THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy 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 PENTLANDI 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 CAMPERDOWNIn 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 LOVATMy 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 SALTOUNMy 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 PENTLANDMy 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 CAMPERDOWNDoes the noble Lord agree to postpone the Third Reading of the Bill? That is the question?
§ LORD PENTLANDThe 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 LANSDOWNEI 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 PENTLANDDealt 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 LANSDOWNEIf 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 CREWEI understand that the notice of this Question appeared only to-day on the Paper, and—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIt 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 CREWEAt 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 CAMPERDOWNI 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 CREWEI 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 CAMPERDOWNI 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 CREWEThe 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 CREWEYes.
§ 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.