asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information showing that the continuance of the present series of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is in any way due to delay or failure on the part of farmers to report cases of the disease?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the experimental treatment of foot-and-mouth disease which broke out in the herd of cattle belonging to Mr. S. C. Lindsay, of Aitkenbrae, in Ayrshire, was successful; and, if so, whether any recognition of the fact was sent to Mrs. Thomson, of Annan, who provided the remedy?

Yes, Sir; the animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease on the premises of Mr. S C. Lindsay, of

I regret to say that the Ministry is experiencing considerable difficulties in consequence of delay in report-mg case of foot-and-mouth disease. Seven recent cases, particulars of which I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, have been brought to the notice of the Ministry, in which delays in reporting foot-and-mouth disease have occurred since the 24th April, 1929. Six of these are new centres of diseases in areas for some time previously apparently free from infection. The delays in reporting varied from three days to 37 days, and the outbreaks in these seven cases were responsible for six further outbreaks. It is significant that these delays have occurred notwithstanding the serious nature of the disease and the widespread knowledge of its symptoms which must now prevail in consequence of the unprecedented magnitude of the recent outbreaks which have occurred in Great Britain.

Can my right hon. Friend take action in consequence of the serious delay in some of these cases?

Proceedings are being taken in one case, and others are under consideration.

Following are the particulars:

Aitkenbrae, ere treated at the request of the owner by a lady who was not, I understand, a qualified veterinary surgeon. There are many remedies known to my Department for the treatment of foot-and-mouth disease. There have been other cases in which it has been decided to isolate affected animals, and in which the owner has been given facilities for the treatment of the animals if he so desires, subject to proper precautions as regards the disinfection of the person so employed on leaving the premises. There was, therefore, no occasion which called for special recognition on the part of the Ministry, but we are aware of the services which have been rendered in these cases.

Was the treatment successful? Was there any greater success attending this treatment than other treatments?

I understand that the treatment was successful, and that it has been successful in some other cases.

is the Ministry doing anything to extend the treatment to other cases?

In selected cases this has already been considered.