§ 40. Mr. GINNELLasked if the President of the Board of Agriculture will state what is the market price of good hay at Liverpool; whether he is aware that the lairage authorities there are charging Irish cattle traders at the rate of £10 per ton for inferior fodder; and, if he has power to remedy this, whether he will do so without delay?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed that the average price of good hay at Liverpool is £5 per ton. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; One case was brought to my notice in which hay of inferior quality was supplied, and immediate steps were taken to prevent any recurrence of this cause for complaint. If the hon. Member can give me particulars of any other case I will have it investigated.
§ 41. Mr. BARRIEasked what has been and what is the present charge for lairage of Irish cattle at Merklands, Glasgow?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed that the charge levied for lairage of Irish cattle at Merklands was, until the 20th April, inclusive, 3s. per head for the first period of twenty-four hours, but that it has now been reduced to 2s. 3d. per head 345 for the first twenty-four hours, and 6d. per head for each such subsequent period or part thereof.
§ Mr. BARRIEArising out of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he came to inform the House on 8th February, and again on 10th April, that only 2s. 6d. per head was being charged?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThere is a later question (No. 52), the answer to which will give the hon. Gentleman the information he asks for.
§ 42. Mr. BARRIEasked what has been the total number of Irish cattle landed at Merklands, Glasgow, since the detention period has been insisted upon by the Department; and what has been the total sum collected by the local authority on these cattle for lairage charges during that time?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe number of Irish cattle landed at Merklands between the 8th July last and the 19th April was 175,448. The lairage charges at the rate of 3s. per head hitherto levied would amount to £26,317, but this is a conjectural computation, and I have not been able to ascertain the precise amount actually received.
§ 43. Mr. BARRIEasked what has been the total number of Irish cattle landed at the port of Ayr since the detention period has been insisted upon by the Department, and what has been the total sum collected by the local authority on these cattle for lairage charges during that time?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe number of Irish cattle landed at Ayr between 21st January last, when the port was first opened for this traffic, and 19th April was 39,702. The lairage charges at 2s. per head would amount to £3,970, but this is only a computation, and I have no official figures.
§ 52. Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked whether repeated complaints continue to reach the Department in reference to the charge imposed for the lairage of cattle at Merklands, Glasgow; whether this charge is disproportionate to the charge imposed at other ports where Irish cattle are landed; and is it still claimed that the present detention period is either a necessary precaution as regards the spreading of disease or is in any way beneficial to the cattle themselves?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe answer to all three parts of the question is in the affirmative. I may add that in view of the complaints received by the Board a public inquiry will be held at an early date in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 32 (7) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.
§ Mr. BARRIEMay I ask whether the charge levied up to last Saturday and since the embargo was put in force, means that about £17,000 more has been collected from the owners of Irish cattle landed at Merklands than would have been collected on the same number of cattle if landed at Birkenhead?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI cannot make these calculations on the spur of the moment, and I do not think they arise out of the question.
§ Mr. W. O'BRIENWill this inquiry have any reference to the necessity for the continuance of this twelve hours' detention?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo; that is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture. The inquiry will be concerned with the charges made for lairage.
§ Mr. CRUMLEYMay I ask if this charge of 3s. includes the food supplied to the animals during their detention at this place?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANAny question with regard to the 3s. that was charged up to 19th April I ought to have notice of, as I cannot give particulars off-hand.
§ Sir J. LONSDALECan the right hon. Gentleman say to what the money is devoted?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI presume it is devoted to the general purposes of the Glasgow Corporation, whose property the wharf is.
§ Mr. BARRIEDoes the charge include food?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI cannot answer questions on this subject without notice. I cannot carry particulars of every port in my head.
§ 53. Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to insist on a lesser charge for lairage at 347 Merklands, Glasgow, for store than for fat cattle; whether the value of store cattle is on the average less than one-half; and whether this is acknowledged by the shipping and railway companies carrying them at greatly lower rates than are charged for finished animals?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI would refer the bon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question on 10th April. The value of store cattle is no doubt considerably less than that of fat cattle, and I understand that by some routes lower rates are offered for transport of the former from Ireland to places in this country, but that it is not the ordinary practice of the English railway companies to differentiate rates in their favour.
§ Mr. WATTMay I ask is it not the fact that the lairage at Merklands is superior to that of any other port, and therefore entitled to a superior price?
§ 55. Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether owners are allowed to be present when their Irish lambs are being offered hay, bruised oats, and milk; and, if not, will he state the reason for excluding them?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part therefore does not arise.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs there any danger in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's experts of colic resulting from this method of feeding young lambs?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, there has been no sign up to the present of those young lambs suffering from any complaint.
§ 56. Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the number of Irish lambs this year that par took of hay, bruised oats, and milk, respectively, during the hours of detention on this side; whether he can state the total quantity of each article of diet actually consumed apart from wastage; and what was the cost per head for the food?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI regret that I am unable to give all the particulars for which the hon. Member asks, but perhaps it will be sufficient for his purpose if I give the information which I have received from Birkenhead, where most of the lambs 348 have been landed. Five hundred and ninety-eight lambs in all have been landed, and all have partaken of hay, though I cannot state the quantity; 400 received, in addition, half a pint of new milk each, and eighty-two were also fed with special lamb food. I understand that the cost of feeding amounts to about twopence per head.
§ Mr. DELANYWould the right hon. Gentleman say how the milk is administered to those lambs?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have frequently given the information; it is a kind of feeding cup.
§ Mr. CRUMLEYMay I ask, has any responsible person ever witnessed those lambs partaking of hay and bruised oats? In my opinion you might as well give infants a month old bread and butter.
§ Mr. DELANYWould the right hon. Gentleman call this feeding of the lambs forcible feeding?
§ 58. Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will state upon what authority he recently made the statement to a deputation from the National Federation of Meat Traders, when referring to the attitude of the Irish people towards repressive restrictions, that they came as near as possible to a revolt against their own department last summer and autumn; and whether that statement was made after consultation with the head of the Irish Department?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have no recollection of the statement attributed to me in this question. But when the deputation waited on me I answered a suggestion that the Board of Agriculture should take over the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts in Ireland, and I pointed out the impracticability of this suggestion by calling attention to the insistence of the Irish race upon the right to manage their own affairs.
§ Mr. WHITEIf I send a newspaper report to the right hon. Gentleman giving the exact words I quoted, will he give an explanation of them?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have given an explanation. The point is perfectly clear. I have no intention of taking over the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act for the reasons I have mentioned.
§ Mr. WHITEThat is not the point. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman addressing a deputation of Englishmen told them that the Irish people were in revolt against the action of the Irish Department with regard to the imposing of restrictions in Ireland?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI cannot say that I used those exact words. Everybody knows that there has been a good deal of feeling in Ireland expressed against restrictions imposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Department, as there was in some districts in England.
§ Mr. W. O'BRIENIs the Irish Department responsible for the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing, and if it has not been consulted, how is the right hon. Gentleman practising the principle of allowing the Irish people to conduct their own affairs?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI do not know that that arises. I have no control over the Irish Department, and my right hon. Friend has no control over the English Department.