81
74
to be faced. For otherwise there would be no end to the trouble and expense of double boundary fences, and to the risks of infection at shows, sales, markets, and in transit. The owners of dairy herds would thus never reap the full reward that they would have earned, and would always have the fear of the re-infection of their herds hanging over them.
187. The scheme which we have outlined in previous paragraphs of this report for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis consists of six parts:-
(i) the institution of a list of tuberculosis-free herds (accepted herds) tested with tuberculin from time to time under official
declared to supervision, and
be free from bovine tuberculosis;
(ii) the provision of free advice and free tuberculin testing for approved owners of herds who agree to make bona fide efforts to free their herds from tuberculosis or who have established free herds;
(iii) financial help where necessary by way of loans or the guarantees of loans to approved owners for the purpose of undertaking expenditure required by the veterinary inspector as necessary to eradication;
(iv) the securing to owners of disease-free herds of a higher price
for their milk than that obtained by other owners; (v) the taking of administrative measures designed to secure that tuberculosis-free cattle from accepted herds should be moved about the country and exposed for sale without running the risk of being brought in contact with other cattle;
(vi) the adjustment of regulations governing the production of graded milks and the grades of milk officially approved, and the making of regulations relative to the compulsory pasteurisation of milk with a view to increasing the incentive to farmers to eradicate tuberculosis from their herds.
188. The principal proposal advocated before us as part of an eradication scheme which we have not adopted is, the constitution of tuberculosis-free areas. We have rejected this for reasons fully set out in paragraphs 141 and 142.
189. We recognise that the progress of eradication is likely to be checked in the areas where it is most needed unless special assistance is given to farmers to enable them to defray the initial expenditure required. This may take the form of expenditure on the adaptation of buildings (in which case the landlord may also be concerned) or on the replacement of infected by clean animals. The latter consideration is particularly important in the case of producer- retailers who under our scheme will need to complete the process of eradication within a period of five years.
75
190. We discuss later the provisions relating to the compulsory pasteurisation and grading of milk. The others might be carried into effect by the following measures. In the first place the Milk Marketing Boards should be required by statute to pay to the owners of accepted herds a bonus at a rate per gallon to be determined from time to time by order of the Minister of Agriculture. The funds from which this bonus would be paid should be secured by a levy on all milk sold whether through the boards or by producer-retailers.
191. We contemplate that the government would announce the general principles on which they proposed to base their policy of eradication and would indicate the conditions on which they would be prepared to offer special assistance. Those farmers who volunteered to undertake eradication and whose situation was such that the conditions laid down by the government scheme were complied with in their case would be entitled to ask the local authority to The farmer on enter into an agreement on the following lines. his side would undertake-
(a) to pay for the testing of his herd by the local authority at six-monthly intervals with approved tuberculin at a standard charge to be laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture;
(b) to take all reasonable steps to carry out the directions of the veterinary inspector of the local authority relating to the freeing of his herd from tuberculosis ;
(c) to obey the regulations issued by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Fisheries relating to supervised herds.*
192. The local authority would undertake-
(i) to test the farmer's herd with approved tuberculin at
six-monthly intervals;
(ii) in the event of his having fulfilled the conditions of the contract to the satisfaction of the local authority, to refund the sum received in payment for the testing of the herd with tuberculin at the time of the next test.
193.
(Note. In the event of a local authority withholding the payment, the farmer should be given the right to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture for a declaration that he had carried out his contract.)
The local authority would be free to refuse to enter, or to defer entering, into an agreement on the above lines on the grounds that the herd or its situation did not comply with the general principles of the government scheme (including the limitations of finance) or was so situated or so managed that there was no early prospect of eradicating tuberculosis from it at a reasonable cost.
194.
We have suggested that the payment for tuberculin testing should be made subject to the farmer taking reasonable steps to * For the definition of "supervised herds," see paragraph 196.
82