§ Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th February], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid.'"
§ Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
1168§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYI have an Amendment on the Paper.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)The Question has already been put.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy Amendment is on the Paper, and I respectfully submit I should have been called upon, especially as the Amendment has been on the Paper for several days.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Question has already been put from the Chair "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." And it is now too late to move an Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYYes, but may I respectfully point out, my Amendment being on the Paper, it has been the general custom to call upon the Member whose Amendment is on the Paper before the Question is put.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Question has been put, and I cannot now go back upon it.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Question has been already put to the House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI had intended to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper to reduce the Vote by £500. That I cannot do now, but I think, in the circumstances, I am at liberty to vote against the whole Amendment. I am sorry I did not rise in time to be called upon. The reason I put my Amendment down was to object to the additional expenses for the purpose of small holdings, and also to object to the sum of £10,000 for the improvement of the breeding of light horses. I object to the additional salaries for the administration of the Small Holdings Act because I believe that these additional in spectors are not necessary, and that the discussion which we have had upon this subject in Committee shows that really no thing depends, or very little depends, upon the appointment of those additional inspectors. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Dorsetshire had a table showing the number of applications made for small holdings 1169 before and after the appointment of these Commissioners, and hon. Members must in fairness admit that that table shows conclusively that no result had been gained by the appointment of this number of Commissioners, who are only appointed, to use the well-known phrase of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to apply ginger to certain county councils, which ginger has been applied and has not been efficacious. With regard to the other item for the improvement of the breeding of light horses, I object to that, because the sum of £10,000 mentioned is not sufficient to do any good, at all, it is merely waste of money to give this £10,000.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture has shown very great interest in his Department, and I think he endeavoured to justify the application of this £10,000 on the ground that it is to some extent a new departure, and that he is devoting this money to the assistance of private mares with tenant farmers for breeding. I think I am right in saying that that was the argument that the right hon. Gentleman advanced, but what is the use of spending such a small sum as £10,000 for that purpose? This little Grant will serve no useful purpose. If it had been £20,000 or £30,000 there would be something in it. I see behind me my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Wiltshire. He was rather annoyed with me in the Debates in Committee because he thought I was endeavouring to prevent his constituency securing certain sums of money. Not at all. All I wish is that if there is to be this sum of money it should be a sufficient sum to do good. There is no use having a little money which may benefit a few people unless you can serve the whole district and carry out the object you have at heart, namely, to increase the horses in this country.
I do not know what my Friends on the Front Bench below me will say, or whether they will approve, in the circumstances which has arisen, and which prevented me in moving my Amendment, if I propose now to divide against the whole Vote. I am perfectly well aware that is an unusual course to take, but there was some misapprehension. I do not say anyone was to blame except myself, but owing to that unfortunate error I want to explain how it is that I come to object to the whole Vote. I wished to move a reduction, but through the forms of the House I cannot do so now, and in these circumstances I hope I shall 1170 have the support of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wiltshire, whose experience in these matters is of great value not only to his constituents, but also to the House. I shall be very much obliged to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench if they will get up and inform me whether they approve of the action I am taking.
§ Mr. FELLI should not have intervened on the question relating to agriculture had I not a case sent to me from my Constituents which reflects, as they consider, very seriously upon the Board of Agriculture and its allotments.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat does not arise on this Estimate.
§ Mr. FELLIt is in connection with a case of swine fever, and in these allotments there are a large number of swine, and in last December a case of swine fever arose.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is nothing in this Vote about swine fever. The amount for the diseases of animals is for foot-and-mouth disease.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is my impression. The hon. Member must defer his statement for the main Vote.
§ Mr. FELLThat is Appropriation-in-Aid and for estimated expenditure, including services in connection with swine fever for those employed in looking after cases such as I have referred to. There was a case of swine fever brought under my notice in these cottages and the inspectors were immediately informed.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member does not understand. I do not think there is any money in the ordinary administration for carrying out matters in connection with swine fever in this Vote that arises upon the main Vote.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs it not a fact that under Item A this is a Vote for the salaries in connection with the diseases of animals, not only in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, but all diseases of animals?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANMay I repeat what I said in Committee, the amount here refers to the additional salaries requisite for the Small Holdings Commissioners.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIf that is so the statement in Item A is grossly misleading, because it is set out as an item in 1171 connection with the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. That refers to all the diseases scheduled under the Diseases of Animals Act.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think that subject should be raised upon the main Vote.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI wish to say a word or two in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of London. He pointed out that we consider the appointment of these additional inspectors absolutely unnecessary, most irritating to the county councils, and a negation of popular government. In the counties we have bodies of men elected not only by male but by female voters, And they are entrusted by Parliament with certain powers. Amongst other powers, they have been given the power to provide small holdings, in certain circumstances, for people who reside inside and outside their area. In the opinion of a vast majority of the people in this country, these bodies have, to the best of their ability, carried out the duties imposed upon them. In the county of Hampshire, where I live, the committee of the county council has taken a great deal of trouble trying to find suitable land for applicants. I know that these gentlemen have actually neglected their own private business in order to try and meet the requirements of many impossible applicants, and the only thanks they get for it is that they are told that they are not trying their best, and that additional inspectors are to be sent down in order to see that their work is done properly, and the taxpayers have to pay for this political move—for it is nothing but a political move—on the part of His Majesty's Government. Surely it is very cynical of a Liberal Government to behave in this manner, because they talk so much about government by the popular will. Where could we find a better expression of popular will than in our county council? They are elected on the broadest possible basis, and, therefore, to send out from headquarters these inspectors to harass the county councils and hamper them in every way and take the matter out of their hands is an outrage on representative government, and something against which we ought to protest by voting against this Supplementary Estimate. Before we leave the discussion upon this Vote, I wish to ask, in regard to the £10,550 for colleges 1172 and institutions engaged in scientific research and experiments, does any portion of that sum go to institutions which are looked after and aided by county councils. I want to know whether the county council farm at Hutton, in Lancashire, gets any Grant-in-Aid from the Board of Agriculture. If it does not, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving it a Grant because this farm has done a good deal of good to the dairy farmers in the county of Lancashire, and it is a model for all the other county councils of England to follow. Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell how the £10,000 for the improvement of horse breeding is allocated? I do not think he gave us this explanation in Committee. Is it allocated on the basis of population or horses or areas of the counties?
§ Mr. MOUNTI want to call attention to Item F. I do not refer to this matter in any carping spirit, and my only criticism is in regard to the delay which has taken place in granting this money. Any Supplementary Vote is always open to the criticism that the money ought to have been provided at the beginning of the financial year. It is important with regard to the work of these institutions for agricultural research and experiments that Grants should be made at the beginning of their financial year in order to enable them to carry out their duty thoroughly. In many of these institutions the greater part of their research work must be undertaken in the late autumn or the early spring, and if these Grants are put off until we have the Supplementary Estimates brought forward there must be a great waste of time. With regard to these Grants to experimental farms throughout the areas which these institutions serve, you scarcely ever find any one farm which contains the various sorts of soil to be found in different parts of the county, and if you carry out experiments on one farm it will be very little use to the various farmers in that area where the soil is different from that of the experimental farm. If you carry out your experiments on various soils throughout the district they will be of far greater value to those you are endeavouring to benefit, and you would also get into closer practical touch with the farmers. One of the great difficulties which agricultural districts experience has been to get the co-operation of farmers in the work you are carrying out. If you develop your experimental work, and 1173 research so far as you can upon experimental plots on different farms, you would be doing a much better work. Those are the two points which I wish to bring before the President of the Board of Agriculture.
§ Captain JESSELI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is included in this Grant any sum for the Royal Veterinary College?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANYes.
§ Captain JESSELCan the right hon. Gentleman give us the exact amount which is given to this college? I ask this question because I know that this institution is labouring under very heavy financial difficulties. I think it is most important that there should be an adequate supply of veterinary surgeons in this country, and, owing to the introduction of motor-cars and mechanical transport, this profession has been very much affected, and there is not nearly so much inducement to young men to enter the veterinary profession as there used to be. On the other hand, for military purposes as well as for Civil purposes, it is essential that a sufficient number of men should be induced to take up this profession. I am informed that the financial straits of the college to which I have referred are very great, and from a military point of view I think it will be very serious if we cannot get enough veterinary surgeons. I do not wish to labour the point, but it must be apparent to the President of the Board of Agriculture that for dealing with the diseases of animals it is very necessary to induce men to become veterinary surgeons for research work as well as for the curing of diseases. The Royal Veterinary College is labouring under very great difficulty, and I know there is a proposal which is resented in many quarters of the veterinary profession to levy by Act of Parliament a tax upon those who are on the register. Owing to the falling off in their practice they are not in the position to meet that demand, and I submit to the President of the Board of Agriculture the great importance of the Government helping a good deal more in that respect in the future than they have in the past by way of an increased subsidy. The whole Vote is only £10,550, and for the requirements of the college I have referred to it hardly seems too much if the whole amount were given to a great institution of this kind. It is not often one gets an opportunity of discussing these matters, and I have taken part in this 1174 Debate, not with any wish to delay the proceedings, but because I have received a great many representations in regard to the position of this college, and I hope the Government will be able to do something to meet their needs, because this is really a matter of national importance.
§ Mr. AUBREY HERBERTThe matter I wish to allude to has been very clearly put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Wiltshire. It is in regard to the question of foot-and-mouth disease. I only speak upon this question because I happen to be particularly circumstanced in my Constituency, which has been the last place to be afflicted by that scourge. While my Constituency has nothing but praise for the sympathy with which they have been treated by the officials of the Board of Agriculture, they do feel that it would have been a very great advantage to them if the rules and regulations had not been so adamant and so fixed as they were. My Constituents felt, and felt with reason, that every individual case of this description should be treated upon its own merits. Hard and fast rules should give way to exceptional circumstances. Let me give a couple of illustrations. You may have a farm high up on a hill in Cumberland, isolated, or you may have a farm down in the valley in Somersetshire or Devonshire. There is not the same liability in either of those few cases to spread infection as in the case of a farm upon a plain. Those two farms, I think, should be excluded from a hard and fast rule such as the regulation of the fifteen-mile area. We realise that you can hardly have a worse disaster to agriculture than the unlimited spread of that disease, and the last thing I should wish to urge would be any course that might be called or might seem in the least dangerous. I believe, however, there would be no danger in accepting it as a fact that the fifteen-mile area is not a necessary safeguard against the disease, and that the disease in every case where it is feasible should be treated upon its own individual merits.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTBefore the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like to put four questions to him. The first is connected with the very important question properly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Captain Jessel) with regard to the Royal Veterinary College. I am aware the right hon. Gentleman has lately received a deputation from the college, and that he is considering the matter of making increased 1175 Grants to the college, but I should like to ask him whether he is contemplating, in making additional Grants, a postgraduate course at the college in order to provide men who shall be properly equipped to act as inspectors under the Diseases of Animals Acts for the various local authorities. I think it is common knowledge in the veterinary profession today that we really have not suitably equipped men coming from the college to carry out these most responsible duties.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member addressed the House at some length on this Vote on 29th February, and he has therefore exhausted his right to speak.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDoes that prevent my asking questions? I will not do more than ask bare questions, if you limit it to that.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid it does, and it is not in my power to depart from the Rules.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI think I can reply to some of the questions which were put by the hon. Gentleman on the last occasion, and which I rather anticipated he was going to put now. I do not think it would be in order to discuss the general Grant to the Royal Veterinary College on this occasion, because the only money which appears in this Vote for that college is under the head of Research. I can, however, give the House the necessary particulars about that. The Royal Veterinary College will receive for research work the sum of £650 for investigations in respect of vaccination against tuberculosis, £230 for research work into an obscure disease of sheep which has not yet got a name, £410 for exceptional research work in Johne's disease of cattle, and £100 for toxicology, making a total amount of £1,390.
§ Captain JESSELIs that the total Grant?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThat is the total Grant for research work. We have no right on this occasion to discuss the other Grants made to the college; but I may perhaps say I have recently seen a deputation from the college, and the relations of the Department to the college is now receiving our consideration. I was asked whether any Grant had been made towards the Hutton Farm, near Preston. There is no money voted under this heading for the 1176 Hutton Farm, but the relations of the Board to the farm and the work done there is receiving the Board's attention in relation to the larger Vote. With regard to experimental plots, these do not either arise under the Supplementary Vote we are taking here, but the use of experimental plots is being considered by the Board and may possibly be dealt with during the course of the next twelve months. Both the questions put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) have been answered previously, and I do not know that he would wish me to detain the House. So far as the Small Holdings Commissioners are concerned, I can only repeat that they have facilitated the work of the county councils, and, so far from creating friction, they have really been a source of gratification to the county councils, as well as to the small holders themselves.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTWith regard to the research Grant for the diseases of sheep, is this the only Grant being made with regard to the strongylus contortus intestinal disease in sheep. It is a very serious matter if it is.
§ Captain GILMOURI understand there is some Motion to divide against this Vote, but, as one interested in agriculture, I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to do anything of the kind. I am strongly of opinion, though I admit that the sums are rather small, we should accept gratefully those sums which go towards agricultural co-operation and light horse breeding in this country. It may be said, and probably with some justice, that what we have got for the furtherance of light horse breeding will not really be sufficient, but it will at least go a long way towards meeting the views of many of us on both sides of the House, and looking at it from the agricultural point of view, we are only too grateful to receive these small sums.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am perfectly willing to accede to the appeal of my hon. Friend, but it is the invariable custom of the House to take this action, not because they object to the Vote, but to testify their disapprobation and displeasure.