§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Mr. STANIERThis is a Bill about which I should rather like to have some short explanation. It has been very constantly brought before this House, and without making a speech I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of it if he can tell us what will be the cost of this Bill to the country; also will he say whether veterinary surgeons have in any way to act as detectives in these matters, or will they only receive a half-crown when they report a case of disease which they have found by having been called in to see the animals in question? A third question is, What is the position of the Board of Agriculture and the local authority in regard to the notification. I think that the local authorities should have full notification.
§ The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edward Strachey)The reason why this Bill provides for the local authority being notified is that it is the local authority which has to carry out the various regulations under which veterinary surgeons report. But the Bill only gives power to the Board of Agriculture to make an order, and that order can always be varied if it is found not to be working effectually in any direction. I do not see for myself that there will be any objection, provided that where the notifications are made to the local authority the Board of Agriculture at the same time shall be notified by the local authority of these cases of outbreak. Notification will only be made by a private practitioner when he is called in by the owner himself and discovers an outbreak, say, of anthrax. If I thought there would be an additional burden on the rates I should be the last person to ask the House to give power to the Board of Agriculture to make such an order. A calculation has been made by the Board that during the forty-two weeks of this year there have been 3,369 outbreaks, which is at the rate of 4,200 a year. If we assume that 50 per cent. of these outbreaks are notified by private practitioners, called in by the owner, it would only amount to £262 for the whole country, but the Board's calculation is that only 10 per cent. would be notified in this way. None the less, it is of great importance that the local veterinary surgeons should 1306 have an inducement to notify, and be under an obligation to notify, disease which they find, otherwise there might be concealment, it being no one's duty to report the case.
§ Mr. G. L. COURTHOPEAre we to gather that this Bill does not in any way affect the case of a veterinary surgeon who is sent in by the local authority?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYNot at all. He would not get the 2s. 6d. fee, but only the practitioner who had nothing to do with the local authority.
§ Mr. COURTHOPEI am greatly relieved to hear that, and to hear how small the estimated additional burden on the rates is. I am sure any objection which may have been felt by Chambers of Agriculture will have been removed by the assurances which we have received.
§ Mr. J. J. MOONEYAm I to understand that this Bill applies to Ireland?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYNo, it does not apply to Ireland.
§ Mr. MOONEYThe principal Act of 1903, relating to the diseases of animals, applies to Ireland, and the authority entrusted with its administration is the Board of Agriculture. It provides for certain notification being given in regard to the outbreak of disease. If a veterinary Burgeon who notifies is to receive a fee in England, I think that a veterinary surgeon in Ireland should also get a fee for the same service. Seeing that the principal Act applies to Ireland, I cannot understand why you did not put a Clause in this Bill making it apply to that country. It is only at the last moment that the Bill has been put into our hands. If the measure is necessary for the stamping out of disease in England, surely it is necessary to have the same law for Ireland. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question with the view to words being inserted in this Bill to make it apply to Ireland.
§ Mr. GRETTONI think it is important that Ireland should get the benefit of this Bill. There is a large cattle trade between this country and Ireland, and it is very desirable that in Ireland as well as in England notification should be given of outbreaks of disease. It is absolutely in the interest of Irish cattle dealers that they should have the assistance which this Bill proposes to give.
§ Sir E. STRACHEYI would remind the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Mooney) that the procedure in Ireland in regard to swine fever is very different from that in England. I would suggest that the hon. Member should communicate with the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland on the subject. So far as we are concerned we shall have no objection to the Bill being extended to Ireland. This being entirely an English question, I do not think the hon. Member will expect me to know the practice in Ireland, or what are the desires of those connected with the cattle trade there.
§ Mr. MOONEYAll that I say is that this is not a new matter. It is a Bill extending an Act already in existence. Therefore, I thought that the same procedure should apply to Ireland as to England.
§ Sir E. STRACHEYThe practice of the two Boards in regard to the issue of orders is entirely different in England and Ireland.
§ Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to Committee of the Whole
1308§ not? So far as I understand, the English Board in this case has exercised a power which the Irish Board has not got. I would like to know whether the Government will accept an Amendment to include Ireland in this Bill if we move it in Committee? If we have an answer to that we shall know what to do now.
§ Mr. HAYSurely the hon Gentleman can give an answer because he knows the situation, or he cannot give an answer because he is ignorant of the reply to give to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Here we have a measure which refers to a powerful Act that applies to the whole United Kingdom. Why should we not give the same protection to Ireland, where agriculture is just as important to the country as it is in England and Scotland? If my hon. Friends go to a division I shall support them as a protest against the ignorance of the Government of their own Bill.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now-read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 7.
1307| Division No. 865.] | AYES. | [11.50 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gretton, John | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Roberts, Charles H (Lincoln) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Robinson, S. |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Higham, John Sharp | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hooper, A. G. | Shackleton, David James |
| Brodie, H. C. | Horniman, Emslie John | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Stanier, Beville |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jardine, Sir J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lambert, George | Summerbell, T. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Levy, Sir Maurice | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Lewis, John Herbert | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Clough, William | Lupton, Arnold | Toulmin, George |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Maclean, Donald | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Maddison, Frederick | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Marnham, F. J. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Middlebrook, William | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Essex, R. W. | Mond, A. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Morrell, Philip | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Falconer, James | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Norman, Sir Henry | |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nuttall, Harry | |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mooney and Mr. Gwynn. |
| Hunt, Rowland | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
§ House for to-morrow (Friday)."—[Sir E. Strachey]
1309§ Whereupon Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at Five minutes before Twelve o'clock.