Lords Sitting of 4 August 1909

BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
WEST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
METHWOLD AND FELTWELL DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
HEYWOOD CORPORATION BILL.
  PRESTATYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  The King's consent signified, and Bills reported, with Amendments.
GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WATFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, a further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, a further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MOUNTAIN ASH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BURY CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LLANELLY WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 18th day of May last, That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 30th day of June next be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Committed for To-morrow.

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (MEDICAL TREATMENT) BILL.
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 Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he desired to raise a point of some importance in connection with Clause 3. That clause ran—
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a parent to submit his child to medical inspection or treatment under section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907."
This Bill dealt, not with medical inspection, but with medical treatment. He could easily understand it if the clause merely said that while under the Bill parents could be made to pay for the medical treatment of their children, no obligation should be imposed upon them to submit their children to medical treatment; but this clause seemed to strike at the root of the Act of 1907, which required parents to have their children inspected, by leaving it optional with parents whether or not they should submit their children for inspection. Although this appeared in a supplementary Bill it would be a notice to all parents, a great many of whom did not like their children being medically inspected, that they were not obliged to have them inspected. He understood that this clause was inserted in the Bill in the other House at the instigation of the Government, and he would like to ask whether it was intended that this should be a notice that for the future a parent could refuse to have his child medically inspected. That certainly appeared to be the case, and it went outside the scope of the Bill because the remainder of the Bill dealt purely with medical treatment. There was no doubt whatever that local authorities were bound to have children medically inspected. He was told that there was some doubt in the wording of the Act whether, if a parent refused, he could be compelled to have his child medically inspected, but at all events if this clause passed there would be no doubt about it for the future. Parents would know that they need not submit their children to medical inspection, and he had no doubt that a large number of parents, particularly the parents of those children who most required medical inspection, would refuse to allow their children to be medically inspected. He wished to ask the Government whether that was the intention of the clause.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): The point which has been raised by the noble Lord is one on which I think we shall have to make some further inquiry. I conceive that this clause was inserted from a feeling

913
of caution lest it should be supposed that this Bill placed upon parents any compulsion which was not placed upon them by the Act of 1907. It is, therefore, purely precautionary. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that in its form it is somewhat alarming, and, speaking without prejudice and subject to inquiries which I may make, I should have thought that its form might have been improved by saying that—
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing an obligation further than is provided under Section 13 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907,"
or some words to that effect, in order to make it clear that the law is left as it is and that if compulsion exists it exists still, and that if it does not exist matters are left where they are. I take it that is the intention of the clause, and perhaps it might be carried out in some such way as I have suggested.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I had hoped to get the Bill through without delay, but after what the noble Earl has said I shall put off the later stages, if it now passes through Committee, until the inquiries to which the noble Earl has referred have been made. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Belper will allow me to communicate with him on the subject.
LORD BELPER: Certainly, on the understanding that there will be an opportunity of dealing with the matter at a future stage.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived.

SOUTH AFRICA BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
REMISSION OF SURCHARGES (DUBLIN) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

TUBERCULOUS CATTLE IN SCOTLAND.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any inquiry has been made, or any estimate formed, as to the number of tuberculous cattle in Scotland; and, if so, whether he will state the information to the House; whether he can give any estimate—(a) as to the probable cost which will be incurred by the slaughter of tuberculous cattle in Scotland; (b) as to the total amount of compensation payable in respect thereof; and (c) over how many financial years it is estimated that such cost will be spread.
In regard to the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Bill these questions are of considerable importance, and before the Secretary for Scotland introduced that Bill into your Lordships' House it is probable that he had some estimate made which would show the probable number of cattle that would be dealt with under the Bill and also the cost which would be likely to be incurred in the way of compensation for animals slaughtered. I would like to point out that the population in the towns would benefit more than anybody else under the Bill, and that the agricultural population would be those who would be penalised. It is of importance that we should have some indication of the probable cost and the probable number of animals that would be condemned.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, this is really not a matter which lies within the province of the Scottish Office, and my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who would have answered this Question had it been possible for him to be present to-day, greatly regrets that he is not able to be here. Everybody, of course, will recognise the force of the arguments which the noble Lord has used as to this being, at any rate in some degree, a general charge rather than a special local charge; but I may remind him that what has been introduced both for England and Scotland in the shape of milk and dairies legislation would be perfectly practicable without the Tuberculosis Order on which the scheme of compensation to which the noble Lord has referred hangs. It is true, of course, that the Tuberculosis Order is complementary to the two Bills, but at the same time the two Bills might

915
be passed into law and become operative without raising the questions dealt with by the Tuberculosis Order. In those circumstances I regret to say I have no definite information to give. This has not been a scheduled disease before. Therefore there are no reliable statistics on the question, and we really have no reliable data upon which to found any deductions whatever. But my noble friend is at the present moment engaged in endeavouring to form some estimate of the number of tuberculous cattle which would fall to be dealt with under this Order, and if the noble Lord will be good enough to postpone his Question till a further date my noble friend will do what is possible then to give the information asked for.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, there is one suggestion I should like to make. The noble Lord says it is not within his Department, and that the legislation proposed could go on without bringing into force the Tuberculosis Order. Might I venture to suggest that there is some danger in pressing legislation for one country much in advance of another country when the two countries are so close together as England and Scotland. I do not want to give my fellow-countrymen a bad reputation and I will put it quite tentatively, but supposing there are much more stringent regulations in one country than in the other it is just possible that the inhabitants of that country might convey their cattle over the Border rather than have them slaughtered, and it seems to me of extreme importance, from a public point of view, that the legislation for the two countries should be kept as nearly on the same lines as possible and should go forward together about the same time. I am practically certain that, whichever country is dealt with first, there will be difficulties in enforcing the law without the danger which I have indicated.
LORD BELPER: I should like to support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Balfour. Strangely enough the provisions of the English Bill, of the passing of which there is no chance, or only a very remote chance, this session, are very different in many respects from those of the Scottish Bill, and I think it would be convenient if we could see both Bills in your Lordships' House at the same time and be able to judge whether some of the
916
provisions in the Scottish Bill might not be more suitable for the English Bill than the provisions as at present drafted. I think the suggestion with regard to what may happen if a Bill is passed for one side of the Border and not for the other is one which certainly should be very carefully considered by those who will be responsible for this measure. The Tuberculosis Circular speaks about the very serious burden that is going to be placed upon local authorities if, as is at present proposed, the amount of compensation is to be found out of the rates, and not out of Imperial funds. I hope that, considering the very great doubt which exists as to what the cost is going to be and the fact that there is a very strong feeling that some part of this charge should be placed on Imperial funds, the noble Lord will think it right to postpone the Bill till some further date when we can have an assurance on the subject.
LORD PENTLAND: Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that what creates the difficulty anticipated by noble Lords opposite is not the fact of this proposed legislation. It is not the fact of one Bill being passed in one country before the Bill for the other country comes into force so much as the bringing into operation of the Order in one country earlier than in the other. The passing of the Bill is really not a crucial point.
LORD BELPER: We had an assurance that the Milk Bill would run with the Tuberculosis Order.

MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary for Scotland to postpone the Motion for the Third Reading of the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that on three or four occasions I have asked His Majesty's Government what contribution they proposed to make, if any, towards the cost of the Bill. When I first asked the question and was requested to withdraw it, I did so on the understanding that there would be a reasonable amount of delay after I received my answer before the Third Reading was taken. I received an answer only yesterday, and the Third Reading of the Bill is down for to-morrow.
But without going into the question how

917
far that delay is reasonable or not, I wish to say that the Government have evidently not decided as to how these funds are to be provided. I do not find any fault with them on that head. The cost will be very considerable indeed, and I think that the Government may be excused for not being able to give a definite answer at this moment. One thing is certain, that whatever the Government intend to do with regard to Scotland they will also have to do with regard to England and Ireland. Therefore the question is one which does not concern Scotland alone. All we know at present is that the Government have not decided what they are prepared to do with regard to Scotland. The question which has just been asked by Lord Saltoun furnishes another reason why the Third Reading of this Bill should he delayed. It is quite clear that there are no reliable statistics; indeed, if I gathered the noble Lord's answer correctly, no statistics at all. The words he used were that there were no "reliable statistics," but I put it to him whether he is aware of any statistics of any kind.
LORD PENTLAND: I do not wish to be understood as debarring my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, with the means at his disposal, from forming what he may choose to consider an estimate of the possibilities.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In that case is it not rather a pity that that estimate, formed by whatever means, is not given to us? All we know is that the President of the Board of Agriculture is not able to be present to-day, and the noble Lord, who, I presume, has obtained from him all such information as he possesses, tells us that he is not aware of any statistics. Those two reasons alone seem to me quite sufficient to justify me in asking that the Third Reading of this Bill should be postponed. The cost of the Bill, as I have stated more than once, is going to be very great indeed. The other day I mentioned the figure which had been given by an eminent doctor, who said he believed there were 200,000 tuberculous cattle in the country—I presume that is the whole country. The noble Earl the Leader of the House thought that estimate rather high, and seemed to think I was inclined to take an exaggerated view of the magnitude of the question. I do not think so. I would remind the House that there has been quite recently almost a war between the butchers and farmers over this
918
question of tuberculosis. These two important trades are inter-dependent one upon the other, and as there has very nearly been a war between them I think Parliament may be quite certain that there is a very considerable amount of tuberculosis. That there is a large amount of tuberculosis in the country is borne out by the admission of the President of the Board of Agriculture that the cost of enforcing this Order would be very great. That being so, and the Government having been unable to arrive at any decision in regard to the financial provisions, would it be prudent on the part of this House to part with the Bill at the present time? As has been said, this is not the only Bill before Parliament dealing with milk and tuberculosis. There is a Bill for England and Ireland. Why those two countries should be placed together and Scotland dealt with by itself is a mystery to me. And, indeed, speaking of Scottish legislation generally, I find it rather difficult to understand at times the exact method of procedure and the rules which guide His Majesty's Government in determining whether Scotland is to be dealt with by itself or in regard to England. I will give an instance. Your Lordships may remember that in the year 1907 when the Agricultural Holdings Act was before Parliament the Government insisted on dealing with England and Scotland together. There certainly were reasons, and they were urged from this side of the House, why it was more desirable on the whole that there should be two Bills, the tenure in England being yearly and that in Scotland, as your Lordships know, being mainly tenure by lease. But the Government then insisted on having one Bill for both countries. Well, bad milk and tuberculosis are very much the same thing whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland, and tuberculous cattle, I fancy, are very much of the same quality. Therefore surely it is desirable that, as far as possible, these two questions which affect the whole nation should be dealt with by one Bill and by regulations as nearly as possible identical. My noble friend Lord Balfour has already alluded to this very great difficulty, that if you pass the Scottish Bill and it comes into force on January 1 next, and if the Order also comes into force on that date and the Bill for England and Ireland is not passed, then Scotland alone will be under these stringent regulations. What would be the result? Tuberculous cattle would come to England. Surely it is inexpedient that Scotland alone should be under these stringent regulations.

919
We have no notion whatever as to what the cost is going to be, and as the Government have in no way made up their minds as to how the cost should be met I hope the noble Lord will see that it would really be hardly reasonable to ask us to read the Bill a Third Time to-morrow.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I would suggest that the whole question of tuberculosis should be taken up in the immediate future by His Majesty's Government, both on account of this milk legislation and also on account of the trouble there has been between the butchers and the farmers. Undoubtedly farmers suffer considerable hardships in having their meat inspected in the absence of any system of standardised inspection while meat with the infectious parts cut out is allowed to come in from abroad. Although no statistics can be produced as to the number of cattle which would have to be killed if the Tuberculosis Order were put in force, it is clear that there are in the United Kingdom a large number of animals suffering from tuberculosis, and in cases where cattle have been tested it has been found that only five out of thirty-five were able to pass the test. I put these facts forward simply to show that this is a very important question and one which ought to be faced, not simply with regard to the milk side, but with regard also to the meat side and the unfairness under which farmers at present labour in competing with importers of foreign meat.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I earnestly hope that the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will give serious consideration to what has been said and postpone the Third Reading of the Bill. The answer he has given to my Question to-night has furnished an additional reason for doing so. I think it is only right that we should hear from the Minister for Agriculture what the probable expenditure will be, and also the probable number of cattle that would have to be destroyed. I am greatly surprised that the Secretary for Scotland did not get some statistics or some information from the Board of Agriculture which he could have given to the House. I should have thought he would have done so before introducing the Bill. It is a dangerous thing to put this immense burden on the rates without having some idea of what is being done. I therefore hope the noble Lord will consent to postpone the Third Reading of the Bill.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, will
920
your Lordships allow me to repeat that not a single cow is to be slaughtered under this Bill? Therefore there is not a provision for a single shilling of compensation for slaughter either in this Bill or in the English Bill. The Government quite recognise that the question of compensation, which is complementary to any further legislation relating to milk and dairies for either country, is a material part of this question, and that no new legislation will be fully effective without dealing with the matter. But, at the same time, we recognise that the question of compensation is a general question, and should be dealt with generally for the United Kingdom. Therefore it is proposed to deal with it by the Tuberculosis Order and not by Bills. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has taken serious objection to our having a separate Bill for Scotland on this subject. In following that course we are simply acting on precedent. Separate legislation has been passed for Scotland on this question hitherto. There is every desire on the part of the Government to synchronise, so far as is practicable, the passing into law of the two Bills. The question of meat is not touched by this Bill. But so far as milk and dairies are concerned great trouble has been taken to make this a Bill which will have the support, co-operation, and goodwill of those who will administer it in Scotland; and considering all the pains that have been taken to make this a workable measure, to consult the wishes, the predilections, the habits and customs, and, if you like, the prejudices, of local authorities in Scotland, and the interest that has been aroused in the measure there, I appeal to your Lordships, on behalf of the Government, to allow the Bill to proceed. I may add that I have given an assurance on the part of the Government that they have no intention of placing any one part of the United Kingdom at a disadvantage as compared with any other part.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Does the noble Lord agree to postpone the Third Reading of the Bill? That is the question?
LORD PENTLAND: The Government are, of course, in a matter of this kind in your Lordships' hands. If it is desirable as a matter of convenience that the Third Reading should be postponed I have no control over that; but my noble friend the

921
President of the Board of Agriculture agrees with me that it is desirable that we should proceed as far as we can in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope, in spite of the statement he has just made, that the Secretary for Scotland will consider whether it would not be for the general convenience of the House that this Bill should not be proceeded with tomorrow. What is the situation? We have it from the noble Lord that there are statistics in process of collection but not yet available. Not only are there no statistics available, but His Majesty's Government have apparently not yet been able to consider a very important question of policy—I mean the question of the source from which the expense that will undoubtedly be incurred under this Bill is to be provided. The noble Lord said that the Bill itself does not necessitate any expenditure at all, but surely it is the case that the orders which will be issued under the Bill will involve a very large expenditure of money. The noble Lord, in the course of his answer to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, let fall this observation. He said that it would appear at first sight that compensation of this sort should be a general rather than a special and local charge.
LORD PENTLAND: Dealt with by general order—therefore by the Tuberculosis Order of the Board of Agriculture, which has administration over both countries, rather than by the Scottish Office, which has only administration over one.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If I misunderstood the noble Lord I will pay no further attention to that point. But the fact remains that we have not had a single hint, although my noble friend Lord Camperdown has repeated his question again and again, as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to this question of compensation. Is it the case that the postponement of the Third Reading would occasion any real inconvenience? I should have thought it was all the other way. You have another Bill before Parliament dealing with the question of tuberculous disease in other parts of the United Kingdom, and surely my noble friends are justified in saying that it would be much fairer that this question should be dealt with, not with reference to one part of the
922
United Kingdom at one time and another part at another time, but should be dealt with as a whole, because, after all, tuberculous disease is tuberculous disease whether it is to be found on the north or on the south of the Border, and I cannot conceive that it should be desirable to deal with it on different lines according to the geographical area in which the disease is found. If the noble Lord adheres to his answer my noble friend and those who are acting with him will, no doubt, consider whether they will give facilities for the further progress of the Bill to-morrow evening, but I should really have thought that the matter was one which might, so far as to-morrow evening, at any rate, is concerned, be dealt with by amicable arrangement between the two sides of the House, and that we should have been given a little more time in which to consider the matter.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I understand that the notice of this Question appeared only to-day on the Paper, and—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It was not possible to put it on the Paper earlier than to-day as I only received my answer—it was really no answer—yesterday.
THE EARL OF CREWE: At any rate, the result is that my noble friend has not, perhaps, had full time to consider the question. What occurs to me is this, that if, as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition has said, statistics are missing which ought to be available and further information is required, I cannot understand why your Lordships have proceeded thus far with the Bill. If a great part of the necessary information was missing, what was the object of going to all the trouble of discussing the Bill in Committee?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have at every stage pointed out that the Bill must necessarily depend upon how the cost was to be provided. I have asked the question several times because I regarded it, and I have said over and over again that I regarded it, as essential.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am extremely anxious not to misrepresent my noble friend opposite in any way, but it does seem to me that in the circumstances

923
which the noble Earl has mentioned a Motion of this kind ought to have been made before, and that—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am sorry to again interrupt the noble Earl, but he does unconsciously misrepresent me. I put the question on the Report Stage and was asked to withdraw it. I then said that I withdrew it on the understanding that I should repeat it before the Third Reading, and that I should have sufficient time after I received the answer to consider what course I would take before the Third Reading.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl is perfectly accurate, and I have not the faintest complaint to make of his action; but what I do not exactly understand is what is meant by postponement. Is the demand that the Bills for England and Scotland should be taken pari passu? I can see some force in the noble Earl's contention that a distinct lapse of time between the coming into operation of the separate measures might be unfortunate, and there I am in general agreement with
924
the noble Earl. But why the discussion of the two measures should necessarily be taken at the same time I confess I do not entirely understand. As my noble friend pointed out, it has always been the custom for these public health matters to be dealt with in separate measures for England and Scotland, and although there may be particular circumstances here which make it inadvisable that different regulations should be in operation at the same time, I cannot see that, as far as the discussion is concerned, it very much matters which is taken first, or whether they are taken at considerable intervals. At any rate we will not press the point.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Does the noble Earl mean that the Bill will be postponed?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes.
Order for the Third Reading to-morrow discharged.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter-past Four o'clock.