HC Deb 30 July 1878 vol 242 cc763-74

(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th July.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

New Clause (Notice of animal being affected with a contagious disease to be given to the police,)—(Mr. Clare Read,)— brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. SYNAN

considered it impossible to go on with the Bill at such an hour— 1 o'clock.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

understood it was the desire of the Committee to make progress with the Bill that night. He would remind his hon. Friends that they were drawing to the end of the Session, and every moment the Committee sat, so much the more pros- pect was there of carrying the Bill. He hoped, therefore, hon. Members would be prepared to go on.

MR. SYNAN

said, he had no objection to the Bill; but he thought a discussion might arise which would render it impossible to proceed at such an hour.

MR. O'CONOR

thought it most unreasonable to ask the Committee to take the Bill at such an hour. If the foreign debate had terminated at 12 o'clock they might have proceeded; but they certainly ought not to go on with so important a Bill at past 1 o'clock.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

hoped his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) would not persevere with the clause under notice, and that he would accept one which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had framed in lieu of it, and which, he thought, would meet all the desires of hon. Members, of giving notice of the existence of disease. If the Committee would allow him, he would read the clause he would propose, and which he would ask to have inserted after Clause 29. It was as follows:—

(Notice of disease to police.)

"(1.) Every person having in his possession or under his charge an animal affected with disease, shall, as far as practicable, keep that animal separate from animals not so affected, and shall, with all practicable speed, give notice of the fact of the animal being so affected to a constable of the police establishment for the police district, or area, county, borough, town, or place, wherein the animal so affected is.

"(2.) The constable to whom notice is given shall forth with give information thereof to such person or authority as the Privy Council from time to time by General Order direct.

" (3.) The Privy Council from time to time may make such General Orders as they think fit for prescribing and regulating the notice to be given to or by any person or authority in case of any particular disease or in case of the illness of an animal, and for supplementing or varying for those purposes any of the provisions of this section."

Under the clause ample notice of disease would be given, which the Committee desired, and on Report, he would bring up an Amendment to Clause 54, which would make it penal under the Act not to give such notice.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the clause brought up by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. But he desired to know why the clause did not deal with the cases of horses suffering from glanders?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, such cases would be dealt with by Orders from the Privy Council and not by a clause in the Bill. At present, the Privy Council had the power; and he believed his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk would see that it would entirely alter the principle of the Bill, if any attempt was made under it to deal with such cases as he had referred to.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

wished to point out, if the clause was adopted, that the severe restrictions, to be followed by penalties if not complied with, could not be withdrawn at the will of the Privy Council. In all other respects, the Bill had been framed with great discretionary powers for the Privy Council, and it was understood, when the measure was introduced, that the severe restrictions were to be submitted to by farmers on condition that foreign cattle were slaughtered at the port of debarkation. But he believed if such an arrangement were agreed to, and such modification adopted by the Government, as indicated in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, after a year or two it would be found that the Bill had little effect in checking disease in the country. And if that was the case —and farmers had reason to believe that disease came, as before, through foreign cattle—he did not believe they would submit patiently to the restrictions imposed upon them. Therefore, he thought it would be much better, instead of inserting the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet, to leave the matter to the Privy Council, who could impose the regulations, and continue them if they were found effective, or withdraw them if they were of no avail. So much discretion having been conceded to the Privy Council previously, surely the Committee could trust them in this respect.

Clause—(Mr. Clare Read,)—by leave, withdrawn.

Clause—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. SYNAN

said, it was very inconvenient to have to vote on a new clause, the words of which had not been exactly heard in the Committee. He did not know what the imperative command was which the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had embodied in some words which were not quite audible; but he understood the provision was to bind farmers to give notice of the existence of contagious diseases among animals belonging to them without defining the diseases, and without exempting those who, through ignorance of the disease, did not give notice. It might very well occur that a man might be possessed of diseased animals and not know it, and unless it was provided that he should not be liable except for knowingly concealing the existence of disease, he would divide against the clause.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

reminded the hon. Member that the clause he proposed to add provided that every person having in his possession, or under his charge, an animal affected with disease, should, as far as practicable, report the same. Those words limited the clause very much. The fact of notice not having been given through ignorance would be a plea against dealing with anyone in the harsh manner suggested by the hon. Member.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, no private Member could put an Amendment on the Paper without the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury saying he would consult the draftsman as to whether he could accept it. But here the Committee were asked to accept an Amendment which they had not seen before. He desired to know, before the proposal of the hon. Baronet was accepted, whether the offenders under it would be subject to the three months' imprisonment clause? On Report, it was arranged a new clause should be brought in, to give a man who had been twice convicted of a certain offence three months' imprisonment for the second offence. To so punish a man who might disobey this new clause would be to inflict a very heavy penalty.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, his new clause provided that which he believed the Committee had been anxious to obtain; but he would take care that the imprisonment clause did not apply to such cases.

MAJOR NOLAN

considered that the clause came before the Committee in a very unbusiness-like manner, and he was not satisfied that a man would not be punished in the way he had intimated.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

assured the hon. and gallant Member that such offences would be dealt with by a clause which provided for fines being inflicted.

MAJOR NOLAN

was glad to have such a statement; but his impression was that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) tried to introduce a clause punishing a man with three months' imprisonment for a second offence under the Act.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, what occurred was this. His hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) persuaded the Committee that if a second offence occurred within a given time under Clause 54, the offender should be sent to prison, having been fined in the first instance. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) promised the Committee, in accordance with what appeared to be their views, that, on Report, he would bring up an Amendment of the kind. He did not know whether he was in Order in referring at that time to his proposed Amendment on Clause 54, which he intended to submit to the Committee; but what he proposed to do was to give a month's imprisonment in the cases of second offences within 12 months, and it would be for the Committee to say whether they would accept that or not.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the very fact of a man not reporting the existence of disease through ignorance would be a good excuse to any tribunal before which he was brought.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the Act of Parliament at present existing with reference to cattle disease did not make it imperative to report disease. Down to 1873 an Order of the Privy Council existed to the effect that every farmer should report existence of disease; but it was found impracticable to carry out that portion of the Orders in Council, and it was rescinded.

MR. MURPHY

thought some discretion should be given to the Privy Council in the matter. It would be found a very difficult thing to enact that penalties should be imposed for not reporting the existence of disease. As he read the proposed clause of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, he understood that every person having posses- sion or charge of any animal affected with a contagious disease or an infectious disease should as far as practicable keep the animal separate. So far as his knowledge went, such a provision would be prejudicial in Ireland, where the foot-and-mouth disease existed in so mild a form that the owners of cattle mixed all together, so that they might all have the disease and have done with it. Under such circumstances, he thought the best plan to adopt would be to leave the matter in the discretion of the Privy Council, and let them make Orders tantamount to the ideas of the clause.

MR. CLARE READ

thought it very essential that this clause should form part of the Act.

COLONEL MURE

was quite certain the Committee would do well to support the Government proposal.

MAJOR NOLAN

protested against the clause, as he felt certain under it a man might be imprisoned for not giving notice of the existence of disease.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

reminded the Committee that what they were attempting to do by this Bill was to stamp out disease. They were attempting, also, by the Bill to deal with Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, and it had been urged on the Committee that unless Ireland was prepared really to adopt some restrictions, there would be no security from disease for the English farmer. Therefore, under the circumstances, he would ask the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), whether the suggestion in the clause of which he spoke was not necessary to secure English farmers from disease. He believed the Irish Members were as anxious as the English were to make a final attempt to get rid of this disease, and he could not see the objection which the hon. Member feared would arise from the clause.

MR. MURPHY

did not object to a man being compelled to report cases of disease, and, of course, English cattle might be dealt with in that way if the House desired. But, if the Irish chose to keep animals together so as to inoculate them with a mild disease and have done with it, he thought they might be allowed to do so.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the advantages which Ireland possessed by having a milder form of foot-and-mouth disease were lost when the Irish cattle were sent to England. The fact of cattle being put together when any were diseased really meant the chance of a considerable importation of the disease into England. The very fact seemed an argument in favour of having separation in Ireland as well as in England, and he believed the Secretary to the Treasury would have the almost unanimous support of the Committee in what he proposed.

MR. O'CONOR

said, the custom of putting cattle together when any were infected with disease was not peculiar to Ireland.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the notice of disease existing was needed so that the authorities might as soon as possible be informed of an outbreak.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, the Irish Members did not object to the notice. What they objected to was the separation of cattle when one or more were diseased.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that the practice to which reference had been made was not confined to Ireland; but, to his knowledge, was adopted by some of the chief cattle dealers in Scotland.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 6: Majority 99. — (Div. List, No. 246.)

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

did not think that it would be of much use proceeding with the Schedules that night, as they certainly could not be finished.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was entirely in the hands of the Committee in the matter, and the hon. Baronet could take what course he pleased.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would be very glad to go on with the Amendments; but he must warn the hon. Baronet that there was no probability of the Schedules being finished that night. His Amendments to Schedule 3 referred to the tolls at the Metropolitan Cattle Market, and related to a portion of the Bill which had already been discussed. He wished first to ask whether, in pursuance of his promise, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had made any inquiries on the subject?

THE CHAIRMAN

asked, whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) intended to propose the Amendments of which he had given Notice?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Yes, Sir.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that he had taken steps to ascertain, so far as was possible, all the facts with regard to these tolls, and the various figures by which they were supported. He had before him a table, showing the receipts of the two markets of the City of London from 1856 to 1877. The foreign cattle market at Deptford was only established in 1871, and the figures relating to it were, therefore, only from that period to 1877. He would remind the Committee of the arrangement made at the time of the establishment of the Deptford Market—that, as far as the tolls and expenses were concerned, it should be taken together with the Islington Market. That arrangement was made, because it was supposed that a number of cattle for which provision had been made at Islington would be taken away to Deptford. The figures showed that for every year, with the exception of three, there had been a deficiency at the Islington Market. In 1874, 1875, and 1876, there were small surpluses; but in 1877 there was a deficiency of £9,987. The total loss on the construction amounted to £12,867, leaving a deficiency in the whole of £162,000. The mortgage for that sum of money was a first charge upon the tolls, and that deficiency had to be made up. With regard to Deptford Market, he found that in four years out of six, since 1871, there had been a considerable loss. In 1872, there was a loss of £1,906; in the next year, 1873, there was a loss of £11,051; and, in 1874, the loss amounted to £10,078. In 1875, there was a small gain of £633, and in 1876 a loss of £7,761; but in 1877, the gain amounted to £17,673. That gain was owing to animals having to be slaughtered at Deptford, on account of the foreign cattle plague. The total loss on the Deptford Market was £230,000, the interest on which sum amounted to £10,873. The sum of £230,000 was borrowed on the faith of these tolls, and, as in other instances, were a first charge upon them. The deficiency of expenditure over revenue was £8,998. Those figures proved conclusively that, with the tolls at their present rate, the mar- kets were not remunerative; but he would remind the Committee that there was a power in the Privy Council to call for annual returns of the receipts and expenditure from the local authority— in that case, the City of London. That power could be used by the Privy Council, and so soon as any surplus was shown a revision of the tolls would be directed. So far as the City was concerned, he would say that they had always expressed their willingness to have the tolls revised as soon as the receipts exceeded the expenditure. That revision would be called for when it was shown that the expenditure had fallen below the receipts, and that was one of the advantages of having the tolls fixed by Provisional Order, for they could be varied and reduced so soon as it was evident the market paid. The figures showed how large was the existing deficiency, and proved that, except in 1877, when a largo amount of cattle having to be slaughtered at Deptford for a moment raised the tolls, the receipts from the market were £9,987 below the expenditure. As Deptford up to the present was, therefore, anything hut a paying concern, it would not be fair to reduce the tolls upon the faith of which large sums of money had been borrowed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the Secretary to the Treasury having alluded to the effect of the Act of 1869, he would state that, to some extent, he agreed with him. The Act certainly contemplated that, in so far as Deptford Market took away cattle from Islington, some part of the expenses of the latter ought fairly to fall on Deptford. But he did not recollect that Deptford was to be charged with any loss on Islington Market which was not occasioned by diversion of trade to Deptford. He certainly did not think that the City were entitled to be put in a better position now than they were in 1869. In that year, Parliament would have said, if the City had made a loss on the Islington Market, they were sorry for it, but it was not their business to recoup the City. Therefore, the two markets could not be considered as so joined together that it was the business of Parliament to keep up high charges at Deptford in order to pay the loss at Islington. It was said that the profit upon Deptford last year was £17,000, against which it was claimed to set-off a loss at Islington of £9,000. He did not know how much of that loss was made up of the old loss at Islington, with which the House had nothing to do, or whether it was actually owing to animals going to Deptford rather than to Islington. His hon. Friend opposite had assumed that the loss was owing entirely to the diversion of the traffic. But assuming that to be correct, there was still the fact that there was a profit last year of £8,000. He did not know that the profit of one year was a sufficient basis upon which to reduce tolls at Deptford; but he should like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury when he said that there was a power to revise the charges, in whom that power rested? If there were any sort of power outside the City to revise the tolls, he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea to be content with the discussion, and to wait one or two years longer to see whether the profits derived from the market would make a strong case for applying to this outside authority.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

understood that the charges were levied at Deptford, under the Deptford Market Act, by means of a Provisional Order, and it only required attention to be drawn to the fact that the revenue exceeded the expenditure in order that the tolls should be reduced. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: By whom?] He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was not for the moment prepared to say in whom the power rested; but it was derived under the Deptford Market Act. The 41st clause gave power to the Privy Council to obtain such information from the local authority as it might require. Under that clause, the Government would be enabled to ask for and obtain annual returns from the local authority under the Act; and it would be proper, directly the amount of receipts was in excess of the expenditure, to reduce the tolls. It had been, over and over again, stated by Mr. Rudkin to the Committee that the City was willing to reduce the tolls so soon as it was self-evident that the receipts were in excess of the working expenditure.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

observed, that, as this Schedule referred only to the Islington Market, he would not be in Order in discussing the case of Deptford at any length. He could find no provision in the Bill varying the provisions of the present law. So far as he could see, there was at the present moment a statutory obligation to impose tolls of a certain amount, and he could not find that there were any means whatever of modifying them. Still, as the case of Deptford was the stronger one, and the present Schedule referred only to Islington, he was disposed to withdraw his Amendment, and to raise it again on the Schedule affecting Deptford.

The First Schedule (Enactments repealed); and the Second Schedule (Local Authorities in England) agreed to.

The Third Schedule (Pleuro-Pneumonia).

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved to omit, and insert in lieu thereof, as the Third Schedule, the following: —

Pleuro-pneumonia.

"1. Cattle are not to be moved into, or out of, a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, except where, as regards movement into such a place, the cattle are affected with plouro-pneumonia, and except in such other cases as the Privy Council think fit from time to time by General Order to accept.

"2. In the cases so excepted by Order cattle may be moved into or out of an infected place on conditions prescribed by General or Special Order of Council, and not otherwise.

"3. Cattle may be moved into, in, or out of such parts of an area infected with pleuro-pneumonia as are not comprised in a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, by licence of the local authority, granted on conditions prescribed by General Order of Council, and not otherwise.

"4. Nothing in this Schedule restricts movements of cattle in a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia.

"5. No market, fair, exhibition, or sale of cattle is to be held in an area infected with pleuro-pneumonia, except by licence of the Privy Council, granted for the particular market, fair, exhibition, or sale."

MR. SYNAN

thought it impossible to conclude the discussion at that hour, and would move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Synan.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that if the hon. Member was anxious to report Progress, he would not object; but he had perfectly made up his mind to leave the provisions as they now stood. He believed that the Amendment he had proposed would entirely meet the object which the hon. Member had in view. What he understood him to be anxious to obtain was that there should be distinct notice given in case of any fair or market being stopped by Order of the Privy Council. All that the local authorities had to do was to inform the Privy Council of a district being affected; and they would, under Clauses 18 and 22, have power to form an area, within which markets should be prohibited. It might so happen that in the area surrounding the infected place there might be a market, and it would be necessary for the Privy Council to say whether that market or fair should be stopped. Then it would be provided that any Notice or Order of the Privy Council was to be published by the local authority in the newspapers of the district, and he would go further than that. On Report, he would propose that if there should be any fair or market in the infected area, the Privy Council, when they marked out the area, should give notice what their intentions were as to the fair or market—whether it should be kept open or closed.

MR. SYNAN,

interrupting, said, the explanation of the hon. Baronet would have no effect upon him, as, considering the questions could not be discussed then, he should persist in his Motion to report Progress.

Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.