HC Deb 24 July 1925 vol 186 cc2588-604

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Contribution out of moneys provided by Parliament to compensation paid by local authorities for slaughtered cattle).


I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "Minister," to insert the words if he is satisfied that no carcase or any portion thereof has been or will be used for human consumption and. I have occupied the attention of Members at some length on the subject of this Amendment on previous stages of the Bill. I think I debated it on the Committee and Report stages of the Financial Resolution, and on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am quite unrepentant. As a result of the discussion in the House, a great deal of interest has been aroused in the country, and the Minister of Agriculture admits the question to be a very important one. Last week the Minister said, in reply to my first statement on this question: 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 REPORT, 10th July, 1925; col. 821, Vol. 186.] According to that statement, the Minister himself is not very certain that no meat which is unfit for human consumption on account of being tuberculous actually reaches the consumer. That is a serious state of affairs. Last Friday we had a technical discussion as to whether, in an animal with a circulating blood system, it was possible for any part of the carcase to be free from infection. I think it would be fair to say that no authority would lay it down definitely, without any fear of contradiction at all, that any part of an animal with a circulating blood system can be free from infection if tuberculosis has been found in another part of the carcase.

How is it going to be decided under this Bill whether any part of the carcase can be used for human food? I take it the powers given to the Minister under the Bill are to pay compensation for animals which have been inspected, when alive on farms, found to be suffering from tuberculosis and been condemned to be slaughtered. Where will they be slaughtered? Are they to be slaughtered immediately after condemnation? Are they to be sold to butchers for slaughter, and is the question whether part of the carcase can be used for human food to rest with the sanitary department of the local authority? If so, I can see very grave dangers arising. My own view is that where the State pays compensation for animals so condemned the animals ought not to be used in any way for human food, and that is the object of the Amendment I am moving.

I daresay hon. Members have read the report of the proceedings of the British Medical Association conference at Bath. I saw a report this morning by one very well known to me, who is on the staff of the county council of which I was a member, Dr. Savage, a very eminent authority upon public health matters. He said that in sausages there are constantly found large numbers of live-bacilli which are very dangerous to human beings, especially if the sausage be not well cooked.

I am afraid from what I have heard that very often the bad parts of a carcase of this kind are sold for use by people who make up from the offal of slaughtered animals tasty dishes—sausages and other things—for sale at a cheap price. Here we have evidence by an eminent authority on public health matters that they find in articles of diet very large numbers of germs which would be really inimical to the public health. When an animal is slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, someone can inspect ft and say that this portion and that por- tion are tuberculous, but that they can be cut out, leaving the remainder of the carcase to be used for human food. But there is no provision, so far as I know, for protection against the use of the blood from the animal.

Anybody who has been inside a slaughter-house knows that the blood from the various beasts mingles in one vessel and is used definitely for food purposes. It may be argued that this will be in the hands, not of the Ministry of Agriculture, but of the Ministry of Health, who will exercise all due precautions through the inspectors of the local authorities. There is no provision in the Regulations of the Ministry of Health for compensation in respect of animals condemned by the Ministry of Health after slaughter in a slaughter-house, but in this Bill we vote certain money as compensation where animals are condemned, and if we as a State do that, then surely we ought not to run the risk of continuing to spread infection. In the Debate on the last occasion a medical man said it would be a great waste to condemn the whole of an animal which was not infected in all its parts and of which large parts—especially, I think he said, the muscular parts —might be fit for food. In this matte: I want to take as my motto. "Safety first." When we reckon up what we provide out of State funds for the remedial treatment of tuberculosis, and contrast it with the small additional cost of preventing any part of a carcase for which compensation was being paid being used for human consumption, I think it would be worth while to go on the safety first principle, and definitely lay it down that no part of such a carcase should find its way into distribution for human food. I have seen it estimated that, through all the various agencies, national, local and voluntary, from £12,000,000 to £14,000,000 a year is paid in trying to cure tuberculosis. In this Bill we are voting £67,600 a year with a view to its prevention. We ought to devote more of our money to its prevention rather than trying to cure people who have been subject to the ravages of the disease. I press this Amendment upon the Minister with all the force at my disposal. I am sure he recognises its importance, and that he is not anxious to do anything which would be inimical to the public health, and so I hope he will accept the Amendment.


On the last occasion when this Bill was before the House I raised a point which has been put forward by my hon. Friend who spoke last, and I wish to again reinforce the arguments which have been so well placed before the Minister by the previous speaker. This is a subject which in many of our large towns is receiving a good deal of attention. In Glasgow the whole question has been carefully considered, and I may say that a considerable minority of the Glasgow City Council are in favour of this proposal. On this question I speak with a little inside knowledge, because for four years I served as a member of the Markets Committee of the Glasgow Corporation, which is the largest of its kind in the world and apart from London I should think that more cattle pass through Glasgow than any other place in England.

In regard to the question whether there is danger or not in regard to the consumption of this meat, we have to bear in mind that we should aim to create every confidence that there is no danger in the food consumed by the people. When once the people begin to feel that there is the slightest danger in the food they are consuming, you will be dealing a blow, not only at the confidence of the people but at the trade, because the moment people become suspicious in this way that their food is tainted, you create one of the worst features of this difficulty. For these reasons. I ask the Minister to see whether he cannot accept this Amendment. It may be argued that if you cut out the particular portion of the carcass that is diseased, there is not the slightest danger in regard to the other parts of the animal being contaminated. On that point I have heard different opinions expressed. I have heard people argue that in such cases there is no danger, and on the other hand I have heard people argue with great vigour in exactly the opposite direction.

I would like to refer to another point which has been raised with regard to the use made of blood. In Scotland, as in England, the blood of these animals is more and more every year being used in the preparation of food. What is happening is that this cheap meat is being largely used in sausages, consumed mostly by the working people, and the result is that this blood is being used to a much greater extent. Whatever may be advanced about the consumption of the carcases, I think there in no question about there being every chance of contagious diseases being spread by the consumption of blood. I know I shall be told that we have our public health service to protect us, but all towns are not alike in this respect, and in some cases the public servants are not the best people to do this work, and we want to safeguard ourselves in every possible way.

I think the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of one of those Departments that does not come under the general condemnation of most of his-other colleagues in the Government. I wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, because I think it is of the utmost importance that the nation's food should be absolutely free from any thought even of disease, and even if to be on the safe side the wasting of a few thousand pounds worth of this suspicious food, is involved, it would most certainly be worth it to secure to the community a greater measure of safety and at the same time secure one of the things that matter most, namely, good health.


I can assure the two hon. Members who have spoken on this question that in this matter there is no difference between their sympathies and my own. I have no complaint to make of the manner in which they have presented their case in the two speeches to which we have just listened. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for his kindly reference to the work of my Department, which I can assure him is very welcome. The broad plea put forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is that no part of a carcase for which public money has been voted should in any case be allowed to be passed on for human consumption. While my sympathy in this matter does not differ from theirs, I think I shall be able to satisfy them that, whatever the merits or demerits of the case may be at this moment, this Amendment is not one which they will wish to press after I have made my statement.

First of all, there is a small drafting point that owing perhaps to wrong diagnosis an animal slaughtered under this Order may be found non-tuberculous and the carcase should not therefore be condemned. I want to take a wider ground than that. The animals that will be affected by this Order, and slaughtered under it as tuberculous, constitute only a portion of the whole total of tuberculous carcases which are discovered after slaughter to be diseased. Hon. Members must be aware that the existence of tuberculosis may be discovered in a great deal of meat not affected by this Order, and I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite, and those who agree with them, would not feel on sure ground in saying that if their case be right at all that it was only right to press the public health argument where only public money is involved. I think they would be ready to press their argument whether public money was involved or not.

That leads me to the general ease as to whether our meat inspection Orders, and the practice now adopted are or are not. satisfactory. I do not speak with authority on this case, which concerns more the Department of the Minister of Health, but after consultation with my right hon. Friend, and on such advice as I have been able to take. and having regard to what was said on the Second Reading of this Bill, I think I am entitled to say that both medical and scientific opinion the whole world over does take the position—I do not say that position is not challenged—that the total condemnation of a carcase on evidence of local tuberculosis is unnecessary and wasteful. I say "the whole world over," because I beg hon. Members to appreciate that we are not alone in this matter.


Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that because a carcase is not used for human food it is wasted?


Not necessarily. I was only employing the same use of comparisons that the hon. Member for Gorbals had applied to myself. It is obviously more valuable as meat than it is converted into soap, or whatever else it may be used for. I was emphasising that we do not in this matter stand alone. I suppose that two of the most progressive countries, so far as the care for human food is concerned, are Holland and Denmark. In Holland, which is really a model country as regards meat inspection, they have similar laws to our own and condemn only a part of the carcase. I have also before me a report on the health organisation of Denmark, which was furnished, I think last year, to the League of Nations, and there if meat and offals of horses, cattle, sheep, and so on before slaughter or after slaughter show symptoms of disease they must not be offered for sale for human consumption or disposed of in any form unless an authorised veterinary surgeon, according to rules drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture, issues a certificate to the effect that the meat and offals are lit for human consumption. That shows that Denmark and Holland both conduct their business on the practice that obtains in this country, and hon. Members will recollect that that practice, as it exists to-day, was the outcome of a very full inquiry by a strong Departmental Committee in 1921, which itself had had regard to the earlier recommendations of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.

Therefore, for these reasons, I suggest that the extreme proposal of the hon. member for Hillsborough is unsound. Let me recapitulate. First of all, the bulk of medical opinion is that it is an exaggerated view of what "safety first" involves; and, in the second place, even if we put this Amendment into the Bill, it would not cover the whole of the ground that ho and I might wish to cover of ensuring that no meat in any part of any tuberculous carcase should be passed into human consumption, because tin's only covers a small proportion. Therefore, what he is really concerned in is a much larger proposition that would involve the alteration of all meat inspection orders in order to have a general practice which alone would achieve his purpose, if that purpose be justifiable. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that there is great importance in the avoidance of public suspicion. I do not think that you wholly dispose of the case when you quote medical or scientific opinion, if you have got a psychological state in people's minds giving ground for anxiety and suspicion. I so far agree with him, and I should myself feel it of the greatest importance to take every precaution, perhaps even an excessive precaution, from that point of view.

While I cannot accept this Amendment, I could go some way, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to meet what I think is the real substance in the argument on this part of the meat business. It is of importance to ensure that opportunity be given to the medical officer of health or his representative to see the animals that are slaughtered, and to make his certificate necessary before the carcase can be removed. That is not at present the case under the Order. I therefore suggest that it would go some way to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite if I promise to issue an Amendment to the Tuberculosis Order somewhat in the sense of saying that the local authority's inspector, acting under the Order, shall send a notice in writing to the medical officer of health of his intention to slaughter an animal under the Order, giving the address and the time when the animal will be killed—that, incidentally, answers the question of the hon. Member for Hillsborough with regard to the time and place of slaughter— and that the veterinary inspector shall not remove the carcase or offal from the premises until he has received from the medical officer a certificate stating whether the animal or any part thereof may be disposed of for human consumption. The effect would be to ensure that every carcase slaughtered under this Order shall be brought under the eye, not only of the veterinary officer who orders the slaughter, but also of the medical officer of health, whose duty it is to satisfy himself with regard to the meat which is to be passed for human consumption. In that way, the carcases of animals dealt with under this Order would be treated exactly on the same basis as are all carcases that are slaughtered at the present time.

If Parliament, in its wisdom, at any time thinks that a. case is made out for a general extension of our meat inspection system, in spite of what I have ventured to quote about the practice of other countries not less progressive in this matter than our own, it will, of course, be within its full competence to do so; but all I suggest that it is wise for us to do in connection with this Bill is to ensure that our practice under it is brought up to and in conformity with the provisions affording opportunity to the medical officer of health to take action under the general moat inspection laws of the country at the present time. If we wish at any time to go further, that will be a matter for my right, hon. Friend the Minister for Health, and I am quite certain—and I am sure that the House will also be certain—that if at any time a case is made out, my right hon. Friend will not be reluctant to take such action as would seem right when the case has been established. I hope that my hon. Friend may feel that I have done my best to go some way to meet him, and that the suggested Amendment I propose to the Tuberculosis Order will perhaps satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite that, as regards this particular Bill, I have done what I can to bring it into conformity with the general practice, and that they will be content to reserve the general case, if on the whole they think they can establish it, as an argument for a general alteration of our meat inspection system. That, however, I venture to suggest, does not arise on this Bill.


In rising to support the Amendment, I should like to express my appreciation of the sympathetic reception that has been given to it by the Minister. He has certainly gone some way towards meeting the case. I agree, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) on the Second Reading, that if you have merely a local tubercular lesion, you need not necessarily have a blood infection, and other parts of the carcase may be quite sound. At the same time, there may be a lymphatic spread of very doubtful extent, and it is a very difficult matter to delimit the exact portion which might safely be used for human food. It was also pointed out that a cow might have tuberculosis of the udder, for instance, and yet other parts of the body might be quite fit for food; out it is quite well known that in such a case you would almost certainly have a good deal of secondary infection, and of toxic absorption, and I think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) pointed out in the same Debate, other parts of the body, although perhaps not infected with tubercle, would be so affected by toxins, and so debilitated, that, apart from the question of infection, they would be unfit for human consumption.

The Minister pointed out that at present, apart from this Order, many animals are slaughtered which are found on inspection to have tuberculosis, and he truly declared that under the present system, as under the arrangement he suggests, certain portions may be passed for food and the rest cut out. I would point out, however, that in those cases tuberculosis is not so obvious from a clinical point of view as it will probably be in the case of those animals that are slaughtered under this Order, and, therefore, those cases under the Order would be much more aggravated, and probably the disease would be much more extensive. It seems to me that the real reason why there have not been more bad results from the consumption of such meat has been that such food has been usually well cooked. We know that the thorough cooking of infected moat is a very great safeguard. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) pointed out, those "bags of mystery" known as sausages, which are made up in a very peculiar way, and contain all sorts of things, may have in them portions of infected meat or offal, and they are very often cooked in a very superficial way. It is the same with meat that is minced, a kind increasingly used, which is often very lightly cooked, and, therefore, any infection of which would be a source of danger. With regard to one point that the Minister made against the Amendment, that certain animals would be found not to have tuberculosis at all after slaughter, owing to a wrong diagnosis having been made, that is certainly possible. But it seems to me that, if their clinical condition was such that they were suspected of being the subjects of serious tuberculosis, then, whatever their complaint was, it would not be a bad thing if they were condemned for human food.

The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Medical Officer of Health inspecting and marking-out these carcases is very interesting, and quite good, but would it not mean a considerable addition to his staff, and would it not probably put another burden on local authorities, which we are desirous of preventing? Would there be any great saving of money? At the present time there1 is considerable variation in the examination of diseased animals. In the larger cities there is a very good examination, very strict and very careful, but we know in the country districts that is not always the case. As a matter of fact, people sending animals for slaughter, where they are doubtful of them, very often avoid large towns, and send them to some smaller place where they can get them through. That sort of thing is perfectly well known. This Amendment proposes, as a help to the solution of the general problem, to remove certain definitely suspicious meat and that, as my hon. Friend said, we should go on the principle of "safety first." I do not know whether ho is going to press his Amendment, in view of the advance that the Minister has made. I would just like to express again my appreciation of the Minister's attitude and to urge him to carry on the good work, which I am very happy to say he has already done so well, of attempting to rid our country of this terrible disease of tuberculosis, a great part of which— varying from 35 to 50 per cent. of all cases of surgical tuberculosis—is due directly to the bovine tubercle.


My colleague who has just spoken has, I think, perhaps, given a rather exaggerated view of the danger of tubercle. As I tried to point out last week, I think it is recognised that a largo proportion of the cases of tubercle are eases in which the disease is very localised, and there is a large consensus of opinion in the medical profession which holds that there is practically no danger in the use of a large portion of the carcases of animals which are affected only by the local form of tubercular disease. The question of the blood has been raised. There are, of course, certain cases in which the disease is generalised, but in localised cases there is practically no risk of blood infection, and the blood is no more dangerous for human consumption than the flesh, which is largely used for human consumption.

I quite agree, of course, that in certain cases, in which tuberculosis is generalised, no part of the carcase should be used. The whole question really is whether we are to decide definitely that in all cases the carcase of a tubercular animal, however slightly affected, is unfit for human consumption. It seems to me that it is impossible to decide that those animals which are to be slaughtered under this Measure shall be considered to be tubercular and unfit for human consumption, and at the same time allow the use of those which are slaughtered, not under this Measure, but in the ordinary way, and which are found to have very small affections of tubercle. Both kinds of cases should be brought into the same category. You cannot destroy one set of cases, and not lay it down in the Order that the rest are to be destroyed also, because, if you are going to admit that there is any real risk of tubercle being conveyed by cases that are only mildly affected, public opinion would almost immediately insist upon any cases affected with tubercle being destroyed completely in the same way. Therefore, it seems to me that we have to decide definitely whether or not it is necessary to destroy the whole carcase in all cases affected by tubercle. The general opinion of the medical profession was backed by a Royal Commission which inquired into the subject some years ago, and which came definitely to the conclusion that there was not any danger in the great majority of cases. If that be so, we shall be acting more or less on sentimental grounds, and, as it seems to me, in a very wasteful and extravagant manner, if we pass this Amendment.


I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. He agreed with another colleague on these benches as to the danger of public opinion when it was going in the wrong direction. I want to ask whether the Ministry of Health will get a chief medical officer to publish a statement that, where an animal is suffering from a local attack of tubercle, that in no way affects the blood stream of that animal. The medical officer who is going to produce that and publish it is going to be a very strong-minded man indeed, because even the elementary education that we get in our schools in Scotland gives us a very fine idea of what is meant by the blood stream, and how, when the blood reaches any part of the body, it comes back, and that would mean that if the heart pumped blood to the infected part, it would draw it back. I have listened to the technical side of the argument of medical men in this House, but they leave me in the dark with regard to that as a common layman, so far as medical science is concerned. As medical men, you have to convince the public that an animal can have a local attack of tuberculosis, and give a medical certificate that that in no way affects the blood stream. That is going to take a lot of doing. If you cannot do that yon are bound to support this Amendment in the interest of public safety. It is no use saying to me "Here is a cow, and I am cutting this part out because it is affected but you can eat the other part." You will not get me to eat the other part. In small towns, where they do not have continuous killing, you find all sorts of malpractices because there are always smart men going about who can even change the colour of the meat sometimes. I hope the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture will have the courage of what they are saying, and get a medical officer to publish a statement that, if a cow is attacked with tuberculosis on the hip, that in no way affects the shoulder, and the disease does not come into the blood stream. I ask the Ministers if they are going to have that published at once so as to allay public opinion.


I do not wish to criticise the Minister's reply, because I am in entire agreement with him, but he foreshadows certain orders or instructions which, it was proposed, might be made dealing with the matter. I should like to know from which Department those orders are likely to be issued, and under which Act, because an order made under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, is not laid on the Table of the House. I have made inquiries in the Library, and cannot find any instruction as to orders being made. I believe, on reference to the Act it is simply orders dealing with the importation of animals which have to be laid.


I appreciate very much the way in which the Minister of Agriculture has approached the Amendment, though I am afraid he is not meeting us to the extent we desire, in some places the carcase may be properly inspected, but once it is ordered for slaughter a great deal of the blood will have disappeared before the medical officer gets near it. Furthermore, I am not sure that he is going to gain anything by the Amendment, because the objection that has been brought against it up to now has been on the ground of economy—the great cost to the nation of destroying all these animals without some part being used for human food. I think we ought to take that risk and I am quite satisfied that in the large centres, where most of these animals are detected and would be destroyed, there are arrangements whereby the greater portion of the cost of the animal would be recovered. As a matter of fact I am not quite sure whether we do not make as much of the carcase in the way of hides and manures and all the rest of it as if we sold it for human consumption. At any rate, there is not so much in it. The cost of administering the Amendment, I am afraid, is rather against it. However, I am satisfied that if the Minister will boar in mind the importance of the subject he could get some Amendment from the other Department and then perhaps we might have done some amount of good by this discussion. I am with my colleague in supporting the Amendment because we feel we ought to take every means to protect the peoples' food. The many learned medical men who have spoken have assured us that there is very little risk in eating the meat from a carcase of this description. I have been interested in public health for something like 20 years and I am satisfied that no Member of the House would touch the carcases I have seen and that no housewife, however ignorant she might be, if she once saw an emaciated carcase which wad affected in any degree by tuberculosis.


The hon. Member refers to tuberculosis with emaciation. Under the existing Order, if any such carcase be found it is always seized automatically. No part of the carcase of an animal that has had tuberculosis with emaciation is allowed to pass for human consumption.


I know all about that, but I know it does come in, and that is why I want it destroyed. Where you leave it open for inspection it depends entirely upon the inspector. You may have to wait until the medical officer of health comes round. That is all right when you have efficient health administration, but health administration is not as efficient as we should like it to be and it is slipshod in certain directions. There are people who trade in this suspicious meat. They know where there is a market for it. We know that you Gentlemen even in your very exclusive restaurants, are getting some of it. When you go to a restaurant you do not Bee the meat that goes into the sausage, and you are as likely to get it as I am Undoubtedly you get a great proportion of it because as a rule it is cheaper than the other. I am sorry the Minister cannot see his way to have this destroyed because I am satisfied that by spending money in this way you would save it in sanatoria and dispensaries, and I would rather spend money in prevention than in cure.


I am not sure that I understand the danger which is apprehended by the right hon. Gentleman. Does he fear the danger of tuberculosis being communicated to other parts by the blood stream, and, therefore, would have the carcase destroyed, because he is afraid of introducing tuberculosis into the human subject? If so, the consensus of medical opinion is definitely against him. If you are going to take up the attitude that if the blood stream carries certain poisons or toxins, the tuberculous cow is to be destroyed or account of the presence of the toxins, you are opening up a big question. Suppose you have a cow which has an attack of indigestion, through eating something which has disagreed with it, and certain chemical poisons get into the blood, and the cow is killed. Are you to condemn it because certain chemical poisons are circulating in the blood just before it dies? Take the case of a cow buffering from rheumatism, or a cold, or kidney trouble. Are you going to destroy it simply because the blood is not perfectly healthy. If you carry that argument to its logical conclusion, it will mean that you cannot kill an animal for human consumption unless it has an absolutely clean bill of health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There are very few animals in this country that could pass such a test, and there are very few human beings who would be able to get such a clean bill of health. The danger which is anticipated from anything circulating in the blood of these animals is very much exaggerated, and I think it may be absolutely ignored. There is no danger of tuberculosis being carried by the blood stream except in the case of a cow with acute general tuberculosis, and that is always destroyed.


We appreciate the attitude of the Minister, although he has not met us. He has made a suggestion that he would propose at a later stage an Amendment of the Tuberculosis Order.


It will not be necessary to bring it before the House because the Order is only an Administrative Order. I propose to issue an Amendment to that Order.


I do not wish to divide the House until I have had an opportunity, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me, of seeing on paper the Amendment which he is going to issue to the Tuberculosis Order.




If we are not satisfied, we will divide the House on the Report stage of the Bill. That will save time and discussion now.


There will not be any Report stage, but the hon. Member would be in Order in moving to recommit the Bill on the Third Reading.


Am I to understand that we should be out of Order on the Report stage.


When there is no Amendment to a Bill, there is no Report stage. The hon. Member can serve his purpose by putting down a Motion to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading for the purpose of raising his point.


Thank you. We will do that if necessary. I should like to withdraw my Amendment, on the assumption that the Minister will be kind enough to communicate to me the terms of his Amendment to the Tuberculosis Order.

1.0 P.M.


I will certainly do that. I will show the hon. Member the terms of the Amendment to the Order, so that he may have them before him. In regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb), I have made inquiries, and am informed that a draft of the Order was placed in the Library, so that if he wishes to see it, he can see it there. In regard to his second point as to the proceedings, it would be the duty of my Ministry to make the Amendments to this Order, and to convey those Amendments by circular letter to the local authorities.


Since making my inquiry, I have been informed that the Order has been laid to-day. Yesterday, I inquired from the librarian, and was unable to see a copy of the Order.


I consulted the Order 10 days ago in the Library.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 (Application to Northern Ireland) and 3 (Short title and citation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, without Amendment, be Reported to the House."


On the Motion to report the Bill, may I remind the Minister of a point on which we were not satisfied when the Bill was previously before the House?


On the Question, "That the Bill be reported to the House," a discussion on the merits of the Bill cannot be raised.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third Time upon Monday next.