§ Mr. HINDSasked whether the inspectors of the Board under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in Wales have had any previous veterinary or scientific training; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact recently that at Ruthin police court the magistrates refused the inspector his costs on the ground that he had no expert or veterinary knowledge; and whether, for the sake of farmers and the general efficiency of the Board's officials, he will inquire into the matter?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYThe costs were asked for by the superintendent of police, not by the Board's inspector. The costs were refused, I understand, because the chairman of the bench considered that the evidence might have been furnished by the police, and not for the reason stated. The inspector, Mr. Prichard, is not a veterinary inspector and was not giving veterinary evidence.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTWill the hon. Baronet state whether this particular 1027 gentleman, or any of these inspectors, were subjected to examination prior to their appointment?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYThe hon. Gentleman must give me notice of that question.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked if the hon. Baronet will state how many inspectors under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act were appointed in Wales during the last three years, and what was the nature of their previous experiences and qualifications for the post?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYTwo; both of whom had practical experience in agriculture before appointment.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONESCan they both speak Welsh?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYI do not know.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked whether the Board of Agriculture last summer made charges against the police force of Cardiganshire of neglect in the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act, and of making false statements in connection therewith; whether as the result of such charges a public inquiry was held; if so, by whom; and what was the result of the investigation?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYIn May. 1910, the Board brought to the notice of the local authority for Cardiganshire certain apparent irregularities in the administration of the Sheep-Scab Order, inasmuch as it had been alleged that no steps had been taken to verify thirteen reports of suspected sheep-scab made in January and February, as required by the Order. The local authority investigated the matter, and arrived at the conclusion that their officers were free from blame in the matter. No public inquiry has been held.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTHow can the hon. Baronet expect the police to have any expert knowledge of sheep-scab or any other contagious disease?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYThe police are not expected to have such expert knowledge.