HL Deb 15 July 1915 vol 19 cc440-5

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD ST. AUDRIES

My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I should like to bring once more to the notice of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture the hardship which may be inflicted on farmers under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. The case is a very common one. It is where a farmer gives up his farm at the end of his tenancy, or gives up business, or where the farmer dies and his successors are not prepared to carry on the farm. In those cases there is always a sale of live stock. If the farm happened to be situated in a restricted area under paragraph (e), the live stock could only be sold within that area, which might be a very small one. It is obvious that in all those cases a great part of the stock would be breeding stock, in-call cows, in-calf heifers, ewes in-lamb, and young immature calves; and it would be very hard on the farmer were the competition at the sale so restricted. There was a notable case the other day, when the herd of the late Lord Rothschild was sold. One cow fetched 970 guineas, and her heifer calf 180 guineas. It is obvious that this cow was not bought for beef, nor the calf for veal. Had that sale happened to have taken place in a restricted area the competition would have been very much smaller. That would not have made much difference to the executors of a man like the late Lord Rothschild, but it would have made a lot of difference had the case been one of a tenant farmer. Then there is the case of pure breeds, in connection with which there are various societies which hold public auctions once or twice a year of young breeding stock, in-calf heifers, and sometimes old cows. If the sale happens to be in a prohibited area obviously the competition must be much restricted, and that would be very hard upon the breeder. Further than that, such a restriction would defeat one of the great objects which the noble Earl has in mind, which is to encourage the use of better bulls for dairy cows all over the country. If sale is to be restricted in certain areas it is obvious that these bulls will have much less chance of being spread about the country. The point, I know, is a difficult one to deal with. I have tried to draft an Amendment, but I gave it up as I did not wish to tie the noble Earl's hands. I admit the difficulty, and all I ask is that in any orders or instructions which the noble Earl gives to the local authorities he should provide for the widest possible discretion in dealing with these cases.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The case put by the noble Lord is a perfectly good one, and I will undertake that if ever an order is made under paragraph (e) it shall be made so as to meet both of his points.

LORD BARNARD

May I ask the noble Earl whether he has been able to meet the criticism which was made in Committee on paragraph (c) of Clause 1. The noble Earl will remember that the criticism was that under this paragraph as now drawn the Board of Agriculture would he given power to impose a burden on the rates. The clause provides that the Board of Agriculture may, inter alia— (c) authorise any local authority specified in the order to execute and enforce within their district all or any of the provisions of the order, and provide for the manner in which the expenses incurred by the authority are to be defrayed. The suggestion made was that the insertion of the simple word "to" before "provide" would obviate the difficulty.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I have taken legal advice on that point, and am told that the suggested Amendment is quite unnecessary. The effect of this provision in the clause is, as I said in Committee, that the whole thing could only be done by arrangement with the local authority. Therefore any provision with regard to imposing a charge upon the rates would be made with their consent.

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 1:

Power to make orders for the maintenance of stock.

1.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient stock of animals to which this Act applies, by order applicable to England and Wales or any part thereof—

  1. (a) prohibit or restrict the slaughter of animals;
  2. (b) prohibit or restrict the sale or exposure for sale of meat of immature animals which has not been imported;
  3. (c) authorise any local authority specified in the order to execute and enforce within their district all or any of the provisions of the order, and provide for the manner in which the expenses incurred by the authority are to be defrayed;
  4. (d) authorise any officer of the Board or of a local authority to enter any slaughterhouse or other premises on which animals are slaughtered for human food and examine any animals or carcases therein;
  5. (e)prohibit or restrict the movement of animals out of any area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted;
  6. (f) revoke, extend, or vary any order so made.

(2) The animals to which this Act applies are cattle, sheep, and swine.

LORD STRACHIE

It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he refused my Amendment to exempt "male lambs of pure breeds and all crossbred lambs," said he would be ready to accept the first half of it, and on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread I readily assented to that course. But in placing my Amendment on the Paper to-day—after the word "animals" at the end of paragraph (a) of Clause 1, to insert "except male lambs of pure breeds"—I did not think it right to put down other than the exact words of my own Amend- ment which the noble Earl had consented to accept. But I notice from an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper that he is ready to exempt all male lambs whether of pure breeds or not, and I therefore move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("animals") insert ("except male lambs").—(Lord, Strachie.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I have two Amendments which I would ask your Lordships to allow me to insert in Clause 1. They are both with a view of meeting the point made by Lord Ribblesdale and other noble Lords, and they give power effectively to exempt from the operation of the Order that is in existence or any similar Order to be issued that class of calf which may be termed a misfit—the class which has been so well described by Lord St. Audries and others, which no man wants to buy and no man wants to rear. If the words which I propose to add are inserted I think I shall be able to meet that point. I am now having it very carefully considered, my object being to relieve the farmer from having to keep and feed with milk any calf which would be unsaleable to another farmer who wishes to rear young cattle as stores. While showing my desire to meet the point made in that respect by noble Lords opposite and by deputations that I have received, I wish to emphasise that the other side of the case has not had a sufficiency of spokesmen among your Lordships. The dairyman's side of this question has been heard almost exclusively, and I ventured to point out, with respect to the many calves that had hitherto been slaughtered for veal but which I wished to see in present circumstances reared for beef, that there was a market for them. There has been placed in my hand to-day a letter from an East Anglian farmer which entirely bears out that. contention. It is signed W. B. Damant and dated Helmingham, July 13, and is written to the East Anglian. I will read it to your Lordships— The Lancashire farmers' protest against the killing of calves regulations is so extraordinary that I think you might publish the information that if the said farmers will keep their calves well for a week, and then send a truckload to any East Anglian market, they can be assured of making very remunerative prices. Many farmers would gladly give £3 each for good calves at a week old, for weaning purposes, at the present time. The serious shortage of store cattle in the country fully warrants the action of the Board of Agriculture, which might profitably be still more drastic, even to the extent of prohibiting the killing of any cattle under twelve months old. I am endeavouring to meet the case of the calf which would not be welcomed by Mr. Damant or any other East Anglian farmer. But I hope noble Lords opposite who have so championed the interests of dairy farmers will assist the Board of Agriculture to help those farmers to pass on to rearers of calves those calves which ought not to be killed but which the dairy farmers do not wish to keep.

Amendment moved—

Clause 1, page 1, after line 23 insert: (f) authorise or require the marking of animals for the purposes of an order under this Act.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD ST. AUDRIES

I am certain that we shall all do our best to assist the noble Earl in this endeavour to transfer calves from one part of the country to another. But if we wished to send calves from Somersetshire to, say, Norfolk and we happened to be a restricted area—.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

But you are not.

LORD ST. AUDRIES

How do we know that we shall not be?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

There is no such intention. I can assure the noble Lord.

LORD ST. AUDRIES

But paragraph (e) comes in supposing it is proposed to transfer calves from one district to another.

LORD STRACHIE

Perhaps the noble Earl will explain to the House how he proposes to mark the animals. I notice that in his Amendment the words are "authorise or require," so that it might be obligatory that they should be marked. From what the noble Earl said in Committee he rather led the House to believe that he had no intention, which I personally was very glad to hear, of adding to the large number of officials already attached to the Board of Agriculture and other Departments. But if this is not to be done by I officials and experts, who are the people who are to come forward and say that a particular calf is to be marked and branded because it may be sold for slaughter The noble Earl indicated that it might possibly be done by voluntary help, I suppose by having a committee of agriculturists. That may be very good and may save expense, but there is a great deal of jealousy amongst farmers, and I am afraid that it would create considerable friction if you were to set up a small committee of farmers to be the sole authority with regard to marking their neighbours' stock, and it would probably defeat the very object of doing justice these particular cases.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am afraid I cannot wholly satisfy my noble friend, because I have not yet finished drawing up my Regulations. But if an authority is used it will be a local authority.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

Offences.

2. If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of an order made under this Act, or obstructs or impedes any officer in the execution of his powers or duties under any such order, he shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or if the offence is an offence committed with respect to more than four animals to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each animal.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I move the subsequent Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 2, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("or with a view to evade the operation of any such order marks, or alters or obliterates a mark on, any animal").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 136.)