HL Deb 03 November 1908 vol 195 cc921-31
THE EARL OF ONSLOW

rose "to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis and to that of the Select Committee on the Tuberculosis Compensation Bill, 1904, and to the recent notification by the Meat Traders' Federation, that on and after 2nd November next they will require a warranty from every vendor of stock that animals purchased by butchers are free from disease; and to inquire whether, in view of the fact that tuberculosis is a disease which cannot be accurately diagnosed prior to slaughter, His Majesty's Government will take steps to comply with the views of the above-community, that compensation for cattle slaughtered in the interests of the public health ought to be paid for out of public funds."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is one which has been exercising the minds of the agricultural community for the past few months. It arises, I imagine, out of two causes—first, the fact that inspectors, especially in the large towns, have been more energetic lately in their condemnation of meat which, in their opinion, is unfit for human food owing to its being found to be tuberculous; and, secondly the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, in the course of which he said that the only way in which a butcher could protect himself from the consequences of the sale of such meat would be by obtaining a warranty from the vendor—namely, the farmer—that the animal in question was sound and free from tuberculosis.

In consequence, the Meat Traders' Federation gave notice some time ago that on and after Monday last they would refuse to buy any meat unless they received with the carcase of the animal a warranty that it was free from tuberculosis. That was thought by farmers to be a condition to which they could not assent, and meetings have been held in all parts of the country at which it was determined to resist this demand on the part of the Meat Traders' Federation.

A few days ago my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture succeeded, I believe, in getting the Federation to go so far as to say that they would postpone the demand for a warranty until 1st January, and that they would meet in conference the Central Chamber of Argiculture. But, my Lords, I do not think that a mere postponment of this demand would in any way meet the point. Farmers feel that this is a threat to which they ought not to be subject, and that they could not go into any conference unless the Meat Traders' Federation had agreed to withdraw the demand altogether, and I am glad to be able to say that at a meeting to-day it was decided that the demand for a warranty should be withdrawn, and that a Conference should be held in the hope that some arrangement might be come to.

I have much sympathy with the meat traders, who for a long time have suffered under these disabilities from which they are quite unable to protect themselves. It is impossible, as your Lordships possibly know, to tell from the appearance of an animal when it is alive whether it is tuberculous or not; it is only after the animal has been slaughtered and a veterinary examination has taken place that it is possible to say whether or not the animal is fit for human food. But while I have this sympathy with the meat traders, I cannot see on what principle of justice or equity the cost of sacrifice of the carcase can be expected to fall entirely on the farmer. This is not a new question. A Tuberculosis Compention Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1904 and was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee gave a most attentive consideration to the matter, and finally reported that in their opinion—for which they gave several cogent reasons, with which I need not trouble your Lordships—compensation ought to be paid to the farmers for the loss sustained, of which the larger part ought to come out of public funds. That is, I think, a very reasonable proposition. The object, of course, of condemning these carcases is to protect the public health, and if the public health is to be protected the public are the proper people to pay for that protection.

There is a very interesting statement in the October number of the Journal of the Board of Agriculture showing what has been done in this respect in other countries. I find that ever since 1893, compensation has been paid by the State in Denmark; in Norway that has been so for several years; in Holland any cattle owner whose animal is found to be tuberculous receives compensation from the State; in Belgium he receives 70 per cent. of the value of the animal; and in France one-third of the value if wholly tuberculous, and three-fourths if the disease is only local.

A question somewhat similar to that which I am now addressing to His Majesty's Government was put to the President of the Local Government Board in the other House, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that he did not, as at present advised, contemplate introducing a Bill to deal with the subject. That might mean one or two things—either that it was the settled determination of His Majesty's Government to have nothing to do with it, or that the Government were too fully occupied at present with other business, but might be induced some day or another to bring in a Bill to provide compensation. What I want to know is, do the Government intend to do this, or do they not? If this conference is to meet—and certainly it is most desirable it should meet—are those who attend to waste their time discussing the question of pressing upon His Majesty's Government the desirability of providing compensation when the Government have made up their minds not to do so? I really think that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has shown his desire in so many ways to help the farmers, may best help them to help themselves by telling them quite plainly what is the intention of His Majesty's Government. If the Government do not intend to grant compensation, then those whose business it is to advise the farming community in these matters will look about and see if they can find some means by which this difficulty can be got over. All I ask is that His Majesty's Government should give a plain answer to a plain question, and state whether they do or do not intend to admit the principle of compensation by the State in such cases.

*LORD ALLENDALE

My Lords, my noble friend has asked a straightforward question, and I hope I shall be able to give him a straightforward answer. The substantial question raised by the noble Earl is whether compensation is to be paid out of public funds for tuberculous carcases destroyed in the interest of public health. If I may be allowed to do so without being thought too pedantic, I might offer a remark on the form of the Question as it appears on the Paper. I would observe that cattle are not slaughtered in the interest of the public health; it is after the cattle are slaughtered and the carcases exposed for sale that the question of destruction in the interest of the public health comes in. When carcases are destroyed the loss, as the noble Earl has justly pointed out, usually falls on the owner—that is, the butcher. We have been reminded by the noble Earl that the National Federation of Meat Traders recently passed a Resolution that after 2nd November they would require a warranty from every vendor of stock that animals purchased by butchers are free from disease, the object, of course, being to divert the loss from the butcher to the farmer; whereas the farmer is naturally very anxious to receive compensation in respect of such cattle if he has to make good the loss sustained by the butcher. I am very glad to hear from the noble Earl that the Central Chamber of Agriculture has, on behalf of the farmers, agreed to meet the Meat Traders' Federation in conference on the subject.

For many years it has been a debatable question whether or not compensation should be paid in respect of loss due to the destruction of tuberculous meat. The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis of 1906 reported against compensation, mainly on the ground that the purchase of tuberculous animals was an incident of trade. They thought that the risk was not great, and that it might be met in the main by a system of insurance. It is the fact, however, that in 1904 a Select Committee of the House of Commons considered a Bill on this subject, and reported in favour of some compensation being paid. They recommended, I think, that it should not extend beyond one-half of the value of the animal, and that it should be paid out of Imperial funds. The noble Earl has referred to this recommendation. He inquires whether the Government will take steps to comply with the views of this Committee and of the farming community that compensation should be paid out of public funds in such cases. That is a plain question. The late Government, of which the noble Earl was a member, did not act upon the Report of the Select Committee in 1904, and the present Government do not see their way to do so either. As your Lordships are aware, a Royal Commission, appointed in 1901, is still sitting on the subject of tuberculosis, and has not, therefore, dually reported. The Commissioners may, of course, have something to say as regards compensation, and their views will naturally receive the very careful attention of His Majesty's Government; but, as has already been pointed out, the previous Commission was not in favour of compensation. The Government, therefore, under all the circumstances, cannot hold out any expectation that they will promote legislation to provide for the payment of compensation where carcases arts destroyed in the interests of the public health. It is not admitted that in such circumstances a case for compensation arises, and it is considered that the difficulty can reasonably be met by insurance, the adoption of which system I trust the noble Earl will encourage amongst his agricultural friends.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

My Lords, before my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture speaks, I should like to say a few words on this subject. Certainly my noble friend Lord Onslow has got a perfectly straight answer as regards theintentions of His Majesty's Government in the matter of the payment of compensation. It seems that the reason given by the noble Lord for not taking action is that the late Government had not done so. I do not think that is a very good reason, because in my opinion the late Government ought to have taken action in this matter. The noble Lord tells us that the Government are going to wait, as a Commission on Tuberculosis is sitting which may give them valuable information, and enable them to make up their minds more distinctly on the subject. I was rather surprised to hear that, because your Lordships know that in other cases the Government did not wait for the Reports of Royal Commissions, but went on all the same.

I wish to put one or two considerations before my noble friend Lord Carrington and also before the House—considerations which are animated in me as a grazier. I come from a grazing district. I farm between 600 and 700 acres of land. I do not rear, I sell, and I sell as quickly as I can. I like the amusement of chopping and changing, and I very often take the smallest possible profit. These considerations are animated especially by my recollection of some years ago having served on a Committee on the question of the marking of foreign meat, of which my noble friend who raised this question this evening was Chairman. At that time the present Lord Burghclere, who was then Mr. Herbert Gardner, was President of the Board of Agriculture. It was my lot to do the little work that fell to the representative of the Board of Agriculture in your Lordships' House, and I was, therefore, put on this Committee as a representative of the Government.

I only arrived from Yorkshire this morning, having travelled as far as Leeds with a gentleman largely interested in grazing who is also a member of that autocratic body the West Riding County Council; and, from our conversation, I can say that Lord Onslow did not in the slightest exaggerate when he said that by farmers in that part of the world this whole question of warranty is looked upon as a danger to their industry. I turn back to the Meat Marking Committee. I have not troubled to look up the Report of that Committee, but anyone who read it and has an ordinary memory will have a distinct recollection that there is a predilection in the purchasing public in favour of home-grown meat. I do not say that that predilection is entirely patriotic. I do not think it is. But people regard home grown meat as better, and if they have friends visiting them they like to draw attention to the fine Scotch or the small Welsh smoking on the mahogany. But it would become altogether another thing if the confidence of the public were shaken as to the wholesomeness of home-grown meat.

We all live now in a state of morbid apprehension as to what we eat and drink. There was, I believe, an age called the Palælithic Age, and there was the Old Red Sandstone Age. I believe this age will come to be known as the age of the bacillus, the microbe, and the tubercle. After all, butchers, like other people, are endowed with the faculty of forming opinions which spring from the pocket, and I have very little doubt that if, by side issues of any sort or by any suspicion thrown on home-grown meat, it came about that the general public preferred foreign meat to home grown, they would only be too glad to indulge their fancy. Butchers would be more than human if they would not prefer to buy more cheaply what they could sell more dearly, and give their customers equal satisfaction. Therefore, it seems to me that if, by casting imputation of unwholesomeness or unsoundness on English meat, the present predilection is at all shaken, we might very likely find butchers almost entirely giving up buying home-grown stock and relying on the foreign supply.

I hope that if this conference does got to work these points will not be overlooked, and I trust that the noble Earl who sits on the Bench below me (Earl Carrington), who, as Lord Onslow said, extends an aegis to all kinds of agriculture, will boar in mind a few of the considerations I have tried to put before the House. There was one thing my friend in the train pointed out; it has nothing to do with meat, though it does concern the health of the public at large—I refer to the question of milk. In country districts the rural authorities have considerable powers, given them, I think, under the last Local Government Act, but apparently for some reason or other, they are not, as my friend pointed out, very active in putting them in motion. I think something of that sort might be done. Those connected with farming no doubt resent anyone coming down and saying "This is all a mistake; you ought to have a great deal more room here, and plateglass windows there; and the man who does this sort of work ought to be dressed in suitable white ducks." Nevertheless, a little in this direction might be done with advantage; and if we do not help our small local authorities to look after these things, the tendency will be for central bodies like the West Riding County Council, largely made up of extremely capable and vigorous-minded townspeople, to get that into their hands like other things, and they will insist on sending their own men who know nothing about the practice of the country and will not take into consideration the various vicissitudes and difficulties with which small dale farmers have to contend.

I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further; but I put it to you, if by any side issue, such as that raised by the question of warranty, it should come about that home-grown meat was discredited and that butchers were encouraged by their customers to buy in the foreign market, it would be a very serious thing for your tenantry.

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)

My Lords, I do not know that I have anything much to add to this interesting discussion. I can only repeat that an agreement to meet and confer with each other has been come to between the Butcher's Federation and the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the warranty question, and that we are now within measurable distance of turning a corner which appeared at one time a very awkward one to get round.

My noble friend beside me was quite right in calling the attention of the House to the fact that the noble Earl's Question as it stands on the Paper is not very happily worded. Cattle are not at present slaughtered in the interest of public health but only if suffering from contagious disease to prevent that contagion spreading, and then, of course, compensation is paid. There was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Edinburgh recently, which was, happily, stamped out at a cost of £4,000. This money was paid without any grumbling. Still, I thank the noble Earl for putting this Question, because it was to a certain extent opportune, and it enabled my noble friend beside me to state perfectly clearly the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the payment of compensation for meat seized as unfit for human food. In this connection, as my noble friend said, it is pleasant to think that our negative attitude is in harmony with, that of the late Government of which the noble Earl was a distinguished Member.

The late Government remained in office about eighteen months after the Select Committee referred to reported, and they took no notice of the Committee's recommendations, though the Chairman of the Committee was the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. One sentence fell from the noble Earl which I think I might ask him to explain. He said he considered that this demand for compensation was a reasonable proposition. Now, what does that mean? I should like very respectfully to ask the noble Earl whether he is himself in favour of compensation being paid out of public funds when meat, which is unfit for human food, is seized to prevent it being exposed for sale. If so, I think he is touching the fringe of a very serious question. My Department deals with other things besides meat. Are fish and eggs and vegetables to be excluded, and is compensation to be paid for meat only? As regards that, I think I might be permitted to remind the House of what Mr. Walter Long said on 16th April, 1904—three months before the Select Committee reported. Mr. Long said— The already heavily burdened ratepayers must be considered, and he certainly must be understood as giving no promise to support a proposal that compensation should come from the Imperial Exchequer. There seems to be some diversity of opinion between the noble Earl and the right hon. Gentleman, both of whom have held the office of Minister for Agriculture.

As regards the fears of my noble friend behind me, Lord Ribblesdale, I am sure that everything he has said will be carefully considered at the conference, and I hope that his somewhat gloomy prognostications will not be realised. Tuberculosis, after all, is not scheduled under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and there would be enormous difficulties to be faced were it included; but we are most carefully considering whether it is within the range of practical politics to deal with it in the living animal when it assumes the form of tuberculosis of the udder. If action in this direction is feasible and is attended with success, the difficulties to which Lord Ribblesdale has alluded will be considerably diminished.