Slaughter in Disease, and Compensation generally. (Hansard, 19 July 1878)

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN (for Mr. BIGGAR)
moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, to leave out line 12, and insert "money voted by Parliament." He did not see why compensation under that clause should not be assessed in the same way as under Clause 15.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that the Committee had already come to a decision as to the manner in which compensation should be provided in the case of cattle plague, where the Privy Council acted by their own Inspector and directed the slaughter of animals; but as in the cases of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, the cattle were in charge of the local authority, he thought the Committee would do well to adhere to its decision. In point of fact, the opinion of the Committee had already been taken upon the question raised.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, he was not aware that the decision of the Committee had been taken upon the matter, or he should not have moved the Amendment.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
observed, that he ought to have stated that the division was taken on the pleuro-pneumonia clause, which was exactly the same as the foot-and-mouth clause with regard to compensation.

MR. CHAPLIN
approved of the Amendment, and did not think that the question had been decided.

§ MR. SYNAN
observed, that if his hon. Friend had been in his place when the Amendment proposing that compensation for pleuro-pneumonia should be paid out of funds provided by the 2011 Treasury had been moved, he must have seen that there was no chance of passing the present Amendment. The proposal with regard to pleuro-pneumonia received no support from either side of the House, although a much stronger case was made than that with regard to the present Amendment. For his part, he was ready to support the present Amendment and to vote for it; but after what had passed, it appeared to him that it would be a waste of time to take a division upon it.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY,
who had an Amendment upon the Paper, in page 12, line 21, after "shall," to leave out to the end of sub-section, and insert— Be disposed of as the Privy Council or local authority may direct, and, if sold, an accurate account of the proceeds thereof shall be rendered to the Privy Council or local authority, as the case may be, by the owner of such animal, said, that his Amendment depended upon a previous Amendment which had been negatived; and, therefore, it would not be proper to move the present Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that as the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) was not in his place to move the Amendment which stood in his name, he would venture to bring it before the Committee. To his knowledge, it was drawn by the solicitor to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and represented the views of that body; he should, therefore, like to hear the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to it. There was fear that carcases would be buried in commons and uninclosed lands, and the hon. and gallant Member for Truro thought it possible that that might take place on the commons managed by the Metropolitan Board. He would suggest that the matter would be placed on certain footing, if the Amendment forbidding the burial of carcases in commons or uninclosed lands was carried. He would, therefore, 2012 move in page 12, line 37, to leave out "or any common or uninclosed land."

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
quite agreed with what he understood were the views of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro, that there might be some uncertainty on the words of the clause as they stood. But he would wish to point out that the local authority who would have the control of the Metropolitan commons was the Metropolitan Board itself. Therefore, nothing could be done in this matter without their authority or instructions. He had no wish, however, to maintain his opinion against that of the hon. and gallant Baronet; but he was bound to say that in certain cases it might be very convenient for the local authority to have power thus to dispose of carcases.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
drew attention to the fact that commons were not always under the control of a local authority.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
I accept the Amendment.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he was going to suggest that a further Amendment should be made, by adding, after "common and uninclosed land," the words "except with the permission of the Privy Council."

§ MR. GREGORY
suggested that it would be better to give power to inter carcases to the local authority of any common or uninclosed land with the consent of the Privy Council. That, he thought, would avoid any difficulty.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that perhaps that was another instance of what he had already observed to the Committee, that it would be advisable to have allowed him to bring up these Amendments on Report. He would take that course, and would frame a clause which would carry out the object the hon. Baronet had in view, making it necessary that the assent of the Privy Council should be obtained to any burial in commons or uninclosed lands.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
proposed to add, as a 5th section, these words— If the owner of an animal slaughtered under this Act by Order of the Privy Council, or of a local authority, has an insurance on the animal, the amount of the compensation awarded to him under this Act may be deducted by the insurers from the amount of the money payable under 2013 the insurance before they make any payment in respect thereof. This was the re-enactment of the existing law.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he did not see any necessity at all for the Amendment. There was no reason why an assurance company should have the benefit, when a person was relieved out of rates. The local authorities should rather have the benefit of the assurance, to the extent of their loss, than the assurance company should obtain an advantage. It was true that the provision altogether was hardly necessary, because few assurances were now effected on animals; but if it were considered necessary to have such a clause, he thought the Privy Council or the local authority should get the benefit of the assurance to the extent of the compensation which they had paid to the owner of the animals slaughtered.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
pointed out that the object of his Amendment was simply to prevent the owner of an animal being paid twice over—once by the assurance company and again by the local authority.

MR. CHAPLIN
moved to insert the following sub-section, after Subsection 5:— 5a. It shall be lawful for the Privy Council from time to time by Order, on special grounds stated in such Order, to except any animals or classes of animals from the provisions of this Act, limiting the amount of compensation to be paid in cases of compulsory slaughter where the animal when slaughtered is not actually affected with disease, and further, by Order to prescribe the limits of compensation, or to direct the amount of compensation to be ascertained by arbitration or otherwise as they think fit. He said, that the object of his Amendment was to prevent the possible perpetration of what would be a great injustice upon the owners of certain animals. The Committee was aware that the maximum limit of compensation was fixed at £40; but the Committee was also acquainted with the fact that there were in the country certain very valuable herds which were kept exclusively for the purpose of improving the breed of cattle. These herds were not a mere source of amusement or profit to their owners; but it was upon their maintenance that the quality of the cattle in 2014 the country was entirely due. Under the Bill, it was perfectly possible that not only the animals affected by the diseases included in the operation of the Bill might be slaughtered, but also numbers of animals in the district infected though totally unaffected themselves. The owners of animals worth from £4,000 to £5,000 were in this position—that if those animals were directed to be slaughtered, they would only receive £40 each in respect of them. His Amendment did not propose to make it obligatory on the part of the Privy Council to give the compensation in all cases; but only to make it lawful for them in extreme cases to have ascertained by arbitration what would be a fair compensation to the owners of such stock. The Committee would see that there was a great injustice involved in the Bill as it now stood, and it was in the hope of remedying it that he begged to move the Amendment which he had read.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
thought that the insertion of the sub-section proposed would be a violation of the general understanding which existed in this country and in others, with regard to compensation to be paid by Government. It was always usual, in the cases of compulsory taking of animals, to fix a limit to the amount of compensation to be paid by the State. For instance, in some foreign countries, with regard to the compulsory use of horses, it was a well-known fact that the owner of the animals had to register them for a kind of conscription. That system existed in France and Germany, and was being introduced into nearly all foreign countries. For the use of the horses, a maximum price to be paid was fixed, and was, no doubt, in many cases productive of great hardship. Doubtless, it was, to a certain extent, hard to give the same compensation to the owner of a valuable animal as to that of an inferior one; but the regulation had been found necessary in order to prevent robbery of the State.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was sorry that he could not consent to the introduction of the sub-section. No one sympathized more than he with the losses inflicted upon agriculturists; but in considering the question, he did not think that it would be fair to tax the ratepayer for what would really be a fancy price. It was impossible that 2015 one of those animals, even allowing for a certain amount of increased value on account of breeding, could be worth the amount which was given for it. The country would, therefore, be taxed to pay a fictitious value. Moreover, every Act which contained similar provisions as to compensation had a clause fixing the maximum limit, and he did not think it would be wise for the Committee to accede to the Amendment.

§ MR. MURPHY
contended that it would be easy for owners, out of the large profits created by animals of the class they were considering, to become their own insurers, and so recoup any losses they might sustain by the action of the Bill.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
could not at all subscribe to the view expressed by the Secretary to the Treasury, that the values of those animals constituted fancy prices. It might be said that £7,000 was a fancy price; but the term could not be properly applied to a value of £600 or £700. It was the case that foreigners came to this country and bought the animals to take abroad; and, under those circumstances, it was a great injustice to the breeders to limit them to a compensation of £40. He thought that the Privy Council should have powers in special cases to go considerably beyond the amount laid down by the Bill. He should vote for the Amendment.

§ COLONEL KINGSCOTE
maintained, that in the case of horses, bulls, and cows, it was difficult to determine between a high value and a fancy value, and he did not see how the Amendment would meet the case.

MR. CHAPLIN
said, that those animals were kept in a very great degree to maintain the state of excellency for which the country was so celebrated. The question was as to whether the true line had been drawn by the Bill, and his Amendment left the matter entirely within the discretion of the Privy Council; but as the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Kingscote), who was an eminent breeder of valuable cattle, did not think the Amendment a practicable one, it would be difficult for him (Mr. Chaplin) to press it.

§ MR. GREGORY
moved, as an Amendment, in page 13, line 6, after the word 2016 "withhold," to insert the words "either wholly or partially."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that in view of the stringent regulation which required the slaughter of a whole cargo of cattle, the clause appeared to point to a very large amount of compensation. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would have to look into that matter.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
replied, that he would consider the point to which his attention had been called.

§ MR. DODSON
inquired, whether compensation would be given in the case of a person omitting to give notice of disease?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
replied, that in such case compensation would be withheld.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought it important that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) should carefully see that the omission to give notice was a good defence to a claim for compensation. He was not sure that it was; but as the hon. Baronet had accepted the principle that no compensation should be allowed where no notice was given, he would not raise that question.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
could not see why they should be asked to pass the two last lines of the clause without explanation. He knew of no case at the present time of compensation being given for foreign animals. He could understand the words if they applied, say, to animals returning from exhibition abroad.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
thought the clause proceeded upon the assumption of the animals being store cattle, and that it was a provision whereby the importers of foreign stock were to bear the responsibility, provided it was shown that the animals were diseased on landing.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
explained, that if a person imported a number of animals with the knowledge that they were diseased, he would not be able to claim compensation; and the Privy Council were, by the wording of the clause, empowered to withhold compensation in such case.