§ Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTENI beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
continue to apply in the case of store cattle, but shall.When, in 1922, the importation of store cattle from Canada was permitted under the Act passed in that year and at the same time cattle which came from Ireland were placed in the same position as cattle coming from foreign countries, there was one provision in the Act of 1922 which to some extent mitigated the hardship which was thereby imposed upon the importer, and it was that the fee which could be charged in respect of the examination of imported animals was limited to the sum of 6d. per animal. It is now, five years later, proposed to remove that restriction and to allow any sum to be charged in respect of imported animals which the Treasury may think fit in respect of the expenses of testing such animals. Both on the Second Reading of this Bill and in Committee, the Minister has positively stated that there is no intention whatsoever of applying this provision to store cattle. He has explained that the object of the provision is to apply a test for horses for the purpose of seeing whether they are suffering from glanders, that as that test involves some expense it is reasonable that the importer should pay that expense, and that there is no intention to apply it to store cattle. Then, naturally enough, it is asked, Why not accept the proposal that is made in this Amendment, that the power to make this additional charge should not be applicable to store cattle? To that, the Minister replies: "The advances which science makes nowadays are so rapid that I cannot be certain but that in the 2524 course of a few years some test may be discovered which it would he desirable to apply to store cattle; and, therefore, I want to take this provision to enable me to apply such a test which may be hereafter discovered, not because it can be used at the present time, but because it may, if science advances, become useful hereafter."I venture to ask if it, is desirable in the public interest to place this further difficulty in the way of importing store cattle, when the possibility of using the provision depends upon some discovery which is not even as yet adumbrated at all. After all, it is to the interests of this country that store cattle should be imported as economically as possible, and any further difficulty or expense that is put in the way of importation must, of course, add to the charge ultimately to the consumer and, at the same time, diminish the trade. Those are obvious and commonplace considerations which, I think, must appeal to the Minister. Further, the apprehension that such a charge may be made will in itself do a considerable amount of injury to the farmers who breed these store cattle for importation into this country. I therefore, hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, but, if not, I hope that the Minister will at least repeat the assurance that there is no intention whatsoever to impose this charge on store cattle, because, with that assurance, some of the injury which is done by inserting this provision in the Bill will be mitigated. I would also venture to make this appeal to him on behalf, anyhow, of the farmers in Northern Ireland. Before any Order is made imposing this further charge on cattle coming from Northern Ireland, I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture will communicate with the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, with a view to seeing whether arrangements cannot be made for conducting whatever test is required to be made over there, before the expense of bringing the cattle to this country has been incurred. Let me assure the Minister that any stipulations he desires to make, any recommendations he may put forward, will be most readily and most loyally accepted by the Government in Northern Ireland. There is no precaution which he could suggest that they would not be ready to take.
2525 May I make one further observation? When this proposal was before the Committee there was some apprehension that it was designed to limit, or had the effect of limiting, the protection which the flocks and herds of this country have by reason of the action of the Minister of Agriculture. That is not so at all. Everyone must agree that every possible precaution must be taken to protect the flocks and herds of this country from infection. There is no question whatever as to the Ministry having the fullest powers to examine, test and slaughter. The only question is whether the Government should obtain this power to impose the charge in a hypothetical case which has not arisen, and may never arise.
§ Colonel GRETTONI beg to second the Amendment.
I only want to add to what my hon. and learned Friend has said, that I have not the slightest intention of advocating in any way that tests should not be applied as far as they are necessary. The whole matter arises in giving the Minister and the Treasury power to impose a charge which is not stated. I only wish to say, further, that any measures to obstruct the trade in store cattle from. Northern and Southern Ireland is a vital matter to many farmers who buy those cattle. Many farmers in this country have depended on store cattle from Ireland for many years, and I am informed that the supply is seriously diminishing. I hope that the Minister will not, by any action he is taking now, in any way curtail or prevent that supply flowing without needless restriction. I have no wish to imperil the cattle of this country through disease, but I am anxious that the supply should not be restricted needlessly.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERObviously, no Member of the House, on whatever side he sits, is anxious at any time to support any proposal which would be likely to increase in any way the risk of disease to the herds of this country, and thereby increase the risk to the health of the people, but one is bound to say, in considering this Amendment, that Clause 4 of the Bill gives ground for very grave suspicion to many of the people and associations who have been concerned with the general question of 2526 the importation of cattle for many years past. The history of the Ministry of Agriculture, of all shades of political opinion, in its administration of this matter for the last 34 years is not very creditable, and when the Minister comes along now with a Clause in a Bill in which it is sought to impose higher and restrictive charges, and, in some degree, those restrictive charges are not defined, and there is a danger, perhaps, of excessive charges being made, the suspicion of those people, who have been fighting so long for a freer importation of healthy animals into this country, becomes deeper.
If the Clause, as a whole, is looked at, it will be seen that it is an extension of the present powers under the Importation of Animals Act, 1922. That Act is part of the general series of Diseases of Animals Acts, but the reason given by the Ministry of Agriculture for the inclusion of this amending Clause is that, because of the failure to work properly the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, representations were made to the British Government by the Canadian Government, and because there was political disputation—I think that is a fair way to put it—the matter was referred to the Imperial Economic Conference of 1924. As a result of that, the Importation of Pedigree Animals Act was passed in 1925, and, according to previous statements made, we understand that this amending Clause 4 is in order to provide adequate testing for the animals to be imported under the 1925 Act. That, again, deepens our suspicion, because many of us hold the view that there was never any need of the 1925 Act at all, except as a piece of camouflage.
There was never any difficulty about importing pedigree animals at any time previously. The provisions of the 1896 Act have been invoked again and again for the importation of animals for any special cause whatsoever, and the officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, and successive Ministers, must have known that the 1896 Act has been used to allow the importation of a small herd of pedigree Holsteins and similar beasts. The whole Act of 1925 was, to my mind, simply a piece of camouflage to satisfy an agitation which was put up to the Imperial Economic Conference about the 2527 failure properly to apply the provisions of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922. That piece of camouflage having been passed, they now want to make certain that it shall not work to any great extent, and to make the conditions as restrictive as possible. It is to be possible for animals which come here to be held up for indefinite periods of time, with the owners left suite uncertain as to the charges in which they will ultimately he mulcted, because these will depend on the length of time the officials like to detain the beasts.
Although the Minister smiles he knows that our suspicions are fairly well grounded. He knows perfectly well that there has been intense dissatisfaction with the way in which the general provisions as to the admission of the store cattle referred to in the Amendment have been carried out. Again and again people have complained that animals sent as store cattle have been classed as fat cattle and slaughtered at the ports, in that way considerably restricting the development of what might have been a very beneficial trade in store cattle between Canada and this country. I am certainly not anxious to put anything like a real block in the way of proper provisions for preventing the spread of disease, but our experience is that the danger does not arise so much in the case of the countries from which we import either our pedigree stock or our storecattle, and that we ought to take much more adequate steps for the prevention of the disease which is bred in our own herds. I am not at the moment referring to pleuro-pneumonia or cattle plague, but to other forms of disease, but I do not wish to pursue that on this Amendment, as I may have something to say about the general failure of the Government to deal with the situation when we come to the Third Reading.
In regard to this particular Amendment, I think I have shown why there is suspicion in the minds of many people as to what is the real design of the Ministry of Agriculture in bringing in this Clause. If the fears of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment are found to be well grounded, I think we ought to support him. He speaks for Northern Ireland, whereas I refer to the trade with 2528 Canada in store cattle which is of fair volume, although not nearly as large as one would like to see. If the breeders of Canadian store cattle are to be told that instead of a fixed per capita fee on these animals on landing any animal may be held up under observation and tests for two, three, four or five weeks, that will prove to be such a handicap upon the trade as to make it impossible for that development to conic about which we desire to see. That is where we fear the cloven hoof. What is the real design of the Minister of Agriculture? Is it still further to restrict the trade of this country in what we, at any rate, regard as healthy cattle, which would make first for the building up of the fresh meat supply of the country, and, secondly, would improve the herds of the country by introducing breeding cattle?
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEYThe speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) has convinced me of the necessity for this power to be given to the Minister. I sympathise with my hon. and learned Friend from the North of Ireland, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten), and I would do nothing to injure the trade in the importation of store cattle from the North of Ireland, because I know their regulations for the prevention of disease are as efficient, and as efficiently carried out, as are those in this country. I cannot believe that he really has anything to fear under this Clause, and after the declaration we have had from the Minister that there is no intention to put this power into operation against the cattle of Northern Ireland l think he ought to be satisfied. But the hon. Member for Hillsborough has opened a serious vista. He has not only referred to the importation of store cattle from Canada but has referred to store cattle coming in from various other places, to Dutch cattle, amongst others, and South African, and to cattle from various places. He looks forward to a large extension of the importation of store cattle. The larger the importation and the more countries from which the cattle come the more absolutely essential it is that the Minister should have such a power as this.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI never mentioned any other country in my speech. I never mentioned Dutch store cattle. I only referred 2529 to the fact that the Ministry had admitted a small herd of pedigree Holsteins under the 1896 Act.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYThe hon. Member spoke of Holstein cattle, which I call Dutch cattle, and he certainly talked of a very large importation of Canadian cattle. As I understand it, the only power the Minister has is to order certain of these animals to be detained when he has reasons for suspicion. Why should he not have that power, and why should he riot have the power to put some of the cost on the importers? Apart from that, I think it is absolutely essential that he should have such power to secure the preservation of our cattle from disease. One of the most beneficial Measures passed by the Ministry has been the Order keeping out foreign pigs. I trace to that in the main, and also to the tightening up of the Regulations by the Ministry, our more or less comparative freedom from foot-and-mouth disease during the last three months. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Hillsborough should regard this power as unfair. As I understand the position, and the Minister will bear me out if I am right, it is only in test cases where he has some grounds of suspicion that he will take action, and in such circumstances the cost to the importer cannot be heavy, whereas the value of the safeguard to this country is immense.
§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness)The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is raising a bogy in this matter. He talks about the Ministry of Agriculture interfering with the import trade by keeping animals from four to six weeks while a test is being carried out. In fact, these tests take two or three days at the most. Further, we already have the power to impose these tests, and what we are now asking the House is that where these tests are imposed the cost should not be thrown on to the State but on to the party who is making a profit out of the importation. At the present time we are limited to a charge of 6d. for the cost of examination. Of course, that does not cover the skilled attendance that is necessary in the case of one of these modern tests. We have no idea of 2530 dealing with store cattle in a different way, and we are not throwing any additional expenditure on the Irish exporters for whom the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) speaks. Under the present law the importation of tuberculous cattle from Ireland or anywhere else is forbidden. We do not generally test under the Tuberculosis Order. Occasionally we do, and I can give my hon. and learned Friend the assurance that in those few cases where we have to test these stores we shall continue our present practice and not make any charge. This proposed new power is not intended for this class of traffic in our present markets.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERThe statement which the Minister of Agriculture has just made seems to be slightly different from that which he made on the Second Reading of this Bill on which occasion he said:
There is no thought of testing store cattle with tuberculin.The statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is that you do test certain store cattle.
§ Mr. GUINNESSI ought to have said "general testing," but where we do test I can give the assurance to which I have alluded. We have to see that animals are not imported showing obvious signs of tuberculosis. We do occasionally test them, but it is such a small matter that, quite apart from my hon. and learned Friend's anxiety, we certainly should never dream of recovering in so small a number of cases. I think it would be a mistake, in view of the possible advances which may take place in science, and the danger that there may be epidemics in other countries against which science may enable us by testing to take precautions in the future to tie our hands in that respect, and to exempt store cattle from the same liability as to cost in connection with testing as is imposed on other imported animals. It is for that reason I ask the House to agree to this Clause.
§ Sir M. MACNAGHTENThe assurance which my right hon. Friend has given is quite satisfactory, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2531§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. BUXTONI should like to remind hon. Members that although this Bill is practically unamended it was amended in Committee, and it was owing to a technicality behind which the Minister hid himself that the Amendment which was considered in Committee does not appear in the Bill. I think that Amendment ought to be put on record, because it was a proposal in favour of one of the provisions of the Pretyman Committee which recommended that workers who were thrown out of work owing to foot-and-mouth outbreaks should be compensated. The proposal was carried largely by the votes of supporters of the Minister, and therefore the ground upon which the Amendment is based is a very strong one. On this point, the Pretyman Committee reported:
As the Unemployment Insurance Act does not cover agricultural workers, these skilled men were left wholly unprovided for. We recommend that agricultural workers necessarily unemployed during the slaughter of stock should receive from the State the same benefits as they would have received had they been within the scheme of the Unemployment Insurance Act.It is a fact that while the farmer may lose very heavily the worker, proportionately to his position, is affected far more disastrously, and may be totally ruined, because he has nothing upon which to fall back. The proposal is based upon the understanding that hardship should be the proper ground for granting compensation. This Bill results from the recommendations of two Committees, the Research Committee and the Departmental Committee which sat in 1922, which were again appointed by myself in 1924, and which very naturally expressed the opinion then that much expense would have been avoided if these recommendations had been acted upon without undue delay. I think we were very fortunate in the personnel we got for both those Committees, and they more than justified the confidence reposed in them. The Leishman Committee confirmed the virulence of foot-and-mouth disease, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that some progress has been made in this direction. I would also like to ask the Minister if he can give us some further information as to the total cost 2532 of the outbreaks which have occurred. The country ought to realise the colossal figure which has been reached in this respect since 1921.At a moment when there is an appeasement in the situation it is very easy for the public, and even for the Ministry, to let the matter slide in the pressure of other work, but it is very urgent that full powers should be taken while the public is willing to support reform. This Bill does not go quite far enough. I know it adopts a good many of the proposals of the Pretyman Committee, but by no means all of them, although perhaps the chief recommendations are to be found in this Measure. The main proposal of the Pretyman Committee was that the policy of slaughter should continue. The Minister, in a speech, I think, on the Second Reading, hinted that circumstances might conceivably arise in which that policy would be too expensive for the country to tolerate. That is why it will be so interesting to know, if he can tell us, what the outbreaks of recent years have cost up to the present. Incidentally, I would like to ask the Minister whether the rule regarding slaughter by the firearm method is continued, and whether it is found that it can be universally applied.
The Government, however, are not relying entirely on regulations, either those in existence or those proposed in this Bill. The main thing that the Government have done in regard to foot-and-mouth disease is in regard to the embargo on foreign meat, and it is on that matter that I hope the Minister will give us more information to-day. I think the argument has been too freely used that it is the embargo which caused the improvement in the situation. I want to remind the House that the situation here cannot be compared with the situation abroad, and deductions cannot be drawn from that comparison in favour of the embargo, as has been done by the Government. For instance, in 1924, which was a very bad year, we had 1,400 cases; but in that year Germany had 40,000 cases, and we are even now, in the present year, above the figure for 1921, when there was no embargo at all. Other evidence is needed to support the policy of the embargo beside this comparison with foreign figures. I think that the proof has not been given as adequately as the 2533 Minister should give it, and that, especially when, by common admission, the Government is protectionist in its desires and ideals, it is incumbent upon it to give extra proof of its clean hands.
There is one particular side of the matter which especially interests the Minister, namely, the position of the bacon factories. It is a most disastrous thing that a set-back has been inflicted on the bacon factories because of the embargo. This is one of the most hopeful developments in better marketing. Our main need, as everyone knows, is for progress in marketing rather than in production, and, just as a beginning was being made with a number of factories, they are smashed by the embargo. The Minister himself, I believe, is interested in the Edmundsbury factory, and I should like very much to know what is the point of view of those who run it and who supply it with pigs. For instance, there is a very prominent farmer in Suffolk, Mr. Black, who is deeply concerned in it, and I rather think the Minister is on the board of that particular factory. It would be very relevant and interesting if he would tell us frankly what is the point of view of the Ministry themselves and of the persons concerned in the bacon factory movement—what they have to say to the policy of the embargo; and I should like the right hon. Gentleman in some way to show his readiness to lift the embargo at the very first moment that it ceases to be needed on account of disease. If it is needed in regard to European meat, why is it not needed in regard to South American meat? A distinction is drawn there, but one of the points in the evidence before the Pretyman Committee was to the effect that South America was suffering very badly from foot-and-mouth disease.
Taking the Bill as a whole, it is a great contribution to the improvement of the cumbersome procedure through which we are suffering. I certainly think, from my own experience, that a very large part of the cost that we have to endure has been due to defective procedure, a great part of which the Bill will remedy. Officials were hampered every day in the conduct of administration, and I welcome every bit of the stiffening up of administration which will be afforded by the Bill. My only criticism would he that the stiffening up is not 2534 great enough, and that rather more might have been done. For instance, with regard to the question of valuation, the Pretyman Committee actually held the view that a danger might arise from excessive compensation, and they devised a plan of panels of valuers, aimed, in the first place, at rapidity, which is vital, and, in the second place, at the removal of the possibly dangerous effect of excessive compensation. They recommended, for instance, a deduction of 10 per cent., and I wish the Minister could have included that in the Bill. But, of course, many of the proposals are extremely valuable, and, especially in connection with the movement for cleaner milk, which is of such vital importance, we are dealing with a matter of very great concern to national health in general, as well as to our agriculture. We have to remember not only what it has cost to deal with foot-and-mouth disease, but the far greater cost incidentally through the losses occasioned by the presence of the disease. I only hope that the Bill is adequate to meet the case, and I wish it all the success that it can get.
§ Mr. PALINGThe remarks that I desire to make on this Bill are rather in the nature of a protest in regard to the attitude adopted in Committee by the Minister and his supporters against a certain Amendment which was got through. This Bill will introduce general principles of which we are in favour. It was fully discussed in detail by the Committee, and an Amendment was inserted on the question of increased compensation where agricultural labourers were thrown out of work. In spite of the severe opposition of the Minister to that Amendment, and of all his efforts to rally his supporters to his aid, he lost sufficient of his own supporters to lead to the Amendment being carried. They felt so keenly about this matter, and were so sure of the justification for the new Clause in question, that they actually voted against their own Minister and allowed us to carry it. Of course, however, it was brought back to the House, and, on the plea that the Financial Resolution did not allow of this extra charge, the Bill was recommitted; and, where the Minister failed in the first Committee, he succeeded in the second. This matter was 2535 referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)I confess that I was not acquainted with the details of the matter, but this would appear to be really to be a reflection on the Rules of the House. I understand that the Committee was within its powers in acting as it did, and, obviously, Mr. Speaker considered that that was the case. I do not see how the matter can be further discussed.
§ Mr. PALINGOf course, if I may not refer to the matter, I will drop it. It was not my intention to reflect on Mr. Speaker in any what whatever. It was, however, the evident intention of the Committee, including the Minister's own supporters, that this provision should be included, and we think that ways and means could have been found, by another Financial Resolution, to meet the desire of the Committee; but, rather than do that—I am complaining of the Minister, not of the ruling—rather than do that the Minister, in spite of the intention of his own supporters, took advantage of this ruling and ruled out what was the intention and desire of the whole Committee. I think it does not reflect very much credit upon the Minister. In connection with this Bill, and with previous Bills dealing with this matter, ample provision has been made for compensation for farmers who lose stock that has to be slaughtered because of any disease that has occurred. But nothing has been done up to the present in this or any other Bill to make any such provision for those who may lose their employment because of the slaughter. After the fullest discussion it was agreed that this should he done, and then the Minister takes advantage of this set of circumstances in order to get away from it. It appears to me that the agricultural labourer is forgotten in nearly everything that comes before the House so far as this Government are concerned.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEROn Third Reading, discussion is limited to what is in the Bill. On the Second Reading it may turn on what ought to be in it. but on Third Reading it has often been laid down that it can only turn on the provisions actually contained in the Bill.
§ Mr. PALINGI am not so much against what is in the Bill as against what is out of it and might have been contained in it had it not been for the course the Minister took. I have recorded my protest and I will be satisfied.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERWe have come to the Third Reading of a, Bill which was described by the Minister at its introduction as having the object of improving and modernising our methods of defence against contagious diseases in animals. If that were adequately secured by the Bill there would be very little criticism of it indeed. It does not require any party feeling at all to get support to a Measure which is aimed against the spread of disease. One cannot help thinking, in analysing the Bill, that in taking Government time to deal with a general amending Measure to the whole series of Diseases of Animals Acts the Government would have been better advised to go very much further than they have gone. I am certain there will be very general agreement with the first two Clauses. I have been a little more doubtful about Clause 3. On Clause 4 we have had some reassuring statements made as to the intentions of the Ministry this morning, but what it really does fail in is in going any distance at all towards securing the object for which the Minister said it was introduced, especially in relation to one disease in which we are all vitally interested, not merely on the general question of the commercial prosperity of agriculture, but from the point of view of the health of the people, and that is the question of taking adequate steps to deal with bovine tuberculosis. I have heard the Minister from time to time rather scornful of some of the suggestions that have been made as to the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis and its effect upon human health, but all the weight of evidence has really been upon the side of those who have been fighting at every conceivable opportunity to get more stringent measures adopted with regard to this disease. I attended the National Milk Conference of 1922 at the Guildhall, and I have never taken part in a conference at which I was more impressed with the weight and technical value of the evidence, and the rather serious state of affairs that was revealed.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have just said about the limitation of discussion on Third Reading. If there are provisions in the Bill which purport to deal with it, he is in order, but I gather that this is outside the Bill altogether.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI have referred to the fact that the Minister in introducing the Bill said its object was to make better provision. I want to show that there is no adequate provision made in the Bill and I hope it will be in order.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is in order in pointing out that the Bill does not deal with matters of importance.
§ Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNIf the hon. Gentleman is allowed to develop his point, I hope we shall be allowed to disprove what he says—I have much medical evidence that I should like to bring forward.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI cannot say more than I have said, that on Second Reading anything relevant to the subject matter of the Bill, and what might be in it, and what is not in it, can be discussed, but on Third Reading it has been laid down by many Speakers that discussion must be restricted to the provisions found in the Bill.
§ 2.0 p.m.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe difficulty in dealing with that is that during the discussions on the Bill, statements have been made again and again as to the real object of particular Clauses. We understand, for example, that the object of Clause 4 is to make provision for tuberculin testing at the ports, and certain other provisions were similarly commented upon. We think they are inadequate to deal with the present state of disease in the herds.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf the hon. Gentleman hangs his argument on particular Clauses, he will be in order.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThat is the case I wanted to put. It is argued by the Minister that the Bill will help to get rid of tuberculosis in the herds of the country. That was part of the argument of the Minister in asking for Government time for the Bill. While it will not be 2538 detrimental from that point of view, it will not secure anything like the amount of advantage, either to the herds or to the health of the people, that is desirable. The percentage of tuberculosis to be found in the herds of the country is stated to be of very varying degree according to where the statement comes from. Some people say it is as high as 70 per cent. in milch cows of from 10 to 15 years old. Others say it is 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., taking dairy cattle as a whole. But we have plenty of evidence from the milk tests to show that there is very real danger to the people of the country from the failure to arrest in any great degree the existence of tuberculosis in our herds. I have the evidence of a very well-known authority, one I have heard speak on this two or three times, Dr. Nathan Raw. who said:
It is a sad reflection on our milk supply to know that over 15 per cent. of all milk supplied to the public contains living tubercle germs which have the power to produce disease in children and young adults,and that he hashad over 10,000 patients suffering from tuberculosis of which 2,200 cases were caused by infected milk.Surely that is a very serious state of affairs, and while we recognise that the intention behind an amending Bill of this sort is to try to deal with that state of things, we submit that this Bill fails completely to meet the situation. This will be read in conjunction with all the other Diseases of Animals Acts, and under the other Acts we have a Tuberculosis Order working. There is a lump sum voted each year by Parliament for compensation, and a number of animals are slaughtered each year. So far as one can tell at present, that is only dealing with the fringe of the subject. There is no evidence at present from the tests of the milk taken that there is a very rapid improvement. I have made inquiries many times during the last two years—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with anything in the Bill. I do not think it is hardly appropriate on this occasion.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI am in your hands, Sir. It is difficult for me to pursue what seems to me to be a legitimate argument if you find it is technically outside the Clauses of the Bill. But what I do say 2539 is that the Minister has laid it down that the object of the Bill is to prevent the spread of these infectious diseases and to restrict them and that he has argued in Committee and upon the Second Reading that a part of the function of Clause 4 is to make provision for tuberculin testing. In the discussion this morning also on Report stage—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt seems to me it is as irrelevant as if on a Bill for vaccination a medical Member in this House were to get up and complain on Third Reading that it had nothing whatever to do with the prevention of cancer.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWith great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not think the analogy is quite good. I am speaking this afternoon with reference to tuberculosis and I am attaching my argument to the claim of the Minister that that will be really attacked by the provision he is making through this Bill far tuberculin testing.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe Report deals with specific diseases and now the hon. Member has raised an argument about home herds and so on, and other matters which there is nothing in the Bill to support. We have already had an argument on the same subject.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI do not wish to be in conflict with the Chair upon this matter or to be seriously at variance with hon. Members opposite for the time being, although probably they will hear from us again with regard to this particular item. Generally summing up the position, it is this, that it is rather a pity that when there is a real need for dealing with the general disease situation in regard to cattle the Government should take the trouble in a Session in which the poor Patronage Secretary has been so harassed as to how to find time to allot even the necessary Supply days for the Session that Government time should have been given to this Bill without making adequate provision to deal with diseases which we know exist in the herds and to deal in a wider way still by having adequate means of replenishing the beasts which are destroyed from our herds by importing healthy dairy cattle from the free ranges of our Dominions.
Brigadier-General BROWNMay I, while keeping in Order, say why I welcome this Bill? One reason is because I think Canadian heifers coming into the country would be much more liable to get disease, tuberculosis especially, than our own heifers in this country. They come from a county where they are much more in the open air. Why tubercule comes to our cows is because they are kept so much in their stables. They develop tuberculosis, not when they are heifers but when they become cows. Those arguments which the hon. Gentleman put forward are not only refuted but they are disputed by many medical and veterinary authorities, and by no less a body than the Council of Agriculture for England who passed a Resolution which I should like to read.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member can deny what has been asserted, but as I stopped one argument I am bound to stop the counter-argument.
Brigadier-General BROWNYou may stop the argument, but at the end of this Resolution passed by the Council of Agriculture for England there is this which I must read. It ends up:
That the Council of Agriculture for England considers the statement of the Free Importation of Canadian Cattle Association of Great Britain that 50 per cent. of British dairy cattle are tubercular is unjustifiable, inaccurate, unsupported by any evidence or authentic figures, and is merely a biased estimate calculated to mislead uninformed opinion.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think the hon. and gallant Member must not read any more.
Brigadier-General BROWNWell, with reference to the Third Reading of the Bill,
The Council is of opinion that any further relaxation of the"—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERHaving stopped one argument, I can only allow a denial. The matter cannot be further pursued on the Third Reading of the Bill.
Brigadier-General BROWNI am very sorry, Sir, I only wanted to draw attention to the matter. I will conclude by expressing the hope that the Bill will be passed.
§ Mr. GUINNESSI feel in rather a difficulty on this Bill, because three subjects have been raised from the point of view that they are not dealt with adequately in the Bill, and you, Sir, have ruled them all out of Order in accordance with precedent. Therefore, I must deal with the question of fact which the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was able, with his great ingenuity to sandwich in between your interruptions. I do wish to deal with two specific figures which he mentioned, because if his figures are allowed to go unchallenged very great and unjust damage will be done to our home dairy industry. The hon. Member stated that there was a suggestion that 50 per cent.—I think he said sometimes more had been suggested—of our cattle were tuberculous.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWhat I said was, that it had been stated to be as high as 70 per cent. in old milch cows of 10 to 15 years old. I was careful to say that the figure only applied to that class of cattle.
§ Mr. GUINNESSI want to explain the very misleading character of those figures. There has been a great deal of propaganda not from the hon. Member but from other sources against our own dairy cattle and just at a time when our agriculture is in great difficulty it really is very cruel to try and condemn a very wholesome food and a very valuable agricultural product. The hon. Member quoted a former Member of this House as an authority for the statement that 15 per cent. of the milk in this country was tuberculous. We have got some figures as the result of just 18 months' working of the Tuberculosis Order which the hon. Member says does not go far enough. Between the 1st September, 1925, and the 31st March, 1927, owing to the notification of tuberculosis on dairy farmers' premises and owing to the evidence got from the other end by tuberculous milk being traced back, inspections were made of premises including 1,051,000 cattle, a seventh or an eighth of the total head of cattle in the country. Of that 1,051,000 cattle there were 792,000 cows and heifers. Of those cows and heifers 28,871 were found to be suffering 2542 from those forms of tuberculosis which brought them within the Order—not 50 per cent. but 2.7 per cent. The classes of tuberculosis which involve slaughter are three—tuberculous emaciation, chronic cough, where the obvious danger is due to the infection of milk by expectoration, and the most dangerous, tuberculosis of the udder.
Emaciation and chronic cough are only indirect dangers, but tuberculosis of the udder is by far the most serious danger 'because that is the direct source of infection from the open flow of tuberculous infection. There we get not 50 per cent. but one-half of 1 per cent. Out of the 792,000 cattle on the inspected premises—the worst premises, one-eighth of the premises which were under suspicion—you get one-half of 1 per cent. suffering from tuberculosis of the udder. How does the hon. Member get his figures? He quoted from Dr. Raw. Dr. Raw has quoted 15 per cent. of tuberculous milk. Of course, if you get infected milk and mix it with clean milk and then make a test, you can get it up to any figure. You can get it up to 100 per cent. if you get a little tuberculous milk and mix it with clean milk. No doubt this half per cent. could easily be brought up to 15 per cent. sold over the counter in certain unfortunate dairies if that half per cent. of tuberculous milk were mixed with 30 per cent. of clean milk. I think that is the explanation of the terrifying but quite unfounded figure given by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURIn view of the ruling from the Chair that we cannot move the New Clause, I wish on behalf of the Dundee Corporation to express exceeding regret that there is no opportunity of moving the Clause.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSWith regard to the destruction of cattle under the terms of this Bill, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what past experience has proved in regard to the loss of wages and the general effect upon the workers who are deprived of their employment as a result of action taken under this Bill and previous Acts dealing with the same subject. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's experience as affecting a fairly large number of workpeople over a long period, I should like to know if he has taken into consideration the possible effect of this 2543 Bill on the future livelihood of workers who depend upon attending cattle which may or may not be slaughtered under the terms of the Bill. I understand that it would be out of order to refer to the Amendment accepted in Committee, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown a keen desire rather to serve the interests of a particular class instead of accepting the opinion as expressed by the Committee, if, having taken a peculiar stand in contradistinction to the feeling of the Committee, and having recommitted the Bill for that purpose, whether he has done anything to provide for people who are likely to be deprived of their livelihood as a result of the Bill. The Bill, I admit, is necessary for the purpose of safeguarding not only those people who care for their stock, but to provide cleaner arrangements so that disease is a very remote possibility. Has the right hon. Gentleman done anything? Has he anything in his mind? In the future, in applying this Bill, is he going to leave the workers to perish, as it were, without any consideration?
If the right hon. Gentleman should need any reminder I would remind him that the agricultural workers outside the unemployment scheme who are momentarily deprived of their work and wages, are in a very awkward situation. The least thing that we might expect from the Government, whom we are willing to support in the passage of this Bill, and from the right hon. Gentleman as the godfather of the agricultural community, is that the right hon. Gentleman will exercise some thought and sympathy for the poorest section of the rural community. An opportunity was provided for him to do something tangible, but that has been taken away. Has he, as an alternative, done anything to make arrangements for people who are likely to be deprived of their employment and wages when this Bill becomes operative? The right hon. Gentleman avoided any sort of reply to the previous observations on this question, but I think he is called upon to tell the House, without in any way referring directly to the Amendment accepted in the Committee, and disposed of since, that he is not forgetting the needs of the people who may be deprived of their livelihood by the Bill. If he will give us some indication of what he intends 2544 to do when cleansing the nation from a very dangerous disease, we shall be happier in supporting him in the passage of the Bill; but we do expect some answer as to his intention with regard to the future of this problem.
§ Mr. GUINNESSI have exhausted my right to speak. The hon. Member complains that I made no answer to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) when he raised a subject which the Deputy-Speaker ruled out of order. I can, therefore, only deal with it in a very few words. The criticism was that when the Committee exceeded its powers under the Standing Orders and imposed a charge and that was ruled out of order, I did not get round the Rules of Order, condone the breach and enable compensation to be given to agricultural workers who lose their work through the slaughter of animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease on the premises where they are employed. Quite apart from the necessity of conforming to the very salutary rule that expenditure should not be imposed upon the public by a Standing Committee, on the merits I do not think there was a case. The arguments were founded on the exceptional outbreak some years ago in Cheshire, but since then—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with something which is not in the Bill.
§ Mr. BUXTONCan the Minister tell us what has been the total cost of foot-and-mouth disease up to now? That information would be very interesting in connection with the passage of the Bill.
§ Mr. GUINNESSThe cost has been about £39,000 since 1st January last up to date. Unfortunately, I have not the exact figures with me.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSCould not the right hon. Gentleman by the simple process of proceeding with another Money Resolution have accepted the spirit and feeling of the considered judgment of the Committee?
§ Mr. PALINGOf course, he could.