§ 65. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that under the Dairy, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1885, compulsory veterinary inspection of cowsheds and notification of bovine tubercular disease is now required by those district sanitary authorities only which have adopted this Order and will continue to be required by them until uniformity of action is secured as the result of the passage into law of the Milk and Dairies Bill, but that under the Tuberculosis Order of 1913, which it is proposed to bring into operation to-morrow, such inspection and notification will be optional throughout the greater part of the country, he will, in order to facilitate local procedure and to secure simultaneous uniformity of tuberculosis administration, as contemplated in 1909, make the commencement of the operation of the Tuberculosis Order contemporaneous with that of the Milk and Dairies Bill?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but I see no good reason for postponing the operation of the Tuberculosis Order.
§ 66. Mr. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the chairmen or the clerks of the 1185 Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, and other county councils have already explained the paragraph dealing with salvage sales in the circular relating to the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 as meaning that the moneys produced thereby will be available to the county councils to help them to defray their administrative expenses; and whether, seeing that in fact the difference, if any, between the amount so produced and the assessed value of the diseased animal is, under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, payable to its owner, he will, in order to prevent any injustice to stock-owners resulting from similar interpretation of this ambiguous paragraph, acquaint local authorities without delay as to its true meaning?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI was not aware until I saw this question on the Paper that the Board's circular letter of the 25th March had been interpreted by officers of county councils in a sense plainly contrary to Section 20 (3) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. By calling attention to it in this House the hon. Member has given the widest possible publicity to the mistake made by the county council officers, and I do not think it is necessary for me to take any further action.