CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of law as to importation of Canadian cattle.) (Hansard, 1 November 1932)

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Before I call on the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) to move his Amendment I may say that I understand his three Amendments are to be taken with one to the Third Schedule.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I beg to move in page 11, line 4, to leave out the first word "amendments," and to insert instead thereof the word "amendment."
I move this Amendment for the purpose of obtaining information from the Government on this subject of Canadian cattle. Ten years ago this subject was a very burning one. One of the Press lords—I forget whether it was Lord Beaverbrook or Lord Rothermere—made a great stunt of it, and the result was that four Ministers were knocked out and could not get in again. I remember there were very considerable discussions in this House on the question of the importation of Canadian cattle. The present Minister of Agriculture took a prominant part in them, and most of the Debate was a series of arguments put up by representatives from rural constituencies urging the need for great care in the matter of the importation of Canadian cattle. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) took a prominent part in it. The particular Amendment which I am moving refers to two special provisos which were thought necessary at that time. One was that cattle for shipping should be marked indelibly. It is now proposed to leave out the word "indelibly." The other was that the cattle must for a period of three clear days be kept separate from other animals. This is now to be reduced to one clear day. If one looks up the discussions in 1922 one finds that there was a very long Debate in regard to the precise humane and effective method of marking cattle and also on the subject of the three clear days.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I should be very much obliged if the hon. Member would indicate which Amendments he proposes to deal with. There is the Amendment to paragraph (a) of Part II of the Third Schedule regarding the 1756 omission of the word "indelibly," the Amendment to paragraph (c) in which "one clear day" is substituted for "three clear days," and there is the Amendment to sub-paragraph (iv). Which Amendments does the hon. Member propose to deal with?

§ Mr. ATTLEE
The two I am dealing with refer to the proposal to omit the word "indelibly" and that relating to one clear day.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must point out that that does not correspond with the Amendment to the Schedule in which the hon. Member proposes to leave out the word "indelibly," but desires that the requirements of three days' separation for Canadian cattle and their accompaniment across the Atlantic by a veterinary surgeon should remain.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
If I carry this Amendment I shall have to make a similar Amendment in the Schedule. I should like to know exactly the alterations in the conditions which have taken place since 1922. There has been a long controversy on the subject of taking off the embargo on the Canadian cattle, and this House was assured at that time that provided you had these regulations it was fairly safe because Canadian cattle were free from disease. Are they now freer from disease than in 1922; or why is it that we have had to yield to this Canadian representation? The most important question is that of the three clear days. It was resisted op the former occasion by Members of this House with great knowledge of agriculture, and I want to know why it is that this condition has been altered.

Mr. M. MacDONALD
I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member, and he need not bother about his Amendment to the Schedule. We are given to understand that there is no longer any ground at all for excluding cattle from Canada on the ground of disease and, therefore, this agreement has been reached with the Canadian Government. He has raised two questions. The first in regard to cattle being marked indelibly. The proposed change is this. Until now it has been required that the cattle should be 1757 branded on the cheek, but that kind of mark has had certain objections raised to it by the Government of Canada, and instead it is now proposed that the cattle shall be punched through the ear—

§ Mr. ATTLEE
Can you wash that out?

Mr. M. MacDONALD
I understand that the word "indelible" in this connection has some kind of technical significance. It is simply this, that the cattle should be easily recognised when they get to England, and the new proposal is more satisfactory in that way than the old procedure. The second question the hon. Member asked is why we are proposing to reduce the period of detention in Canadian ports before shipment from three clear days to one. That is a matter on which the Canadian Government place considerable importance. In the first place, it is expensive, and in other ways the longer period is inconvenient. The United Kingdom delegation at Ottawa was assured by the veterinary experts of the Ministry of Agriculture that the three days were not necessary from the point of view of disease, because the period during which the cattle are on the ship in coming across the ocean was quite sufficient to fulfil the requirements. Therefore, in view of the special requests made by the 1758 Canadian Government, and in view of the fact that one clear day does fulfil requirements, the United Kingdom Delegation felt that there was no reasonable cause for resisting the request of the Government of Canada.