HC Deb 16 July 1925 vol 186 cc1693-702

Resolution reported. That it is expedient to make provision for contributions, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, towards the compensation payable by local authorities for the slaughter of cattle, in accordance with orders made under The Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. in case of the existence or suspected existence of tuberculosis, of sums equal to three-fourths of the amount of compensation so paid by them.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain GARRO-JONES

This is an other of these blank cheques so far as I can see. Is it not possible to put any sort of limit on this? The limit is not in the Resolution, but in the Paper which accompanies the Resolution, and therefore it is not binding. We had a somewhat similar experience in relation to foot-and-mouth disease, which landed the country into great expenditure, and the wisdom of that was seriously questioned at one time. Who is to decide whether an animal is affected with tuberculosis or not? It is difficult enough to decide in the case of human beings whether they are so affected, and we might find an increasingly large number of animals slaughtered which have not got tuberculosis. Who decides the compensation to be paid? It was paid on a very lavish scale in cases of foot-and-mouth disease. The last paragraph of the White Paper says: As regards Northern Ireland the contributions will in the first instance be paid nut of the Exchequer but will be recovered by deduction from the Northern Ireland share of the reserved taxes. I presume that that refers to the taxes reserved under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Is that fund in a thoroughly solvent condition? A great many demands have been made on it, such as the contribution of the Government of Northern Ireland for Imperial expenditure, and I am not aware that these have been met. Is there any guarantee that they will be met in the case of payments made by the Treasury under this Resolution?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I have consulted the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) and ho informs me that he had no knowledge whatever of this Resolution being brought on to-night. I do not make any great point of that because a Money Resolution may be taken at any time of the night or morning, but if this sort of business is going to be brought on without; notice, and if hon. Gentlemen who work with me on these benches are not to have notice, I do not think that that is a proper way to conduct business. This is a Resolution of a very serious nature. It really arises out of the Act of 1894, which I have in my hand, with regard to the diseases of animals and in looking through this Act I do not see anything about tuberculosis in it. This is a Money Resolution to provide compensation for the farmers and other owners of animals which are slaughtered in connection with the disease of tuberculosis. The diseases mentioned in the Act do not appear in this Money Resolution neither do I see in the Act itself, on looking through it, any mention at all of tuberculosis, and I think we should have an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture on this point as to why we should have a Money Resolution on one particular disease and not for other diseases of animals. My hon. and gallant Friend beside me has suggested that there should be some limit. I wish to make an Amendment on that somewhere—

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid the hon. Member cannot move an Amendment. The Question already before the House is "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander K.ENWORTHY

The Memorandum on the Financial Resolution says the subsequent annual cost to the Exchequer in respect of Great Britain is estimated at approximately £50,000 per annum while the expenditure to local authorities will be about £17,500 plus the cost of administration but minus the receipt from the carcases of animals slaughtered. Surely there are two ambiguities there. Do the receipts from the carcases of animals slaughtered and the cost of administration come off that £17,500 that is anticipated the local authorities will spend annually, or is there also to be deducted from the £50,000 the cost of administration and the receipts of carcases of animals slaughtered. The wording does not seem to be very clear and the money resolution does not help very much. I would like to know whether the estimate of £50,000 includes the cost of administration and also the receipts or not arising from the sale of the products remaining after the animal carcase has been burnt. We suspect considerable expenditure in the cost of administration and the Minister ought to give some guidance as to what the costs of administration are. The danger is that if an outbreak of animal disease, such as foot-and-mouth disease, occurs, the Government appoint veterinary surgeons all over the country in the affected areas with the idea of stamping it out.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon Member is getting very mixed in his diseases. This is tuberculosis.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I was quoting foot-and-mouth disease only as an illustration. I was pointing out that a great many extra temporary officials are appointed. I can see the extreme importance of this inquiry that I am putting to the Minister of Agriculture. It is the tendency for these temporary officials to remain on in their employment after their real work is over. We saw it after the war in every Government department. Therefore the cost of administration may be extremely heavy and unnecessarily heavy and it is necessary for us to be told, and I think we are entitled to have an explanation before we part with this Money Resolution whether the cost of administration comes out of this approximate £50,000 or whether it is in addition to it. The wording of the Money Resolution is vague. I will read it again.

Mr. SPEAKER

That would be repetition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I did not read it in full before, but I shall not run the risk of repetition. There is a certain vagueness, and I think we are entitled to information on that subject.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon, and gallant Member is repeating each sentence three times over. If there be any more repetition, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Certainly, Sir. In the Act itself it is very clearly laid down in Section 7, Subsection (3) that where animals are slaughtered compensation shall be paid out of monies provided by Parliament. That is as clear as anything could be in the original Act of 1894. Why, then, is it necessary to make this provision? We are told it is necessary to pay out of monies provided by Parliament 75 per cent. of the compensation obtained from the local authorities. If my reading of the Act of 1894 is correct it is already provided that the whole compensation is to be paid in that way, and there seems to be some divergence from Section 7 of the Act. I should be obliged for some information on that point. Further, we should have some more information as to the amount we are voting.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

Most of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member were raised in detail when the Money Resolution was in Committee and most of them were, to my mind, satisfactorily answered by the Minister of Agriculture. It seems rather a pity that the reply of the Minister was not read by the hon. and gallant Member, who could thus have saved a certain amount of the time of the House. I only wish to put to the Minister one point, as to which we did not feel fully satisfied with his reply when the matter wag previously discussed. We are deeply concerned, from the consumers point of view as to whether any part of the carcase of an animal, which has been condemned and for which compensation has been paid, shall be used for human consumption. Under terms of the Money Resolution, the provision relating to local authorities is governed to some extent by the question of pro-coeds from the sales of the carcases of condemned beasts. That would seem to be placing a premium on the practice of selling for human consumption the remainder of a carcase which had been condemned as being infected by tuberculosis. The Minister in his reply on Friday said that on the general principle of safeguarding the consumer, he was in complete agreement with me, and he added: I think I may safely say, that no meat-liable to be prejudicial to the health of the consumer is allowed at the present time to be sold—at least not knowingly."— [OFFICIAL RETORT, 10th July, 1925; col 821. Vol. 186.] That statement does not go far enough to meet us. We are not convinced that in the case of any animal with a blood circulation, which is condemned for tuberculosis, any part of the carcase through which the blood has been pulsating is free from infection. We think no such part should be used in any circumstances for human consumption. We do not seek to restrict the expense which the Minister proposes to undertake but we think he ought to go further if necessary and provide more money so that there shall be no question of these carcases being used ultimately for human consumption.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood) rose—

Mr. BUCHANAN

I wanted to raise a point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I pretest against this conduct, and I am not going to be "ordered." This kind of con- duct is most unfair. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Order."] I tried to get in on the last occasion, but a Front Bench man cut in, and I can get no reply to my point. This procedure is most unfair, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of delaying, but I wanted a reply from the Minister.

Mr. WOOD

I do not know what the hon. Member wants exactly.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I wanted a reply from the Minister.

12 M.

Mr. WOOD

I am anxious to give a reply, and that is why I rose. I share the regret of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and, I think, the hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) were not able to assist us in our deliberations on the Committee stage of this Resolution. Had they been able, I think they would have heard the case thoroughly debated, and the points put to me to-night by them would have been answered The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull made a point arising out of the wording of the White Paper and asked what was the precise meaning of the wording about receipts from carcases slaughtered. If he reads the Memorandum on the financial Resolution, he will see that it is estimated that the cost to the Exchequer will be £50,000, and that the expenditure of the local authorities will be £17,500, but that towards the £17,500 they will have whatever may be derived from the sale of salvage, but that forfeit will have to be taken of the cost of administration. That is a matter entirely divorced from the expense falling on the central authority.

Mr. MACLEAN

Will the cost of administration be additional?

Mr. WOOD

Yes.

Mr. MACLEAN

On the local authorities?

Mr. WOOD

Yes, but there may be deducted from, that whatever they may be able to make by salvage, and that brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. He made the point when this Resolution was in Committee, and I assured him then, speaking offhand, that I did not yield to him in my anxiety to ensure that no portion of meat that might be considered diseased should be used for food. I have been able since then to refresh my mind, and perhaps inform it, as to the exact machinery that operates in such cases as those that will arise under the Order; and what actually will happen will be this, that the carcases of animals killed under this Tuberculosis Order will be submitted to the public health authorities, as are all other carcases of animals intended for human con sumption, including, of course, those carcases killed by butchers in the ordinary course of their trade. The duty of the meat inspection service is in change of the medical officers of health, who have, of course, nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Tuberculosis Order and are solely concerned with the consideration of human health. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that side of our local administration is under the Ministry of Health, but I have taken steps to inform myself of the circulars that have been issued to local authorities on this question of meat condemnation and meat approval, and if the hon. Gentleman has not seen it I would invite his attention—if he is not able to obtain a copy, perhaps he will allow me to send him one—to a Memorandum that was issued by the Ministry of Health to local authorities for the information of their officers under the date of 16th March, 1922, which, I think, amply covers the point about which he is concerned. He may rest assured that no meat that has been inspected and found unfit for human consumption will ever be passed. His fears, therefore, are not well founded.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I have no wish to detain the House, but I protest against procedure that prevents a back-bencher from speaking and getting a reply from the Minister. It is most unfair. I have as much right to speak as any frontbencher. The material points I want to put relate to the contribution of the national authority as compared with the local authority. I know that this question was raised on the Second Reading, but I was not then able to be present. I am not an agricultural expert and the points I wish to put have been brought to my notice since the Second Reading. The Minister says that the authority which condemns is entirely independent of the other authority. But very often the official, the veterinary surgeon, who acts under the Diseases of Animals Act, is also in the employment of the local corporation. That was the case in Glasgow. I understand that the medical officer of health has a certain control over the disposal of carcases, but he is very often employed by the two authorities concerned, and there is, therefore, not sufficient control. Suppose that an animal has tuberculosis. It is inspected and the presence of the disease detected. A portion of the animal is destroyed, but the other portion is sold. The Glasgow Corporation Markets Committee constantly had before them the question whether the portion that was sold had been contaminated, and there was a great difference of opinion among medical officers as to whether that portion might be affected. What absolute guarantee have we, in a big community like Glasgow, that the portion sold is not tainted? I am not an authority on the subject, but I am able to speak from my own experience on the Glasgow Town Council. It is the opinion of a very large number of medical people that in persons who are tuberculous, although one part of the body may be less affected than another, yet the disease spreads throughout the whole body. It seems to me, therefore, that you cannot separate it in the animal, and I think it would be fair if the whole animal were destroyed and nothing kept at all. Even if there is no taint, there is a constant dread in the public mind, and it would be a cheap thing to get rid of that dread. I am not at all satisfied about the contribution of 75 per cent. Take Glasgow, for example. Every county in Scotland sends cattle into Glasgow, and if they are diseased we have to pay 25 per cent., which is not our burden, but in the case of Glasgow the burden of the whole of Scotland. We think it ought to be increased, because in a place like Glasgow, or even Aberdeen, they have to bear a burden that is not their burden, but the burden of the whole of Scotland. The last point I want to put is this, to ask the Government on what date they are going to introduce this new Order.

Mr. WOOD

I will, with the leave of the House, answer the questions that have been put to me by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The answer to the last question is that the Milk and Dairies Act comes into operation on 1st September, and this Order will come into operation on the same date. With regard to the point raised about the 75 per cent., I am not disposed to argue with the hon. Member about the contribution, but I think that Local Authorities on the whole will be satisfied with 75 per cent., although some might like more. I would remind the House that this Order is a resurrection of the Order of 1914, under which 75 per cent. was adopted. With regard to the hon. Member's earlier observations, he will recognise that they are concerned rather with the Ministry of Health than myself. All I can undertake is to draw the attention of the Minister of Health to the observations of the hon. Member and impress on him their importance, which I think it will hardly be necessary to do. The hon. Member suggested that it was necessary to have some control in the interests of public health in that the Medical Officer of Health was concerned in the slaughtering side of the business. I do not know whether he had present to his mind that the Medical Officer of Health is an officer irremovable except by consent of the Minister.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I know that.

Mr. WOOD

That makes a fairly sharp distinction, and it was done by Parliament to insure that administration was carried out in the interests of public health. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will be able to give the House the order.

Captain GARRO-JONES

On a point of Order. The Minister did not give any explanation of the last point I raised. I desired to ask your notice to the last line of the Resolution in which it states that a sum equal to three-quarters of the contribution 60 made shall be made by the Treasury. We have to take cognisance of the last paragraph which states as regards Northern Ireland that contributions will be paid out of the Exchequer. It does not say in full, but it means in full.

Mr. SPEAKER

What is the point of Order that the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to put to me?

Captain GARRO-JONES

I desire to ask you Sir, on a point of Order, whether the Money Resolution authorising the payment of three-quarters of the sum actually authorises the payment of the whole in the case of Northern Ireland, and has to be recovered out of a fund which may or may not be in existence.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can raise that matter on the Bill.

Question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Edward Wood and Mr. Guinness.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL,

"to provide for contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the compensation payable by local authorities for the slaughter of cattle in accordance with orders made under The Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, in case of the existence or suspected existence of tuberculosis," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]