§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to control the importation of goods infected or likely to be infected with anthrax, and to provide for the disinfection of any such goods."—[Sir Hamar Greenwood.]
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Hamar Greenwood)This is a necessary step in carrying through the Prevention of Anthrax Bill, which is a Bill for the prevention of the loathsome disease which affects those who are engaged in our woollen industry. A White Paper has been issued explaining the expenses under the Anthrax Bill by arrangement through the usual channels between the various leaders of the House, and I think, therefore, that I need say nothing further than that the passing of this stage will expedite the passage of the Bill, which is urgently needed to save life in a most important industry.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, at the end of the Question, to insert the words
provided that such payment in any one year shall not exceed ten thousand pounds.1387 I doubt whether the passage of this Resolution will expedite the Bill. If you allow all the stages of various Bills to go through that would expedite the passing of Bills, but we are here not to expedite the passing of Bills, but to see that the Bills that are passed are good Bills. The hon. Member says that this stage will result in the payment of certain moneys for a very good object. It would not be in order for me to discuss whether or not the object of the Bill is good or bad, but what I want to know from the hon. Member is how much he proposes to spend. In these days it is very important, even on a good object, to know what it is going to cost you. We have got along very well without this Bill for many years. I do not remember many cases of anthrax during the last twenty years. There have been a few, but I do not know that it is necessary to spend large sums of money in this direction, even if the spending of large sums of money by Government officials ever results in anything except salaries for Government officials. I think we ought to put in some definite sum, and, in my opinion, the sum of £10,000 ought not to be exceeded in one year. I should think that a very good amount to put in. I do not know how much it costs to disinfect goods, or how you are likely to find out that the goods are infected. We ought to have a limitation of the amount to be spent. Therefore, I move that such payment shall not exceed in any one year the sum of £10,000.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI do not know whether the gentleman who drew out this Memorandum on expenditure is gifted with a subtle or broad sense of humour. The Memorandum is simply a Second Heading speech, and really tells us nothing about the expenditure that the country will have to bear as the result of this Bill. This Memorandum differs from the White Paper on the Housing and Town Planning Bill in this respect, that that White Paper was a model of how matters should be brought before the Committee. It gives particulars of what the expenditure is likely to be in one year, and gives the general scope in small compass which will afford us an opportunity of discussing the Resolution on proper lines. But in this Memorandum relating to the anthrax expenses there is nothing about expenditure. The only time it refers to expenditure is the statement that "a special Sub-committee on disinfection estimated that the cost of a station 1388 would be somewhere about £18,000 at pre-war prices." What we want to know is, not what it would cost at pre-war prices but at present prices, and I suggest that unless my hon. Friend can give us that information now, Progress should be reported until we have the information to enable us to discuss it.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODThe hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has obviously not read the Second Reading Debate when he suggests that we can get on very well without this Bill. He ignores the fact that men have been dying annually from anthrax, and because this Bill has not been introduced.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI must ask the hon. Baronet not to misrepresent me. I said there have not been many cases of anthrax, and I did not believe this Bill, or any action of the Government, would stop it, and that I repeat.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODThere have been between 300 and 400 cases since 1896, and about 25 per cent. have been fatal. The Committee that considered this question came to the unanimous conclusion that the plan laid down by the Bill itself, for which this money is now asked, would ultimately stamp out this disease. It is obvious that you cannot stamp out a disease without the expenditure of money. I quite appreciate the criticisms of my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean), but it is extremely difficult to give any precise details of expenditure on a matter of this kind. I can only goon the unanimous Report representing all the interests involved, which reported that a station should be set up immediately, and that its pre-war price would be, approximately, £18,000. Now it may be three times that. The criticism that the exact detail of the expenditure is not set out is perfectly fair, but I submit that in a matter of this kind it is criticism that cannot be met except by mere guesswork. Further, I feel the more secure in asking the Committee to give me authority to spend this money because the Committee that has charge of the expenditure was presided over by the Member for South Leeds (Sir William Middlebrook), who for the last few years has spent a great deal of his time in bringing up to its present stage the whole question of anthrax. I hope my right hon. Friend will withdraw further opposition to this particular proposal, though I must say that his criticism is per- 1389 fectly fair, and if it were possible for me to set out in further detail the items of the expenditure I would gladly do so. With that reply I hope the Committee will give me this stage of the Resolution.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI must really call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that it says that the pre-war price is £18,000, and he says he does no know whether it will be £36,000 or £54,000. With all respect and seriousness, that cannot be the case. Any business man would at once give you an estimate. He would not say, "I cannot tell you; it may be three or four times pre-war price." It is a matter of material and men, and it could be done. If we allow this thing to go through, it will make these proceedings a farce. There must be some definite statement. With every desire to help this Bill, I must really point out no proper answer has geen given to what is admitted to be a proper question.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not want to misrepresent the hon. Baronet (Sir Hamar Greenwood), but it is a little difficult to hear when an hon. Member speaks with his back to me. I am not in any way casting any blame upon him, but I understand him to say that there have been since 1896 some 300 or 400 cases of anthrax, and that 25 per cent. have been fatal. A very simple calculation will show that during the last twenty-three years there have been an average of about four fatal cases in the year. This is very much to be regretted, but whether a small number of cases like that is justification for passing a Bill giving a blank cheque to the Government and empowering them to erect perhaps another building, something on the plan of the building I passed to-day at Slough, I do not know. The hon. Baronet does not know what it is going to cost. Ami right in thinking there is to be a building? What do they want a building at all for? There are Customs Houses where these goods are to go in. What do you want another building for? The Government have an extraordinary mania for building just at a time when we ought to be using our bricks and mortar for other purposes. What I would like to know is, what are the salaries that are going to be paid before we authorise this payment. Who are going to be employed? There must be some moderate limit fixed before we allow the Government to embark on a large expenditure of money when, on their own showing, during the last twenty-three years the deaths have only amounted to four a year.
§ Colonel WEIGALLI do not want to prevent the Government carrying out what I am certain is desirable and necessary, but, from the financial point of view, I feel that the criticism which has been made is justifiable. May I make a suggestion that if we allow £25,000 here and now that the Government will, if they wish to exceed that, have to come again. I see the difficulty of an exact estimate in the conditions that prevail to-day, but, at the same time, for £25,000 a good deal can be done even in the existing conditions.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKThe right hon. Gentleman (Sir Donald Maclean) is no doubt right in insisting on playing his favourite rôle and insisting on the strict letter of the law for financial purity's sake, but may I suggest that it is possible to overdo it. This disease is a horrible and disgusting disease, and one which has long baffied scientists; and, supposing it does cost double £15,000, I do not think we ought to boggle over it. My hon Friend opposite says we must look at it from the financial point of view; we ought to look at it from the human point of view.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI should be quite willing to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, and substitute "£25,000" for "£10,000," but I think we ought to have a limit. You are not going to cure the evil by wasting money. You will cure it by moderate expenditure, as well as by an immoderate expenditure on building. What I conceive to be the result of all the Government efforts is that money has been spent but nothing has been done. I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do trust the House will put some limit to this vastly increasing expenditure which is going on every day. It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down and asking us to be economical, as he did in his Budget speech, if the very first time Members here try to be economical the Government refuse to accept their suggestion. It is the Government who ought to come forward and thank us for having moved an Amendment of this sort, and to prevent and restrain their natural impulses to spend other people's money. I will move to withdraw my Amendment, and will move it in the other form.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1391§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, at the end, to add the words
Provided that such payment in any one year shall not exceed £25,000.
§ Sir D. MACLEANMy objection is not the question of limitation at all. So far as I am concerned, I am not bothering whether it is £25,000 or £50,000. I am asking for a simple business thing, and that is, that the Government should comply with what the Leader of the House gave us an undertaking in regard to, and that is, that they should submit a business estimate for the Committee; and this is not a business estimate. If you are going to be human on sensible lines you had better proceed on business lines. The whole House is not going to be swept off its feet by that kind of thing. I am heartily in support of this Bill, but what I want is the ordinary check of any ordinary business man to be applied to this. That being done, my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in regard to the Resolution. He can submit his estimate, and the House will agree to it.
Sir WILLIAM WHIT'LAI want to enter a protest about the humanity question. In belittling that, you are dealing with a question of human life, and not with a question of the life of dogs. Anyone who has seen a case of anthrax would never forget it. I impress on the House not to tie the hands of the hon. Baronet (Sir Hamar Greenwood) in this matter. It is saving at the spigot and letting out at the bung hole.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODNo one appreciates more than I the need for economy. Personally I do not like reflections on the Memorandum drawn up by my Department, but I also appreciate the fact that the House of Commons is entitled to the fullest possible particulars in every detail of any proposed expenditure, and so much impressed am I by this fact that I agree to withdraw this, so that if possible we may submit better details of the proposed expenditure, and I hope that this may be done to-morrow.
§ Sir D. MACLEANYou can take it any time you like.
§ Sir H. GREENWOODAnd that whenever it can be put on the Order Paper it may pass through all its stages. I do not think that the view of the right hon. Baronet that even four deaths in this connection is something that one should 1392 not worry about, or that the House of Commons is going to stick at spending a few thousand pounds to save the lives of people in one of our greatest industries, is one that would find many supporters in this House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI never said anything of the sort.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)Do I understand the hon. Member to move to report Progress?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Sir F. BANBURYAs a matter of personal explanation may I say that the hon. Baronet has completely misrepresented me. I never said that we should not spend money to save four lives. I said that I objected, as I still object, to giving the Government a blank cheque on the ground that they can spend any amount of money they like for this particular purpose. I do not think it is going to advantage that purpose, to spend an unlimited sum of money. I have never said that I object to spending money for this purpose, provided that it is a reasonable sum, and that this House exercises the proper control which it is its duty to exercise.
§ Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.