HC Deb 23 May 1890 vol 344 cc1708-13

As amended, considered.

(4.45.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,) Lincolnshire, Sleaford

The new clause I have to propose has relation to the commencement of the Act. I have named the 1st of September next, on the assumption that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent by the end of June, and thus an interval of two months will elapse before it comes into operation. New Clause, "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September one thousand eight hundred and ninety," read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.

(4.46.) MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

In moving the new clause, of which I have given notice, I need not detain the House beyond a few minutes. I am, glad to say that when the Bill was passing through Committee the right hon. Gentleman showed a certain amount of sympathy with the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Longford and myself, and promised to meet us as far as he could on the Report stage of the Bill. This new clause proposes to put some limitation upon the powers and duties of the officers who may be appointed under the Act. As the Bill at present stands those powers are absolutely undefined; but we want to provide that those who carry out the provisions of the Bill shall take action within a certain time, and practically the right hon. Gentleman has assented to the first part of the clause, for I understand he proposes to insert -1 days in Subsection 6 as the period within which the powers of compulsory slaughter shall be carried into effect; but what I want the right hon. Gentleman to do is, when the slaughter has taken effect, to declare the area free from infection as soon as possible. Suppose the slaughter has taken place within the 21 days, and it is found that the slaughtered cattle were actually not suffering from pleuro-pnoumonia at all, but were perfectly free from that disease, then I say there should be no delay in declaring the area free from the disease. Without some limitation of time, that will happen which happens under the existing Act, that the officials will allow a great number of days to pass without taking action at all, simply from thoughtlessness or carelessness, and dairymen and others will thus be subjected to an unnecessary amount of expense and annoyance. I by no means insist on the two days mentioned in the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that a longer interval is necessary; but, at all events, there should not be an unlimited time left open. Then the other branch of my clause refers to the other contingency, that after slaughter it appears that the cattle were infected with the disease. Here I propose that, in the same way, there shall be a limit to the ban which is placed upon the area or place. Upon the best advice I can get, it appears that 56 days is a sufficient interval wherein to decide that infection has disappeared after the diseased animals have been slaughtered, and I provide that the loss and annoyance to the proprietor shall not have an indefinite continuance. It is too often the case that in legislation on this subject the interests of the owners is lost sight of, and the officials are left too free a hand. The right hon. Gentleman has shown sympathy with our object in inserting the 21 days' limit in the first instance, and I hope he will see his way to meeting us so far as to fix some definite limit within which the declaration shall be made.

New Clause— The Board of Agriculture shall, within five days from the putting in force of the powers given them by Sub-section 6, Section 16, of the principal Act, cause all suspected cattle to be slaughtered.

  1. (1.) Upon such slaughter being carried into effect, should it appear that such suspected cattle were not affected with pleuro-pneumonia then the Board of Agriculture shall within two days declare by order any field, shed, yard, or other place, where such suspected cattle may have been, free from pleuropneumonia;
  2. (2.) Upon such slaughter, should it appear that such suspected cattle were affected with pleuro-pneumonia, then at the end of 56 days from the date of such slaughter the Board of Agriculture shall declare by order any field, shed, yard, or other place, where such suspected cattle may have been, free from pleuro-pneu-monia,"
—brought up, and read the first time.

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

(4.53.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I join with my hon. Friend in recognition of the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet our wishes in providing that the decision as to exercising the powers of slaughter shall be carried out in a reasonable time. These powers having been carried out, it is reasonable that the declaration of infection should not be indefinitely continued in either contingency, whether the disease is found not to have existed or whether there is proof that it did exist. At present there is a minimum period within which the area cannot be declared free, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that under all circumstances it would not be safe to limit that period we do not seek to alter it, but, on the other hand, I agree with my hon. Friend there should be some maximum period within which the declaration of freedom from infection should be made.

(4.55.) MR. CHAPLIN

I am glad to find hon. Members approve of the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper proposing the limit of 21 days, and which I proposed with a view to meeting what, I think, wore reasonable objections raised. Now, as to the first point raised in the present Amendment, that if animals are slaughtered, and it is subsequently found that they were not suffering from the disease, then the locality shall be declared free within two days, that contemplates a contingency which it is almost impossible can arise, because no slaughter could take place unless there was reason to suppose the disease existed. It is true that a number of animals suspected of disease might be slaughtered, but I do not think that circumstances could arise under which a general slaughter could be ordered, unless it was proved that some animals were infected with the disease, and the disease can always be detected. Then, as regards the second contingency with which the clause purposes to deal, the period of time within which it shall be obligatory upon the authorities to declare the locality free. This matter has been arranged, and is now carried out under the Act of 1878, and I have not found that the arrangements are defective, or that serious complaints have arisen of the administration under that Act. So many contingencies, so many conditions may arise known only to experts, who have to put into operation the provisions of the Act, that it is important to leave the officials the widest discretion. As a matter of fact, I am of opinion that to accept this second part of the clause might be to place the infected locality in a worse position. One good reason submitted to me is this:—A man in buying stock very often buys from one herd, and the stock when sent home are perhaps distributed over two or three farms. A case of disease breaks out in an animal in one locality, and the animal there being slaughtered, and within 56 days the place being declared free, what is the result? Immediately other stock are imported from the other two farms, with, perhaps, the consequence that there is a fresh outbreak of disease, among animals from the same herd originally. There is every desire on the part of the Board to administer the Act with the greatest possible consideration for the convenience of all concerned, but I am strongly impressed with the importance of leaving the widest discretion possible to those who have the responsibility of carrying out the Act, and I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press the Motion.

(5.0.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

What I would point out is that we should secure uniformity of action and the cooperation of the different authorities in the boroughs and counties. That is far more important, I think, than laying down a hard and fast line. It is to be deprecated that while one Local Authority is doing its duty another one should be acting carelessly.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CRILLY

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment on the Paper which covers mine, I do not think it necessary to propose that which I have on the Paper. I am quite sure that when the Bill becomes law it will be carried out with spirit by the right hon. Gentleman, and that local officers will be subjected to a supervision which will free the owners of cattle from unnecessary delay.

MR. SEXTON

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have no objection to issuing a Memorandum to the local officials.

MR. CHAPLIN

Yes.

Amendments made.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "General," and insert the words "Cattle Pleuro-Pneumonia."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

MR. SEXTON

I believe the effect of this Amendment will be to enable the special losses incurred by certain Unions in Ireland, especially by the North and South Dublin Unions, to be defrayed out of the moneys provided by this Act. I should be glad to be assured of that fact.

MR. CHAPLIN

That is the effect, for the reason that much of the work to be accomplished has already been done.

Question, "That the word 'general' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'cattle pleuro pneumonia' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. CHAPLIN

I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

MR. ESSLEMONT

I only wish to make one observation. I think there is one defect, though I thoroughly approve of the principle of the Bill. The Lord Advocate is not in his place to answer for Scotland. We have three alternatives—the local taxes, the taxation of the Nationalities, and—which the Government have been good enough to step in with—the Imperial Treasury. To that extent I take this opportunity of saying that I think the measure is defective.

MR. CRILLY

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has consented to send out a Memorandum to insist that the work under the Act shall not be delayed. I have received a telegram this morning which gives an instance of the vexatious loss caused by official delay.

Mr. CHAPLIN

I am very much obliged to the House for allowing me to move that the Bill be read a third time. I readily undertake to issue the Memorandum to local officials.

Bill read the third time, and passed.