CLAUSE 1.—(Importation of Canadian store cattle.)

HC Deb 11 December 1922 vol 159 cc2413-69

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, Canadian store cattle may, if the conditions specified in this Section are fulfilled, be landed in Great Britain without being required to be dealt with and slaughtered in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act").

(2) The conditions to be fulfilled for the purposes of this Section are as follows:

1. (a) The cattle must before shipment have been marked in such manner as the Minister may prescribe, and must have been shipped from a port in the Dominion of Canada:
2. (b) The Minister must be satisfied—
1. (i) that the cattle were for a period of three days immediately before shipment kept separate from other animals, and were examined from time to time during that period by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and in particular were thoroughly so examined immediately before shipment, and that on such examination no animal examined was found to be affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease;
2. (ii) that the cattle were not at the time of shipment affected with mange or any other disease which is declared by the Minister to be a disease within the meaning of this provision;
3. (iii) that, if at any time within twenty-eight days before the shipment of the cattle the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain had had on board any animal which had been exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in any country other than Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada, or had entered or been within any such port or place, the vessel was before the shipment of the cattle effectively cleansed and disinfected to the satisfaction of the duly authorised representative of the Government of the Dominion of Canada;
4. (iv) that the cattle were during the voyage kept separate from other animals and daily examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on 2414 such examination no animal examined was found to be affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease;
5. (v) that the vessel did not during the voyage enter any port or place outside Great Britain:
3. (c) The cattle must be landed at a port and at a landing place approved by the Minister for the purposes of this Section.

(3) Cattle landed under this Section shall bo detained at the landing place at which they are landed and there isolated from all other animals for such period, commencing from the time at which the landing of the cattle is completed, as may be required for the thorough examination of the cattle by veterinary inspectors and the issue of licences for their movement, and no cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless and until the movement is authorised by a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.

(4) If on the examination of any cattle lauded under this Section the veterinary inspector suspects any animal of being affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease, he shall cause all the cattle then in the landing place to be detained therein until he has satisfied himself as to whether the suspected animal is or is not so affected, and for the purposes of the examination the inspector may cause the suspected animal to be slaughtered.

(5) If it is found on any such examination that any animal is affected with any such disease as aforesaid, the owner or person in charge of any cattle then in the landing place shall cau6" all those cattle as having been exposed to the infection of the disease to be slaughtered within such time as the veterinary inspector may fix, and in any such case none of the cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless in the opinion of the inspector it is necessary so to do for the purpose of slaughter and then only in accordance with such conditions, if any, as may be imposed by the licence authorising the movement.

(6) If the person whose duty it is under the last preceding Sub-section to cause any cattle to be slaughtered fails to cause the cattle to be slaughtered within the time fixed in that behalf, the Minister may, but without prejudice to the liability of that person to proceedings for an offence under the principal Act, cause the cattle to be slaughtered and to be disposed of in such manner as he thinks fit, and any sum received by the Minister in respect of the sale of the carcases of any cattle so slaughtered shall, after the deduction therefrom of the expenses of slaughter and disposal and the amount of any importation fees, be paid to the owner of the cattle.

(7) The Minister may by Order suspend the operation of this Section during any period during which he has reason to believe that cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease exists in the Dominion of Canada, and for such further period after any such disease has ceased so to exist as, in his opinion, is necessary for the purpose of avoiding the risk of the introduction of the disease into Great Britain.

(8) In this Act the expression "Canadian" in relation to any animal means "born and roared in the Dominion of Canada," and the expression "store cattle" means castrated male or splayed female bovine animals.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I beg to move, in Subsection (2, a), to leave out the word "marked" and to insert instead thereof the word "branded."

I do not desire to interfere with the smooth working of this Bill. The object of the Amendment is to secure that no injustice shall be done to home cattle without interfering with the importation of Canadian cattle. The Bill, as drawn, provides that one of the conditions under which they are to be imported is that the cattle before shipment must have been marked in such manner as the Minister may prescribe. The method of marking these cattle is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister. I desire that the Committee should settle the method of marking, and the Amendment is to leave out the word "marked," and to insert the word "branded." Branding is a permanent mark. It is done, as a rule, on the horn, and I want to secure that Canadian cattle brought into this country shall be known as Canadian cattle and sold as Canadian cattle. One of the objections raised in many agricultural districts, whether rightly or wrongly, was founded on the opinion that it was the intention to bring Canadian stores here, land them, put them out to pasture for a few weeks, and sell them as best English beef. It is to avoid anything of that sort that I bring forward this Amendment. If the cattle are branded, that cannot take place; to whatever market or whatever butcher they go, the mark of Canadian origin will be clear and will be recognised, if there be a permanent mark by branding. If, on the other hand, they are only marked by being clipped on the hair as is quite common when cattle are marked for temporary purposes, English cattle are likely to suffer, and Canadian cattle may be sold as best English beef.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders)

I understand that there is a strong feeling amongst some people against the practice of branding animals, and there is an equally effective method of marking by tags that is not objected to, so I do not think it is wise to limit the discretion of the Minister in this matter.

Mr. CAUTLEY

What is the objection to branding?

Sir R. SANDERS

I do not know, but I have heard complaints about it. All that this Sub-section does is to give the Minister discretion to see that the cattle are marked in such a way as he and his officers think best.

Colonel NICHOLSON

I cannot see the objection to having the cattle branded, and there is great objection to marking them by tags. There is no reason to suppose that marking by tags is permanent. Already a great many cattle are branded. Every breeder of a registered herd in the old days branded his cattle with his mark and with the number of the cattle, and there are at the present time a large number of cattle branded on their horns. There is no objection whatever to branding cattle, and, if the Canadian cattle were properly branded with the letter "C" or something of that kind, it would be a good way of tracing them throughout the country. It is very important that they should be properly marked. Unless they are properly marked, they may be sent on to a farm for six days and then sold, perhaps as English-bred cattle, which they are not. It is most important that they should be marked, so that any man going into the market can tell at once whether they are Canadian beasts or not. At the present time the Shorthorn Society of Great Britain insists upon every animal being marked with the owner's initials and the number of the cattle. Again, every owner of a flock of any important breed who registers that flock has to mark the sheep in some shape or form. At the present moment, if you happen to be a member of the Southdown Society, you have to have all your sheep marked according to the conditions laid down by the society, who send their markers round every year to mark the lambs. There would therefore be no difficulty whatever in having the Canadian cattle branded before they came into this country. It would be a great assistance to the Board of Agriculture in tracing them, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter and do something to prevent the spread of disease in this country, or, at all events, to enable people to recognise whether a beast is Canadian or home bred.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I am sorry that the hon. Member who spoke last has referred again to disease. It is no doubt desirable that we should have some mark of recognition of the cattle coming in, but I understand there are strong objections on the part of the Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to branding, and there is also the objection that branding in any other part would injure the hide. There is, however, available a system of marking by a tag fastened to the ear in such a way that it cannot be detached.

Captain ELLIOT

Is it not the case that there would be much more pain involved in attaching a tag to the ear than in branding on the horn? I am not speaking in favour of either one or the other method, but branding the horn would not injure the animal.

Mr. HARDIE

What will the right hon. Gentleman do in the case of polled cattle?

Dr. CHAPPLE

Branding with an iron is a very cruel thing, although permanent and to be detected even after the beast is killed. Animals may also be marked with a chemical. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by marking? Does it include branding? Does he mean branding with a hot iron or with chemicals?

Mr. LAMBERT

What method of marking does the right hon. Gentleman propose to adopt? Will the tags be removable or will they be permanent? Supposing a Canadian animal is brought down into the Bridge water Division, will people there be able to know that that animal came, from Canada?

Mr. SHORT

You can tell by his dialect?

Mr. LAMBERT

Perhaps the hon. Member is more acquainted with bovine dialect than I am. After all, it is in the discretion of the Minister. Will he now give us the assurance that any mark placed on these animals cannot be obliterated and will be irremovable?

Mr. GARDINER

I wonder if hon. Members are aware that some of the breeders of this country have met together and considered this question. Take the Shorthorn Society. Their regulations are clear and definite. It is a question of marking on the ear with indelible ink pr something of that kind, and if they have considered, after all their ramifications and inquiries, that that is the best possible method of doing it, I think we should leave the word as it is in the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give a definite assurance that he will insist upon an indelible mark, as I take it that that is really the object of my hon. and learned Friend in moving the Amendment? The branding is obviously indelible; if on the horns I believe it is painless, and it is readily seen, and those are really the objects which have to be attained. It seems to me that branding would be the simple method which this House might impose permanently. I agree that, although it may be necessary, and often is, to leave discretion in the hands of a Minister, we do not want to do it when it is unnecessary, but I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some reason why in this case it is necessary to leave the discretion in his hands. We do not want to divide the Committee against him, or to show any unreasonable spirit in this matter whatever. We want indelible marking which is easily visible, and branding seems to fulfil those requirements.

Sir R. SANDERS

I think we all really want the same thing, and I quite realise the importance of having a mark which shall be indelible. The Canadians say that they have a method of tagging which is indelible, and by which you can always recognise their animals. I want to try that, and if that does not answer, then it will probably come to branding.

Captain ELLIOT

Will the right hon Gentleman be disposed to allow us simply to insert the word "indelibly"?

Sir F. BANBURY

I was going to suggest that that might be done. The Amendment is to leave out the word "marked"; if my right hon. Friend agrees that "marked" should be left out, we should have to insert certain words, and we might then insert "indelibly marked." Although I am prepared to take the assurance of the Minister that he will see that the cattle are indelibly marked, we might have a new Minister in three or four years' time who would know nothing of what has been going on, and therefore it ought to he made clear in the Act itself.

Sir R. SANDERS

I am quite prepared to accept something of that sort.

The CHAIRMAN

The proper course would be to let the word "marked" stand part of the Clause, and to insert the word "indelibly."

Mr. CAUTLEY

If the word "marked" stands part, shall we not have got so far in the Bill that we cannot go back in order to insert the word "indelibly"?

The CHAIRMAN

The word "indelibly" could come after the word "marked."

Mr. PRINGLE

Would it not be better to have the Amendment withdrawn, and then to insert the word "indelibly" after the word "marked"?

The CHAIRMAN

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I beg to move, in Subsection (2, a), after the word "marked," to insert the word "indelibly."

I should like to add the words "and easily seen." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)—[at the end of Subsection (2, a) to insert the words: "and any condition imposed on the importation of British cattle into Canada, shall be imposed on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain"]— should come as a separate Sub-section, and the proper place for it, I think, will be at the end of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, a), to insert a new paragraph— (b) The vessel to be used for the voyage must have been inspected by the representa- tive of the Minister in Great Britain, or by the duly authorised representative of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, and found to be suitable and properly fitted and equipped for the humane treatment of the cattle during the voyage, and the avoidance of unnecessary suffering by the cattle. I do not want to delay the passage of this Bill by one minute, and I hope there will be no attempt to delay its passage, but I feel that either these words should be inserted or we should get some assurance from my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill that the existing Regulations, which, I believe, do in theory cover this point, should be rigorously applied in the future. Everyone who knows anything about the subject is unanimous as to the great sufferings of the beasts on their way across the Atlantic, especially during the winter months and in bad weather, unless proper steps are taken to sling the animals and to look after them properly en voyage. It is perfectly possible to avoid this suffering to animals. We all know that in the ease of valuable pedigree beasts that are being shipped across to the Argentine or anywhere else for breeding purposes, very great care is taken to see that proper slings are provided and that these animals cannot suffer in any unnecessary way through bad weather. The same is true in regard to race horses. That shows it is possible to avoid this dreadful suffering, and I think the Regulations should be very strictly applied and that the right hon. Gentleman should give directions that the most minute care should be taken, especially at the beginning of this traffic, so as to establish precedents for the proper inspection of the vessels, and I think it would be a very good thing if they could be inspected on arrival in a few cases, and before the cattle are unshipped. I need not enlarge on this subject at all. The facts are familiar, I think, largely owing to the well meant efforts of certain humane societies at the time of the agitation last year for the removal of the embargo. I have always been in favour of the removal of the embargo, and I recognise that one of the most powerful weapons that could be used against its removal was the humanitarian question of the shipping of the beasts across the Atlantic. For these reasons, I hope my Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. HAYDAY

I support the view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy).

Sir R. SANDERS

It is already the law.

Mr. HAYDAY

It must have been very recent, then. I have journeyed on some of the cattle-carrying boats, and I assert that many of those boats are not suitable or fitted to carry deck cargo. The sheds are in the main temporary, and the first rough weather you run into I have seen the whole of these sheds broken up and cattle drifting from one side of the boat to the other, and after you come through that rough weather, I have seen cattle with broken legs and horns torn off, which could not be destroyed on board in consequence of insurance conditions, but they were strung up as soon as ever they reached dock and some insurance agent has been there to witness their slaughter. If the Regulations are sufficiently strong to cover this sort of case, I have nothing mores to say, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that now that we are recommencing what is likely to be a regular traffic, I hope we shall secure, as far as possible, such conditions as will secure humane treatment for these cattle. When men on a night watch are passing through the alleyways, particularly if the boat is carrying a deck cargo of this live cattle, walking through a narrow passage, with the swaying of the boat, many a man going on duty has often found himself more or less injured in consequence of the narrow and confined conditions in order1 to get a large number of head of cattle on the deck, and when one has witnessed even a chief mate or a skipper, with revolver in hand, sending the cattlemen in between the beasts in order to lash them to the rail for fear of too much weight jumping on one side and endangering the ship, it seems to me that that is rather a state of affairs that ought not to be permitted now that this traffic is likely to be recommenced. I can assure hon. Members, as an eye-witness, that I have seen these things.

Sir R. SANDERS

From Canada?

Mr. HAYDAY

I do not know about the Canadian route. I was on the American route, and I have been on vessels on the Canada route, the old National line, common amongst seamen in that age as being in the category of "coffin" ships, but used mainly for the purpose of cattle carrying, and distinctly unsuitable. I hope some such inspection as is asked in this Amendment will not only be forthcoming, but rigidly enforced in the interests of the safety of the ship and the humane treatment of the cattle, and in order to ensure that the traffic shall be recommenced under better conditions than existed in the past.

Mr. FOOT

The matter was discussed rather slightly, we thought, in the last Parliament, when the Resolution came before the House for consideration. I, on that occasion, voted for the removal of the embargo, although I was influenced, as most of us were, I think, by the arguments that were put before us by the Royal Humane Society. We were then given a very definite assurance by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill), and we were promised on that occasion, very definitely, that there would be some safeguards against any continuance of some of the old evils that were almost too sickening to read about. I would like to remind the Committee of that promise, given in the course of a speech made by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, as follows: We have heard arguments about cruelty to animals on board ships. Surely, we need not argue about that. It must be a matter of regulation, and of strong regulation. There will be no dispute with Canada about that. There will be no dispute with any part of the British Empire about that. By all means, Regulations must be made to protect these beasts from being ill-treated or landed in a damaged and broken condition. These Regulations will add to the existing natural protection of distance, both by sea and land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th July, 1922; cols. 167–168, Vol. 157.] It was on the strength of that promise and that assurance that I cast my vote as I did. Although I am concerned for a cheap meat supply in this country, I would not vote for it if it had to be obtained as a result of the continuance of cruelties that were a reproach to this country. I hope it will not be suggested that, because cruelty exists now in the bringing of animals from Ireland, therefore we ought to tolerate similar conditions as far as America is concerned. I am not responsible for the earlier conditions, but our vote is being asked for now, and I certainly should not support the further stages of the Bill unless I could have same assurance that the evils of the earlier conditions shall be safeguarded against for the future.

Sir R. SANDERS

I quite agree with every word that has been said about taking every precaution to prevent unnecessary suffering, but we have powers already. They are conferred on us by the Act of 1894, which lays it down that the Minister has power to make Orders for prohibiting the conveyance of animals by any specified vessel to or from any port in Great Britain, for such time as the Board may consider expedient, for insuring for animals carried by sea a proper supply of food and water and proper ventilation during the voyage, and for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during the passage; and an Order has been made under these powers which is able to contain all the requirements necessary to secure humane transport of these animals, although, of course, it is possible from time to time that weather conditions may cause suffering. There is already sufficient trade in cattle from Canada to enable the Ministry's officers to secure information as to the operation of the Orders, and they are satisfied that the Orders are being complied with. Apart from any humane considerations, this may reasonably be expected to be the case, because, with indifferent conditions of transport, serious loss would be incurred by the owners of the animals, and possibly the charterers of the vessel. The powers of the Ministry are, therefore, quite adequate to deal with this case, and I certainly will do everything in my power to see that they are enforced.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I ask the learned Attorney-General whether the words "to or from any port in Great Britain" means coastwise traffic, or from ports in other parts of the world?

Mr. CAUTLEY

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether it applies to foreign ships?

Sir F. BANBURY

That is the point.

Sir R. SANDERS

The Canadians enforce similar provisions for the protection of animals in transport, and the two Governments are acting in concert in this matter.

Sir W. DAVISON

Those interested in this matter are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic reply, and, while we recognise that the Order which has been made to a very large extent meets this matter, would it not be very much better, considering the great anxiety which is felt in all parts of the House, as well as throughout the country, if the contents of the Order were actually put in this Bill, so that there could be no doubt about it whatever?

Sir R. SANDERS

It is already in another Act.

Sir W. DAVISON

Would it not be a good thing, as this is a Bill specially dealing with the importation of animals from Canada, to have it put in in black and white, in order to remove the anxiety of a large number of people throughout the country as well as of Members in all parts of the House?

Sir F. BANBURY

My question was, What does "to or from any port in Great Britain" mean? Does it mean from ports in other parts of the world, or does it mean coastwise traffic i The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is that he and the Canadian Government are agreed on this subject, and in Canada they have a law which deals with it. But, under this Bill, we are going to allow the importation of cattle from all parts of the world. Certainly under Clause 4 they can come in from all parts of the world.

Captain ERNEST EVANS

There is another consideration to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. This Clause lays down conditions under which the embargo is to be removed, and if any farmer in Canada is dissatisfied, he will turn to this Clause to find out what are the conditions under which he is entitled to send his store cattle to Great Britain. If he does not see anything in this Clause dealing with humane treatment in shipment, he will turn round and say, "Where is the authority to do that?" It is no use pointing out to him the Act of 1894. He will look to this as his charter, and, as there seems no reason for not accepting the Amendment, I would press the right hon. Gentleman to agree to it.

Mr. GWYNNE

I gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Act of 1894 says the Minister "may." What we want to say is "shall." It is only a Regulation under the Act which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, and, moreover, many of us are satisfied that, since that Act was passed, acts of cruelty have taken place, and, therefore, the Board did not exercise their rights. We know, for instance, in the case of pit ponies and horse traffic, that the Minister has power, but it was not exercised until pressure was brought to bear in this House, and I hope that we shall insist that the Minister "shall" take action.

Mr. BROAD

I certainly hope the Amendment will be accepted by the Minister in charge. He was very sympathetic, from the humanitarian point of view, but he seemed to rely on the self-interest of those concerned in the traffic to see that they did not lose by not making proper provisions. The experience of the past proved that there was more profit to be made by putting great superstructures on the boats and by crowding the animals together. I do not think it is sufficient to say that the Minister may act when his attention is drawn to these things. I think the Committee should insist on it being inserted in the Act, and that machinery of inspection shall be provided so that we can point to the Minister's responsibility if it be not properly carried out. We know that the conditions for carrying fattened cattle or breeding stock are necessarily more humane, in order to safeguard the animals, as these fat cattle have to be killed on landing and must, therefore, be in something like condition to be killed. But when creatures are brought over here as store cattle to make it profitable, I am afraid, they will be crowded on decks in superstructures, and packed in such a way as to make it impossible for them to come over here without great suffering unless the weather be very calm. We have to see that this suffering is prevented as far as possible by Regulations laid down in the Bill. No doubt, with the revival of this traffic, the conditions may be fairly satisfactory, but we know that as time goes on, the people concerned in the traffic get more and more callous, and hulls will be retained in service when they ought to be destroyed. The conditions are unsafe, are brutalising for the men, besides being horrible for the animals. I hope, therefore, every precaution will be taken to see that there is a continuity of inspection, and that there is not a degeneration to the state of things which existed before 1914. I do not think, if the traffic were revived in the same condition as it was before 1914, the public would tolerate it very long. I hope we shall not again be gradually used to see these tortures inflicted on the animals, and that, if this traffic is to be reinstated, it shall be reinstated with every safeguard for the creatures, no matter if it means some little less profit to those concerned in the trade.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will answer a question to settle the difficulty, because I think we are all agreed that the precautions here indicated are desirable. The answer of the Minister is that these are already in operation under the Act of 1914, but they are only in operation there by a power of regulation. Would the learned Attorney-General tell us whether the acceptance of this Amendment would in any way conflict with the powers which are already in existence, or create any legislative confusion? If it would not, there cannot be any possible objection to inserting these words. There may be some objection, of course, but I cannot see it. Is it really a legal question? It is not a question of right or wrong, because we are all agreed on the same thing. But we do not want to create confusion in the law, and if the Attorney-General tells us that, from the legal and constructive point of view of legislation, there is any objection to this Amendment, then, of course, I shall feel it my duty to support the Government in resisting it, hoping that they will bring in something better on Report. If, however, he says there is no legal objection, I do not see why we should not accept the Amendment.

Dr. CHAPPLE

I think this Amendment deserves our support, and ought to go into the Bill. I have seen cattle conveyed overseas. One of the greatest dangers is defective structure. In the Act of 1894, and in the Regulations arising therefrom, there is no provision for seeing that the ship is equipped and fitted in such a way as to bear the strain of rough weather. But the greatest cruelty and the greatest damage I have ever seen at sea have been due to the equipment of the ship and the structure between the stalls giving way, so that all the cattle are thrown together. Once there is a break in the compartments, through a storm, the weight of two or three cattle breaks the rest, and nearly all the damage is due to defective structure. The Act of 1894 and the Regulations refer to humane treatment with regard to feeding, water and conditions of that kind. The Amendment here specially sets out that the ships must "be suitable and properly fitted and equipped." This is a stronger Amendment than the Act of 1894 or the Regulations. I see no objection to this going in. I see a very great advantage indeed, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend ought to press it upon the Committee.

Mr. MATHEW

What power is there at present to keep out cattle on an ill-equipped ship? I cannot find any under the Regulations. Assuming a ship from Canada arrives in this condition, what power is there to prevent landing at present?

Mr. FALCONER

Before the learned Attorney-General replies, may I say that I see no objection to the Amendment so far as Canadian cattle are concerned? The only objection I can see is that it will give a direction to the Minister which he will not only have to apply to Canadian cattle, hut to all cattle. If the Attorney-General said it would be so drafted as to limit it to Canadian cattle—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it seems to me that if you are going to deal with cattle from Ireland and cattle from Canada, it is desirable that you should entrust the Minister of Agriculture with power to make Regulations which are suitable for each, instead of laying down absolutely what he has got to do, and to treat the Canadian and Irish cattle in the same way. One class of ships may be suitable for bringing them over the Channel and another for bringing them from Canada.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)

I will try to answer the questions that have been put. First, in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), there is no doubt at all that the power given by Subjections (23), (24) and (25) of Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act does apply to vessels whether coastwise vessels or vessels coming from a foreign port. The words are quite wide enough to cover vessels coming from any port, and, in fact, the Order dated, I think, 1912, does not apply only to coastwise traffic.

Sir F. BANBURY

The first words of the Section are, "The Board of Agriculture may make such orders," so that it is not imperative that they shall, but it is entirely optional upon them.

Sir D. HOGG

That is quite right. If my right hon. Friend had waited a minute or two, I was coming to that next, but I have to deal with these things one by one. The next point I want to answer was that raised by an hon. Member opposite, who said that anybody looking at this Bill would regard it as his charter, and would not look any further. He would find himself in great difficulties if he did, because the Bill itself says: This Act ma5T be cited as the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, and the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914, and this Act may be cited together as the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1922 I was asked whether or not there was any legislative difficulty in putting into this Bill a Clause which renders obligatory what is in the power of the Ministry to do under the Act of 1894. Quite frankly, I do not think that I can say that there is any such difficulty. We have in the Act of 1894 a provision that the Board "may" make regulations, and regulations have been made. I cannot say, and I cannot tell the Committee, that there is any reason why, if the Committee sees fit, in order to be en the safe side we should not make mandatory by this Bill what is possible under the old Act. Therefore, if I might venture to suggest it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, we might, I think, accept this Amendment. The answer to the last point which has just been raised is that the Section in which the Amendment is inserted is a Section dealing with Canadian store cattle. There is power later in the Bill to deal with animals coming from other places, Clause 4 provides that: The Minister may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by Order authorise animals from an}- British Dominion other than the Dominion of Canada to be landed in Great Britain without being subject to the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, if the animals are landed in accordance with such conditions, to be prescribed in the Order and not being less stringent than those applicable in the case of Canadian animals, as may, in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary or expedient for preventing the introduction of disease into Great Britain. If, therefore, this Amendment be passed, I think it would be quite possible that it would become obligatory on the Minister allowing cattle in from Australia or South Africa to make analogous provisions in respect to cattle from those countries corresponding to that which obtains in this Amendment.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

What about the case of Ireland?

Sir D. HOGG

This relates to Canada. I do not think it mentions Ireland. I do not think, speaking without having looked very carefully, that Clause 1 in any way affects animals coming from Ireland. It may be that some qualification might be necessary to include Ireland if the Committee thought desirable.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

It was Clause 4 of the Bill to which I was referring. May I ask whether the conditions referred to attach to the Irish Free State?

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg leave to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "(b) The Minister must be satisfied."

The CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the right hon. Baronet that if this Amendment be carried, some consequential Amendments will be necessary.

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes, I appreciate that point, Mr. Hope. The point that I desire to make here is that the Minister would seem in this case to be taking away the duty of either the local authority or the port authority, or it might be the court of law. The position might arise if these words were left in that the local authority might say they were satisfied the regulations had been observed, and they might bring an action for infringement of the Act of 1894. The Minister might say to the local authority that expressed themselves satisfied that he was satisfied they were wrong. Besides, it is not for the new custom to continue which is that the Minister usurps the power of the courts of law by saying whether or not the Act, in his opinion, is or is not being carried out. I am quite sure if the Committee see the point I am putting, they will see this is a practical policy. They will accept my Amendment, and allow these words to go out, subject, of course, to any observations that may be made by the learned Attorney-General.

Sir D. HOGG

If my right hon. Friend looks into it a little further, I think he will be satisfied that the Bill is stronger as it stands than it would be with the addition of his proposed Amendment. For this reason: if the Amendment were carried, the result would be that there would be an offence under this Act if, in fact, the cattle were not for three days before shipment kept separate from the other animals. Anyone who has had experience of the Courts of Law knows the difficulty there would be to prove the negative. In this case it would probably be an expensive and a difficult thing to prove. The effect of this provision is that it is not necessary to prove that they were not kept separate on the other side, but an offence is committed, unless the Minister is satisfied to the contrary. Therefore you have a much more stringent provision and a much easier method of convicting anybody who attempts to evade the provisions of this Bill. The object of the provision is simplicity and the saving of expense. Suppose anyone attempts to evade the provision, we shall be able to say it does not matter whether you have kept these animals separate. You have not satisfied us that you have done so, and unless you have satisfied us on that, and that you have complied with these conditions, you have committed an offence.

Mr. GWYNNE

How is the Minister of Agriculture going to impose these Regulations?

Sir D. HOGG

Unless the Regulations are carried out, then the animal comes within the Act of 1894, and has to be slaughtered immediately on arrival.

Sir F. BANBURY

To a certain extent the right hon. and learned Gentleman has satisfied my objections, but he has not really dealt with my chief objection, namely, that it is not right in this matter for any Minister to usurp the functions of the Courts of Law. But the right hon. learned Gentleman has shown that under certain circumstances it would be very difficult to prove in a Court of Law whether or not these three days have been observed. Under the circumstances I am inclined to think, seeing there is always an exception to a rule, that possibly this will be one in which the Minister may or may not usurp the functions of the Court of Law. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. GWYNNE

How can the Minister tell when this offence has been committed?

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid we cannot go into that point at the moment.

Mr. GWYNNE

Perhaps I may ask the Attorney-General just to explain. I only want to know how this thing is to be carried out. Is the only way of enforcing the penalty for the animal to be slaughtered on arrival? Will the Minister have the facts at Whitehall? How can the matter be known until after the animals have landed?

Mr. PRETYMAN

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the kind of machinery that will be in force to see that this Regulation is carried out?

Sir D. HOGG

I will answer the first question and leave my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to answer the second question. In reply to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), as the law now stands, no animal may be imported from Canada except for slaughter. This Bill says that if certain conditions are fulfilled then the animals need not be slaughtered, but may be scattered all over England and Scotland. Before the animals can be moved for the market or anywhere else, the owner or the importer must satisfy the local authorities that these conditions have been fulfilled, and unless they have been so fulfilled the animal remains under the Act of 1894.

Mr. GWYNNE

Can we have some information as to the certificate?

Sir R. SANDERS

The details of the administrative arrangements have not yet been settled, but it seems clear that in every case the Minister will have to acquire a certificate from a responsible officer of the Dominion that the prescribed examination in Canada has been carried out, that the cattle were not found on such examination to be affected with mange or other disease referred to in the Bill, and where the Bill requires cleansing and disinfection of the vessel, that this has been done. It will also be necessary to have a declaration by the master of the vessel, or some other suitable person, that the animals were kept separate and examined during the voyage, and that the vessel did not, during the voyage, enter any port or place outside Great Britain. I may add that it is part of the arrangement with the Canadian Government that the British Government shall maintain a small inspectorate in Canada to supervise the arrangements made by the Canadian Government to secure the proper observance, in Canada, of the conditions imposed by this Clause.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That seems quite satisfactory, provided it is understood that these certificates will be in the hands of the Minister before the animals are landed.

Amendment negatived.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b, i), after the word "three," to insert the word "clear."

5.0 P.M.

I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that there is no quarantine in this country. Apparently, there is an impression that when the cattle land here they are in quarantine, but there is no quarantine on this side; in fact, there is no detention at all at the port of landing. As far as I can understand these proposals, the cattle may not be kept in an enclosure for more than 72 hours. After that where are they to be taken, if not sold, except to slaughter? The method suggested by this Bill seems to me the best way of distributing disease, and, therefore, I think it is all important that there should be three clear days' detention immediately before shipment on the Canadian side.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I hope this Amendment will not be accepted, because it will only make it more difficult to work the proposals contained in the Bill. The Mover of this Amendment, apparently, desires to arrange that the period of detention on the other side should be five days and not three. I think the Minister who has to carry out this Measure has plenty of discretion and power to see that the three days' provision is observed.

Sir F. BANBURY

In reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken, I cannot see how putting in the word "clear" to make it read "three clear days" can possibly make it into five days. At any rate, that is not the kind of arithmetic to which I have been accustomed. I believe the intention of the Government is to have three clear days, and if that is so why not put it in the Bill?

Sir R. SANDERS

It is already five days in the Act of 1894. What is now proposed is really three clear days.

Captain ELLIOT

Would it not be the simplest way to say 72 hours? I understand the right hon. Gentleman is willing to consider this matter on Report. We ought to have this made as clear as we can get it. I would point out that this is a Regulation enforcing something on the Canadians and not on this side, and it is a matter which ought to be made perfectly clear.

Sir R. SANDERS

You are really proposing to put in something less than the Canadians have already agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WHEATLEY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b, i), after the word "with" ["with cattle plague"], to insert the word "tuberculosis."

My object is to obtain some measure of protection for the unfortunate people who get disease through this industry. I do not think I am asking too much when I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the same consideration to the poor children as they are claiming for the cattle. It would be difficult to exaggerate the extent to which tuberculosis already exists amongst the herds in this country, and if we are to import more tuberculosis the position in this country will become almost hopeless. Anyone who has had much experience in the work of local authorities recognises how much havoc is being played amongst the health of the people by the consumption of diseased meat and impure milk, and an additional burden is being placed on the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country in consequence. At the present time it is the practice of local authorities when an animal is found to be suffering from tuberculosis merely to excise the diseased part, and allow the remainder of the carcase to be offered for sale to the general public That diseased part is not usually offered for sale in the west end district of the city, and I have no doubt if it were proposed to have it used in the restaurant at the House of Commons I should have no difficulty in getting a majority against this proposal.

Nevertheless, it is sold in the poor districts of the city among the class of people who have the very lowest power of resistance to disease. There is no label attached to it, nor anything to warn the purchaser of the risk incurred in consuming it, and in this way tuberculosis is spread more particularly among the residents of our large industrial districts. The result is that, apart from the children who are killed outright, we have in every one of these large areas hundreds of children who are permanently incapacitated by this form of disease, and there are hundreds suffering from glandular, spinal and other forms of tuberculosis. In the city from which I come we have had to spend quite recently an enormous sum of money in providing facilities for the treatment of this disease. We had to erect one hospital with accommodation for 440 beds at a cost of £250,000. A large number of those beds are occupied by children with diseases which have their source in bovine tuberculosis. We are now adding another hospital at a cost of £300,000 to meet the requirements of the city, and we are not sure that even then we shall have done all that is necessary.

I have had various opportunities of going through these hospitals and examining the children there, and I say unhesitatingly that I regard this disease as constituting one of the most drastic tragedies in working-class life. For these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to protect these unfortunate people. It would be a great improvement in agriculture if you could adopt an improved method of supplying pure food to the British people. I know that this is not an opportune moment to submit a proposal of this kind, but I think any moment is opportune if you regard legislation as having for its object the health of the British people, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity of striking a blow at the source of one of the nation's devastating diseases.

Sir R. SANDERS

I agree with what the hon. Member has just said as to the great scourge that tuberculosis is to this country, but I am advised that you cannot get tuberculosis by eating cooked meat. The effect of this Amendment would be to require all store cattle to be examined before shipment as to whether they had tuberculosis or not, That would mean that all the animals would have to be held up in Canada for a sufficient period to enable the test to be made, and this would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Canadian cattle to be profitably exported to Great Britain. My technical advisers do not consider that this is a condition which can reasonably be imposed. It is, no doubt, true that tuberculous animals can communicate this disease, but the risk of this in the case of store cattle, which are only kept for a short period before slaughter, is not considerable. What is more, this Amendment is inconsistent with the bargain that was made with the Canadian Minister, and I am afraid I cannot accept it.

Mr. LAMBERT

The speech of the Minister of Agriculture is the strongest argument against this Bill being passed, because he says that tuberculosis may come in with these store animals. No man in his senses wants to import animals suffering from tuberculosis, because it is a great scourge in this country, and yet here we are absolutely taking no precautions whatsoever against the introduction of tuberculosis in store cattle. I cannot understand that the Ministry of Agriculture can have made such a bargain with the Canadian authorities, and the Ministry must certainly have known that tuberculosis can come in, and it is our business to prevent it coming in. For these reasons, I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this proposal, and if he cannot give us any assurance, I think we ought to divide against it. My right hon. Friend, I agree, may not have reason on his side, although he may have a majority, but he cannot compel us to admit in this country animals suffering from tuberculosis. My right hon. Friend says that the disease cannot be conveyed to human beings by cooked meat, but the fact remains that it is conveyed to human beings, either in milk or in some other way, and we want to keep it out of the country as far as is possible. Therefore, I think my right hon. Friend should make Regulations under this Act whereby cattle suffering from tuberculosis shall not be admitted into this country.

Captain ELLIOT

I think the Minister should give further consideration to the suggestion of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment (Mr. Wheatley). It may be quite true there is no question of conveying infection by milk in this case, but it is a question of conveying the disease in the food of the people. Undoubtedly a point of difficulty arises, inasmuch as any animal which has once suffered from tuberculosis may not re-act to the tuberculin test, and therefore the diagnosis may be a matter of difficulty, but that is no reason why we should abdicate any attempt to control the importation of tuberculosis into this country. It would give a very unfortunate air to the agitation which has been going on for the importation of Canadian store cattle into this country if it were found that it might be possible to import cattle suffering from tuberculosis into this country. In many countries there are regulations in force about the selling of meat from animals condemned for tuberculosis. We have practically stamped out the disease from the herds in this country, and if we once put it into an Act of Parliament that you cannot make any stand against diseased animals coming here from overseas, it will hamper our breeders very much in the future. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision.

Dr. CHAPPLE

I think the note of alarm which has been sounded by the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley) is really not justified. He referred to the case of tuberculous children in hospital and on the strength of it warned us against allowing the introduction of these store cattle in this country without being previously examined for tuberculosis. But nearly all the tuberculosis in children is admitted to have been caused by the consumption of raw milk and not by the consumption of cooked meat. We are now dealing with conked meat as an article of diet. The Clause, it will seen, refers to acute epidemic diseases and not to a chronic disease like tuberculosis. The epidemic diseases are highly infectious, including pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease and cattle plague, but tuberculosis is a chronic disease lasting frequently for many years, and if the Minister is going to insert the suggested words he ought certainly to add the word "obvious" before tuberculosis in order to obviate the necessity for applying the tuberculin test. You cannot thoroughly examine an ox for tuberculosis without the tuberculin test, and if you are going to apply that test to every store beast before it is exported from Canada you will practically nullify the Act altogether. It is very easy for a veterinary surgeon to examine for evidence of acute diseases, but you cannot thoroughly test an ox for a chronic disease like tuberculosis without the tuberculin test, which is costly, tedious and protracted. The danger which my hon. Friend fears is really negligible, and the introduction of the words he suggests would not give us the security which he thinks. Every veterinary surgeon, of course, can look for the external manifestations of tuberculosis, and no breeder would export animals with obvious tuberculous symptoms. I hope the Minister will resist the Amendment, or, if he accepts it, will insist on the introduction of the word "obvious."

Major MOLSON

I hope the Minister will oppose this Amendment. I think it is a very great pity to carry these proposals to such an extreme as would interfere in a quite unpractical and useless manner with the pledges which have been given. Clause 1, Sub-section (8) says the expression "store cattle" means castrated male or spayed female bovine animals, and I think that that does away with the fears expressed by my hon. Friend. The sanitary inspector is quite able to detect tuberculosis in meat, while as to the question of milk that does not come within the purview of this Bill.

Mr. R. MURRAY

I desire to support the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley). The only objections to it so far advanced do not seem to be of any force at all. It has been suggested that it would be sufficient to provide for the exclusion of cattle obviously suffering from tuberculosis, but the point in this case is this: we want to exclude cattle suffering from plague and other diseases of a kind which involve, on the face of them, considerable monetary loss to breeders and dealers, but the important thing so far as the public is concerned is that human life may be affected by bringing over to this country cattle suffering from tuberculosis. It has been suggested by the Minister in charge of the Bill that if we pass this Amendment it will mean considerable delay on the other side until the cattle have been tested. I think if these words are put into the Bill it would follow that those who breed cattle for the purpose of sending them to this country will take care that the animals have passed the tuberculin test before they export them. It has been suggested, and it seems a deplorable thing for intelligent people to say, that there is a doubt whether tuberculosis can be transmitted in the form of cooked food. The answer to that is that there is not a Member of this House who would venture to eat cooked food which he knew had come from an animal subject to tuberculosis, and what we are not prepared to accept for ourselves we have no right to put on other people. I agree it will be useful for this country to have another source of meat supply, but I do not think it would be an advantage if that supply was liable to increase the amount of infectious disease in this country, and therefore, whatever may be the result, I suggest it is essential, if we are to stamp out that tuberculosis which has affected the world so long, we should take every step possible to kill it at its source. For that reason I support the Amendment.

Mr. LAMB

I do not think there is much direct danger to the public through eating meat which is properly cooked, but it may be if there is no direct danger that there is a great indirect danger from animals coming into this country infected with tuberculosis. It may not affect the population, but it may affect the herds of this country, and thus create a further danger to our milk supply. Seeing that we are making every effort to eradicate disease in this country, I do not think we ought to allow its free entry in this case.

Mr. GARDINER

I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for Shettlestone (Mr. Wheatley) for having introduced this subject, although, in my judgment, this is neither the time nor the place for dealing with such a serious disease as tuberculosis. We have to think very seriously about the condition of our own cattle, and there is no doubt at all that something in this direction will have to be passed. We are, of course, making efforts to get rid of the disease and we know that no pure bred animal is accepted in the Argentine or in other countries unless it has passed the tuberculin test. But what becomes of the animals which fail to pass that test? Do they not go into our herds and 6pread tuberculosis throughout the length and breadth of the country. I repeat, I do not think this is the time or place for dealing with this question. There have been no cattle ever imported into this country that have been so free from tuberculosis as the Canadian cattle. That is the unanimous evidence of men who inspect these animals, and it is evidence which has been given before Royal Commissions and elsewhere. Canadian cattle, in fact, are more free from tuberculosis than any other cattle in the world.

Mr. TURTON

I cannot agree with the somewhat strained argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Gardiner) that, because cattle which have not passed a tuberculin test are not accepted in other countries, therefore, we, in this country, should receive them.

Mr. GARDINER

No. I simply suggested this was not the time or place for dealing with this matter. I quite agree it will have to be dealt with.

Mr. TURTON

And we intend to make use of the power we have got on this occasion to deal with it. Every animal that I export must pass the tuberculin test. Exactly the same thing should apply to all animals that come from Canada into this country, and, no matter what the result may be, I am content to support my hon. Friend opposite in regard to his Amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS

The only objection to this Amendment that I have heard so far is that a very prolonged examination will be required. I think my right hon. Friend who said that had not clearly in mind the words of the Sub-section, which provides that the cattle, for a period of three days, must be kept separate, and must be examined from time to time during that period by a duly authorised veterinary officer, and that the Minister must be satisfied that on such examination none of the diseases referred to has been discovered. There is no suggestion in this Amendment, as I understand it, that there should be any prolonged examina- tion, or any extension of the period during which the animals are to be kept under supervision; and, provided that in fact, at the conclusion of the period, no such disease is discovered, then the animals are entitled to be exported. The Amendment does not suggest that they are not to be exported unless they can be found to be free from tuberculosis; the only suggestion that my hon. Friend puts forward is that during the same period they should be examined and it should be necessary to give a certificate that no tuberculosis was discovered. I suggest to the Committee that it is a perfectly proper Amendment.

Mr. BRUFORD

I take exception to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. Gardiner), namely, that animals suffering from tuberculosis are spreading the disease in our herds because we cannot export them. Nothing of the kind.

Mr. CAUTLEY

That is only in Scotland.

Mr. BRUFORD

We are most careful to test our animals, and we could not sell a bull at anything like a good price unless it passed the test. I should also like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that this test can be applied during the three days' quarantine. I think it is just three days that the tuberculin test takes. I strongly support the suggestion that we should not import any disease into this country.

Mr. H. SIMPSON

With regard to what was said just now by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) about the tuberculin test, it would be perfectly easy to complete that test in the three days before the animals are put on board ship. I believe the test can be completed in 18 hours. Canada, having demanded the withdrawal of the embargo on the ground of the healthiness of her cattle, and in order that the stigma may be removed from Canadian cattle, I think it is most extraordinary that any objection should be taken to any such examination.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I think that the view of the Committee in regard to this Amendment will depend largely upon what the examination really means. There are two kinds of examination for tuberculosis. One is the tuberculin test which, speaking as a layman, I think, from any experience I have had, is a somewhat doubtful test. The whole study of tuberculosis is, apparently, still very obscure, and it is quite possible that an animal tested with tuberculin may react, and then three months afterwards may not react; or the reverse may happen. Generally it is important, and this is provided for in the Bill, to apply the tuberculin test carefully at long intervals to all breeding animals. That is laid down in this Bill in regard to the importation of breeding animals, which are dealt with in another Clause. In this case we are dealing, not with breeding animals, but with animals imported for meat, and I agree very much with what has been said as to its being most objectionable, and I am sure no one on this Committee would desire it, that animals should be introduced which are visibly suffering from tuberculosis. I think, however, that this suggestion might largely nullify the whole agreement with Canada, and I rather suspect that if hon. Friends of mine on this side had moved this Amendment we should have been told that we were trying to wreck the agreement. I am quite sure, having regard to the quarter from which this proposal has come, that there will be no suspicion of that.

My opinion as to whether I should vote for this Amendment or not would depend upon the interpretation that the learned Attorney-General puts on these words. There is to be a careful examination during three days before shipment, and if on such examination—that is to say, the ordinary examination during the three days—no animal examined is found to he affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot and mouth disease, they may be shipped. That examination is a more or less superficial examination, that is to say, an examination by an expert, who is able to detect visible symptoms of disease. It is not an examination spread over a long period of time, with tuberculin tests to discover latent symptoms of the disease. If I am right in that, then I can see no objection whatever to including tuberculosis as proposed in this Amendment, so that it might be certified if it were visible. If this examination is only an examination for visible symptoms, I can see no possible objection to including tuberculosis in it. While I am not here as a supporter of the objects of the Bill, I think we are bound to treat the matter fairly and honourably; and, since the Government have made an agreement with Canada, and we agree to support the Government in carrying it out, I do not want to take advantage of a side wind. I think the object of the Amendment would be served in that way, but if we were to subject animals imported for meat at long intervals to tuberculin tests for latent tuberculosis, it would make the trade practically impossible. If these words do not carry out that object of detecting visible tuberculosis, which I think ought to be prevented from coming into this country, then perhaps the Attorney-General can suggest other words which would carry it out.

Mr. FALCONER

I suggest that the true solution of the difficulty is to leave the animals coming from Canada to be subjected, when they are made fat, to all the rigours of examination and inspection to which we subject our own fat cattle when we send them to market. That is the real place where the protection of the people is carried out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] So far as my experience goes, there is no tuberculin test or other test for tuberculosis applied to any fat animal in this country before it is sent to market. Those who breed pedigree cattle, of course, very readily go to the expense of making careful tests with a view to excluding tuberculous animals; but, so far as the food supply of the country is concerned, the real protection is the inspector in the market, and I am surprised to learn that in any large city in any part of the country food which is not fit for consumption is allowed to be sold. I think that the practical way is undoubtedly to let these animals come over here and let them be subjected to the most rigorous examination; and, if we see fit to increase the rigour of the examination for the purpose of protecting the health of the people, let us subject our own animals to it as well as Canadian animals. I do not for a moment suggest that this proposal has been made for the purpose of killing the Bill, but I venture to say, with some experience, that the result of it will be to kill the supply of cattle from Canada, if the Clause is so read, as it may be read, that the Minister is to have placed upon him the duty of having a thorough examination made for tuberculosis and certifying that there is no tuberculosis.

Mr. BARNES

I think that everyone will naturally sympathise with the objects of this Amendment, but I submit that it will not protect the public against tuberculosis through milk or meat. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallsend (Mr. P. Hastings) suggested that the examination would be quite a cursory one, but I do not agree with that at all, because in the paragraph in which the examination is referred to the word "thoroughly" is used. Therefore, I consider that, if this Amendment is carried, it will interfere to a very considerable degree with the benefits that this Bill is expected to confer upon the consumers of this country. I consider that the public are adequately safeguarded by the ordinary medical inspection that takes place at the present moment in regard to the slaughter of beasts, before the meat is put on sale to the public. In all districts where cattle are slaughtered, and before the meat is exhibited for sale to the public, the local medical officer of health is responsible for thoroughly examining the beasts. That is the time when the ordinary inspection will operate for the purpose of safeguarding the public. This Amendment, if carried, will interfere with the useful purpose of the Bill, and will not in any way help to eradicate tuberculosis in this country. If there is any real desire to tackle this question, the proper way to tackle it is, not by interfering with the usefulness of this Bill, which relates to store cattle, but to deal with the herds in this country from which the public milk supply is obtained. I consider that the public are adequately safeguarded by the present medical inspection, and, therefore, I oppose the Amendment.

Captain E. EVANS

Personally I am inclined to support the Amendment. I agree with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford; I do not like the Bill, but will try and act in appreciation of the fact that the Government have come to this agreement with Canada. I should, however, like to hear the Attorney-General's answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. It seems to me that, as the Bill reads now, a cursory examination is sufficient. All that it says is that the Minister shall be satisfied, and the discretion which the right hon. Gentleman did not want to give to the Minister now comes to our aid. The Minister must be satisfied that the cattle are not suffering from tuberculosis. That means that it is open to the Minister not to apply the tuberculin test, but to say that he will be satisfied with an ordinary examination which would reveal obvious tuberculosis.

Mr. ALEXANDER

The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) referred to the efforts which have been made to stamp out tuberculosis in this country, but I think it comes ill at this time from those benches, when so many hon. Members opposite are responsible for the suspension of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915. That Act would afford far more effective means of stamping out tuberculosis in the herds of this country. Further, Canada has found it necessary for many years to make Regulations against us with regard to our beasts going into Canada, because of the risk of introducing tuberculosis there, and it seems to me, judging by the support which my hon. Friend has got for his Amendment in other parts of the House, that the very thing to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford referred is, in fact, operating. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that those who want to see this Bill choked in its working will support my hon. Friend. We submit, from our actual experience in co-operative abattoirs, dealing with Canadian cattle slaughtered for sale in our own shops, that there is no evidence at all why such an Amendment should be carried. In my hon. Friend's own City of Glasgow we prepared evidence for submission to the Royal Commission, to the effect that these cattle from Canada were superior to any other beasts that we obtained for the purpose of supplying fresh meat to our people, and that, in relation to the number of cattle slaughtered, the number of Canadian cattle which bore any sign of infection at all was infinitesimal compared either with the cattle slaughtered from Ireland or brought from France into this country. I entirely support the suggestion that, if this is going to be inserted in the Bill, the Government ought straight away to impose a similar condition on all cattle slaughtered for human consumption. It is unfair to go back upon a bargain with one of our Imperial Dominions by introducing a condition of this kind in the first instance before it is put into operation with regard to all cattle for slaughter. I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. TILLETT

I am very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should give us some guarantee as to what might happen three or six months hence. The Canadians have a very careful and minute examination at present, but we want to feel just as assured, when the trade has developed and we have these restrictions and safeguards imposed, that it will be impossible to sell diseased meat. I have not been convinced by what has been stated, that we shall be protected in six or 12 months time, because in Canada those dealing with beasts for sale may be as unscrupulous as other gentlemen on this side of the ocean. I think the House ought to protect the poor particularly by some restrictions and safeguards, and we ought to have a direct assurance from the Treasury Bench that we shall be protected.

Sir D. HOGG

It is important that the Committee should realise that, whatever the purpose of the Mover of the Amendment is, the deliberate opinion, at any rate of the Canadians, is that the effect of the Amendment would be absolutely to kill the trade which the Bill intends to legalise. It is not a matter which is raised for the first time in this Committee. It was raised and discussed with the Canadian Ministers, and it was their deliberate opinion that the suggestion which is put forward in the Amendment would render the Bill absolutely valueless. Whether that is an inducement to vote for the Amendment or not I am not sure, but I think the Committee, at any rate, ought to know the facts. The next point I want to answer is the question addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), as to the exact effect of the Clause if the Amendment were agreed to. It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that the Minister might be satisfied by a merely cursory examination. I do not think the Minister could do that if he were at any rate acting conscientiously in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, because the Subsection says not only that the cattle have to be examined from time to time during the three days by a duly authorised veterinary officer, but "in particular were thoroughly so examined immediately before shipment," and he could not, in the face of those words, say that a cursory examination would satisfy him. If the interpretation which is suggested—which I agree is a possible one, that all you have to do is to be able to say that you cannot see tuberculosis—were adopted, the Amendment would be a less serious one, but it would also be very nearly a valueless one, because it would not give any assurance at all that tuberculosis was not there.

But my own impression is that the Courts would interpret these words, that after such examination no animal examined was found to be affected with tuberculosis, as requiring that the veterinary officer should be able to certify that he had thoroughly examined the animal and that it was not affected with tuberculosis, and my right hon. Friend knows that he could not possibly do that on three days' examination. He would have to do it by having a tuberculin test, with the provision, which we hope to have enacted in the second Clause, that there are to be at least 30 days after the test before the certificate can be given. So that the effect of the Clause with the Amendment in would really be to stop store cattle being brought in. The cost of keeping the cattle in quarantine is about a dollar a day, and if you are going to add 30 dollars to the cost of the animal, that will be prohibited, and the animal can never come.

The suggestion which is being made is really a suggestion to discriminate against Canada, because these store cattle are brought in to be fattened and killed and the meat to be sold in competition with home-grown meat. That is the policy of the Bill. This is going to say that whereas in respect of home-grown meat there is to be no need for any test of any sort or kind at all, before a Canadian beast can be brought in for slaughter it has to pass these rigorous tests to satisfy everyone that it has not got tuberculosis. Having regard to the fact that tuberculosis is probably far more prevalent in Great Britain than in Canada to-day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some evidence was given about it before the Royal Commission, which I have some reason to remember. At any rate, there is no ground for suggesting that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Canada than it is at home. No one has given any evidence to that effect, and it would seem a little unfair to Canada to make this provision against it. This is only a provision under which store cattle may be brought in to be fattened in this country. It does not affect the right of Canada, which she has to-day, to send cattle over here for slaughter, and, therefore, the odd position will arise that she could send over tuberculous cattle to be slaughtered and eaten, but could not send them over to be fattened. Why it should be more harmful when the cattle had been fattened here than if they were slaughtered on arrival I do not know. The real protection, so far as there is protection, against eating tuberculous meat lies in the power of the medical officer of health in inspect meat, which applies equally to Canadian and to home-grown meat. It may be that the powers are not sufficiently strong or not sufficiently rigorously exercised, but if that be so, let the House alter those provisions, or insist on their being more stringently exercised; but the right way to do it is not to start by saying to Canada that we are professing to let her cattle in while we are going to make discriminations against her which she says will effectively prevent their ever coming. On those grounds I ask the Committee to refuse to accept the Amendment.

Mr. H. SIMPSON

I should like to ask the Minister for Agriculture how is the examination for these other diseases going to be conducted, namely, cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease.

Sir R. SANDERS

I really do not know the details of how the veterinary surgeon will conduct those examinations. We get a certificate from the veterinary surgeon that they have been conducted.

Mr. EDMONDS

I sincerely hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. The Mover made a very damaging statement against the breeders of this country when he said that animals are killed in his own town suffering from tuberculosis, and the parts are cut off and sold to people in the shops.

Mr. WHEATLEY

The statement I made was that the diseased part is excised and the remainder of the carcase offered for sale.

Mr. EDMONDS

I have had a good deal to do with the meat trade, though not in the inspection of meat. I have known no meat which has been passed with tuberculous parts cut away and the other parts sold. To let the statement go forth from this House that cows which are suffering from tuberculosis are sold and distributed over the country will have a very damaging effect upon the trade in general. We are told that in Canada only 1 per cent, of the cows are suffering from tuberculosis. It seems to me if you are going to put this restriction on Canadian cattle it is the first step to try to kill the Bill. I hope after all the arguments we have heard the Government will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY

In view of the Attorney-General's statement of the effect the Amendment would have on the prospects of the Bill, and having gained something by raising the discussion, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. SIMPSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b, i), to leave out the word "or" ["or foot-and-mouth disease "].

6.0 P.M.

The Amendments in my name on the Paper are not proposed with any intention of preventing the passage of the Bill, though I still hold the opinion that it is being rushed through with indecent haste. We have not had time to examine it properly, and I think there are still a great many points on which Amendments ought to be framed, and which I am afraid will escape. I have again raised the question of epizootic abortion. The hon. Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Gardiner) on Thursday assumed that I had not read the Bill, because I was dealing with this disease. He said very properly that it was impossible for a spayed heifer to abort. I know that a spayed heifer cannot abort, and I also know quite well that an animal is chiefly dangerous from the point of view of infection after she has aborted. But the Bill does not provide sufficient security for spaying the animal. It is true that Subsection (8) says, "The expression store cattle means castrated male or splayed female bovine animals." I presume it means "spayed." [HON. MEMBERS: "Misprint!"] If the Government is prepared to accept my Amendment that "immediately before shipment all female bovine animals intended for shipment to Great Britain shall be examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on such examination all such animals were found to be effectively spayed," I am prepared to withdraw all reference to epizootic abortion in all my Amendments. In case that is not accepted may I point out what my difficulties are? There is not a Member of the House who has had anything to do with the cattle breeding industry who does not know the serious effect of contagious abortion. It is exceedingly common all over the country. There are probably hon. Members who have lost thousands of pounds owing to the disease. In our particular herd we have had this disease and we have experienced the losses which it causes. We also have experience of the exceedingly severe nature of the infection which passes from animal to animal. This disease is very common in the North American Continent. We have it on the authority of the writer of an article in the Standard Encyclopædia, that in New York State, in one year alone the losses were estimated at 4,000,000 dollars. We know that that disease exists in Canada. If we are assured by the Bill that no in-calf heifer can escape and come across as a spayed store, then we need not worry about contagious abortion, but unless we have very drastic Regulations to ensure that no unspayed heifer comes across, we need such safeguard as I suggest. With regard to anthrax, there may be some reason for its having been left out of which I am not aware; but it seems to me to be a disease that ought to be regarded as fatal on any ship. We know how very rapidly it is fatal. We know that it is exceedingly infectious, and for that reason I propose that anthrax be inserted among the list of diseases to be included in the Clause. If my first Amendment be accepted I propose at the end of the paragraph to insert the words anthrax, epizootic abortion, mange or any other disease which is declared by the Minister to be a disease within the meaning of this Section. In that case paragraph (ii) could come out. I propose to leave out paragraph (ii) and to insert a new paragraph to ensure that animals are spayed before shipment. I have a further Amendment dealing with the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Are we to understand that all these Amendments are consequential?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy)

I was waiting to see what the hon. Member was going to say about the third Amendment. If the hon. Member explains the first two Amendments without referring to the third Amendment he will be in order.

Mr. SIMPSON

I am afraid it is owing to my short acquaintance with the procedure of the House. I thought I had to take my Amendments together and not separately.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Only the first two Amendments will hang together; they both deal with the same thing. If the first of these Amendments is passed, the next one will, to a certain extent, be consequential upon it. These are the only two Amendments with which the hon. Member must deal at the moment.

Mr. SIMPSON

The next Amendment with regard to spaying also hangs together with the others, because, if it is passed, epizootic abortion will naturally disappear from the other Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

With regard to the third Amendment it would come better as a new paragraph.

Sir R. SANDERS

As the Amendment stands, the Minister must be satisfied that, on examination of the animals immediately before shipment, they are not affected with cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, "anthrax, epizootic abortion, mange, or any other disease which is declared by the Minister to be a disease within the meaning of this section." The only practical effect of the hon. Member's Amendment is, therefore, to require specifically that the animals shall be certified to be free from anthrax and abortion. I am advised that it would be impracticable to certify the non-existence of these two diseases without the application of tests which would involve detention of the animals. It is not really the same case as on the last Amendment about tuberculosis. If we wish the importation of Canadian stores to be a real thing, we must not apply tests which take so long as to render the importation too expensive to be really effective. This Amendment would make the importation of store cattle impossible. Examination for epizootic abortion seems scarcely an appropriate requirement in the case of the, animals to which this Clause applies. If at any time veterinary science could find a method by which anthrax could be discovered in an animal by any such examination as is possible in this case, it would be open to the Minister, under Paragraph (ii) to declare that disease to be a disease within the meaning of the Provision which requires that the animals shall be so shown to his satisfaction to be free from the disease at the time of shipment. In my opinion, these two Amendments would render the Bill nugatory, and I cannot accept them.

Mr. SIMPSON

Do I understand that, if an animal actually dies of anthrax among the animals waiting for shipment, the shipment will still go on?

Sir R. SANDERS

No.

Mr. SIMPSON

In what provision of the Bill can it be prevented?

Sir R. SANDERS

I know that it can be, but I cannot refer the hon. Member to the Section at the moment.

Mr. SIMPSON

We are entitled to know.

Mr. LAMBERT

I must back up my hon. Friend in asking that the Minister shall tell us. My hon. Friend has asked a plain question. If an animal dies of anthrax amongst a number of animals coming from Canada, what power is there in the Bill to prevent that shipment coming here? It is a very pertinent question, and the Committee is very much obliged to my hon. Friend for putting it so clearly. I cannot, without some protest, allow the Minister to say: "I know it is in the Bill, but I cannot tell you where." Animals may be imported suffering from disease, tuberculosis, anthrax, and so on. It is amazing, coming from a party which professes to be the friend of the farmer. I think the farmers will pray, "Deliver us from our friends," if this is to go on. If a bargain has been made and we cannot alter it, I am afraid that the Canadian authorities have walked round the Ministry of Agriculture this time as they did before.

Sir R. SANDERS

Clause 1, Sub-section (3), is as follows: Cattle landed under this Section shall be detained at the landing place at which they are landed and there isolated from all other animals for such period, commencing from the time at which the landing of the cattle is completed, as may be required for the thorough examination of the cattle by veterinary inspectors and the issue of licences for their movement, and no cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless and until the movement is authorised by a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act. A licence would not be granted under such circumstances.

Mr. SIMPSON

That was not my question. My question was whether, if there was a case of anthrax on the other side and an animal died, the shipment would still proceed. Apparently, from what my right hon. Friend says, the shipment would proceed, and the anthrax would be fetched to this side, and the Ministry of Agriculture would then proceed to deal with it.

Sir R. SANDERS

They would have died on the way.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

With regard to the next Amendment, the hon. Member proposes to leave out paragraph (ii), and to insert: (ii) that immediately before shipment all female bovine animals intended for shipment to Great Britain shall be examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on such examination all such animals were found to be effectively spayed. That would come better as a new Subsection (d).

Mr. SIMPSON

I beg to move, in Subsection (2, b, iii), to leave out the words if at any time within twenty-eight days before the shipment of the cattie the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain had had on board any animal which had been exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in any country other than Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada, or had entered or been within any such port or place, the vessel and to insert instead thereof the words, the vessel in which the cattle are brought to Great Britain.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Does not the hon. Member want to move out paragraph (ii)?

Mr. SIMPSON

Not now, because the Amendment has not been accepted. My intention in the Amendment I now propose is to ensure that there is disinfection of the ship after each voyage. The only vessel which is bound to be cleansed and disinfected is the vessel which has been plying between other countries, or coastwise in other countries. It seems to me that after shipment of store cattle from Canada to England the vessel should be cleansed and disinfected before it is again used.

Sir R. SANDERS

The effect of this Amendment would be that all vessels in which store cattle are brought from Canada shall be effectively disinfected before the shipment of cattle. The Bill provides that this shall only be required where, at any time within 28 days before the shipment of cattle, the vessel had had on board any animal which had been exported or carried coastwise from any port or place in any other country than Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada or had entered or been within any such port or place. The Committee will recollect that the exceptional facilities afforded by Clause 1 are only to remain in force while the Minister still has

reason to believe that cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease exists or has recently existed in Canada, and therefore it appears to be unnecessary to provide for the disinfection of any vessel which is confined to traffic between Canada and Great Britain, which can only reasonably be required where there is some risk of infection. We ought not to hamper the trade with unnecessary restrictions, and therefore I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

I shall certainly press this Amendment if, as I gather from the right hon. Gentleman, there is to be no disinfection, for instance, if mange breaks out on the voyage. I do not see that there is any provision for that in this Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is a provision in the Bill that if mange breaks out on the voyage the ship shall be disinfected.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. PRINGLE

(seated and covered): Why are the doors open on one side, and locked on the other? The doors are locked so that Members cannot get into the "No" Lobby, while Members can get into the "Aye" Lobby?

The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 51.

Division No. 38.]	AYES.	[6.20 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Broad, F. A.	Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Brotherton, J.	Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beare
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)	Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Conway, Sir W. Martin
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)	Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)	Cope, Major William
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Bruton, Sir James	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James	Buckingham, Sir H.	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Ammon, Charles George	Buckle, J.	Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Attlee, C. R.	Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Butcher, Sir John George	Darbishire, C. W.
Banks, Mitchell	Butt, Sir Alfred	Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague	Cairns, John	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Barnes, A.	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Dawson, Sir Philip
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Doyle, N. Grattan
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Duncan, C.
Berry, Sir George	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Dunnico, H.
Betterton, Henry B.	Charleton, H. C.	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Churchman, Sir Arthur	Ednam, Viscount
Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)	Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Coates, Lt.-Col, Norman	Entwistle, Major C. F.
Brass, Captain W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Collie, Sir John	Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Falcon, Captain Michael	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Falconer, J.	Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Joynson-Hicks, Sir William	Riley, Ben
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.	Kenyon, Barnet	Ritson, J.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	King, Capt. Henry Douglas	Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Flanagan, W. H.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Ford, Patrick Johnston	Kirkwood, D.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Foreman, Sir Henry	Lamb, J. O.	Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.	Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.	Lansbury, George	Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Furness, G. J.	Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)	Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Lawson, John James	Royce, William Stapleton
Gardiner, James	Leach, W.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Garland, C. S.	Lee, F.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Gates, Percy	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Russell, William (Bolton)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.	Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Lorimer, H. D.	Saklatvala, S.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)	Lort-Williams, J.	Salter, Dr. A.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Greenall, T.	Lowth, T.	Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)	Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)	Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Lumley, L. R.	Sandon, Lord
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lunn, William	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	M'Entee, V. L.	Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Grigg, Sir Edward	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)	Scrymgeour, E.
Groves, T.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Shepperson, E. W.
Grundy, T. W.	Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)	Shinwell, Emanuel
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon, W. E.	March, S.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Guthrie, Thomas Mauie	Margesson, H. D. R.	Sitch, Charles H.
Gwynne, Rupert S.	Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)	Skelton, A. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Mathew, C. J.	Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)	Maxton, James	Snell, Harry
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)	Mercer, Colonel H.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Halstead, Major D,	Middleton, G.	Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Hancock, John George	Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)	Spencer, H. H. (Bradford. S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Steel, Major S. Strang
Hardie, George D.	Molson, Major John Eisdale	Stephen, Campbell
Harris, Percy A.	Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.	Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Harrison, F. C.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Harvey, Major S. E.	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hawke, John Anthony	Morel, E. D.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)	Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Hayday, Arthur	Muir, John W.	Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Murchison, C. K.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.	Murnin, H.	Tillett, Benjamin
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)	Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)	Tubbs, S. W.
Herriotts, J.	Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Turner, Ben
Hewett, Sir J. P.	Newson, Sir Percy Wilson	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hiley, Sir Ernest	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Wallace, Captain E.
Hill, A.	Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)	Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Hirst, G. H.	Nichol, Robert	Warne, G. H.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.	Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John	Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John	O'Grady, Captain James	Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Oliver, George Harold	Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Hogge, James Myles	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wells, S. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Paling, W.	Westwood, J.
Hood, Sir Joseph	Parker, Owen (Kettering)	Wheatley, J.
Hopkins, John W. W.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	Whaler, Col. Granville C. H.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)	Pennefather, De Fonblanque	Whiteley, W.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.	Penny, Frederick George	Wignall, James
Hudson, Capt. A.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Hume, G. H.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hurd, Percy A.	Philipson, H. H.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley	Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Windsor, Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Potts, John S.	Wise, Frederick
Irving, Dan	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Wolmer, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.	Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Privett, F. J.	wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Jarrett, G. W. S.	Raeburn, sir William H.	Worsfold, T. Cato
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.	Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Jephcott, A. R.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul	Reynolds, W. G. W.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)	Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Richards, R.	Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Blundell, F. N.	Briant, Frank
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	Bonwick, A.	Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Berkeley, Captain Reginald	Bowdler, W. A.	Brutord, R.

Burnie, Major J, (Bootle)	Hinds, John	Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Sinclair, Sir A.
Chapple, W. A.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Snowden, Philip
Clarke, Sir E. C.	Linfield, F. C.	Sparkes, H. W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Collison, Levi	Marshall, Sir Arthur H.	Thornton, M.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Gilbert, James Daniel	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Goff, Sir R. Park	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Wintringham, Margaret
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)	Nield, Sir Herbert	Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Paget, T. G.	Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Harney, E. A.	Phillipps, Vivian	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hillary, A. E.	Pringle, W. M. R.	Mr. Hope Simpson and Mr. Foot.

Question put, and agreed to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

This has been a most extraordinary Debate. We have had from the Minister written answers to each Amendment that has been moved, and he has read those answers to the House. I think we should report Progress in order that the Government might know in greater detail the Bill that they are putting before the House. I do not remember any case previously where the Minister has prepared answers written for him and has been unable to answer the simplest questions put afterwards by any Member who is interested in the Bill. As to the last Amendment, I do not suppose that there was a single Member, apart from the Mover, who understood what it was about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Many hon. Members were not in the House to hear the Amendment moved. Its effect was to leave out paragraph iii. We had no arguments from the Mover as to why that should be done. The Government came with prepared answers to a particular proposal, namely, to insert certain words, but there was not one word as to the merits or demerits of what it was proposed to leave out. In the circumstances we should ask the Government to postpone further consideration of the Bill until they have had time to consider the Amendments, so that they may be able to conduct the Bill properly through the House.

Sir R. SANDERS

I regret that at the time I was not as fully acquainted with the particular point raised by the hon. Member opposite as to be able to answer it at the moment. The fact is, that the provision was in the Act of 1894 and not in this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LAMB

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, b, v), to insert a new paragraph— (vi) the cattle must be either castrated males or spayed females. The words of this Amendment appear in Sub-section (8) of this Clause. That Sub-section attempts to explain what is a store. As a matter of fact, it does not do so. I prefer to have the words inserted as proposed in the Amendment. It would be very difficult for anyone to say exactly what was a "store." In view of that difficulty, it would be very much better to leave out the definition rather than put it in. My object is to see that the cattle which come in are store cattle. As a matter of fact, fat cattle can come in under this Bill, and they can be kept under the regulations for six days. They can then be circulated throughout the country and sold as fat cattle, and the buyer would assume that they had been bred in this country.

Sir F. BANBURY

They are marked.

Mr. LAMB

They may be marked, but by the time they got to the shop I am afraid that the mark would have been taken off them. When they were placed on the block in the butcher's shop the purchaser would think that he was buying something which had been fed in this country. If I understand the feeling on the opposite side of the House and on this side, there is a desire that this Bill shall lead to more employment and greater cultivation. The younger these cattle are when imported as stores, the longer will be the period before they can be sold as fat cattle, the greater will be the amount of cultivation necessary, and the greater the amount of labour necessary for attendance on the cattle. If they came in as fat cattle, those objects would be defeated. If the words are left as they stand in Sub-section (8), they defeat the objects of the Bill.

Sir R. SANDERS

I am ready to accept this Amendment in substance, but I am advised that as a matter of drafting it would be better that it should come at the end of Sub-section (8), where the word "store" is defined. When we reach that part of the Bill I should be prepared to move that, at the end of Sub-section (8), there be added the words, "which are intended for feeding purposes and not for immediate slaughter."

Mr. HARDIE

Take the case of the cattle coming from Ireland and arriving in Glasgow. I understand that they are inspected in Ireland and again in Glasgow.

Sir R. SANDERS

The whole of this Clause refers only to Canadian cattle.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I suggest that we might accept the Government Amendment, and between now and Report the wording might be a little more closely examined in case some verbal alteration may be necessary. I do not like a definition of a store which is not really in accordance with the meaning of the English language. The suggestion made by the Minister meets the point of the Amendment under discussion, namely, that the animals should not be fat.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LAMBERT

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, c), to insert the words and any condition imposed on the importation of British cattle into Canada shall be imposed on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain. The Amendment seems to be the enunciation of a thoroughly sound principle. Whatever restrictions the Canadians place upon British cattle going into Canada, precisely the same restrictions should be placed upon Canadian cattle coming into Great Britain. I feel rather astounded that the Canadians place such very severe restrictions on British cattle going into Canada. The importation of cattle into Canada from Great Britain has been prohibited since the 5th August, 1919. It does not seem to me right that we should now say that these cattle are to come into Great Britain without all the tests and all the restrictions which are placed upon British cattle going into Canada. After all, no Cattle can go into Canada unless a certificate of health is given by a qualified veterinary surgeon. There must also be an export certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture, testifying that no case of cattle plague, contagious pleuropneumonia, rinderpest or foot and mouth disease has existed during the previous six mouths in the district from whence the animals come, and all cattle imported into Canada from Britain are subject to 30 days' quarantine. If Canada insists on 30 days' quarantine for cattle sent from our herds, why should we not impose precisely the same restriction upon the Canadian cattle? I understand that some kind of bargain has been entered into between the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian authorities. If that be so, all I can say is that the Canadian authorities appear to have walked round the Board of Agriculture. They did that once before. In the Imperial War Conference in 1917, the Canadian authorities simply bamboozled the then President of the Board of Agriculture.

British breeding cattle are the finest cattle in the world. Agriculturists to-day have a very severe task before them, and surely, if we are debarred from sending our cattle—the finest in the world—to Canada without all these restrictions, then the same restrictions ought to be imposed upon cattle coming from Canada into Great Britain. I want some kind of reciprocity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, surely if we want to encourage Free Trade we should encourage the free import of British cattle into Canada. I hope to convert the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme Colonel Wedgwood) to the principle of Free Trade. Live animals coming from Canada can spread disease here. We are told we may import breeding animals from Canada into this country with some kind of quarantine—the Minister has the power of imposing these conditions—but British breeders are to be penalised by Canadian authorities, whilst we in Britain are admitting the Canadian cattle free, I do not think that is fair. I do not think it would go down with any agricultural audience. Any body of farmers would say, "Let us have equality of treatment as between the two countries." I think I could go down into the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and persuade the Farmers' Union there that his action in this case is not fair to British farmers. If there are to be restrictions upon British cattle going to Canada, a bargain should be made with the Canadian authorities. If you are to allow Canadian cattle into this country free, then the restrictions on the Canadian side should be removed. I trust the Minister of Agriculture will accept this Amendment. It will not really kill the Bill; it only asks for equal treatment, to which I am sure the Canadian authorities will not object. I move it in all good faith to provide for fair treatment for the British breeder of blood-stock.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Mover of this Amendment to be the parent of the re-united Liberal party, and the Amendment itself is based upon the good old fair trade doctrine which we heard of 40 years ago. One would imagine, listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that we were merely allowing Canadian cattle into this country for the benefit of the Canadians, and that, from our own point of view, our interest would best be served by keeping them out. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we on the Labour Benches are supporting this Bill, not in the interests of the Canadians, but in the interests of the British people, the consumers in this country, who want to get cheap meat. When I hear ex-Liberal Ministers and leaders in the re-united Liberal party coming forward with the strange new Liberal doctrine that importations into any country are solely for the benefit of the people who export, and not of the people who receive the goods, I am not at all surprised that the Liberal party is in bad water at the present time.

Sir D. HOGG

It is a great misfortune to me that I am unable to ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. The pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) preaching the gospel of reciprocity was one which some of us, at any rate, hailed with great satisfaction, and we shall be glad to see him taking his place in a different party. In fact, however, the Amendment is baaed on a misapprehension. This is a Clause dealing with the importation of store cattle from Canada to Great Britain. There is no such trade from Great Britain to Canada. We do not export store cattle to Canada, and they would have no facilities for fattening them if we did. It is very largely because they cannot fatten their store cattle that they want this Bill. When we come to the question of the importation and export of pedigree cattle for breeding purposes, we get in Clause 2 certain provisions which we shall discuss in due course, and these deal with the precautions which we think necessary before such cattle can come over here. So far as store cattle are concerned, there is no analogous provision in Canada, because the trade does not exist of exporting such cattle from Great Britain to Canada. I would point out further that the provisions suggested in the Amendment would lead to very odd results, because supposing, unfortunately, it happened that there was foot-and-mouth disease in England and not in Canada, and Canada accordingly said, "We shall not allow cattle to be imported from England because there is foot-and-mouth disease there," we should automatically have to stop cattle coming here from Canada, although there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Canada, because you would have to impose the same restriction each way. The Amendment does not carry out what my right hon. Friend wishes for, namely, the excellent principle of reciprocity, and it is based on a misapprehension as to what is the subject matter of Clause 1.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. SIMPSON

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2, c), to insert a new paragraph— (d) Immediately before shipment all female bovine animals intended for shipment to Great Britain shall be examined by a duly authorised veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and that on such examination all such animals were found to be effectively spayed. I have no doubt the Government, if it does not accept this Amendment, will agree to some provision on the same lines. There is not in the Bill, as far as I can see, any effective provision for ensuring that all heifers which come over are spayed. It is true that Sub-section (8) provides that store cattle shall mean castrated male or spayed female bovine animals, but there is no provision for such inspection as will ensure that none but spayed animals are allowed to leave for England. If the right hon. Gentleman can point to any provision which will ensure inspection for spaying I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment, but otherwise I hope the Government will agree to it.

7.0 P.M.

Sir R. SANDERS

The object of the Amendment, I take it, is to make quite sure that any heifers sent here have been inspected and found to be spayed. This was discussed at the Conference with the Canadian Ministers and the point was brought before them. The universal practice in Canada appears to be to spay animals through the flank, and the scar thus formed is testimony that they have been spayed. It was suggested at the Conference that cattle owners might adopt the practice of marking the animals without spaying them, so as to defeat the intention of Clause 1. The Canadian representatives said in their opinion there was not sufficient inducement to the owners to adopt this practice. If it did occur, they would be in a position by internal administration or legislation to stop the practice. I am informed that if there was any serious evasion of this spaying provision the Minister here could prevent the landing of such heifers except under the same conditions as apply to the landing of heifers under Clause 2. Therefore, really, the danger is theoretical, and very small. It is provided for both in Canada and in powers which the Minister has here. Under those circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to insert these words.

Mr. FOOT

Although the right hon. Gentleman says this is a matter of trifling importance, it was of sufficient importance apparently to be discussed between his Department and the Canadian representatives when they were here. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) has put down the Amendment here, he has raised a point which was discussed by the Conference held only a week or two ago. One can hardly understand, therefore, what objection there can be to this Amendment. It is not as if any extra inspection will be required.

Sir R. SANDERS

I am informed that extra inspection would be required, and that would be rather difficult to fit in.

Mr. FOOT

As I understand it, every animal has to be inspected before it leaves Canada. Not only so, but under the terms of this Clause, it has to be thoroughly examined for other purposes. One can hardly imagine that the officer who has thoroughly to examine the animal would have to spend very much extra time in ascertaining whether it has been effectively spayed or not. If this Amendment meant that an examination had to take place which was not provided for otherwise, there would be some ground for the right hon. Gentleman's opposition. Seeing, however, that the animals have to be inspected for other purposes and to be thoroughly examined, surely there can be no objection to this further examination being made in order to afford protection for the agriculturists of this country.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

It seems to me this Amendment would defeat the purpose of the Bill. Those of us who have been fighting year after year to get this embargo removed know that this question has been raised again and again, and that it has been examined and defeated. The Amendment is only put down again in order that it may defeat the real purpose of the Bill.

Mr. H. SIMPSON

On a point of Order. This charge against me is untrue. I have no desire at all to defeat the Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I want to say, first of all, that even if by chance a Canadian cow were imported into this country without having been effectively spayed it would not be such a terrible thing, as some hon. Members are making out. I have recollections of evidence given before the Royal Commission on the importation of Store Cattle, not merely by the ordinary grazier farmer, but by a man who is used to producing pedigree stock.Mr. William Henderson, of Coupar Angus, a raiser of fine pedigree short-horn cattle, said, I think, before the Royal Commission that if he had to use Canadian cows as foster mothers to calves intended for pedigree breeding he would not have lost a night's sleep about it. The suggestion underlying the Amendment is that if by chance a Canadian cow got through without being spayed, there would be a grave danger of that cow conveying disease. Any such suggestion is a foul calumny upon the record of the Canadian herds. I think the evidence, produced before this House and before the Royal Commission, again and again, is perfectly conclusive in favour of the introduction of Canadian cattle to this country. Therefore, I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment, and that we shall not go to a division.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I think the hon. Member who spoke last has put rather a different complexion upon the matter. Ho rather seemed to lead the House to believe that it was a good thing to introduce lunspayed cattle into this country. Clearly, the agreement is that all store cattle shall be spayed. That is the agreement we want to see carried out. If the suggestion is that this is not to be carried out, and that that will be a very good thing, I think all of us on this side of the House will feel it our duty to vote for the Amendment. We have got to be satisfied that there is a good defence against this Amendment. If we are satisfied that it would be a very rare thing indeed I would not say that we should insist upon a special and very definite examination in order to escape from a rare case. I agree that a single very rare case would not be disastrous, but the hon. Member was arguing very much farther than that. I should like to have a really definite assurance from the Minister of Agriculture that he is absolutely satisfied that on either side—I do not care which, either on:he Canadian side or on this side— the matter will be properly dealt with. I take it that if an animal were discovered not to be properly spayed on this side it would have to be slaughtered, and that if it were discovered on the other side it would not be allowed to come across until it were spayed. So long as we can be definitely assured that that will be the case, and that there are entirely satisfactory precautions on the Canadian side to insure that that will be so, I do not think it will be necessary to press this Amendment. In the absence of such an assurance, I shall certainly vote for it.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I think I specifically used the words "if by chance a cow came in."

Sir R. SANDERS

I think the right lion. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety-man) was perfectly right in the way he put the point. So far as I can learn, it would only be by the merest chance, and if would very seldom happen that the regulations could be evaded.

Mr. PRETYMAN

are you assuming, in practice, that there is some watch kept in regard to this matter?

Sir R. SANDERS

Yes, on both sides.

Mr. LAMB

Can we be assured that an animal which, after its importation, is found not to be properly spayed, will be slaughtered?

Sir R. SANDERS

Yes, then it comes under the Act.

Sir ALFRED MOND

The hon. Member who moved the Amendment proposed that a veterinary surgeon who was already making an examination should carry that examination to the logical conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture then says: "It is unnecessary, because the Canadian authorities assure us that if you look at the flanks of these heifers or cows you can see whether or not they have been spayed." If that be so, I cannot understand why a veterinary, looking at the cattle, cannot do that if that is all that is required. If that is not all that is required, I do not see the value of that argument. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Canadian representatives said that if the principle were evaded they would in some way take administrative action. He did not say in what way the administrative action would be taken, or why that should be any simpler than the very simple proposal in the Amendment. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) suggested that we should start a system of inspection at our ports, and put the burden of the expense of the inspection on the British taxpayer, instead of the proposal in the Amendment, which throws some of the expense on to the other side. I cannot quite follow that line of thought. These cattle are going to be inspected. Surely it is cheaper that the man in Canada who is inspecting them should carry his inspection there to a logical end than that we should have another staff on this side to inspect the animals here. If we do not have a thorough system of inspection I cannot understand how we shall ever have any check or know whether a case is a bad one. I cannot gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there is any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, and if the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) goes to a Division, I shall support him.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "period" ["for such period"], to insert the words "not being less than three days."

This part of the Bill deals with what would happen to cattle after they have left the ship and been landed. It provides that they should be detained for such purpose as is necessary, that is to say, as may be required for the thorough examination of the cattle by veterinary inspectors and the issue of licences for their movement, and no cattle shall be moved from the landing place unless and until the movement is authorised by a licence granted in accordance with"— and so on. This Sub-section states that cattle shall be detained. I am not really on the point of time, but I wish to ask the learned Attorney-General what penalty is provided by this Act through any breach of this portion of it? So far as I can read the Bill, there are no penalties at all in any part of it. If these cattle are taken out of detention improperly, what means has the Minister of Agriculture to enforce those provisions? The question of penalty was raised on the earlier part of the Bill, which deals with cattle whilst they are aboard the ship. The Attorney-General's answer to that was that they would be treated as cattle brought over here, not as store cattle, and they would not get the benefit of this Act, but would be slaughtered. That apparently was an answer to any breach of the Act when they were on board the ship, but there is no penalty here, or means of enforcing these provisions in regard to what is done to the cattle improperly during the three days' detention.

Sir D. HOGG

The answer to the question which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member is this. He will find in Clause 12, Sub-section (3) of this Bill; This Act shall be deemed to form part of and shall be construed as one with the principal Act, that is, the 1894 Act, and thereupon, of course, if he looks at that Act, under Section 51, he will find penalties prescribed, of a fine not exceeding £20, and then a fine not exceeding £5 for each animal, if it is in respect of more than four animals, and certain additional penalties. He will get the answer to his question, therefore, by reading the two together.

Mr. CAUTLEY

That seems to answer my question, and I would, therefore, like to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. SIMPSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "any such disease as aforesaid," and to insert thereof the words, cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, or anthrax. This Sub-section (5) lays down the cases in which the person in charge of the cattle shall slaughter the animals under the orders of a veterinary inspector if they suffer from certain diseases. The words "any such diseases as aforesaid" refer to the previous Sub-section, in which the diseases ate stated to be cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease, but I think it is clear that if an animal is found to be suffering from anthrax on the arrival of a consignment from Canada, the whole of the animals in contact should and would be slaughtered. I, therefore, propose that anthrax should be added to the diseases in consequence of which slaughter is permitted. I presume that the Government will have no objection to the addition, because they have, as a matter of fact, power to slaughter for anthrax once the animals have come ashore, and there seems no reason why anthrax should not be added to these three other diseases, than which it is no less fatal.

Sir D. HOGG

The reason why anthrax is not included as one of the diseases which shall involve the slaughter of the animals is this—that we are advised that the worst possible thing you could do in the case of anthrax would be to slaughter the animals, because it happens that the way in which infection is carried is mainly by the blood, and if you slaughter the animals you increase enormously the risk of infection. I am advised, although I have not had time to turn up the particular Section yet, that in the Anthrax Order of 1899, which applies to cases of anthrax in this country, so far from slaughter being enjoined, it is prohibited under penalty. That being so, it would seem a little unwise to make it obligatory in this case.

Mr. SIMPSON

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. HOGG

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (8), to insert the words "which are intended for feeding purposes, and not for immediate slaughter."

Mr. BLUNDELL

On a point of Order, Captain Fitzroy. I gave notice of an Amendment in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I passed over that Amendment.

Sir D. HOGG

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture gave a pledge a little earlier that at the end of Sub-section (8) he would move this Amendment, the purpose being to confine the expression "store cattle" to cattle which are imported for the purposes of fattening and not to include cattle which are already fat.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.