CLAUSE 109.—(Protection of Animals in Mines.) (Hansard, 5 December 1911)

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3) to leave out the word 1311 "may" ["(3) the Secretary of State may appoint"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall." There will be a consequential Amendment to leave out the word "any," so that the Clause will read, "The Secretary of State shall appoint fit persons to be special inspectors." I look upon this as an extremely important Amendment, but the necessity of it will be apparent to anyone who reads this Subsection. If the word "may" be left in it will be entirely at the option of the Secretary of State to appoint special inspectors. You might have a Secretary of State who considered that it was unnecessary to appoint these inspectors to examine the ponies, and he might take advantage of the fact that the word in the Act is "may," and not appoint them. On the other hand, the hon. Member might be succeeded by an Under-Secretary who might think it was necessary to appoint these inspectors. I believe the whole House agrees that the inspectors should be appointed to see that the ponies in the mine are treated in a proper manner, and if we are going to do that we had better do it in a workmanlike way and make the Clause read that these inspectors shall be appointed. Possibly the Under-Secretary may say there are other Clauses giving power to the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors where the word "may" has been left in, and I have often heard gentlemen learned in the Law argue that in Acts of Parliament "may" means "shall." I do not know whether that is so or not, but I am always in favour of making an Act of Parliament as clear as possible, and therefore I think it is evident "may" should be left out and "shall" should be put in. It is possible, unless "shall" is put in, the Secretary of State may leave private societies to do work which should be done by the State. The Royal Commission on that point said, We are not in favour of relying on secretaries or officers of private societies to enter mines.…The right of entry should be conferred on men who are responsible to and who are paid by the State. I think it is most important that should be done. The Under-Secretary told me just now he had met my views during the Committee stage. I am grateful to him for it, but I want him to make the Bill as perfect as possible.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The hon. Baronet has forgotten the arrangement made in the 1312 Committee. If he intends that arrangement to be abandoned, I do not quite see how his Motion is in order on the Report stage, because we shall thereby be laying a charge on the Exchequer which has not been authorised in Committee.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The Clause says the Secretary of State "may" appoint, and therefore the power of the Secretary of State to charge the estimates is given. It makes not the slightest difference upon that point whether "may" or "shall" is inserted. The Bill gives power to appoint inspectors. They may be inspectors of horses or anything else, and of necessity it means that money is to be paid for the salaries of the inspectors. There is no necessity for a Motion in Committee to give power to raise the money; that has already been done.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I do not want to take that as a special point of Order, but, if we intended to pay Government inspectors, we should have to put in words as in another Clause, "to be paid for by the Treasury." This Clause is the result of a compromise and an agreement between ourselves and gentlemen who have authority to speak for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Although I do not think these inspectors were recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, and although considerable objection was taken in some quarters to them, we came to a general agreement with the mine-owners, as well as with the miners' representatives and the gentleman whom my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood) represents, that we would establish tentatively this system as immediately to be put in operation. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would supply us with the names of fit persons who had had some experience of underground work and also of the work of the prevention of cruelty to animals, the Secretary of State would appoint them as being fit persons under this Act, and the society would undertake their payment. I have another communication from the hon. Member, in which he says they feel themselves competent, if this Clause goes through, to begin with, to provide one inspector for each of the divisions. There are six divisions into which the county is divided at present. I think that system is worth a substantial trial. We had no provision, nor did the Committee give us provision, for paying special animal inspectors ourselves, nor have we a special animal department 1313 which would do the work as well as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I thought it was agreed by the hon. Baronet, as well as by everyone in the Committee, that that system should be established, and that system I would still suggest should be maintained in the Bill.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL
We have listened with some interest to what the Under-Secretary has said, but I have heard with much surprise that he finds himself unable to accept the Amendment.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Is the hon. Baronet in order in moving this Amendment at all, seeing it constitutes a new charge on the Exchequer?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. J. H. Whitley)
I heard what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said, but I did not consider the difference between the words "may" and "shall" constituted a new charge on the Exchequer.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL
I hope it is possible this point may be considered without any technical narrowing down of the important issues that ought to be raised. I think it is safe to say the House as a whole are prepared to view the suggestion of the hon. Baronet with consideration and with sympathy. In effect, it means that in future the Home Office shall appoint inspectors to examine these ponies in the mines. It is, as the Bill stands at present, in the power of the Home Secretary to refuse to appoint these inspectors. That is the whole issue. I do not attach undue importance to what the Under-Secretary has said about an arrangement upstairs. The House must itself keep control over these matters. Every hon. Member cannot be in the Commitee upstairs, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I know nothing of any arrangement, and I would be no party to any arrangement made upstairs or anywhere else which would deny the right of the Home Office to appoint inspectors in regard to this matter. We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood) for his splendid work in connection with this matter. Whatever is in this Bill is largely, if not entirely, due to his efforts, and I am bound to say, if he said everything in this Bill met every demand which he thought might legitimately be put forward, that would have very great weight with me in regard to any action I should take; but, as I understand the hon. Member and many friends outside who have 1314 taken an interest in this matter, they are for compulsory State inspectors. That, I understand, is what he desired and wished for, and that is the position I am prepared to support, and nothing else. Is it not rather an undignified position for the Home Office to take up to say a society outside the House, dependent upon voluntary contributions, with no connection whatever with any State Department, shall, as long as the public are kind enough to subscribe sufficient money, provide inspectors and the Home Office will be good enough to appoint them? I say that is a most humiliating position in a great matter of this kind. The society has done splendid service, and will do so in the future. I hope the Home Office will avail itself of the assistance and co-operation it offers. But this question is important enough to be a State matter. We are not talking false sentimentalism in regard to this matter. It is not a question of mine-owners or mine managers; it is a larger matter. It is not disputed that, in certain cases, there have been cases of cruelty to horses in the mine. Above ground we have our inspectors, and anyone walking along the street can call the attention of the inspector and thus check cruel treatment. It is, however, quite different underground. I have had in my possession photographs which leave no doubt that in some mines these cruelties go on and the ponies have been found in a state simply scandalous.
I make an appeal to the Home Secretary in this matter. We are anxious to do what is best for the horses and ponies in the mines. This is a case in which the State should not stick at the question of the expenditure of a few thousands of pounds. We have had an assurance that everything that can be done shall be done in the interest of these animals. But that is not enough. If it is a question of finance, and that is a question which is always present, it seems to me it is an infinitesimal point with regard to an important measure of this kind. Surely the Government will not say that they cannot find the money for this purpose, and that they are merely going to kindly consider the suggestions made by a voluntary association outside. That is not enough. We want State appointments, and I believe that mine managers will have no objection to them. Good mine managers are not afraid of the horses being inspected. I have seen a letter from a veterinary surgeon employed by a very large company which leaves no doubt in my mind 1315 that there is grave cause of complaint in regard to this matter. This is not a party question, and I do ask the Home Secretary to see if he cannot go a little further in this matter and appoint inspectors; if he will do that it will give very great satisfaction to a large section of the public outside this House.

§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has especially referred to me, and I should therefore like to say a few words upon this question. I look upon this Clause, empowering the Secretary of State to appoint special inspectors for animals, as one of the most, if not the most, important part of the Bill. It is the most important so far as the animals are concerned. There have been rules for a long time under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, but it is one thing to have rules and quite another thing to have them enforced. We are going to have a very good code of rules, but it appears to some of us that, unless we can secure the appointment of independent men to be special inspectors of these animals in the mines, we have no guarantee or security whatever that the rules will be put in force. We know perfectly well there are a great many mines in which the animals are well treated, but we also know that there are many—and this is borne out by the Report of His Majesty's inspectors—where cases of cruelty do occur, and for every case brought to light there are twenty which have not been discovered. We think this Clause with regard to the inspection of animals most important.
I should like to say a word as to the position of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in this matter. It has always held that the Government should appoint and pay these special inspectors, but if the Government will not do so, it is prepared to do the next best thing. The society has gone as far as this: it will submit the names of men to the Government perfectly well qualified to carry out these duties. Indeed, these men are now doing this work in many places, and there are many mine-owners who allow these inspectors to go into the mines. If the Government do not appoint their own inspectors the society is prepared to submit the names of men to do the work, and at the same time the society will do its best in the matter of finance: it will endeavour to see that the men are properly financed. I do not think it is necessary that the men should be duly 1316 qualified veterinary surgeons. There are many men who are very well qualified to act as special inspectors of these animals. I do not want to violate any agreement, but if the Home Secretary refuses to accept the word "shall" instead of "may," I cannot understand it. One would have thought that under the circumstances he could accept the word "shall."

§ Mr. McKENNA
I should very much like to say a few words as to how the case actually stands. If the Bill passes in its present form it will give me power to appoint special inspectors. I shall act on that power. But if the Bill is altered so as to make it mandatory it is obvious I must first have the inspectors, and here, of course, a question of order comes in. So far as the word "may" goes I am already provided, through the kindness of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with a promise that I shall have inspectors placed at my disposal, and those inspectors I shall appoint. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who will pay them?"] The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The society will provide inspectors whom we shall employ. We have to deal with the Bill as it stands now. We have to remember that we are on the Report stage, and if this mandatory injunction is laid on the Home Office we shall have to appoint inspectors for the payment of whom there is no provision. The Government itself cannot do that at this stage.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Is it not the case that in other parts of the Bill the Home Secretary is taking power to appoint inspectors? This is exactly the same.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I have looked into that point. These special inspectors cannot be included among the inspectors to be appointed under Clause 97. Consequently it would be imposing a fresh charge upon the Exchequer if it were laid down as a mandatory command to appoint inspectors.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Will the right hon. Gentleman look at Clause 112. It says:— The salary and remuneration of inspectors and examiners under this Act and all other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the execution of this Act, to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. 1317 I submit that that gives full power. It does not specify inspectors, but says "inspectors." Surely that Clause would authorise the payment of inspectors, and all you have to do is to put in the word "shall" instead of "may."

§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Baronet is a great authority on these points, but I am advised that the inspectors referred to, and the expenses referred to in Clause 112 would not cover the case of special inspectors. The Home Office takes power to appoint under this Clause.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Leave out the word "special."

§ Mr. McKENNA
That would impose a new charge. There is no possibility, by any alteration, by the drafting of the Clause, of bringing in a new body of men, because it would cause a charge to fall upon the Exchequer.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Let the Bill say that it can be done.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I have no power whatever to pledge the Government to the charge.

§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
Is there no power to pay inspectors for this purpose under the Clause as drafted?

§ Mr. McKENNA
No, I could not pay them except under the authority of an Act of Parliament. I cannot introduce this proposal into the Bill at this stage. The Bill would have to be recommitted for the purpose of empowering me to pay these special inspectors. Under the arrangement that has been made with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, if, as they will, they place at our disposal the services of these inspectors, we shall appoint them. In any case, where power of this kind is given to a Government it is always exercised as a matter of course, unless there are powerful reasons to the contrary.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Will the reports come to you?

§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes, to the society and to me. Through the intervention of my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Greenwood) and the the society, we are able to give the assurance to the House that without involving a new charge on the Exchequer, an inspector will be appointed immediately in each district. I undertake, on behalf of the Home Office, that I shall appoint them, 1318 but the moment it is laid upon me as a mandate that I must appoint them, then I submit that the proposal is out of order, and I submit to you, Sir, that it could not be inserted in the Bill at this stage.

§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the wording of Clause 112. It says,
The salary and remuneration of inspectors and examiners under this Act
Then follows the words to which I direct your special attention, and all other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the execution of this Act, to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
I submit that the larger words "all other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the execution of this Act," if taken with a previous Clause, making it mandatory on the Home Secretary to appoint these special inspectors, would cover the case of any such special inspectors.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
On the point of Order, the point was put to me at the outset of this discussion whether the Amendment to insert "shall" instead of "may" involved a new charge. I cannot hold that it does, because these inspectors may be appointed without salary. They may be officers of the organisation or other inspectors without additional pay. Therefore I cannot take that point as between "may" and "shall." The other point as to whether Clause 97 and Clause 112 would cover the payment of inspectors such as are engaged under this Clause, is one on which I confess I do not feel at liberty to give a definite answer, because this Clause seems to anticipate special inspectors who are not inspectors of mines. Clause 97 applies to inspectors of mines, and it may be held that Clause 112 refers back to Clause 97. That is a matter of interpretation on which I must leave the House to exercise its own judgment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
On a point of Order. Under your ruling is it not a fact that if the word "shall" be here inserted there would be no power to appoint inspectors, except inspectors without salary.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I do not think that is a point we need decide now. That is a point which, as I have just explained, is one of interpretation in regard to these various Clauses.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I am not referring to Clause 112, but I am referring to the distinction you drew between "may" and "shall," namely, that the insertion of the word "shall" might not impose a charge upon the Exchequer. If it may impose a charge on the Exchequer I submit to you that it is out of order. It is only on the assumption that it does not impose a charge on the Exchequer—an assumption which can only be justified by the inspectors receiving no salary—that the Amendment would be in order. I submit that if it might impose a charge on the Exchequer it is out of order.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I think so far the right hon. Gentleman is correct. We may assume that the alteration of the word "may" into "shall" will not involve a charge. The effect upon the merits is one for argument in the House and not for the Chair.

§ Sir C. CORY
As a colliery owner I should like to join in the appeal made by hon. Members to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment. During all the years I have been going underground in South Wales I cannot say that I have seen any instance of horses which have been badly treated, but I believe it is quite possible that such instances might occur. I am sure, as a lover of horses, I shall be only too glad that such instances should be brought to light by inspectors properly appointed. I would far rather have inspectors appointed by the Home Office than by any association. I do not wish to say anything that is offensive to an association which I know has done very good work, but we do not want them to be manufacturing cases. We only want genuine cases brought to light, and we are much more likely to have that if the inspectors are appointed by the Government than if they are appointed by private associations supported by voluntary subscriptions. I trust my right hon. Friend will agree to this.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I heard the speech of the Under-Secretary of State to-night with the utmost surprise, and with a very great deal of regret, because I, in common with every one else who came to read Clause 109 for the first time, was under the impression that the inspectors were to be appointed and paid by the State, and were to be responsible to the State, and I never doubted for a moment that that was going to be done. The only question raised in my mind was as to the word "may" or 1320 "shall," and I assumed that the word "may" was taken from Clause 97, where it says that the Home Secretary may appoint inspectors for the ordinary purposes of mines, and I took that to mean "shall." But now we are told that we are not going to have independent inspectors appointed by the State, but that they are to be nominated and paid by a private society, and that is a position which is entirely degrading to the State, which ignores the responsibility of the State, and which is totally unsuitable to meet the necessity of these cases. I desire to say nothing against the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I have subscribed to it for twenty years or more, and I have no doubt they are as good as any private society can be, but this is not a matter which ought to be left to a private society. Some considerable time ago the attention of the then Home Secretary was called to the existence of alleged ill-treatment of ponies in mines. There was a certain amount of primâ facie evidence given in favour of that view, and consequently he directed that evidence should be taken by the then sitting Commissioners on this very question of the ill-treatment of ponies, and a large amount of evidence was taken, on which the Commissioners made a Report. I do not for a moment suggest that there is anything like wholesale cruelty to ponies in these mines, but undoubtedly the result of the evidence is that there are cases in mines where ponies have been ill-treated owing largely, I believe, to neglect, and, in order to meet that, that certain regulations should be introduced in this Bill. I have to thank the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for having introduced valuable regulations in order to prevent cases of ill-treatment, and for having made some provision for inspection. I do not suppose any Member would deny that there is not the slightest use in having regulations unless you have responsible persons to inspect. Regulations without inspection by competent and independent persons are absolutely waste paper. A Clause was introduced into the Bill which seems fair on the face of it. It says, The Secretary of State may appoint any fit persons to be special inspectors for the purpose of examining into the care and treatment of the horses. We are told now that there was some compromise upstairs of which I know nothing, that these were not to be State 1321 inspectors at all, but nominated and paid for by this private society.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The matter has been arranged. What I propose is that the Amendment shall be accepted by the Home Secretary, and if he finds that he has not got enough to pay for it next year he will introduce legislation which will give him the power to find the money and pay the inspectors. I believe that will be accepted and it will meet the views of every one.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
If that is the intention of the Home Secretary I think it is quite satisfactory. I understand these will be State inspectors paid by State money and responsible to the State.

§ Mr. BRACE
I am in entire sympathy with the project, but I hope it is not going to be done at the expense of putting on workman inspectors to protect the lives and limbs of the men.

§ Colonel HICKMAN
Are we to understand that the Secretary of State is going to take power next Session, if he has not got it already, to appoint inspectors who will be Government inspectors, paid by the Government, and that we shall not as colliery owners and managers have to do with any inspectors who are appointed under the ægis of the Government, but nominated by a private society and paid by them?

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I certainly thought the arrangement which was come to in Committee had been come to by general agreement. Evidently the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was under a misapprehension, and therefore I do not in the least press that. I thought I was defending a general agreement, but I agree that the situation has changed. The difficulty that we had as to the point of order was a real difficulty and not an attempt to burke discussion, and even now I am advised we have not the power under the Financial Resolution. On the other hand, it is very evident from the Debate here that everyone is agreed that they will prefer Government inspection to inspection by a private society. Therefore, with the best will in the world, the hon. Member (Mr. G. Greenwood) will exonerate us from the agreement we came to with the societies offering this as an alternative. What we propose is that if we find on consideration that we can appoint Government inspectors under the financial provisions which have been passed, we will do so. If not, my right hon. Friend, in consultation with 1322 the Treasury, will see whether it is possible, perhaps on the Estimates, perhaps on the Appropriation Bill, so long as the hon. Baronet will agree, unlike his usual method, to facilitate the expenditure of public money as much as possible. One other promise I certainly made, that under no circumstances would the appointment of these special inspectors make any difference to the appointment of working men inspectors for the general safety of the mines.

§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD
May I say that this question is not a question of exonerating the Under-Secretary from any agreement? On the contrary, we are most grateful to him for having accepted the position we have put forward from the first. I take this opportunity of thanking him most sincerely for the way he has met us in the Committee and now.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
A Return has been asked for by the Opposition of the number of new officials to be appointed under this Bill. Will the new officials demanded by the Opposition be included in the Return?

§ Captain JESSEL
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "fit persons" [" fit persons to be special inspectors"], and to insert instead thereof the words "duly qualified veterinary surgeons."
We have heard a great deal this evening on both sides of the House of the objections to appointing officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I have not a word to say against that society. In fact, it is one I have always supported. Now that the Government are going to pay the inspectors, I cannot see any reason why they should depart from the conditions recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Report says:— Periodical inspection should be made once at least in every six months of every horse in every mine where there are more than twenty horses by duly qualified veterinary surgeons. I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the College of Veterinary Surgeons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Well, naturally they must have somebody to represent them in this House. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman opposite should object to their looking after their own interests. He 1323 represents his interests here. The veterinary surgeons think that they are the proper persons to undertake this task.

§ Mr. FALLE
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. The Government will naturally appoint the fittest persons to do the work, and in some cases they will undoubtedly be veterinary surgeons, but not necessarily so. I believe my hon. Friend will support me in saying that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals very frequently do not employ veterinary surgeons for this class of work. In this case it is unnecessary to tie the hands of the Government.

§ Captain JESSEL
I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will meet this case later on by some provision in the Schedule. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "provision" ["special inspector under this provision shall"], to insert the words "shall at intervals of not more than three months report the result of his examinations to the inspector of the division and."
It seems to me that this is rather important, becauce when you have got a Government inspector it is desirable that the result of his examination should be reported and laid before the inspector of the division, with the view to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. I do not know whether there is any objection to inserting these words. It seems to me that they are really necessary in order to make the inspection effectual, and to enable the inspector of the division to know what the special inspector is doing.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I think I can explain to the hon. and learned Member how this Amendment is unnecessary. The special inspectors will have to report in the ordinary course of their duty to the inspectors of mines. We shall not wait three months for their report. Special inspectors, managers, or other persons, who undertake any inspection under the Act have to report after each inspection.

§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word 1324 powers" ["the same powers as are given"], to insert the words "and protection. We want to make it quite clear that the inspectors shall have the same protection in regard to this Clause as other inspectors have under the Mines Act.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I think if the hon. Member reflects for a moment he will see that this Amendment is no longer needed. When he put the Amendment on the Paper he was imagining the case of an inspector employed by the society. The inspectors are to be Government inspectors, and they will have the protection which other Government inspectors have.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add, (4) A periodical inspection shall be made once at least in every three months of every horse in every mine by one of the special inspectors mentioned in this Section and, in addition to all other powers and duties conferred on or imposed by this Act on such special inspectors, each special inspector shall on the occasion of each visit he pays to a mine examine the book kept by the horse-keepers in pursuance of the Third Schedule to this Act and sign the same, and shall report to the manager any irregularities or breaches of this Act in so far as they affect the care and treatment of horses, and shall make an entry of these in the aforesaid book. I need not dwell on the absolute necessity for inspection. The Sub-section which I propose merely places on the special inspector the duty of making periodical inspections. Apart from this proposed Sub-section, there is nothing whatever in the Bill to make it incumbent on every special inspector to make an inspection periodically. He can make inspections, but what I want is to impose upon him the duty of making periodical inspections. My proposal is founded on the third report of the Royal Commission on Mines, page 8, Section 10. What they recommend is that a periodic inspection should be made once at least every six months—I propose three, but do not lay stress on the exact period—of every horse in every mine by a duly qualified veterinary surgeon, who shall examine the horses, and also the book kept by the horse-keepers and sign the same on each occasion on which he visits the mine, and who also shall be required 1325 to report to the management any irregularities or any breaches of the Act that come under his notice, and make an entry of it in the aforesaid book.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
We have got that.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
There is nothing to that effect in the Bill as it stands. In the case of the ordinary inspectors, who are appointed by the Secretary of State, we know that it has long been the practice in cases concerning the safety of men to make periodic visits and inspections, but now, when we are beginning an entirely new kind of inspection, the inspection of animals, I submit that it is most important that some periodic inspection should be made in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. So far from hampering the operation of the Act this Amendment will assist it and will ensure that this inspection, which is so essential, will be carried out. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment. If he does not care to adopt three months I am willing to accept six months, and if he thinks the terms of the Motion too stringent it is perfectly easy to put in two or three words to say, "unless the Home Secretary otherwise orders." But it is absolutely clear that something should be put in.

§ Mr. E. JARDINE
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
This is a new proposal, but so were all the proposals dealing with the safety of men, and after thirty years' experience we have found it perfectly safe to leave questions of this kind to be settled by instructions of the Secretary of State. I quite agree with the argument of the hon. and learned Member that it is desirable that inspections should be made frequently, but the disadvantage of putting it in an Act of Parliament is that the moment you lay down something of the kind as a hard and fast rule other things which are not mentioned are supposed not to be necessary. I think that the hon. and learned Member may rely with confidence now that we shall have inspectors who will be Government servants, and those inspectors who will perform these duties will have nothing else to do except inspect, and it would be very inadvisable for Parliament to take upon itself a function which has been performed by the Secretary of State for thirty years.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
If the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that there will be proper periodic inspection 1326 in the case of these special inspectors, I will accept his assurance, and withdraw the Amendment.