buttermilk etc.) being used for animal feeding it MUST be heat treated as required in Code C before being fed to livestock.

(d) Before collecting milk from any premises subject to Form D restrictions the haulier must verify that the milk will be pasteurised.

(e) The procedures described in Parts 1, 3 and 4 of Code A will apply including the fitting of an approved filter when a tanker is used to transport the milk. Whenever a filter is removed from a milk tanker it must be soaked in an approved disinfectant for at least 2 hours before it is discarded or sent to have the filter component renewed.

(f) It is obligatory to cleanse and disinfect any vehicle on leaving the farm. The steps, wheels, hub caps, mudguards and underside of the vehicle must be thoroughly cleansed, sprayed with disinfectant and then hosed down.

(g) Milk must be collected either as a single load or where this is impracticable it must be collected as the last “pick-up” of the round.

PART 3

Precautions to be Implemented by Hauliers and Buyers delivering

Dairy By-Products to Farms

All vehicles employed in delivering skim or whey to farms, when the by-product is derived from a creamery or dairy situated in or receiving milk from an Infected Area or from producers’ premises subject to Form D restrictions, must be cleansed and disinfected before starting their rounds and before leaving each farm visited on the round in accordance with the procedure laid down in Part 1, (iii) of Code A. The driver and any other person travelling on the vehicle must carry out the personal disinfection laid down in Part 1, (ii) of Code A. In addition, the vehicle should be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected on returning to base after the day’s deliveries.

PART 4

Disinfectant to be used by Buyers, Hauliers and Producers

The most suitable disinfectant is:

0.2 per cent citric acid to which should be added a non-ionic detergent. Examples of the latter are “Nonidet P40” (Shell); “Lissapol N.X.” (I.C.I.) and “Empilan N.P.9” (Marchon Products Ltd., Whitehaven).

To prepare a 0.2 per cent solution of citric acid>dissolve 1 lb. of citric acid crystals in one gallon of water. This makes roughly a 10 per cent solution suitable for carrying in

124

a car (in a polythene container for preference). If one-third of a pint of this solution (an average teacupful) is added to two gallons of water this will give a 0.2 per cent solution. To each two gallons of this solution add two teaspoonful of a non-ionic detergent. The 10 per cent stock solution deteriorates on keeping and should be disposed of if not used after 10 days. If citric acid is not available another effective disinfectant is:

4 per cent solution of sodium carbonate (washing soda)

To prepare a 4 per cent solution of sodium carbonate>dissolve 1 lb. of washing soda in two gallons of water. Two teaspoonful of a non-ionic detergent should be added. A disadvantage of washing soda is that it causes slight corrosion of some metal surfaces. It should not be used on paintwork.

NOTES:

All disinfectants are rendered much less efficient by the presence of dirt, dung or any organic matter. It is important, therefore, that disinfectant solutions should be clean and replenished regularly.

Citric acid is the disinfectant of choice for personal disinfection, the disinfection of vehicles and aluminium churns. Washing soda is more suitable for the disinfection of buildings.

As the efficacy of these disinfectants depends on either their acidity or their alkalinity they must never be used in combination.

CODE B

Precautions to be Followed by All Milk Producers in an Infected Area

These recommendations are made for the further protection of farmers’ stock, and are in addition to precautions already being taken by the dairies and milk haulage contractors against the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.

A straw mat or sacks soaked in an approved disinfectant should be laid across the entrance to the farm so that the wheels, mudguards and underside of all vehicles entering and leaving can be disinfected over it. The disinfectant strength of the mat should be maintained by adding disinfectant to it as required and the mat should be removed when necessary.

1. Disinfectants

Where reference is made below to the use of a disinfectant solution it is suggested that the most suitable one is a 0.2 per cent solution of citric acid (1 part in 500 parts of water). It is desirable to add to this solution a small quantity of a non-ionic detergent to act as a “spreading” agent. Examples of the latter are “Nonidet P.40” (Shell): “Lissapol N.X.” (I.C.I.) and “Empilan N.P.9” (Marchon Products Limited, Whitehaven).

To prepare a 0.2 per cent solution of citric acid>dissolve 1 lb. of citric acid in 1 gallon of water. This makes roughly a 10 per cent solution suitable for carrying in a car (in a polythene container for preference). If one third of a pint of this solution (an average teacupful) is added to two gallons of water this will give a 0.2 per cent solution. To each two gallons of this solution add two teaspoonful of a non-ionic detergent. The 10 per cent stock solution deteriorates on keeping and should be disposed of if not used after 10 days.

2. Churn/can collection

All churns/cans should be taken to a roadside collection point until further notice.

As soon as empty churns/cans are delivered to the roadside collection point they should be thoroughly washed on the outside with a disinfectant solution.

Full churns/cans should also be washed on the outside with disinfectant after removing dirt and then taken to the roadside for collection. Drivers will be instructed to report any cases where milk is being consigned in consigned in churns/cans which have any dirt on them or have been carried to the collecting point in dirty farm vehicles.

Churn/can stands and other improvised stands and farm vehicles used for moving churns/cans should be washed daily with disinfectant solution and maintained in a clean condition. Disinfectant and a brush should be provided for the disinfection of the lorry driver’s footwear, and this disinfectant should be replenished daily.

Assistance in loading, especially where improvised stands are in use, is essential.

3. Bulk collection

Bulk producers should:

(a) Provide daily a clear supply of disinfectant solution at the farm dairy for the disinfection of the tanker hose and any spillage, in addition to the disinfectant solution for footwear and vehicles.

(b) Provide assistance to the driver in disinfecting the tanker hose.

4. In case of suspected disease

The Collection of Infected Milk either in Churns/Cans or by Tanker must be Prevented.

Where the owner of an animal suspects disease he should place a “KEEP OUT” notice at the farm entrance or a notice on the churn/can site. Churns/cans should be retained at or returned to the farm dairy until a veterinary officer has investigated the case. This will prevent collection of milk which may be infected. In the case of churn/can collections the lorry driver must be asked to leave empty churns/cans in case they are needed for the next milking.

If subsequently the disease is not confirmed, the veterinary officer will authorise the M.M.B. to collect the milk.

If the disease is confirmed the infected milk must be treated and disposed of as advised by the Ministry’s veterinary officer. Compensation will be paid for it.

CODE C

Milk and Milk Products for Stock Feeding

1. The following code of treatment for milk and milk products for milk and milk products for stock feeding applies to all dairies in Infected Areas, all dairies receiving milk from Infected Areas and all dairies receiving milk from premises outside the Infected Area which are subject to Form D restrictions. A From D Notice is a restrictive notice served in respect of any premises which contain animals which in any way have been in contact with foot-and-mouth disease. The notice prohibits the movement of animals onto and off the premises. The movement of other things (e.g. animal feedingstuffs, manure, slurry) is subject to the conditions of a licence. Milk is allowed off the premises for pasteurization but any resultant by-product used for animal feeding must be treated in accordance with the requirements of the Code.

2. Because of the danger of cross contamination, all milk products for stock feeding (whether from milk derived from Infected Areas or not) must be subjected to one of the heat processes described below. In all cases the temperature of the treatment must be checked by thermometer or other suitable means.

3. Great care must be taken to ensure that treated products are not recontaminated by untreated milk or unsterilised containers.

4. After treatment, rejected milk, skim or whey must be stored in sterilized containers and/or shipped in sterilized tankers if they have previously contained untreated milk.

126

Rejected milk, liquid skim or buttermilk

5. Rejected milk, liquid skim or buttermilk must be subjected to one of the following heat treatments:

170⁰F (76.66⁰C) for at least 5 seconds

161.6⁰F (72⁰C) for at least 1 minute

149⁰F (65⁰C) for at least 2 minutes

140⁰F (60⁰C) for at least 30 minutes

or heated to a temperature specified in writing by a veterinary inspector and held at such temperature for a period similarly specified by him

or in the case of whey held at a temperature of not less than 50⁰F(10⁰C)for at least 24 hours.

Rejected milk

6. (a) Churn milk

Churn milk which is rejected at a dairy on the grounds of unmarketability, e.g., unsatisfactory hygienic quality, blood, taint, etc., must not be returned to the premises of origin or sent to any other premises where animals are kept unless it has been treated in accordance with one of the prescribed heat treatments (live steam injection may be convenient).

(b) Tanker milk

Tanker milk which is rejected at a dairy or creamery is not normally sent to farms but if such milk is to be used for stock feeding it must be treated in accordance with one of the prescribed heat treatments and preferably should be cooled subsequently to below 21⁰C.

Liquid skim or buttermilk to be used for stock feeding

7. These products must be treated in accordance with one of the prescribed

heat treatments and preferably should be cooled subsequently to below 21⁰C.

Liquid whey used for stock feeding

8. Liquid whey must be treated in accordance with one of the prescribed heat treatments or if these are not possible held for at least 24 hours at not less than 10⁰C.

Dried milk products for stock feeding

9. Where it is not possible to adopt any of the above treatments for skim milk or whey, where possible they should be manufactured into milk powder, dried whey or dried buttermilk.

10. The processes used in the manufacture of these products are normally effective in destroying foot-and-mouth disease virus but precautions must be taken to ensure that no cross contamination occurs between liquid intake and the finished product.

11. All drying plants operating in or receiving milk products from the Infected Area must supply details of the process to the veterinary officer in charge of the foot-and-mouth disease control centre or to the local animal health office of the Ministry of Agriculture.

12. Personnel engaged in powder manufacture and bag handling should be confined to these tasks if possible. If this is not possible such persons should thoroughly cleanse themselves by washing in disinfectant solution, change their overalls and disinfect or change their footwear before handling powder or bags.

127

Destruction of rejected milk (including milk samples and churn can drainings), skim or whey

13. If none of the above alternatives is possible milk, skim or whey MUST NOT be used for stock feeding. It MUST be treated in one of the following ways and disposed of as waste.

(a) Add formalin to make a five percent solution and hold for two hours(i.e.and one gallon of formalin (forty percent formaldehyde solution) to nineteen gallons of milk, skim or whey).

(b) Add caustic alkali to bring to PH.12. (To attain this add two pints of one per cent caustic soda solution to each gallon of the material to be treated.)

14. In all cases the actual disposal of the destroyed milk, skim or whey must be in accordance with the notice given by the local foot-and-mouth disease control centre or the local animal health office of the Ministry of Agriculture.

CODE D

Precautions to be Followed by Milk Producers on Premises Placed

Under Foot-and-Mouth Disease Form D Restrictions

Introduction

1. A restrictive notice (Form D) has served on you under Article 10 of the Foot-and Mouth Disease Order 1928 as amended because animals on your farm have been exposed to infection. Please read the notice carefully. The following notes explain the restrictions placed on your premises.

2. The Form D notice places restriction on the movement from your farm of all animals, people attending them and of various things, since animals may be spreading infection before recognizable symptoms develop, it is necessary to do this, to control the spread of the disease.

Note for milk producers

3. It has been found that milk can contain food-and-mouth disease virus up to 3 days before the cows show signs of the disease. Additional precautions must therefore be taken with milk sent from the premises.

4. As soon as possible after the service of the Form D Notice you should inform the Regional Manager/Officer of the Milk Board in your area and the haulier who collects your milk that the Notice has been served. If milk normally goes for pasteurisation the haulier will collect it but will take certain precautions.

5. If your milk does not normally go for pasteurisation the Regional Manager/Officer may be able to direct it to a pasteurization plant. Should this not be possible it MUST NOT be moved from the premises until a licence has been issued by a veterinary inspector. He will only issue a licence if he is satisfied that the milk will be dealt with in a safe manner.

6. If you normally deliver milk to the dairy in your own vehicle you should stop doing this until you have contacted the Regional Manager/Officer.

Precautions to be taken by milk producers

7. These precautions are in addition to precautions which are taken by the dairies and milk haulage contractors against the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.

Churns/cans collection

8. All churns/cans should be taken to a roadside collection point until further notice.

9. As soon as empty churns/cans are delivered to the roadside collection point they should be thoroughly washed on the outside with a disinfectant solution.

10. Full churns/cans should also be thoroughly cleansed and washed on the outside with disinfectant and then taken to the roadside for collection. Drivers will be instructed to report any cases where milk is being consigned in churns/cans which have any dirt on them or have been carried to the collecting point in dirty farm vehicles.

11. Churn/can stands and other improvised stands and farm vehicles used for moving churns/cans should be washed daily with disinfectant solution and maintained in a clean condition. Disinfectant and a brush should be provided for the disinfection of the lorry driver’s footwear, and this disinfectant should be replenished daily.

12. Assistance in loading, especially where improvised stands are in use, is essential.

Bulk collection

13. Bulk producers should:

(a) Provide daily a clean supply of disinfectant soluation at the farm dairy for the tanker hose and any spillage, in addition to the disinfectant soulation for footwear and vehicles.

(b) Provide assistance to the drive in disinfecting the tanker hose.

In case of suspected disease

14. The Collection of Infected Milk either in Churns/Cans or by Tanker must be prevented. Where the owner of an animal suspects disease he should place a “KEEP OUT” notice at the farm entrance or a notice on the churn/can site. Churns/cans should be retained at or returned to the farm dairy until a veterinary officer has investigated the case, This will prevent collection of milk which may be infected. In the case of churn/can collections the lorry driver must be asked to leave empty churns/cans in case they are needed for the next milking.

15. If subsequently the disease is not confirmed, the veterinary officer will authorize the M.M.B. to collect the milk.

16. If the disease is confirmed the infected milk must be treated and disposed of as advised by the Ministry’s veterinary officer. Compensation will be paid for it.

129

APPENDIX IV

A POSSIBLE SCHEME FOR SUPPLEMENTRY COMPENSATION AND VALUATION IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

1. When it becomes clear that an epidemic is likely to be protracted and real difficulty has arisen, because of closure of markets, in arriving at true values senior valuers should report to the Ministry of Agriculture that in their view the special situation has arisen. The date upon which action on this notification would be taken, which may be called the “index date”, should be agreed between the senior valuers and the Ministry and the special method of valuation described belowshould then automatically come into operation. The special situation would remain in operation until the Ministry in consultation with the panel of senior valuers were satisfied that normal arrangements could be resumed.

2. Values at all dates after the index date would be restricted initially to the values at that index date until the resumption of trade in markets enables the normal valuation procedures to be reinstated. As soon as normal trade is resumed a panel of senior valuers should be appointed on whose advice the Ministry should publish index figures for as many different broadly defined classes of livestock as appear to be necessary. These index figures would be based on an index figure of 100 at the index date and for each class there would be other index figures for dates at weekly intervals, or longer intervals if so advised. These would include index figures from the date of the first outbreak up to the index date (during which period the index figures for some classes of livestock would be likely to be less than 100) and would also include index figures for the period from the index date (during which period the index figures for some classes of livestock would be likely to exceed 100). In the simple case of a farmer whose stock was valued at the index date (of 100) he would then be entitled to receive a proportionate additional element of value based on the index, e.g. if he had only been able to restock his farm at a date when the index figure was 121 he would be entitled to an additional element of value of 21 percent.

3. This index system could also be used to deal with the problem of farmers whose stock may have been slaughtered either before or after the index date. For example a farmer who had his value calculated when the index figure was 90 but who was only able to restock his farm when the index figure had risen to, say, 121 would be entitled to an additional element of value calculated at 31/90ths of the original valuation. Similarly as regards a farmer whose stock was slaughtered at a time for which the index was subsequently calculated at, say, 110 and who restocked at a time when it had risen to 121, such a farmer would receive 10 per cent over the index value to take account of the rise in price between the index date and the date of slaughter. Since, however, he was not able to restock till the index had reached 121 he would be entitled to a further payment of 11 per cent of compensation at the index date price so as to make his total compensation 21 per cent greater than his compensation valued at index date prices.

130

APPENDIX V

VETERINARY CONTROL OF ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION (A.I.)

Extent of the A.I. Service

1. In England and Wales approximately two million cattle inseminations are carried out each year from 1,300 bulls at 29 A.I. centres, and in Scotland 160,000 cattle inseminations are carried out annually using 87 bulls at three centres. This accounts for sixty per cent of the national breeding herd as regards England and Wales and 23 per cent for Scotland. Artificial insemination of pigs is increasing. Some 33,000 inseminations were carried out in England and Wales in 1968 using 95 boars at six centres and the pig A.I. centre in Scotland carried out 1,236 inseminations.

General Veterinary Control

2. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and Wales and the Secretary of State in Scotland have powers exercised through regulations made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1943, to control the practice of A.I. This control is directed towards ensuring that bulls of high genetic merit are used in the national herd through A.I. and guarding against the spread of disease by the use of infected semen or through inadequate sanitary precautions in the collection, storage and delivery of semen. Foot-and-mouth disease was very much in mind when the veterinary requirements were drawn up and remains one of the most important factors in Ministerial control of A.I.

3. Under the regulations all A.I. centres and sub-centres must be licensed, and all persons employed in the collection, processing and storage of semen and all inseminators must be approved by the Ministry or Department of Agriculture for Scotland, and all the operations of a centre must be under the effective supervision and control of an approved veterinarian. Bulls and teaser animals must be approved by the Ministry before they are allowed onto an A.I. centre. All animals kept at centres are also subjected to routine tests and treatment at regular intervals to ensure that A.I. studs are free from disease. Quarterly supervisory visits by veterinary field staff are made to all centres and sub-centres.

4. The administrative and veterinary procedures for pig A.I. are similar to those for cattle. Since boar semen only remains viable for 72-96 hours it has to be used as fresh semen. Certain centres are allowed to issue boar semen direct by post to farmers for inseminations to be carried out by the owner or his employees, or by a veterinarian.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture

131

APPENDIX VI

LEGISLATION UNDER THE DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT, 1950

RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

(For Orders made on 7^th October, 1969 see Appendix VII)

Orders applying during foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks

Ref. No.	Title of Order
1928 No. 133	The Foot-and Mouth Disease Order of 1928
1930 No. 785	(as amended in 1930 and 1938)
1938 No. 192

1938 No. 1434	Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order
1956 No. 101	Of 1938
*1967 No. 1839	(as amended in 1956 and 1967)

1938 No. 1435	Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Controlled Areas Restrictions)
1956 No. 101	General Order of 1938
*1967 No. 1723	(as amended in 1956, 1967 and 1968)
*1968 No. 51

1959 No. 1335	The Diseases of Animals (Ascertainment of Compensation)
	Order, 1959
1964 No. 1255	The Diseases of Animals (seizure of Carcases, etc.) Order 1964

	Importation Orders
1930 No. 922	The Animals (Importation) Order of 1930
1931 No. 294	(as amended in 1931, 1933 and 1937)
1933 No. 19
1937 Nos. 820 and
1152
1932 No. 317	The Importation of Meat &c. (Wrapping Materials) Order
1939 No. 1725	Of 1932
	(as amended in 1939)
1933 No. 15	Importation of Canadian Cattle Order of 1933
1963 No. 224	(as amended in 1963)

1954 No. 853	The Importation of Carcases and Animal Products Order, 1954
1960 No. 2094	(as amended in 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967 April and
1961 No. 329	December)
1963 No. 911
1964 No. 1089
1966 No. 37
1967 No. 606
*1793 and
*1805

Ref. No.	Title of order

1955 No. 1310	The Animals (Landing from Channel Islands, Isle of man,
1962 No. 757	Northern Ireland, and Republic of Ireland) Order, 1955
1963 No. 736	(as amended in 1962, 1963 and 1967)
1967 No. 171

1955 No. 1390	The Importation of Animal Semen Order, 1955
1964 No. 1551	(as amended in 1964)
	The Importation of Animals for Exhibition Order, 1961
	(as amended in 1962)

1961 No. 946	The Importation of Hays, Straw and Dried Grass Order, 1961

	Other Orders
1925 No. 1178	Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order of 1925
1926 No. 42	(as amended in 1926)
1925 No. 1349	The Markets, Sales and Lairs Order of 1925
1926 No. 546	(as amended in 1926 and 1927)
1927 No. 982
1927 No. 290	The Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order of 1927

1927 No. 289	Transit of Animals Order of 1927
1927 No. 399	(as amended in 1927, 1931, 1939 and 1947)
1931 No. 750
1939 No. 501
1947 No. 2915
1938 No. 191	Diseases of Animals (Disinfection) Order of 1936
1938 No. 197	Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order of 1938
1939 No. 707	The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Sera and Glandular Products)
	Order of 1939
1951 No. 335	The Transit of Horses Order, 1951
1952 No. 1933	The Diseases of Animals (Therapeutic Substances) Order, 1952
1953 No. 1122	(as amended in 1953 and 1965)
1965 No. 565
1956 No. 1127	The Calves (Feeding in Transit) Order, 1956
1957 No. 628	The Diseases of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957
1959 No. 1029	The Regulation of Movement of Swine Order, 1959
1960 No. 105	The Movement of Animals (Records) Order, 1960
1961 No. 1493	(as amended in 1961)
1963 No. 286	The Swine Fever Order 1963
1 *1967No. 1714	The Diseases of Animals (Milk Treatment) Order 1967
*1968 No. 266	(as amended in 1968)
*1968 No. 585	The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Imported Meat) (No. 2) Order 1968

1969 No. 871	The Meat (Sterilization) Regulations 1969

APPENDIX VII

133

AMENDING ORDERS MADE ON 7^TH OCTOBER, 1969

COMING INTO OPERATION ON 20^TH OCTOBER, 1969

Ref. No.	Title of Order
1969 No. 1444	The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) Order 1969
1969 No. 1445	The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions)
	(Amendment) Order 1969
1969 No. 1446	The Foot-and-Mouth Disease(Controlled Areas Restrictions)
	(Amendment) Order 1969

The General Effect of these Orders

1. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) Order 1969

This Order extends the scope of, and adds to the restrictions which maybe imposed by, a notice in Form D* (of which a new form is prescribed in the Order) under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1928 (as amended) imposing restrictions in respect of animals and premises exposed to infection from foot-and-mouth disease; it imposes further control on the movement of animals subject to that order and makes minor amendments thereto of an administrative nature.

2. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) (Amendment) order 1969

This Order amends the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Infected Areas Restrictions) Order of 1938, as amended, in a number of respects. The principal changes are:

(1) Movement of animals out of an Infected Area is permitted direct to a slaughter-house in an adjoining Infected Area, subject to licence by an inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or of the local authority, and animals may now be moved directly through an Infected Area by railway if not untrucked within the Area, or by motorway subject to licence by an inspector of the Ministry.

(2) Existing exemptions affecting the movement and assembly of animals in an Infected Area which apply in respect of “certification centres” are extended to “licensed collecting centers”, as respectively defined in the order.

(3) New restrictions are imposed on slaughter-houses and knacker’s yards in respect of the disposal of meat (other than meat intended for human consumption), other animal products and refuse.

(4) The existing prohibition on hunting, point-to-point meetings and dog racing in an Infected Area is extended to include shooting of game and other wild life (other than by the occupier of land, his household and agricultural workers) and such other sporting or recreational activities as may be specified in a notice given by an inspector of the Ministry to the person responsible for holding this activity.

(5) New restrictions are imposed upon the disposal of animal manure and litter in an Infected Area, and upon the use and disposal of milk produced therein.

(6) The requirement that dogs shall be kept under control within five miles of an Infected Place has been extended to apply to the whole of an Infected Area.

3.The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Controlled Areas Restrictions) (Amendment) Order 1969

This Order extends existing provisions under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Controlled Areas Restrictions) General Order of 1938 (as amended), affecting the movement and assembly of animals in a Controlled Area, which apply in respect of “certification centres” to “licensed collecting centres”-as respectively defined in the Order.

The Order also permits, subject to licence by an inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the direct movement of animals through a Controlled Area by motorway.

Modifications are made to the prescribed form of movement licence.

Printed in England for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office by

McCorquodale & Co. Ltd., London

HM 2700 Dd 148227 K 40 3336/2

135

HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE

Government Bookshops

49 High Holborn, London, WC1

13a Castle Street, Edinburgh EH2 3AR

109 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF1 1JW

Brazennose Street, Manchester M60 8AS

50 Fairfax Street, Bristol BS1 3DE

258 Broad Street, Birmingham 1

7 Linenhall Street, Belfast BT2 8AY

Government publications are also available

through any bookseller

SBN 10 142250 4

* Report of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease 1952-1954 (Chairman,

Sir Ernest Gowers, G.B.E., K.C.B.) (Cmd. 9214).

FM-A^*

* Susceptible animals are all cloven-hoofed animals. Farm animals in this category are

cattle, sheep, pigs and goats.

* A landing place is a part of a port approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Scotland for the landing of imported animals; it includes a reception-lair.

* Premises to which in-contact animals have been traced or on which animals are close to infected premises. The premises may be in clean areas, Controlled Areas or Infected Areas.

* Before its amendment with effect from 20^th October, 1969 (see paragraph 220 and Appendix VII).

FM-B

[1] Slurry is the name given to the liquid manure which is drained from animal houses and stored in tanks nearby. It is sprayed onto pastures as a fertiliser. Modern labour saving systems of housing animals utilise this method which is becoming very common.

* The Disease of Animals (Disinfection) Order of 1936.

7 This is a restrictive notice served in respect of any premises which contain animals which in any way may have been in contact with foot-and-mouth disease. The notice prohibits the movement of animals onto and off the premises. The movement of other things (e.g. animal feedingstuffs, manure, slurry) is subject to the conditions of a licence. Milk is allowed off the premises for pasteurisation but any resultant by-product used for animal feeding must be treated in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Practice. Milk other than for pasteurisation may be licensed off the premises by a veterinary officer if he is satisfied that the method of its disposal is safe.

121

7 Orders of 1967 and 1968, marked with an asterisk, were made after the commencement of the epidemic on 25th October, 1967.

132

* Form D is served when suspected in-contact animals have been traced, or when

premises are in close proximity to infected premises

134

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

PART TWO

By Command of Her Majesty

LONDON

HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE

Cmnd. 4225

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

MINUTE OF APPOINTMENT

2

PART II OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF

INQUIRY ON FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

CONTENTS

TABLES

FIGURES

MAPS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Markets and slaughter-houses

Setting up a foot-and-mouth disease control centre

Restrictions on markets and movements in Infected Areas

Other control measures

Removal of restrictions

21

22

CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS AND RECOMMENDED

IMROVEMENTS

TOTALS … … … … …

Command in the field

Provision of manpower

Control centres

Movement of people

A. Disposal by Burial in 836 Outbreaks

Valuation and compensation for livestock in ordinary circumstances

Compensation other than for livestock

Valuation procedure

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) Basis of Recommendations

Recruitment to the Veterinary Field Service

Infected Areas

Restriction on movements of animals and animal products

Restriction on movements of people

Disposal of dung, litter and slurry

Controlled Areas

Animals exposed to infection

Licensing arrangements

Records of movements and sales

Milk

Labour, machinery and equipment

Slaughter and disposal of carcases

Disinfection

Compensation and associated matters

Communications and information services

Artificial insemination

Swill

Legislation

Voluntary vaccination

CHAPTER VI

APPENDIX I

LIST OF THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN WRITTEN AND ORAL EVIDENCE

The following is a full list of bodies and individuals who submitted evidence since our appointment on 28th February, 1968. Those who contributed both written and oral evidence are marked with an asterisk.

Aberdeen County Council

Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Board

Accles and Shelvoke Ltd.

*Agricultural Research Council―

F.R.I.C., F.R.S.

Anglers’ Co-operative Association

Animal Health Trust

*Animal Virus Research Institute―

Represented by Dr. J. B. Brooksby, D.Sc., Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S. F.R.S.E.

Dr. F. Brown, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.

Mr. R. Burrows, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. J. Davie, B.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.

Dr. G. N. Mowat, Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S.

Dr. R. F. Sellers, M.A., B.Sc., Ph.D., M.R.C.V.S.

Mr. H. H. Skinner, F.R.C.V.S.

Councillor J. W. Stanley

*Association of River Authorities―

The following is a full list of bodies and individuals who submitted evidence since our appointment on 28^th February, 1968. Those who contributed both written and oral evidence are marked with an asterisk.

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF INFECTED AREA AND CONTROLLED AREA