§ As amended, considered.
§ MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)I understand that this Bill is now to be considered, and I wish to ask for some explanation with regard to the action of the Police and Sanitary Committee. I have no personal knowledge as to the circumstances of the Bradford Bill, and I should not have interfered in this matter if it had not been for the fact that this was the first Bill containing the tuberculosis clauses which was considered this session by the Police and Sanitary Committee. I shall not move the Amendment which stands in my name ["That the Bill be considered this day six months'], because if it were carried it would be fatal to the Bill. But I want to draw the attention of the House to the Report of the Police and Sanitary Committee. That Report points out that the Bill contains certain provisions dealing with the supply of milk. The promoters of the Bill—the Bradford Corporation—agreed with the West 1218 Riding of Yorkshire County Council that the Leeds clauses should be embodied in the Bill. With that everyone was satisfied: but, to the surprise of the West Riding County Council, the Police and Sanitary Committee have, against the wishes of the Bradford Corporation, as well as of the promoters of the Bill, objected to the Leeds clauses being inserted. On what ground have they done so? They say it is because of a conference between representatives of the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Municipal Corporations Association. I cannot help thinking that a great deal too much has been made of that conference. So far as the Government Departments are concerned, we need not trouble our heads very much about them, but, as regards the other two bodies, although they may be important organisations, I do not think they can be said to represent in every aspect the interests of agriculturists or of local government in the provinces. I am rather surprised that my noble friend the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee, who is a prominent member of the County Councils Association, should attach so much weight to the conference, seeing that that association was not there represented; and that, consequently, its views on the matter are apparently unknown. Surely such an association ought to have been invited to take part in a conference which dealt with the question of interference in county and district council administration by urban district authorities. Further than that, the conference was by no means unanimous, and some of its recommendations were only carried by a small majority. I think the Police and Sanitary Committee could not have been aware that the conference did not really represent the views of the county councils. Speaking for my own county, I know we strongly object to the decision come to by the Local Government Board in this matter. Is it not the same old story of the Local Government Board in London trying to ride rough-shod over localities? Another point which the Police and Sanitary Committee do not appear to have had sufficiently before them relates to the intervention of justices. I was under the impression that the justices who were to be empowered to sign the order should be justices acting in the Petty Sessional Division. But that, 1219 apparently, is not the case, for the words of the Bill are "Justices having jurisdiction in the place." That is a very different matter, for we know that, generally speaking, county justices have jurisdiction over a whole county, and are not confined to any particular area. I would ask that the justices who deal with these matters should be justices usually acting in the Petty Sessional Division, especially as there is to be no right of appeal. One of the strongest arguments that has been advanced has been based on the unfairness of the Local Government Board in insisting on the Leeds clauses, under which, as has been pointed out, the corporation are the prosecutor, judge, and jury in their own case, without any appeal whatever on the part of the locality or the farmers interested in the matter. I hope we shall have some explanation from my noble friend the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee as to why they have adopted this course in opposition to the views of the Bradford Corporation and of the West Riding County Council.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)Perhaps it would be as well if I wore at once to try and meet the courteous appeal made by my hon. friend the Member for South Somerset in regard to this matter. Undoubtedly this is an important question of policy which affects the sale of milk, the conditions of dairies, and the public health. The matter is, therefore, one of great importance to the whole community. But the fundamental error which underlies the argument of my hon. friend—and, knowing the interest he takes in this matter, I fully admit that there is something to be said from his point of view— the fundamental error appears to me to be his idea that there is an incompatibility or opposition of interest in this matter between town and country. I submit that this question is one in which the interests of town and country are absolutely identical, because disease, whether transmitted through milk or in any other way, is not stopped, by boundaries. The bacillus in milk crosses into the urban district and transmits the disease with perfect impartiality to all persons, whether they are dwellers in town or in country. Now the clauses under consideration are intended to enable an urban authority within whose boundaries milk from an 1220 outside dairy is distributed to visit that dairy with a view to preventing a condition of things arising which is likely to cause disease to exist, say, through the daily being in. an unwholesome condition, or through the milk being produced under conditions dangerous to the public health. This is by no means a theoretical question, because in the very part of the world from which my hon. friend comes there was, in the City of Bristol, a great and terrible outbreak of disease, through which many valuable lives were lost, and as to which the medical officer of the city said there was no doubt whatever that the infection had been brought in from outside dairies. Now, what has been the policy pursued in this case? We have adopted the rule laid down by a most able conference of representatives of the Board of Agriculture, the Local Government Board, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Association of Municipal Corporations, at which these model clauses were agreed upon. As a result the clauses wore inserted in Bills which at that time were before the House. But when one of those Bills went elsewhere an alteration was made in the clause by which, when the officers of an urban body wanted to proceed outside their limits, they were called upon to procure the fiat of two justices sitting in petty sessions, instead of one only. And further than that, before any stops could be taken the justices had to be satisfied that the local authority of the district had not already dealt with the case of alleged infection, or had been negligent in exercising their powers when requested by the corporation to do so. I do not think I need take up the time of the House with elaborate arguments. The broad objection to the Leeds clauses was this—that they would cause very great delay in a matter in which expedition was absolutely essential. Does anybody think that disease is going to stand still while elaborate formalities are being gone through in petty sessions, or while an official is riding round the countryside in order to find two justices to sit in petty sessions? Surely it would be much better to have but one justice, sitting in the manner prescribed in the model clauses, to be satisfied that urgency was necessary, and that the officers of the corporation were justified in taking proceedings against any particular dairy or farm. It was felt that if the fiat had to be obtained 1221 from two justices sitting in petty sessions the provisions of the clauses would be reduced to a nullity and a farce. There was the further difficulty that if it was to be necessary to satisfy the justices that the local authorities of the rural district had not already dealt with the case, or, having power to deal with it, and having been requested by the corporation to do so, had refused to take action, such a course would involve elaborate evidence and arguments, and a most dangerous condition of things would arise, because meanwhile the milk from the suspected dairy would be distributed over the whole district, spreading the disease which it was desired to stamp out. The hon. Member spoke of the Local Government Board riding roughshod over local authorities, but I am the last person who would desire to see the county authorities trampled under foot. My hon. friend says that the County Councils Association are opposed to our policy. I deny that in toto. I have attended the two last meetings of the executive committee of that association, and I am not aware of their opposition.
§ MR. STRACHEYI did not say the County Councils Association. I said the county councils who had had the matter brought before thorn were opposed to it, and the Somerset County Council, I may add, have asked the County Councils Association to take the matter up.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI understood my hon. friend to say that the County Councils Association as a body were likely to take some steps in opposition. But I do not think that that is the case. I do not find that there is any strong feeling in regard to the matter. At first there was a little feeling that the county councils were being lightly passed over; but when the matter was put before the public it was at once realised that if anything was to be done in this direction, it must be done quickly or not at all. In regard to this particular matter, surely if the West Riding County Council had desired to appear they would have had a locus standi before the Committee.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, Shipley)The West Hiding County Council intended to appear, but they did not do so because they came to an 1222 arrangement with the Bradford Corporation. That arrangement the Committee has set aside without reference to either of the two parties.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEWe considered this matter first on the Liverpool Bill, and when we found that the same question arose in connection with several other Bills we decided, with the consent of all the parties, to take the full discussion of the matter on the Bradford Bill. We gave notice that we intended to insert these clauses in the other Bills, and I am inclined to think that if there had been any strong feeling on the subject we should have heard from the West Riding County Council more fully than we did, because it was a matter of public knowledge that we were taking this course. During the discussion of the Bradford Clauses counsel for Liverpool obtained permission to inform us that he was enabled to state, on behalf of the Liverpool Corporation, that that body had come to a full agreement with the Lancashire County Council, which entirely accepted the model clauses. The House will, I think, see that the support of the Lancashire County Council was a very important point, because it is one of the largest county councils in the whole country. To-day we have had before us the Devonshire County Council, which has not said one word against the model clauses, and they have been inserted in the Devonshire Bill with the full knowledge of that county council. Devonshire is a most important agricultural community, and you may be quite sure that if there had been any feeling in Devonshire, or in that part of it which fringes a long line of towns on the north coast, we should have heard of it to-day. I may go a step further. Even if the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire had appeared before us, when we had in view the fact that in every Bill passed in this House these clauses had been inserted; that it was owing to an alteration made elsewhere that what are known as the Leeds clauses were accepted; and that it was really owing to the fact that Bradford had to submit to the insertion of those clauses in order to get their Bill through; when we further found that Liverpool and the Lancashire County Council had been able to agree, and that Devonshire did not object; and when we realised the strength of the argument that delay was fatal in 1223 dealing with the questions which form the subject matter of these clauses; I say that, taking into consideration all those facts, it will be admitted we were fully justified, after going into the case—as we did most carefully—in inserting these model clauses in the Bradford Bill and in announcing our determination to insert in all Bills that come before us uniform clauses which we believe will conduce to the maintenance of the public health. I may also remind the House that the Police and Sanitary Committee was appointed very largely in order to obtain uniformity in all these matters, and that if we had not insisted on inserting these model clauses we should, instead of securing uniformity, have added to the confusion of our existing local legislation.
§ MR. FLOWER (Bradford, W.)I understand the hon. Member for South Somerset does not intend to press the motion which stands in his name, and certainly it must be obvious that to ask the House to reject a Bill so wide in its scope as the Bradford Bill, which deals with the acquisition of gas and tramway properties, upon a side issue relating to a matter comparatively small, would hardly commend itself to hon. Members. If in any particular the Bill requires amendment, it can with ease be done in another place. I only rise to explain the attitude of the Bradford Corporation with regard to these clauses dealing with milk. It is quite true that the Bradford Corporation were prepared to accept, in the Bill, clauses similar to those that were inserted elsewhere last year. The Corporation did not approve of those clauses, but, with the view of diminishing the opposition which might be offered to progress of the Bill, they were willing to leave the matter to the consideration of the Police and Sanitary Committee, and to abide by any decision at which it might arrive. But it would not be correct to assume, as I think the hon. Member has assumed, that the Corporation of Bradford either welcomed or desired the introduction of these clauses into their Bill. On the contrary, I have the authority of the corporation to state that they are entirely satisfied with the model clauses which have obtained the approbation of the Local Government Board and of the Board of Agriculture, as well as of all municipal corporations which are con- 1224 cerned in the promotion of private Bills. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the hon. Member for South Somerset should seek to belittle the authority of the two Government Departments in dealing with these matters. The attitude of the Bradford Corporation is one which, I think, has been honourably and faithfully maintained. They were ready to abide by the decision of the Police and Sanitary Committee, and they most certainly welcome the decision at which that Committee has arrived—a decision which is, I believe, in the best interests of the health of their borough. I hope the hon. Member will be content with the explanation given to him, and that there will be no further attempt to over-ride the decision of the Committee which has carefully considered this matter.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.)I ask the House to support the action of the Police and Sanitary Committee on two grounds. First, because last session, after a great deal of controversy between two public Departments and representative bodies, these model clauses were agreed to. This is a matter which vitally affects the public health, and, therefore, it is desirable, as far as possible, to obtain uniformity of action. We cannot get that uniformity if different clauses are inserted in different Bills. That reason, I should say, is sufficiently strong in itself, but my further ground is that if the arrangement come to in the manner I have described is to be upset it should only be upset after due deliberation. The hon. Member for South Somerset has suggested that these model clauses have been forced on the Police and Sanitary Committee by the Local Government Board. There could be nothing further from the truth than that. The Local Government Board simply did its duty in bringing those clauses before the Committee and recommending their adoption. I ask the House to stand by the decision of the Committee.
MR. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)I am sure that my hon. friend did not intend to initiate a debate on the merits or demerits of the model clauses. The question is not whether, if a corporation is willing and a county council is anxious that milder precautions 1225 against tuberculosis should be adopted in a Bill than are embodied in these clauses, they should be allowed to take that course. Something has been said as to uniformity, but seeing that Bradford and Leeds are next door to one another, surely it would be more uniform that Bradford should be brought under the operation of the Leeds clause than that the model clauses should be insisted upon. Now, there ought to be no misunderstanding as to what was the result of last year's conference. I attended that conference on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. We arranged these model tuberculosis clauses as a compromise. I feel bound by that compromise, and to that extent I should not be justified in opposing any Bill which contained the clauses. But what we fixed was the maximum and not the minimum of the powers which should be given to corporations to go outside their own districts for the purposes of dairy inspection, and I hold that if a corporation are prepared to take less than that maximum of power there is no reason why they should not be permitted to do so.
§ MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)said he had only a few words to offer upon the question. He had supported the views of the hon. Member for South Somerset formerly, but having since gone more carefully into the matter he had found that the only substantial difference between the Leeds and the model clauses was as to whether the necessary order for the inspection of a dairy outside a borough should be made by two justices sitting in petty sessions, or by one justice sitting in his own study. Now, he thought it would be immensely to the interests of dairymen and agriculturists that the order should be made by a single justice. If it had to be made in open court on a certificate by a medical officer to the effect that he had reason to suspect that milk drawn from a particular dairy was contaminated, then they might at once say "good bye" to that dairyman's business. The result of the inspection might be entirely satisfactory, it might be proved that there was not the slightest ground for the suspicion of disease in the dairy, but the mere fact that an application had been made on such grounds in open court and reported in the newspapers of the neighbourhood would practically shut up that dairy. On that ground he most strongly 1226 supported the clause in its present form, in the interests of dairymen themselves.
§ SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)The hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk argued in favour of milder clauses rather than severer ones in connection with the treatment of tuberculosis.
§ SIR WALTER FOSTERI wish to point out that these clauses deal with other diseases than tuberculosis. You may have an epidemic of typhoid or scarlet fever spread by means of milk, and these cases certainly require most energetic action. In Bristol we had an illustration of that, and I say that it is essential for the speedy discovery of the source of the epidemic that the power of inspection should belong to the suffering local authority without the intervention of another authority and the delay consequent thereupon. To return for a moment to the question of tuberculosis, I should like to point out that, as regards grown up people, it is steadily declining, and we are stamping it out in a satisfactory manner. The only cases in which the disease is increasing are those of children who are fed on tubercolosis milk, and I say that it is, therefore, necessary, in the interests of public health, that the source of the disease should be traced without any delay, and that full powers of inspection should be vested in the suffering local authority.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYAs representing the constituency affected by this Bill, I wish to protest in the strongest manner of which I am capable against the high-handed way in which the Police and Sanitary Committee have dealt with arrangements locally made. The Bradford Corporation and the County Council of the West Riding agreed on a clause.
§ MR. FLOWERThey agreed to submit it to the Committee.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYI do not see the relevancy of that remark. As a matter of fact, an agreement was 1227 made between the Bradford Corporation and the West Riding County Council on a clause suitable to the local circumstances, and in accordance with that agreement the West Hiding County Council abstained from being represented before the Committee. Yet on the representations of the Local Government Board, the Police and Sanitary Committee have decided to put in an entirely different clause, without reference to the County Council, and without giving them an opportunity of being hoard. Now the County Council are face to face with the alternative either of attempting to destroy this very important Bill, or of accepting a clause with which they do not agree. I think the Committee should most undoubtedly have communicated with the County Council, which should have been heard on a matter so important to the public interest.
§ MR. BRIGG (York W.R., Keighley), who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to express a hope that the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. Different towns drawing their milk supply from the same area should not have separate provisions giving different kinds of powers which would clash. He thought the clause had been properly considered in the interests of the district, and he supported the Bill.
§ Bill ordered to be read the third time.