CO129-562-12 Dysentry epidemic- recommendation to enforce compulsory pasteurization of milk 7-6-1937 - 17-8-1937 — Page 52

91

84

(ii) the testing of supervised and accepted herds with tuberculin ; the provision of a bonus upon the milk produced in

accepted herds;

(iv) the actual costs of eradication, e.g., the cost of the replace-

ment of reacting cattle with clean cattle.

In addition, as the law now stands, there would, as a result of more frequent veterinary inspection, be larger claims for compensation under the tuberculosis order.

222. An estimate can be made of the increase in expenditure which would arise from the extension of the existing veterinary service for the purposes of routine inspection. The routine inspection of reasonable frequency would cost for the whole of Great Britain between £250,000 and £300,000 per annum and the net cost of compensation under the tuberculosis order would probably rise to between £80,000 and £90,000 per annum. To-day local authorities are probably spending over £100,000 per annum on administering the milk and dairies orders and the tuberculosis order, and the Ministry of Agriculture has to find between £50,000 and £60,000 There per annum for compensation under the tuberculosis order. would thus be an increased cost under these two headings of about £200,000 per annum. If, in accordance with our later suggestion, compensation is no longer paid for cattle slaughtered under the tuberculosis order, this sum would be reduced by between £80,000 and £90,000.

223. Most of the new expenditure, however, would be determined by the degree of support given by farmers to an eradication scheme, which it is impossible to estimate in advance.

224. The burden of this expenditure must be divided between the farming community, the milk industry as a whole, and those who contribute either as taxpayers or ratepayers to national and local funds. The recommendations which we have already made have the following effects :-

(a) the farming community would be responsible for the costs incurred in eradication with the exception of the costs of tuberculin testing and general veterinary advice. The state or the local authority, however, would in cases of necessity make advances to meet this expenditure, repayable over a reasonable period;

(b) the milk industry as a whole would be responsible for finding the sum required to pay the bonus on milk produced in accepted herds;

(c) the costs of the increased veterinary services and laboratory work and of free tuberculin testing, would be met from national or local funds. Loans to farmers for the purpose of eradication would either be made from the same source, or under the guarantee of the state or local authority.

85

225. We do not, however, consider that the state should continue to bear the cost of compensating the owners of tuberculous animals slaughtered under the tuberculosis order. The evidence before us suggests that the payment of this compensation has had little effect in inducing farmers to report cows for slaughter, and that it would have been of little advantage had they done so. It is also anomalous that compensation should be paid for the slaughter of an animal which is debarred by law from being put to profitable use, on the grounds that its product is dangerous to public health. The extension of routine veterinary inspection would remove the only ground on which this payment can be defended, namely, that it is an inducement to comply with a law which could not otherwise be enforced. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the payment of this compensation should cease, except in those cases where the animal proves on post mortem not to be infected with tuberculosis. It is clearly desirable that the end of compensation should coincide with the grant by the government of substantial help in the eradication of tuberculosis. We realise, however, that in view of the present crisis in the dairying industry it may not be practicable to take this step immediately. Even if the local authority ceases to pay compensation for cattle slaughtered under the order, it may be desirable that the ownership of cattle condemned should continue to be vested in it. In that event, the salvage money received for the carcase would be payable to the farmer.

226. The extension of the veterinary inspection of dairy cattle, if carried out by local authorities, would impose a very serious burden upon certain authorities. For a large part of the dairy herds of this country happen to be situated in the areas administered by comparatively poor county councils. The rateable value per cow in each county is a measure of the financial resources which are available to meet the cost of veterinary inspection. We give particulars on this point for each administrative county in Great Britain in appendix 13. The rateable value per cow varies from £6 in the case of Cardigan to £413 in the case of Surrey and £2,200 in the case of Middlesex. An expenditure of two or three shillings a cow which in the latter cases represents a quite negligible addition to the rates, in the former would be severely felt. It is therefore essential if this service is to be carried out adequately by all authorities that the Exchequer should make a contribution to local authorities and that this contribution should be apportioned among the various counties in such a way that those on which the burden would be most severe would benefit the most.

227. We have recommended that the cost of tuberculin testing should in the first instance be met by farmers who would pay a standard charge determined by the Ministry of Agriculture. This charge would be calculated to cover the average cost of veterinary attendance during testing as well as the cost of tuberculin used. It is

92