§ 83. Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the effect of the existing detention order and the consequent refusal of the railway companies to grant through rates has been to increase the cost of transit of cattle from Cork to York viâ Birkenhead, to the extent of 11s. per head, made up as follows: former through rate, 9s. 9d.; local rate from Cork to Birkenhead, 9s. 9d.; local rate from Birkenhead to York, 7s.; lairage charge, 4s.; total, £1 0s. 9d.; in addition to which there is a deterioration of value to the extent of about 10s. per head, owing to the detention; and whether any steps will be taken to put an end to this injury to the Irish cattle trade?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having at my request postponed this question from Monday till to-day and for the assistance which he has given me in investigating the matters referred to. I am informed that the through rate from Cork to Leeds, whence cattle were forwarded without re-booking to York, has been discontinued. So far as the Board are aware, however, there is nothing to prevent a through rate being arranged for the new route, and in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade I will endeavour to facilitate the making of this arrangement. On the general question of increases in railway rates I would also refer to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Queen's County. I have received no evidence in corroboration of the statement that cattle deteriorate during the period of detention; on the contrary, the reports which I have received from many quarters go to show that the rest and food which the animals get in the lairages improve their condition.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYWhat is the new route to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI mean the one passing through Birkenhead instead of that passing through Liverpool. May I also add that negotiations are now proceeding for the old route to be maintained through Liverpool.
§ Mr. KILBRIDEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the through transit rate from other parts of Ireland as well as Cork has been interrupted; and will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices in this and other cases, as well as in the case of the rate from Cork to York?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am aware that in she case of some railways that has been done, but not in the case of all. Where it has been done we are now carrying on communications with the railway companies, which we hope will be successful.
§ Mr. FIELDIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the railway companies are obliged by Act of Parliament to provide a through rate from one station to another in the three Kingdoms, and why is that not carried out?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThat is a question which only the Board of Trade can answer. I cannot answer it myself.
§ 85. Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked on what dates it is intended to hold the proposed inquiry regarding the charges levied on Irish cattle at Merklands, Glasgow; will it be open to the public; and will those interested have the right to appear by counsel?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe inquiry will be held on 22nd May. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.
§ Mr. BARRIEWho will conduct the inquiry?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIt will be conducted by Sir Sydney Olivier, Sir Henry Clark, and the legal adviser of the Board of Agriculture.
§ 86. Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked what was the revenue derived by the corporation of Glasgow from the importation of cattle at Merklands during 1911; what are the circumstances which appear to justify a heavier charge for lairage there than at Birkenhead; have the regulations of the Department involved capital outlay at 1376 Merklands or at Birkenhead; and, if so, how much, respectively?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed that the revenue for the twelve months ended 31st May, 1912, derived from Merklands Wharf, was £1,678. The reasonableness of the rates charged is shortly to be the subject of a public inquiry, and in the meantime I am not in a position to answer the second part of the question. I am informed that an expenditure of £12,000 at Merklands has been authorised for an extension of the wharf, and that the capital outlay involved at Birkenhead is estimated at about £6,000 or £6,500.
§ 87. Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether under the new tariff at Merklands, Glasgow, Irish calves are charged 2s. 3d. each and foreign calves 6d. each; whether for Irish sheep and lambs the charge is 4d., while foreign are admitted for 3d.; why this continued discrimination is taking place against Irish shipments; and has he addressed any protest to those responsible for it?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe figures quoted in the first and second parts of the question are correct, but the comparison between the charges made in the case of Irish animals and those made in the case of foreign animals, which must be slaughtered at the wharf, is misleading. As I have already stated, the question of the reasonableness of the charges for Irish stock at Merklands will shortly be investigated at a public inquiry.
§ Mr. BARRIEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures quoted in my question are copied from the new circular issued by his Department, in which it is distinctly stated that the charge for foreign animals is 6d., and for Irish animals 2s. 3d.?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have stated in my answer that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman are correct, but I also said that a comparison between them would be misleading.
§ Mr. BARRIEIn what way would they be misleading?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThey are misleading for the reason that Irish animals are mostly passing on to other markets and are slaughtered at inland places, and they have to spend some time alive at the wharves, whereas foreign animals are slaughtered at the wharves on their arrival.
§ Mr. BARRIEIs not that a reason why the Irish charge should be smaller?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThat is a matter for argument. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I should put both Irish animals and foreign animals on the same footing.
§ Mr. BARRIEI suggest that the discrimination should not be against Irish animals.
§ 88. Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the erection of cattle lairages at Ayr Harbour has involved an expenditure of £1,500, and that since 21st January to 19th April the tolls charged for the use of these have produced a revenue of almost £4,000; and will he say how much longer he intends to sanction this tax on Irish cattle?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed by the Ayr Steam Shipping Company, Limited, that the capital expenditure upon the lairages at Ayr largely exceeded £1,500. If the hon. Member will communicate to me the evidence upon which the statement in the question is based, I will make further inquiries.
§ Mr. BARRIEWill the President have the figures submitted to him verified?
§ Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the Stockowners' Association and various public bodies and societies have passed strong resolutions protesting against the continuance of the detention Order and whether he will consider the expediency of abolishing or modifying the Order?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANYes, I have received copies of these resolutions. I have been giving the matter the very closest attention during the last week or two and I may inform the hon. Member that matters have been coming forward much more freely in the last few days. In response to some resolutions which I have received I have this morning informed many authorities in Ireland of the conditions under which lambs actually are landed on this side.
§ Mr. FIELDIn consequence of the unsatisfactory reply I shall call attention to the matter on the Adjournment of the House to-night.