§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
*THE EARL OF JERSEYIn asking your Lordships the other day to give the Second Reading to this Bill I promised my noble Friend Lord Kimberley to state what had been done in Ireland. In 1888 there were 2,638 head of cattle slaughtered, and compensation paid to the net amount of £15,400; in 1889 there were 1,165 head of cattle slaughtered, the net compensation paid being £7,563; this year, up to the 14th June, 1,010 head of cattle have been slaughtered, and the net compensation paid has been £6,500.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNBefore the House goes into Committee, I wish to refer to a statement which was made by my noble Friend the Marquess of 173 Huntly on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill with reference to the carrying out of the Acts by the Local Authority in Forfarshire. Lord Huntly quoted from a newspaper, in order to show how one Local Authority sometimes carries out the Acts and Orders in a way which renders nugatory whatever may be done by neighbouring and adjoining counties, a case in Forfarshire where pleuro pneumonia had broken out among a herd of cattle. Nine of them were stated to have been slaughtered, but 81 of them which had been in contact with the diseased animals were actually sold and allowed to possibly disseminate disease over the country. I desire to say that I am myself a member of the County Council in Forfarshire, and from long experience besides I can testify to the manner in which the Local Authority there perform their duties. I was, therefore, a little surprised to hear the statement made by the noble Marquess, but I was not at the time in a position to say anything in answer to it. How-ever, I have since heard from the Local Authority on the subject, and they have requested me to make a statement to the House. The outbreak referred to occurred on the 2nd May upon a farm three miles from Forfar. There were not 81 cows in the herd as stated, but there were 98 oxen and three cows; on the 10th May the Local Authority resolved to slaughter the whole of those cattle, and they were all slaughtered accordingly. I may also state that the Forfarshire Authorities invariably slaughter all animals which have been in contact with animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and not only so, but it has been their practice in every case to make minute inquiries with a view to tracing the source of the disease. I know, practically, from the amount of our rates, how very careful the attention is which the Forfarshire Local Authority pay to their duties in regard to slaughtering, and on some occasions they have been found fault with in the county because of their rigid adherence to the practice of slaughtering nil animals which have been in contact with diseased animals. I merely desire to mention this injustice to the Local Authorities.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYI am very pleased that my noble Friend has 174 been able to make this statement. In justice to myself, I may say that I quoted the case as mentioned in a newspaper which circulates in Forfarshire. I am very pleased to hear that our neighbours in Forfarshire are not so much to blame in their administration of the Acts as I thought.
§ *EARL SPENCERBefore this Bill goes into Committee, I wish to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to two matters. They are matters with regard to which I do not wish to move any Amendment; but they are important questions, and I shall be glad, therefore, if Her Majesty's Government will give some attention to them. The first question relates to the present powers of the Board of Agriculture. There is a very prevalent opinion in the country that very stringent measures will have to be taken with regard to cows coming from town dairies before pleuro-pneumonia can be stamped out in the country. It was at first thought that some additional clause should be introduced into this Bill in order to give the Government power to deal with those dairies; but if I am not mistaken, the Government have already very sufficient powers with regard to them. The powers to which I allude are the general powers of drawing a cordon round places for the purpose of preventing the spread of pleuro-pneumonia. I am the more confirmed in that opinion when I look to the Report of the Irish Privy Council on the recent administration of the Pleuro-Pneumonia Orders in Ireland. There, I see, that in the order of 1888, which effected such widespread slaughter among animals which had been in contact with pleuro-pneumonia in Dublin, there are very stringent directions with regard to infected centres. Therefore, as the general powers, though different in administration, are the same as in England, the Board of Agriculture will have ample powers for isolating' infected districts and drawing a cordon round them in the case of large towns. It will be satisfactory to me, and it will, I think, be satisfactory in the country, where there is considerable interest naturally felt on the subject, to hear from the Government that the view I have taken is correct in regard to that matter. Then there is another matter to which I wish to refer, and I wish to 175 speak upon it because I feel uncertain as to whether your Lordships' House has any power to deal with it. It may be a matter for argument, but I think there is some doubt as to whether your Lordships' House could have an Amendment moved with regard to it. My noble Friend Lord Belper, who is Chairman of the County Council of Nottingham, made some remarks upon the Second Reading which were of importance with regard to the time when this Act is to come into force. He said something to this effect: that there would be considerable difficulty, he was afraid, as the 1st September drew near, in the effectual working by the Local Authorities of the powers which they now possess. Naturally, as the time for the Government taking over the management of the slaughter draws near, the Local Authorities will be anxious to relieve the local rates of the total cost of the compensation payable, and may tempted to defer action under the Orders in order that the payment may come upon the Government. I think that is a very serious matter, because we already know that some Local Authorities (and I am glad we have just heard from my noble Friend the Earl of Camperdown that Forfarshire is not numbered among them are somewhat slack in carrying out the Orders of the Board of Agriculture; and they will certainly be increased in this slackness by the very obvious consideration that they have only to defer action, and the Central Government will have to pay the full cost of compensation instead of themselves. That, my Lords, is a serious matter, and the difficulties, which are already great, of the Board of Agriculture will be considerably increased, because, if the Local Authorities are slack in their administration, there will be a great many more cases to be dealt with hereafter, and I should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would consider whether some such suggestion as this could not be adopted. In the Bill before us the question of compensation is treated somewhat differently with regard to Ireland, to the way in which it is treated in England. In Ireland the £20,000 a year which is to be given for the purposes of this Bill is retrospective. The compensation which has been paid by the Local Authorities under the Orders of the Irish Privy Council of 176 1888 is to beat once paid by the Central Authority. I believe at present the rule in Ireland is that the Local Authority should pay one-half of the cost of slaughter and that the Central Authority should pay the other half. It is made retrospective, therefore, in that respect in Ireland. I do not wish anything of the sort done in England, but I should like the Government to consider whether, with a view of preventing any inducement to slackness of the Local Authorities, they could not make this Act come into force at an earlier date, say the 1st or the middle of July, with regard to compensation. No doubt, the slaughter would have to be carried out by the Local Authorities, but the compensation might be put under the supervision of the-Board of Agriculture out of the £140,000 which is to be paid in the one year. No doubt it would anticipate the period of payment; but I believe, in the long run it would be really good economy, because it would make the Local Authorities more attentive to their duties in carrying out the Act, would induce them to do so more efficiently, and would prevent the difficulty which my noble Friend Lord Belper pointed out the cither night. As I said before, there is some doubt as to whether your Lordships could introduce an Amendment on the subject. It is not in any way increasing the cost or charge upon the public funds; it would be merely appropriating it in rather a different manner. However, I wish Her Majesty's Government would the that point into their consideration, and, perhaps, my noble Friend, either to-night or on the Third Reading of the Bill, will be good enough to state the views of Her Majesty's Government upon those two points, which I think are of considerable importance.
*THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Earl of JERSEY)My Lords, I am informed that the Board consider they have ample power to deal with dairies under the clause of the Act of 1878. Of course, the noble Earl will under stand that I could not pledge the Government at this present moment to any particular course; but if he would prefer that I should bring before the Minister of Agriculture the points he has alluded to, I will do so, and make a statement later on. But I may say, with 177 regard to the last point, there would be a difficulty in leaving the Local Authorities to slaughter by themselves, because they might, perhaps, be too much inclined to slaughter if they knew they were not going to pay the expenses. After all, a Local Authority would not be worth the name of a Local Authority if they failed to carry out their duties simply because they thought the expense would fall upon the rates. However, I will make further inquiries upon the point.
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI think if the noble Lord will refer to the 16th clause of the Act of 1878 he will see that upon the Report of the Inspector the Authorities have power to declare a dairy or cowshed an infected place—
Where it appears to the Inspector of the Local Authority that pleuro-pneumonia has existed for six days, or appears to have don n so in any cowshed, field, or other place, he shall forthwith sign a declaration and serve it upon the occupier, and thereupon that place shall become a place infected with pleuro-pnenmonia subject to the decrees of the Local Authority.I think that amply provides for the point raised by my noble Friend.
§ *EARL SPENCERThat was not the power which I referred to. I believe there was a power in the Act enabling the Privy Council, in order to prevent the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, to stop movements of cattle.
§ On Question, agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clause 4.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYMy Lords, my object in moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, is to elicit from my noble Friend information on one point. The effect of this Bill is to place the whole duty of inspection on the Inspectors nominated under the authority of the Board of Agriculture. It appears to me that if the whole country is to be under those Inspectors there might from time to time be outbreaks occurring in different arts of the Kingdom, and a whole army of Inspectors might have to be employed. I think it would be necessary to provide in such an event, if several places had to be inspected, and the Inspector 178 could not go to one of them, being engaged elsewhere, that he might be able to authorise some deputy on his behalf to enter upon that place. The value of this clause is that it does away with the obligation upon the Inspector under the Act of 1878, to give his reasons for entering, in writing; but it seems to me it is too small a power that only the Inspector of the Board of Agriculture may enter at any time or place. That is why I suggest the insertion of the words, "or authorise by writing under his hand." One can quite understand three different outbreaks occurring in one county, and I think, therefore, there should be a provision which would enable the Inspector to delegate some qualified person to inspect.
§ Amendment moved, in Clause 4, Section 1, line 32, after the word "enter" to insert the words "or authorise by writing under his hand any person to enter and inspect."—(The Lord Meldrum [M. Huntly.]
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONI think it would be a most tyrannical proceeding. The Inspector under this Bill has power to visit any cowshed, field, or place he pleases, and he is not obliged to give any reason for it; but he may do 8u simply because he himself suspects there is pneumonia existing there, and then, upon his report that he finds pleuro-pneumonia existing there, the animals would be slaughtered. But the noble Marquess proposes to give the Inspector power to send anybody he pleases. It need not even be a veterinary surgeon; but it might be some intimate friend whom he would send to inspect the suspected field or cowshed. I think that is a provision which could not be tolerated for a moment. You give the Inspector the power to do it because he is a person who is reliable, and be would not be appointed Inspector unless he was fit for the post; but the noble Marquess's proposal would allow the Inspector to employ anyone, qualified or not.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI think the noble Duke has a little overlooked the great difficulties which would arise in such a case as the noble Marquess supposes. It has occurred to me before that if there are several outbreaks happening in parts of the country at 179 considerable distances from each other, the number of Inspectors who would have to be employed by the Government would be most alarming if this Act is to be carried out efficiently. In fact, I have no doubt that the Board of Agriculture will find, unless they take large advantage of local assistance, that the thing is absolutely beyond their power. My only desire is that the Act shall be fully and efficiently carried into effect, and I cannot help thinking you might put in such words as these: "An Inspector or any person duly authorised by the Board of Agriculture." So that the persons who might go to inspect a place might not be actual Inspectors, but still persons who would be very fit to inspect upon occasion. I think we should give the Board of Agriculture as much latitude as Ave can, so that Inspectors who were overburdened with work or had too many calls upon them might be able to employ competent persons to do the duty which has to be done. Possibly, the point might I be further considered and dealt with before the Report.
*THE EARL OF JERSEYI do not agree with the noble Lord that it would be impossible for the Inspectors to do the work. Supposing there were a serious outbreak, a larger number of Inspectors would have to be employed ad hoc. There is no number of Inspectors put down in the Bill. But this clause is to give an Inspector the right to go into a cowshed, land, or place without giving any reason whatever as to why he enters. I think that is a very extensive power to give, and one which ought not to be delegated to anybody else but to responsible competent Inspectors.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)I think my noble Friend has forgotten that we have passed a previous sub-section under which the Board of Agriculture may employ such additional Inspectors, valuers, and other persons, as they think necessary. So that they already have that power upon emergency.
§ *EARL SPENCERI still think my noble Friend is right with regard to this. I do not think it is right to increase the number of Inspectors; you 180 have degrees of authority; and an Inspector is a very important man. Of course you may appoint anybody an Inspector, but I do not think that is a very desirable way of carrying out the Act. I think there may be occasions, as was stated on the Second Reading, when it may be essential to appoint somebody to act as Inspector, but you ought not to lower the authority and value of the Inspectors themselves.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYIn answer to what the noble Viscount has said, the sub-section to which he has referred does not meet the point. On the contrary, it makes it clear that something must be added. This clause limits the performance of the duty of an Inspector. I differ from the noble Marquess with regard to the Inspectors having power to appoint other persons, but I wish the Board of Agriculture to have power to employ them. You may wish to employ a perfetly qualified veterinary surgeon ad hoc. For that purpose, the words "An Inspector or other person duly authorised by the Board of Agriculture," would not embarrass them in the least, and would give them the necessary power.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYI will withdraw my Amendment in favour of the suggestion of the noble Earl. But if, as I would suggest, the noble Earl should consider the point between now and the Third Reading, that would be sufficient.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI think what has been said with regard to the 5th sub-section of Clause I hardly applies to this matter. If the person is appointed by Government as Inspector, his pay might become a serious matter. Of course, we all want to ensure that this Act shall be carried out as well and as cheaply as possible; but I think the Government certainly ought to take into consideration whether it would not be wise in them to appoint persons for a temporary purpose and in a temporary-manner.
*THE EARL OF JERSEYI will have the question referred for consideration, but I think it is really only a dispute about a name.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYIf the noble Earl will consider it, that will be sufficient. We only wish, of course, to make the Bill efficient, and I hope he will not reject it without considering it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYAfter Clause 4 I propose a new clause, for this reason: The difficulty which has been found in working the Act of 1878 in the counties has been in getting convictions in the case of persons liable to penalties for offences. By Clause 61, Sub-section 2, of the Act of 1878, it is enacted that—
A person is guilty of an offence, if where required by this Act he fails to keep an animal separate, as far as practicable, or to give notice of disease with all practicable speed.Now, my Lords, that is a very difficult thing to define. What is "with all practicable speed"? That difficulty has been very ably made use of on behalf of those persons who have been found offending, and it has been made the means of getting off even the most arch offenders. My proposition, therefore, is that a new clause should be inserted making it an offence if any person fails to give notice to the Inspector, leaving out the words "with all practicable speed." That would make conviction more easy for the offence of neglecting to give notice of a diseased animal being in the person's possession. I may be told that the power is at present quite sufficient, but I can only say that I am informed it is very difficult to secure a conviction under the clause as it now stands. That is the reason I suggest to the Government the addition of the clause I have put down.
§
Amendment moved, after Clause 4, to insert as a new clause—
Any person neglecting to give notice to the Inspector of the Board of Agriculture or the local authority of a diseased animal being in his possession, or selling, moving, or transferring any diseased animal, shall be subject to I the penalties for offences under clauses sixty to sixty-six inclusive, of the principal Act, and in addition to the powers conferred by that Act."—(The Lord Meldrum [M. Huntly]).
*THE EARL OF JERSEYI agree with the noble Lord that there has been great difficulty in getting a conviction in some of these cases; but, still, the difficulty would exist, I think, whether those words were in or not, because the question would always arise, what is "neglecting"? It would be urged at once that the man had not neglected, because he was not aware that the animal was infected. Therefore, I do not think the noble Marquess's proposed words would make any difference in enforcing the law as it is at present. Of course, what is required is to make the Magistrates look upon the offence in a more severe light than it is sometimes looked upon at the present time.
§ Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYThere is another point upon this clause to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the noble Earl, which has arisen in connection with the administration of this Act. Under Clause 31 of the principal Act it has been held that, where the owner of a diseased animal neglects to give notice of that diseased animal being in his possession, that constitutes an offence, and the Local Authority can withhold the compensation payable for that animal. But where that animal has been in contact with a number of other animals on a farm and those animals are ordered to be slaughtered, as regards the compensation to which he is entitled for those animals which have been in contact with the diseased animal, he cannot be held to have committed an offence in that respect, and the compensation cannot be withheld. Now, I have very good evidence from many parts of Scotland as to the necessity for providing that such cases should be included, among the offences, and that is the reason why I have put down the clause I now propose. The clerk of our Local Authority writes to me in these words—
What I think is wanted is a clause declaring that if such an offence is committed the penalties should extend not only to the value of the diseased animal or animals, but should go the full length of enabling the Board of Agriculture to withhold all compensation from the offender for all the cattle belonging to him which may be slaughtered in consequence of the outbreak.There is an an extract from another 183 letter which I should like to read to your Lordships from a gentleman who for many yd sirs has taken great interest in the subject upon our Committee in Aberdeenshire. He says—Please impress upon the Committee and all with whom you act the defect arising from the absence of some heavy penalty being attached to reckless dealing and culpable negligence. It is my firm opinion that until some such enactment as your clause comes into force so long will men deal recklessly, and without regard to consequences, and all efforts to eradicate this scouge will be rendered unavailing.My Lords, I believe that if the Bill should be pissed without this clause, the Board would not be able to withhold compensation for the animals which have been in contact with the disease, and we should be simply in the position in which we are now, having power to withhold compensation for animals which are diseased, but we should not be able to withhold it in respect of animals which have been in contact with them. It is for that reason I suggest the clause which I now move to be inserted.
§
Amendment moved, after Clause 4, to insert as a new Clause—
When any person neglects to give notice of a diseased animal being in his possession, or is convicted of any offence under Clauses 61 and 62 of the principal Act, it shall be lawful for the Board of Agriculture to withhold in whole or in part any sum payable to him as compensation under this Act."—(The Lord Meldrum [M. Huntly].)
*THE EARL OF JERSEYThe Board of Agriculture are of opinion that they do not require the clause which the noble Marquess has moved. I quite see the point which he has laid before the Committee. They consider that if an owner has an animal which is infected by pleuro-pneumonia, and of which information is kept back by him, it will be a sufficient penalty for the offence if he is fined, as he can be, up to £20 for that animal, and if he does not receive compensation for its slaughter. It should be borne in mind that it never pays anybody to have his cattle slaughtered, or it ought not to pay a person to have his cattle slaughtered, if good valuers are employed. I hope the noble Marquess will not consider it necessary to press his Amendment.
§ *EARL SPENCERI must confess I am not convinced by what the noble Earl has said, because I really hardly 184 think he sees the point of the noble Marquess's suggestion. A man has an animal which is diseased, and he has a large herd. He neglects to report it, because he would rather run the risk of losing one animal than have the whole of the animals slaughtered and the place put under restriction. Therefore, he is naturally very much disinclined to report, and he neglects to report. Well, he runs the risk of being detected. If he is detected, no doubt he will not be paid for the one animal, but he will get full compensation for the whole of the remainder. We want to put a greater fine upon him. We know there are throughout the country certain dishonest people who are willing to take the risk of not being discovered, because they know that, at the worst, they will get full compensation for all the other animals which may be slaughtered. We think, therefore, that a greater burden should be put upon dishonest men who hide the disease. I quite agree with the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and I think that in a case of that sort the Board of Agriculture should have power not only to withhold compensation for the diseased animal under the section, but also to withhold compensation from owners for animals which have been in contact with infected animals.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKDo I understand the noble Marquess to say there has been a judicial decision upon this point?
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYI do not think a judicial decision has ever been given. I do not know that the question has come before the superior Courts; but in every case of a Magistrate's decision it has always been so held.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYHas it ever occurred in a case exactly in point where it was obvious that the owner of the animals was prepared to run the risk? He certainly might not care for losing £15, the compensation for one cow only, and I, therefore, hope this power will be given.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI hope the noble Earl will take this matter into his consideration, for I am sure it is one of the most important matters in the whole Bill. The chief danger we are exposed to is that of having a large number of animals throughout the country which have been in contact with 185 diseased animals. If a man has an animal which is diseased, he runs the risk, of course, if he does not report it, of getting nothing for the diseased animal, and being possibly fined £15, but he will perhaps be doing the very thing the noble Marquess was afraid had been done in Forfarshire, that is, he may send out 60 or 70 cows all over the country which had been in contact with the diseased animal; and remember, my Lords, that we are very much exposed to this in large dairies, especially in towns. A thing of this sort might easily happen there, and surely it is desirable to make the penalty in such cases as large as possible. I hope the Government will therefore take the matter into their serious consideration.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYIf my noble Friend will promise to consider it by the Third Heading I will withdraw the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.