IMPROVEMENT OF LIVE STOCK (LICENSING OF BULLS) BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 11 February 1931 vol 79 cc918-90

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Restrictions on keeping bulls.

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful on or after the appointed day to keep a bull which has attained the prescribed age, unless a licence or permit in respect of the bull is for the time being in force under this Act, or unless the bull attained the prescribed age before the appointed day, and any person who keeps a bull in contravention of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(2) For the purpose of any proceedings in respect of an offence under this section, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the bull had attained the prescribed age at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed and had not attained that age before the appointed day.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to keep a bull if he owns the bull or has the bull in his possession or under his control.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "prescribed." and, after "age," to insert "of eighteen months." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which your Lordships see in my name in the first place leaves out a word that was rather mysterious to me—namely, the word "prescribed." My reason is that I recollect that some thirty years ago, when I was given my first cheque book, my father in giving it to me said that he would give one piece of advice with it, and that was never to sign a blank cheque to any one, however good in appearance and character he might be. I have endeavoured to follow that advice. It seems to me that I am here asked to give a blank cheque, and I do not like doing it; hence this Amendment.

With regard to the age of eighteen months, I have more or less an open mind on the matter, but I suggest that age because breeders of bulls, and more especially the breed societies from which, no doubt, large numbers of these bulls will come, are in the habit of selling most of their bulls at the age of from fourteen to eighteen months. If the age prescribed is one year the breeder of bulls, of which he will have a considerable number, will have to keep a very careful watch over the natal day, and on that day he may have the pleasure of fining himself five shillings or, if he omits to do that, may find himself mulcted to the extent of £20. That was not the intention of the Bill—that the man who breeds good bulls should be fined. The intention was that everyone should have a good bull. As I have said, I have an open mind with regard to the matter. I know there are arguments the other way, and I should be very glad to be convinced by the noble Earl opposite.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out ("prescribed") and after ("age") insert ("of eighteen months").—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am very glad that my noble friend has moved this Amendment because, unless I am very much mistaken, and I have read the Bill carefully, I cannot see that in any part of the Bill there is any mention of any age. Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether, if my noble friend's Amendment is not inserted, it would be in the power of the Minister, presuming this Bill became law, to say next month that the prescribed age shall be twelve months, and in the following year to say that the prescribed age shall be eighteen months, and in the following year fifteen months? There is no certainty whatever in the Bill, and therefore, although I do not know whether eighteen months is the right age, I venture to suggest that some age should be inserted at this particular point.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)

There really are two points raised on this Amendment, and perhaps while dealing with it I might also deal with Lord Strachie's Amendment, which is to fix the age at twelve months. Our own view at the Ministry is that eighteen months is rather too old, and I think the noble Lord admits that. We all use bulls before that age, and a bull might have done a good deal of harm before reaching eighteen months. The fact that there are two Amendments on the Paper really shows the difficulty that we are up against in putting a definite age in the Bill. I quite understand the noble Lord's feelings about signing a blank cheque. I rather confess to sharing that feeling myself. On the other hand, I am prepared to give an assurance that the reason why we wish to have the word "prescribed" in the Bill, instead of a definite age, is that this question of making regulations under which the age shall be prescribed will be put into the hands of an Advisory Committee. There is already in existence a Live Stock Advisory Committee attached to the Ministry. It will be for them to advise us as to the age, and so far as we can make out they are likely to suggest ten months. On this question of a blank cheque, perhaps I might anticipate another Amendment by Lord Strachie. Later on that noble Lord intends to move an Amendment to Clause 11 requiring that regulations under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and perhaps it will help the passage of this Bill if I inform your Lordships at this moment that we intend to accept that Amendment. Therefore the regulations will have to come before Parliament.

LORD STRACHIE

After that statement made by the noble Earl I shall certainly not press my Amendment, that the age be twelve months, because I think, perhaps, it is desirable to leave it an open question, especially as the noble Earl is ready to consent to my later Amendment, so that both Houses of Parliament may be able to interfere. As regards the Amendment of Lord Cranworth, I agree with the noble Earl that it would be simply out of the question to accept it. I understand that Lord Cranworth is really here representing the breed societies, and I understand that the breed societies take this view, that they do not want to pay five shillings for a licence until they are quite certain whether they are going to keep these young bulls, because they do not decide until they are eighteen months old whether they will castrate them or not. I should think, however, that they could well afford to pay the five shillings for a licence. As regards the principle, that we want to get rid of scrub bulls, if the age is eighteen months it will encourage the use of scrub bulls to a great extent, because in dairy counties it is quite usual to turn out scrub bulls with the heifers in order to fertilise them. I really think, however, that the Amendment is going against the principle of the Bill, which is to get rid entirely of scrub bulls, and I therefore support the Parliamentary Secretary against the Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am convinced by the argument of the noble Earl and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. Lord Strachie is not quite right about one thing. I do not represent the breed societies, but just myself in this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I am very glad to see that there are two noble and learned Lords is the House at the present moment, the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, because I am going to ask them whether or not I am correct in my assumption as to what is and always has been the law of the land in this country, as long at any rate as it was a free country. Subsection (2) says this:— For the purpose of any proceedings in respect of an offence under this section, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the bull had attained the prescribed age at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed and had not attained that age before the appointed day. Put into plain English, that means that the ordinary law of the land, which says that a man or woman is presumed to be innocent until he or she is found to be guilty, is to be abrogated, and a new law is to be substituted under which a person is guilty until he proves that he is innocent. It may be said that this is only a small matter. Well, I have been a good many years in both Houses of Parliament, and I have always found that it is most dangerous to introduce a new principle into a Bill. You are always told five or six years afterwards, when you say that this has never been done before: "Oh, yes, there is a precedent. It was done in such and such a Bill." Therefore, I object to this on the ground of one of the fundamental principles of the liberty of the subject.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

It is quite true, as the noble Lord says, that the onus of proof is usually placed on the prosecutor, but in this case it would really make the Bill inoperative. I do not believe that the noble Lord, if he looked at a bull between the age of six months and fifteen months, could really tell its age accurately. On the Second Reading the noble Lord showed us that he had exceptionally profound knowledge in the judgment of bulls, when he told us that the only bull he ever bought failed to produce any stock.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The only pedigree bull I ever bought.

EARL DE LA WARR

I have no doubt that if the bull had not been a pedigree bull the noble Lord would have been more successful. But a reference to any veterinary text book on this matter would show that it is quite impossible for anybody inspecting a bull after it is six months old to tell accurately its age until it reaches about fifteen months. Therefore we have to get the proof where we can, and the one person who can really give the proof is the owner. If the owner did not breed the bull himself, no doubt he knows where he bought it. There is, therefore, probably much more chance of getting proof in this way than by the quite impossible method of leaving the onus of proof on a the prosecution.

Loan HANWORTH

The noble Earl agrees that this subsection runs counter to the general principles of the law. Therefore it was incumbent upon him to show your Lordships the real need for the subsection. As I understood him, he holds that there might be some difficulty in establishing affirmatively that the bull had reached a certain age. Therefore, for the purposes of the prosecution it was to be deemed that an offence had been committed unless and until the then owner of the bull provided sufficient evidence to answer the charge. The noble Earl further said it did not necessarily follow that the then owner who was being prosecuted had bred the bull, but he probably knew where he had got it. But the ownership of the bull may have passed through several hands, and I confess myself that I do not see an adequate reason for changing the law of the land, and throwing the burden of proof upon the immediate owner of the bull. Your Lordships know better than I do what would be the ordinary course, but I do think it is rather a severe burden to say to the immediate owner of the bull: "You must tell us its age from your own knowledge, or go to the person from whom you bought it, or to the previous vendor, or the vendor before that, and somehow or another obtain the evidence that you are innocent of the charge of which you stand committed, and which, unless you produce this evidence, will be held to be proved against you." Undoubtedly,

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "or under his control." The noble Viscount said: I understand that this Amendment goes further than the noble Earl is prepared to accept. When I placed it on the Paper I had in mind an employee who is afraid to ask the owner of the bull whether the certificate is in existence,

the clause throws a heavy burden upon the Government, and it will be for your Lordships to determine whether that onus has been discharged by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

I quite agree that perhaps this is contrary to other parts of our law, but in a case like this, where the evidence is peculiarly in possession of the gentleman who owns the bull, surely it is not asking too much of him to say that, in case of a charge being brought against him, the onus of proof shall be upon him to produce the evidence which he alone has.

On Question, Whether subsection (2) shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Esher, V.	Erskine, L.
	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Argyll, D.		Hastings, L.
	Mersey, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]
Beauchamp, E.	Ullswater, V.
De La Warr, E.		Kylsant, L.
Lucan, E.	Amulree, L.	Marks, L.
Onslow, E.	Arnold, L.	Marley, L. [Teller.]
Radnor, E.	Askwith, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Russell, E.	Bayford, L.	Passfield, L.
Stanhope, E.	Chesham, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Strafford, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Rochester, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)		Sanderson, L.
	Clwyd, L.	Stanmore, L.
Astor, V.	Cranworth, L.	Templemore, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Desborough, L.	Treowen, L.
Chaplin, V.	Doverdale, L.	Wharton, L.
Cobham, V.	Ernle, L.	Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Wellington, D.	Ampthill, L.	Heneage, L.
	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Lamington, L.
Bathurst, E.		Lawrence, L.
Iveagh, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Lauderdale, E.	Danesfort, L.	Redesdale, L.
Midleton, E.	Dulverton, L.	Strachie, L.
	Gainford, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Bertie of Thame, V.	Hanworth, L.	Wynford, L.
Hereford, V. [Teller.]	Hawke, L.

for fear of losing his employment. If, between now and the Report stage, the noble Earl can meet that point, I should be much obliged. In the meantime I move formally.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, leave out ("or under his control").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).

EARL DE LA WARR

I rather think that this point is already met in the Bill as it stands, but I will certainly look into it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Licences and permits for bells.

2.— (1) On application being made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, or such further time as the Minister may in any case allow, and on payment of such fee (not exceeding five shillings) as may be prescribed, the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this section and if satisfied that the prescribed conditions as to inspection and marking have been complied with, grant in the prescribed form to the owner of any bull—

1. (a) a licence to keep the bull for breeding purposes; or
2. (b) a permit to keep the bull for any other purpose.

(2) The Minister may refuse to grant or may revoke a licence in respect of a bull, if the bull appears to him to be—

1. (a) of defective conformation or likely to beget defective or inferior progeny; or
2. (b) permanently affected with any contagious or infectious disease; or
3. (c) permanently affected with any other disease rendering the bull unsuitable for breeding purposes;

and may revoke a licence in respect of a bull, if the bull appears to him to be inadequately prolific, or if any condition of the licence is contravened or not complied with.

(3) The Minister may refuse to grant or may revoke a permit on any grounds which appear to him sufficient.

(5) If notice is given under the last foregoing subsection to a person who is not the owner of the bull, it shall be the duty of that person forthwith to inform the owner accordingly, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to indemnify the owner against any loss the owner may suffer by reason of the failure.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "On application being made" to insert "to the agricultural committee." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises the question of local control as against centralised control from Whitehall. If I do not succeed upon this question some thirty or forty Amendments of mine fall to the ground; if, on the other hand, I succeed they will go into the Bill as consequential. Therefore, on this question I think it is very desirable that I should deal with the matter at some length. Whatever may be the opinion in your Lordships' House on this subject, there is no doubt that amongst the great body of tenant farmers of the country the question of licensing bulls has caused great dissatisfaction. So much so that when the late Government, with their enormous majority in another place, proposed a Bill of a similar nature to this they withdrew it because they found that agricultural opinion in the country was so much against them. Your Lordships have now before you a Bill on much the same lines. Those of your Lordships who have tenants know very well that tenant farmers resent the slightest interference by the Government, no doubt because of their experience of such interference during the Great War. That no doubt was necessary, but it did not make them any more content with interference from Whitehall.

The position taken up by the tenant farmers is this. They say: If we must have a Licensing Bill for bulls, although we do not like it, we ought to have it under the control of the local authority, the county council, and not under the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture takes the view, apparently, that there should be complete control of the bull that a man is to have and what he is to use it for. That is very much against the general feeling and attitude of the farming community of this country. Their view is that the Minister seems to think that he has the right to interfere directly and to say how a person is to conduct his business. I do not say whether I agree with that or not, but I think it is right that your Lordships should know the opinion of the National Farmers' Union. However much the noble Earl is opposed to my Amendment, I do not think he will contradict me when I say that the National Farmers' Union represents the agricultural opinion of the country. They object to this control by Government Departments. They do not want general standardisation and I rather agree with them.

When you get a great interference in a particular trade or business you do not know what is going to happen. We have had experience lately of the Coal Mines Act passed by the present Government. I find amongst my friends in the coal trade, both owners and those connected with companies, an agreement that this Act has produced absolute chaos as a result of interference by Government Departments. I am not very much surprised that farmers should say the same thing will happen to them if we get this interference by Government Departments. The Minister of Agriculture wrote a letter to the County Councils' Association whose Agricultural Committee and Parliamentary Committee are opposed to Government control. His letter to them was in regard to a resolution which had been passed by the Agricultural Committee. The Minister took the view that his officials who now carry out the scheme in regard to live stock would be able to be used in this matter of licensing, and that his officials had a great deal more knowledge and much greater experience than any county council officers could have of live stock. I think it was a curious argument to use, to suggest that the county councils appoint men of no experience who do not understand this matter. I was very surprised at that. Certain counties now have their own inspectors and veterinary officers. The veterinary officers are whole-time men, as a rule, and I am sure those men who have been appointed—I am certain it would be the case so far as my own county is concerned—would be quite able to carry out this duty of the licensing of bulls. They would be quite as capable of doing it as any person appointed by the Minister. I cannot see why the Minister should take this strong view.

We are told that there are at the present time thirty live stock officers for the sixty-two counties. If they are adequately employed at the present time, it is certain that a very large number of additional officers must be appointed under this Bill. I have been informed—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that they propose to appoint seventeen more live stock officers to carry out the licensing of bulls. The noble Earl agrees with me there. If that is so, all I can say is that the present officers cannot be fully employed or there would have to be a much larger addition than the seventeen I have mentioned. I do not think the noble Earl would tell me that the live stock officers at the present moment are not fully employed.

It seems to me very curious when I look into the question of what happens in my own county. I find there is one live stock officer under the scheme whose duties are entirely confined to the County of Somerset. I learn that he inspected fifty-eight bulls, fifty-four boars and nine heavy horses and also visited markets during the year 1929. If inspecting fifty-eight bulls and a small number of boars and visiting markets in one year filled the whole of his time, I wonder how he can be expected to attend to the licensing of the enormous number of bulls which will require to be inspected and licensed in Somerset. I went carefully into the question of how many bulls would probably have to be licensed in that county in the first year, and the calculation I made, which is supported by those in a position to know the facts, was that 9,200 bulls would have to be licensed at any rate in the first year. If the gentleman in the employ of this county fills in his whole time in inspecting just over 100 animals—boars and bulls—and visiting markets, how on earth is he going to inspect, in addition, this large number of over 9,000 bulls?

Then I hear this argument, which no doubt will be used this afternoon, that by my suggestion you will throw a heavy charge upon the county rates. I went into the question of what would happen in the case of my own county. Naturally we always think of what is going to occur in our own particular areas. I found that if the 9,000 bulls which were to be inspected in Somerset were charged a licensing fee of five shillings each, we should receive over £2,200 for the licences. It is quite clear that if we employed not one but two inspectors, in addition to our veterinary inspector, there would be no financial loss at all to the county, but probably we should make a profit upon these licences. I am only wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture had it in his own mind that it would be a nice thing to get this large sum of money drawn away from my county in order to pay his own officials. As I have said, we have in Somerset a whole-time veterinary officer and I do not see why he should not be employed, with the addition, of course, of assistants, to inspect these bulls. At any rate, at first we should—and other counties would be in the same position—get from the licences enough money to make it quite certain that there would be no charge upon the rates. I always deprecate any expenditure being put upon us that would increase our rates, which are already too high, especially in the case of agricultural communities. I know the argument is going to be used by the Minister that there are some county boroughs that have no agricultural officials. I do not think that is a matter of very much importance, and I do not regard it as an argument why you should go against the feeling of the counties generally in this matter.

I wish also to remind your Lordships that on this question of local control, as against the control of Whitehall, I have the absolute and whole support of the bodies representing agriculture. All are supporting me in this matter. Take the National Farmers' Union first. That is a very important body indeed, representing the tenant farmers and the owner-occupiers. Since I came down to the House, I have had a letter put into my hand addressed to me by the secretary of the National Farmers' Union. He says this:— As Mr. Robbins told you"— Mr. Robbins is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the National Farmers' Union— opinion is practically equally divided on the general question as to whether or not legislation should be passed to provide for the licensing of bulls. The county replies, however, show an overwhelming majority in favour of local control as opposed to control from Whitehall, in the event of Parliament deciding that compulsory measures should be adopted for the improvement of live stock. In fact not a single county branch even amongst those which favour legislation, has expressed a desire for control from Whitehall. I think I can say without fear of contradiction as far as the organised unions of the tenant farmers and occupying-owners of this country are concerned, they are absolutely opposed to control from Whitehall.

I can also quote another body in support of what I say. This is a, body to which many of your Lordships belong, and I know my noble friend sitting on the Front Bench has had a good deal to do with that body. I refer to the British Dairy Farmers' Association. They had this question before their Parliamentary Committee. I was not able to be there, or to attend the meeting of the Council afterwards, but I am informed that the Parliamentary Committee unanimously passed a resolution in favour of local control as against Government control. That came before the Council of the British Dairy Farmers' Associa- tion, and they approved of their Parliamentary Committee's resolution. I need not point out to your Lordships that the British Dairy Farmers' Association is a very important body indeed, and one that would be very much affected by this licensing of bulls. Last, but not least, the Agricultural Committee of the County Councils' Association also adopted the view that local control was preferable to Whitehall control; and only this morning the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils' Association met and unanimously endorsed the view of the Agricultural Committee of that Association that there should be local control. This is a matter which you cannot work satisfactorily unless you get agricultural opinion behind you, unless you get the tenant farmers with you. I cannot understand why no conference took place with them before this Bill was brought in with a view to getting the unanimous support of the farmers' organisations in this matter. I feel certain there is going to be friction in this matter, and that we shall not get the results from this Bill that we ought to get. I am most anxious to see that in this matter there should be no doubt at all that we do get rid of these scrub bulls. I yield to no person in this House or out of it in the desire that the scrub bull should be got rid of, but I wish to see it done with the least possible friction. I feel perfectly certain that if this Bill is passed in its present form, simply allowing a public Department to dictate to the farmers how to carry on their business, nothing but friction will arise. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, after ("made") insert ("to the agricultural committee").—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on this very important matter. I am sorry to take a view in opposition to a noble friend of mine with whom I have worked in the interests of agriculture for something like forty years, but I am delighted to know that he is in favour of the general principle of this Bill. He wants to eliminate those bulls which are unsuitable for breeding purposes. We have before us the example of Ireland, where a similar Bill is, at the present time, in operation. The method which they have adopted in Ireland is the method which is recommended in this Bill in opposition to the method proposed by Lord Strachie. In Ireland the greatest possible success has attended the efforts of the Ministry to improve the breed. So greatly has their stock improved that they now take the opportunity of sending those bulls which they consider unsuitable for breeding purposes over to England, where, I understand, they would be warmly welcomed by my noble friend Lord Banbury.

The whole point—and it is an important point on which people naturally may have differences of opinion—is whether the inspectors who are to give licences to bulls should be appointed by the Ministry or by the county council. I should like to make three objections to the Amendment proposed by Lord Strachie and to his scheme. Incidentally, I may say, that I believe the matter goes to the very essence of the Bill. If his Amendment is carried I think the Bill would prove almost impossible to work. That will probably be alluded to later. One of the objections to Lord Strachie's Amendment is that in Scotland there are no agricultural committees. It is difficult, therefore, to see how inspectors in Scotland can be appointed by agricultural committees if agricultural committees are not in existence. I believe that is the case.

There is another point which applies to England, which my noble friend passed over rather lightly, and that is the fact that there are a number of farms which would not come under the Bill. There are farms in municipal areas—I have four myself—and farms in county borough areas, where there are none of these agricultural committees. Therefore, if this Amendment is carried it is difficult to see how the inspection of bulls would be carried out in areas outside the domain of county council jurisdiction. The third argument relates to expense. I believe it would be very much cheaper for everyone concerned if the provisions of the Bill are carried out as proposed in the Bill than if the appointment of inspectors was left to county councils. The Ministry of Agriculture has, at the present time, a body of very competent live stock inspectors.

LORD STRACHIE

Fully employed.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I understand they are very busy people, and their numbers obviously would have to be increased, because I think there will be something like 60,000 bulls annually for inspection. If the operation of this Bill comes under the Ministry of Agriculture with their trained staff, you will get uniformity and, I think, greater fairness. An example which comes under my own knowledge is the Protection of Birds Act. That Act has to be operated by county councils and it is carried out in different ways in different counties. The regulations differ from county to county. In the North of Scotland you may shoot mallards on August 1 but in Hertfordshire not until August 15. There is no uniformity, and if the same thing happens under this Bill the standard of these bulls would be very difficult to determine. If the inspection is in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, with the assistance of their trained inspectors, I think we should get uniformity and fairness.

The Ministry of Agriculture has been trying to improve the live stock of this country now for seventeen years. Among the duties of their live stock officers at the present time is the giving of assistance in the formation of bull societies. There are, I believe, 1,550 bull societies formed, with the assistance of the officers provided by the Ministry of Agriculture. Those officers are in touch with the breeders of pedigree stock. They supervise the work of the milk recording societies and there are something like 5,000 of those societies. Therefore, they have considerable experience all over the country of the bulls employed. Also, as my noble friend has mentioned, they are in touch with breeders of heavy horses, and in fact they are in touch with all live stock breeders all over the country. For these reasons—I will not weary the Committee with any more—I myself believe that it will be very much better to leave the inspection of these bulls in the hands of a perfectly independent body of men under the Ministry. In that way you will get uniformity and, I venture to think, economy.

LORD ERNLE

I should like to say a few words on Lord Strachie's Amendment. This is a very old measure. It has been on the stocks in the Ministry of Agriculture for something like fifteen years. I went through it elaborately in my time. I recognised that it was a very unpopular measure and that it was not a particularly good time immediately after the War to harry the unfortunate farmer with a new piece of compulsory legislation. I believe, now, that if the Government had gone to work, if I may venture to say so, in a more friendly spirit with the farmers of this country they would have secured a comparatively smooth passage for this Bill. I am going to make an appeal to the Ministry of Agriculture even at this last moment. If they would pledge themselves to assist with their live stock officers the formation of voluntary schemes throughout the country during the period that must expire, before the appointed day, if they would make, that pledge, and still more, if they would put a clause in the Bill saying that they would do so, and that the services of their officers would be available, I believe that this would do more than anything else to make this Bill satisfactory to the farmer. Let me point out to the Government that it makes almost the whole difference between the success and failure of this scheme if they have, I will not say the enthusiastic co-operation, but at any rate the assistance of the farmers in carrying it out. I might illustrate in a dozen ways how that assistance may be withheld without coming under any of these penalties, while yet causing the delay to be so great that you will have to multiply your officers.

As to the specific form in which Lord Strachie moved his Amendment, I sympathise with its object and the spirit in which he moved it, but it seems to me that, if you have to cover an area with a measure of this kind, you have to take care of three things: that it does cover the area; that the regulations are uniform throughout all the area; and finally, and perhaps the most important, that the administration is uniform. In all these three respects, as Lord Desborough has already pointed out, this scheme breaks down. There is no provision at all for Scotland, because there are no agricultural committees. In fifty county boroughs in England there are no agricultural committees. Therefore you cannot say that it covers the area. As to the uniformity of rules, I dare say that it is possible—perhaps Lord Strachie might be able to satisfy us that it is even probable—that sixty-two administrative counties and divisions in this country and seven county boroughs would meet together and agree to an identical set of rules, but it is much easier to have those regulations framed by a central body, though I do not deny that the other method is possible.

As to the uniformity of administration, the Ministry of Agriculture possess a body of live-stock officers of very great experience and capacity, men who are known to the farmers, most of them intimately, and who go on every farm in the country. These men have a great experience in the particular class of work that will be required of them. What is more, they have at their head two or three men of quite European reputation as to stock-breeding qualities. Those are the men who will supervise the work of the trained officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and will guarantee, as nothing else can guarantee, that the Act will be administered uniformly throughout the whole area. In conclusion, if I may, as I have said, appeal to the Government on the point to which I first alluded, I think the only way in which this work can be done is through a measure such as that which the Government have put forward.

LORD NOEL-BUXTON

I should like to add one word in very cordial agreement with the arguments which have been used by the noble Lords, Lord Desborough and Lord Ernle, and to mention one bit of experience of my own in regard to the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, regarding the desires of the National Farmers' Union. From my recent experience I should like to say that I am quite sure that the opinion of the National Farmers' Union is not unanimous in the direction that he suggests. There are very important people in the union, and among the leaders of it, who hold the opposite view to his. They may have difficulty in expressing their opinion, but if this House were to reject the Amendment I am quite sure that we should be acting in line with the views of what I think are the most far-seeing elements in the union and would be supporting the best forces in it. The chaos that would result from the plan proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, seems to me to have been inadequately described by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. It would be quite fantastic, I think, and one feels that his enthusiasm for the passage of the Bill must be tempered by doubts as to the results if his Amendment were passed. Undoubtedly the Bill would prove, in the end, to be incapable of efficient administration and would perhaps lead to more harm than good. I trust that the views expressed by the two noble Lords who have just spoken will be supported by my noble friend on the Front Bench below me, and that the Amendment will be rejected by a large majority.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

There appears to be a great difference of opinion between my noble friend who has moved this Amendment and those who support the Bill that has been brought forward by the noble Earl. I am wondering whether the speech which we have just heard from Lord Ernle has not really provided the halfway house for which we are all looking. Lord Strachie naturally puts forward the desire of the various localities to have the jurisdiction in their own hands and not to be controlled, and perhaps hampered, by the officials of the Government. The Government, on the other hand, being pledged to centralisation and believing in Government control, are anxious that this very important matter should be controlled from Whitehall. I think most of us are in agreement with the principle of the Bill. It has always been in our minds that, by reason of the value of our herds in this country and the great markets to which we have entry abroad, we should do anything we can to maintain the highest standard of excellence in our cattle, and any measure, therefore, which seeks to carry out that object must have the support of the great mass of people in this country.

The point is, what is the best way to do it? I am quite certain that, unless we have the full co-operation of the farmers in this matter, we shall meet with endless difficulties, and that is why I should support some scheme by which we can enlist the sympathy of the farmer and not leave them completely—I would almost say at the mercy of Whitehall; using that term to avoid a longer ex- pression. Lord Ernle seems to point to a way that I think would meet with the approval of your Lordships, and that is that, if the Government themselves can enlist the sympathies of farmers throughout the country and can make the necessary provision in those districts where the agricultural committees or county councils do not exist, we should be enabled thereby to ensure that unanimity which, I agree, is a very important principle. Under Lord Strachie's plan it is quite true, as Lord Desborough said, that there might be throughout the country a complete lack of uniformity, and I feel that, on the principle that is in all our minds, and considering the importance and the value which we attach to our herds, it is necessary that the scheme under this Bill should be uniform throughout the country. I am wondering whether the noble Earl who will reply to this Amendment will be able to give us some definite indication on the lines of Lord Ernle's speech, that it is the intention and the actual purpose of the Government to see that all their endeavours in this connection will be to enlist the whole sympathy of the farmers throughout the country, and that we shall have that valuable co-operation throughout the country without which, I think, the whole scheme is bound to be a failure.

Loan CRANWORTH

I regret very much to find myself in opposition to Lord Strachie in this matter, not only because I know he has great knowledge of this subject, but because I also share his dislike of dictatorship from Whitehall. I personally rather dislike dictation from anywhere, but I am afraid I must find myself in opposition to him. In the first place, I would like to point out to your Lordships that the people whom he states are so unanimously on his side in supporting his Amendment are not perhaps altogether so unanimous as he thinks. Let me take the County Councils' Association. It is no doubt perfectly true that the Agricultural Committee have supported this Amendment, but I wish to point out to your Lordships that the county councils have not been approached in this matter, and I am bound to say that it was with some little surprise that I received a communication from the County Councils' Association Committee asking me to support the Amendment, whereas the county councils, who will have to provide in sixty-two cases a completely new department and completely new officials, have not yet been consulted in the matter.

With regard to the farming community, no doubt he is perfectly right in saying that the majority of the National Farmers' Union are against live stock officers, but I would like to point to certain bodies who have unanimously supported the Bill as it stands. They are composed of two members from the Council of Agriculture for England, a member from the Council of Agriculture for Wales, two members from the National Cattle Breeders' Association, and, in Scotland, the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, and all the breed societies as well. That is not a negligible amount of support for the Bill.

Your Lordships have heard the main arguments for the rejection of the Amendment, and there are two which affect me rather largely. I am a thorough supporter of this Bill, but I would not take it if I thought it was going to throw a considerable additional burden on the county councils. I come from a very poor county, which is having the utmost difficulty to collect its rates as it is. If you impose upon it another department, with further officials, we shall simply be unable to find the money. Another objection which I have is the increase of officials. I suggest that there are too many officials already, and I am given to understand that, since the present Government came in there have been appointed 9,000 more officials than there were when it arrived. If that is the case, and it is suggested there would be 17 more officials under the Department, I do not think you remedy that by making 62 more officials in the county councils. In conclusion, the great argument is naturally the want of uniformity and continuity. I, like the noble Lord, believe this is a good little measure. I believe it is almost unique among modern legislation in that it will do more good than harm. We had an instance the other day of a Bill in another place, which was very generally unpopular, being sent to a Committee with instructions, as it was understood, that it should have its throat cut. It seems to me that the noble Lord, who likes the Bill, is attempting the difficult task of patting it on the back with one hand and cutting its throat with the other.

LORD BAYFORD

This Amendment has been moved by a noble Lord who comes from the same county as myself, and he does undoubtedly voice the feeling of West Country farmers in what he says about the Bill. I know Somerset farmers pretty intimately, but in the neighbouring Counties of Wiltshire and Dorset this Bill is regarded with the greatest apprehension. Farmers are undoubtedly nervous people, and look upon any fresh regulations with suspicion, and if the Bill is to work at all you must work it with the consent and good will of the farmers. If you try to force it down their throats, you will find friction and have very great difficulty in carrying out this system of inspection, which everyone interested in the industry wants to see carried out efficiently. You want to avoid friction in every possible way you can. I do not want to under-estimate the difficulties that have been stressed by my noble friend behind me, and the noble Lord opposite, with regard to the Amendment that has been moved; but after all they are not insuperable difficulties but only difficulties of detail, which could be put right by a few words of amendment in subsequent parts of the Bill.

We were told by the noble Lord below me that my noble friend had forgotten the fact that there are no agricultural committees in Scotland. I looked at the end of the Bill and I was surprised not to find, what one invariably finds in a Government measure, words stating that it shall not apply to Scotland—it does say it shall not apply to Northern Ireland—but really the different regulations for Scotland could very easily be made. It is not as if you were asking the agricultural committees to do anything very abstruse or difficult. All they have got to do is to appoint a certain number of veterinary inspectors, and I cannot believe that the ability of local bodies in Scotland or of the county boroughs, to which reference is made, is below tackling such a task.

Then there is the great argument about want of uniformity. What have the inspectors got to do? Merely to advise the Minister that in certain cases he may grant or revoke a licence in respect of a bull, if the bull appears to him to be (a) of defective conformation or likely to beget defective or inferior progeny, or if it is (b) permanently affected with any contagious or infectious disease, or (c) permanently affected with any other disease rendering the bull unsuitable for breeding purposes. The last two, (b) and (c), are questions of fact. It is only on paragraph (a) of this subsection that there could be any difference of opinion. Under paragraph (a) the number of bulls that would be admitted is very large; a bull could only be refused if it failed to comply with those conditions. Well, it does not seem to me that there would be any very great scope for lack of uniformity with regard to those provisions.

The county councils, I believe, could carry out this duty perfectly well. Certainly the county councils in the dairying part of the country, from which I come, would be able to deal with it perfectly efficiently. Whoever does it has got to appoint new staff. The Ministry will have to appoint new staff; it cannot deal with the inspection of this enormous number of bulls all over the country without appointing new staff; and it is merely a question of whether it would be cheaper to appoint that staff locally or to appoint it from headquarters. I have had experience of both, and I really should not like to express an opinion as to which was likely to be the least extravagant in such a matter as this. But it is not a matter which is going to lead to very enormous expense in any case. It is really a matter of convenience, and it is a matter of trying to get the greatest amount of good feeling so that the measure may work without friction and without difficulty.

I did not quite understand what the proposal was that was made by my noble friend behind me (Lord Ernle). His proposal foreshadowed some consultation with the representatives of the farmers. Well, if you can get agreement with the representatives of the farmers that meets the point. My reason for supporting this Amendment is that on the whole I think you are more likely to get agreement with the farmers if you have the work done locally than if you have it done from headquarters.

LORD TREOWEN

I listened with the deepest interest and great pleasure to the suggestions which were thrown out by my noble friend Lord Ernle, and to the speech in support made by the noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord Londonderry). There is no doubt that, could some such method of easing the working of such a Bill as this be carried out, it would do a great deal to dissipate the feeling that the introduction of the Bill has created. As things stand at present, however this Bill may be amended, it certainly is not going to raise a wave of enthusiasm in favour of the Socialist Government. The feeling that is universal in the agricultural community is that of dislike of interference—interference from anybody, whether that of a local authority or that of an authority in Whitehall. I do not think there is much difference in the amount of dislike felt against either of those authorities. In the country that I know best from the agricultural point of view possibly there might be less dislike of the idea of a Minister to control these things in London, because in that country there has grown up a very popular custom of sending deputations up to London.

But that does not affect my personal feelings on the subject. I do not think that our county councils, which are in many cases largely composed of persons of industrial occupation, men concerned in coal mining and so forth, are authorities which would commend themselves to anyone who wishes to see the object of this Bill carried out thoroughly, and I think that all of your Lordships who, like myself, have had any experience of breeding pedigree stock, will wish that some such measure as this can be carried out. Therefore, I cannot support my noble friend below me (Lord Bayford). I regret not to be working with him on this, as on other occasions. But I do feel that we require to have, above all, a uniform system of inspection, and I think that seems to be more secured under the terms of the Bill than under those of the Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it will be agreed that we have had a very interesting discussion on this matter. Personally, I hope some form of agreement may arise out of it. On the merits of the Amendment itself I am afraid that the Government cannot consider for a moment accepting that Amendment, because in our view it would make it quite impossible, as the testimony of noble Lords all round the House has shown, to work the Bill. And I do not think it is really necessary for me to deal at very great length with any arguments on that point, because I think almost everything that I could have said has already been said by noble Lords.

There is the question of uniformity—uniformity of standards, uniformity of regulations, the question of the advisability of using existing officials, with all the immense experience that they have behind them, and the fact that you will only have to appoint comparatively few more—comparatively, that is, to what the counties would have to appoint. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has already mentioned that, whereas we shall require to appoint, say, twenty at the maximum, the counties would have to appoint no fewer than sixty-two, and would also have to set up new departments for them to assist them in their administrative work. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, asked why they should not appoint just a few more veterinary surgeons. Quite apart from the ability or otherwise of veterinary surgeons to judge stock—and I think we find considerable disagreement on that point—the fact remains that there are sixty-two counties, and that every one of them will have to have a separate official, if you are going to get the full benefit of local control, for which the noble Lords, Lord Strachie and Lord Bayford, were pleading.

Then again, there is the question, which Lord Desborough mentioned, of the amount of land—which is very considerable—in county boroughs, and also the point that Scotland has no agricultural committees at all. We cannot afford to disregard Scotland in this matter. Scotland is very keen, and the farmers of Scotland have always been very keen on this Bill. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland are so keen on this Bill that they took the trouble to send me this telegram only yesterday:— Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill.— National Farmers' Union of Scotland support principle of Bill, and urge its passage into law. Your Lordships will realise, therefore, that we cannot afford to disregard the views of Scotland in this matter. The reason why some hope has arisen from this discussion is that, although we cannot accept the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, has put forward a certain suggestion which the noble Marquess also mentioned. On that point I can quite definitely give the noble Lord the assurance of the Government that if the National Farmers' Union and other interested bodies are prepared to come in with us and work a preliminary voluntary scheme we shall be only too delighted to put our officials and all our Department at their disposal and to work with them.

On August 1 of last year the Minister wrote to the National Farmers' Union. In his letter this paragraph occurs— On the passing of the Bill it is intended to introduce a scheme for the voluntary licensing of bulls, and if such scheme proves effective in securing the elimination of the scrub bull it might not be found necessary to exercise compulsory powers. That was on August 1. Since then the National Farmers' Union, who were attending the Advisory Committee to help us with the details of this Bill, withdrew their representatives from that Committee because of a controversy on an entirely different point. Therefore, as they refused their co-operation, we were afraid that any hope of a voluntary scheme run with the aid of the National Farmers' Union was out of the question. But only this morning I received a letter from the National Farmers' Union making certain suggestions. They ask that the Government should put off the operation of the Bill for three years; indeed, they ask us to withdraw the Bill for three years. As to withdrawing the Bill I am afraid that is out of the question. On the point of putting it off for three years I think it would be hard to meet them.

In the Bill the appointed day is in two years. That period has been agreed after a considerable amount of discussion with the interested bodies. I might say that Scotland wanted it to be in one year, and I know there are certain interests in this country, indeed one or two noble Lords in this House, who have urged that it should be in one year. Therefore, I think that two years is a reasonable compromise between those views. Subject to that qualification I would say definitely, and I repeat it, that we would be only too delighted to start this as a voluntary scheme. Then it will be for the Minister of the day, when the appointed day arrives in two years, to decide whether it is necessary or not to put the Bill into operation. My own view is that it probably will be because there is always a certain minority who will stand out. Still, that is a matter to be decided in the future. Therefore, while we cannot accept this Amendment, I will say that we are going to do our best to work in agreement with the interests involved.

I have mentioned to your Lordships that we intend to draw up all the regulations in consultation with interested bodies. We very much hope that, in addition to the National Cattle Breeders' Association, the National Farmers' Union will assist us in drawing up those regulations. I think we shall get representation of the industry very much better in that way than by going to the county councils, because the difference of opinion is not so much local as national and between varying interests. All those interests have their national representatives. The farmers have their national representatives in London and so have the cattle breeders. Therefore, I am sure that your Lordships will support us in rejecting this Amendment. I hope very much that will be done without a Division and that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, after this most interesting discussion, will agree to withdraw his Amendment and allow us to operate a voluntary scheme if the interests concerned will work with us.

LORD HASTINGS

At the risk of wearying your Lordships I should like to supplement the appeal which has fallen from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. When he appealed to Lord Strachie to withdraw his Amendment I noticed that the noble Lord shook his head. The purpose of this Bill, as will be admitted, is not merely to eliminate scrub bulls, but to reach that desirable situation of affairs which can only be arrived at by the elimination of scrub bulls; that is to say, we desire to improve, and we urgently must improve, the quality of the meat which finds its way into our public markets, and so far as possible we must also improve our dairying herds. Is it to be imagined for a moment that national bodies will be in any way impressed with the separate and individual actions of 62 agricultural committees? I maintain that it is absolutely essential that this, which is a national scheme, should be nationally carried out.

The alarm which springs naturally to the stock breeder's mind when he reflects that the bull which he sells has to pass through the criticism of, let us say, 20, 30 or 40 different advisers of the different agricultural committees is more than one can contemplate. It would knock the bottom out of the trade in bulls entirely unless the buyer knew that one standard prevailed all over the country. It would be impossible for any individual to go and buy and pay the price for a licensed bull in one county intending to remove it to another, unless he had some guarantee that the bull would receive its licence in that other county. I do not think it would be reasonable to expect the trade in bulls to be carried on in such circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has suggested that ways and means should be found, and could easily be found, of getting over the circumstance that Scotland has no agricultural committees and that very large areas of land in England are included in borough areas. I think it would be found very difficult in practice to get over those apparent difficulties; I doubt if they could be got over.

I should like to mention a point in connection with veterinary surgeons which has not been touched on before. Is it likely that agricultural committees will be able to command the services of veterinary surgeons who will go round and "crab" the bulls of their clients? That has not been referred to. How could you expect a veterinary surgeon who had his living to get to go round and act efficiently as supervisor for an agricultural committee. It would be an almost indecent thing to ask him to do, and I doubt very much whether he would consent to do it.

LORD LAMINGTON

He has to do it with respect to cows.

LORD HASTINGS

My noble friend reminds me that a veterinary surgeon has to do it in respect of cows. But in matters of that kind he has to deal with disease and has a public duty to perform. In this particular matter he has no public duty to perform. He has to express an opinion; not an opinion that can be checked against him by accurate knowledge of disease; but an opinion which he has to hold, to stand by, and to voice against the contrary opinion of persons who will be at least as well qualified as himself to judge. I submit that the inspection of cows as now carried out is a totally different thing to the selection of bulls for the purposes for which we require them. I do not think it would be reasonable or proper to expect that veterinary surgeons in the counties could carry out this particular inspection. There would have to be whole-time officers employed altogether outside the counties. If you are not trusting the advisers and the inspectors appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, surely the right way of getting round it is to give the agricultural committee of the county a very large power in the creation of bodies of referees. That is the direction in which the county councils would like to have authority. They would like to be able to appoint referees to whom their locals can appeal, but they do not want, speaking for East Anglia, to be lumbered, if I may use that word, with the administration of an Act when they have their hands too full already.

We have heard the wise men from the West tell us exactly what the views of dairy farmers are there, but, coming from the East as I do, in view of the degree to which we suffer and have suffered in the past from the appalling class of bull which the West has exported to the East, it is about time that a few words were said from the eastern side of the country. I beg leave to tell your Lordships that in the East we would infinitely prefer the class of animal that was standardised to a standard set by the Ministry of Agriculture to the beast passed by any veterinary surgeon or inspecting officer set up by counties in the West of England. We want uniformity, and I beg leave to add that whatever the National Farmers' Union may say, the vast majority of their members want uniformity also. Speaking for my own county, I know perfectly well that while there is not absolute unanimity in favour of this Bill, the immense majority are overwhelmingly in favour of it. There is such a thing as individualism and individualism sometimes gets the stamp of—

A NOBLE LORD

Socialism.

LORD HASTINGS

Yes, also Socialism. Truly, the corporate bodies do not always strictly, with great accuracy, express the opinions of their individual members, and I myself am confident that although this Bill has taken, as my noble friend Lord Ernle has reminded us, fifteen years to reach this particular point, we have now arrived at a stage when it can be legitimately pressed upon the farming community without risk of such a degree of unpopularity as would make it impossible to be worked. I am confident the Bill as it stands will work well and efficiently, and be a very great boon to the farming community, but not if the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Strachie is passed, and it is removed into the hands of the agricultural committees of the county councils. I oppose the Amendment as strongly as I can, and I beg the Committee to follow the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and defeat it.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am sure we listened to the speech of the noble Earl with great interest, and we know that he is very friendly disposed towards the contentions that have been put forward by some of my noble friends on this side of the House. I wonder if he could elaborate more in detail the scheme he proposed to set up for the purpose of carrying out the idea of enlisting the co-operation and sympathy of farmers without which, of course, this cannot be a success.

EARL DE LA WARR

I confess I find it hard to go into the details of the scheme. How I imagine it would work would be like this. We have to appoint, say, seventeen or twenty new officials, and the scheme, we know, does not come into compulsory operation earlier than in two years' time—it could be in three years or four years, according to what the Minister of the day decides, but it cannot come into operation for two years. If there was a chance of operating a voluntary scheme, we would get on with appointing the officials rather quicker than otherwise would be the case, in order to get them into the areas, where they could become familiar with their districts and with the farmers in them. They would then endeavour, by going round, to put their services at the disposal of farmers, backed up by propaganda from the National Farmers' Union and the Cattle Breeders' Association, trying to bring the farmers to agree to the voluntary elimination of their worst bulls. That is how I take it the scheme would work. I do very much hope that any of your Lordships who have influence with the National Farmers' Union will use your best endeavours to persuade them to come into the scheme. Judging by the tone of their letter this morning, I am sure I was much encouraged in my hope that it might be possible to arrange with them this voluntary scheme for two years. I hope earnestly that we shall be able to persuade them to agree to that.

Tim EARL OF ONSLOW

May I ask the noble Earl a question? I suppose the voluntary scheme would not include licensing, but would simply be giving advice. There would be no licences or certificates under the voluntary scheme?

EARL DE LA WARR

I confess it has not been really carefully worked out. It would have to be advisory and propagandist.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD DANESFORT

May I ask the noble Earl this question? Would he be prepared to bring up some proposals on Report of this Bill which would ensure this official co-operation being carried out effectively? At present we have a statement of the noble Earl, which I have no doubt he would carry out as far as he can. Personally I think it would be more valuable if some express provision to give effect to it were inserted in the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

The position under the Bill is that no compulsory scheme can be operated for two years, and, if it is possible to agree on a voluntary scheme with various bodies, then there is no need for anything to go into the Bill, because it does not need legislation. It would be purely optional on the various bodies who were interested to say whether they are prepared to work with us in a propaganda scheme. No legislation would be required.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 7; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS.
Malmesbury, E.	Bayford, L.	Strachie, L. [Teller.]
	Lawrence, L.	Wharton, L. [Teller.]
Hereford, V.	Phillimore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Esher, V.	Hastings, L.
Wellington, D.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Hawke, L.
		Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]
Bathurst, E.	Mersey, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Ullswater, V.	Heneage, L.
De La Warr, E.		Howard of Glossop, L.
Denbigh, E.	Addington, L.	Jessel, L.
Grey, E.	Amulree, L.	Kylsant, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Annaly, L.	Luke, L.
Iveagh, E.	Askwith, L.	Marks, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Marley, L. [Teller.]
Lucan, E.	Chesham, L.	Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Midleton, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Noel-Buxton, L.
Onslow, E.		Passfield, L.
Russell, E.	Clwyd, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Spencer, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Redesdale, L.
Stanhope, E.	Cranworth, L.	Rochester, L.
Strafford, E.	Danesfort, L.	Sanderson, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Desborough, L.	Somerleyton, L.
	Doverdale, L.	Stanmore, L.
Astor, V.	Dulverton, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Bertie of Thame, V.	Ernle, L.	Swaythling, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Erskine, L.	Templemore, L.
Chaplin, V.	Faringdon, L.	Treowen, L.
Churchill, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Wynford, L.
Cobham, V.	Hanworth, L.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM in subsection (1), to leave out "may" ["as may be prescribed"] and to insert "shall." The noble Lord said: The clause as it stands says that the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this clause, grant in the prescribed form to the owner of any bull a licence. I desire to substitute "shall" for "may." I do not understand why an option should be given to the Minister to refuse a licence if the bull complies with all the regulations. I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think really this Amendment ought to be taken in conjunction with two others standing in the name of the noble Lord. If he does not insist on those other two Amendments we would not mind the word "shall" being substituted for "may" in this case.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

If the Ministry will accept the word "shall" I will not move the other Amendments.

EARL DE LA WARR

That is the Amendments proposed in line 9 and line 27?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

To leave out from "section" in line 9 to "grant" in line 11?

EARL DE LA WARR

And the other Amendment goes with it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

That is rather a different thing, but I am always reasonable.

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRAGHIE moved, in subsection (2) (a), before "likely," to insert "having regard to the milk record of the dam and sire and breed." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Does the noble Earl accept it?

EARL DE LA WARR

No, I cannot.

LORD STRACHIE

Then I will explain the Amendment. My reason for putting it down was that it seemed desirable that some regard should be paid in this matter to the milk record, because there is no doubt that it is the quality of the bull which makes it desirable or not that it should have a licence.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, after ("or") insert ("having regard to the milk record of the dam and sire and breed").—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I will tell the noble Lord what is my point. We are in full sympathy with the object of the Amendment, because it is obviously desirable that the milk record should be taken into account. Indeed, we are hoping that it will be taken into account and that this Bill may result in providing a market for bulls from milk-recorded stock. But the trouble is that if you specify in the Bill one particular point that the inspector has to take into account you rather restrict the meaning of the words in the clause. It is apt to exclude other factors. Therefore, we would rather leave it out of the Bill, but let it be understood that this is one of the points—and I think any efficient inspector would recognise it—which must be considered. If you were to put the words into the Bill there would be a danger of ruling out other things.

LORD STRACHIE

After what the noble Earl has said I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), to leave out "if the bull appears to him to be inadequately prolific, or."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand Lord Banbury does not move this Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

I very much regret that the noble Lord does not move this Amendment. If I had known that he was going to take that course I should certainly have put it down myself, because this provision seems to me one of the most peculiar things in the Bill. No man keeps a bull for the purpose of serving his cows unless he thinks it is adequately prolific.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think this is due to my mistake. It was the Amendment to be proposed in line 31—[to leave out subsection (3)]—which I meant to include in the Amendments which the noble Lord should not press. I do not want to be unfair.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I did agree not to move this Amendment, but if the noble Earl has no objection to my moving it—

EARL DE LA WARR

It was the Amendment to line 31 that I intended to ask the noble Lord to withdraw.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I want to move that Amendment. I did not understand that the noble Earl asked me to withdraw that. I certainly said that I would withdraw this Amendment, but, if the noble Earl will allow me in the circumstances, I will move it.

EARL DE LA WARR

We do not want this Amendment, but as I think the noble Lord withdrew it under a misapprehension I will not hold him to that withdrawal.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Then I beg to move, in subsection (2), to leave out the words: "if the bull appears to him to be inadequately prolific, or." I can put this point quite shortly. How on earth is anybody to say whether a bull is "inadequately prolific"? Take a herd of twenty or thirty cows and one bull. You would have to go every day to find out whether the bull had served a cow. This would add to the expense tremendously, and would give extraordinary powers to the officials which, I think, would act to the detriment of the farmer.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("bull") to ("if") in line 28.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD HASTINGS

I trust that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to accept this Amendment. Without it there will be an enormous addition to the work of the inspectors. It means that, when an inspector comes to a farm, he has to ask for a record of services over a period of months, and then he has to examine every yard of the place to find out how many calves have been dropped. If the bull goes from one owner to another in the course of those months, he will have to go to the next farm and find out what is going on there. In short, his labours will be enormously multiplied, and to no purpose. This is a Bill for the licensing of bulls to prevent them breeding bad stock. It does not matter to the Ministry if they breed nothing at all. They will be doing no harm. No breeder is likely to keep a bull merely because it is pretty to look at. This provision, as it stands, will not help in the breeding of good stock: it will add enormously to the duties of the officials of the Ministry, it will be an unnecessary, expensive and vexatious addition to the worries of the farmer, and to no possible purpose. I trust that this Amendment will be accepted.

EARL DE LA WARR

This clause, as it stands, is really put in for the protection of people like Lord Banbury. As he has told us, he bought a bull which served a large number of cows, and only one calf was the result. You cannot say that that bull was sterile, because it left the noble Lord one calf, but on the other hand we all agree that it is not very much good. I think, therefore, it would be a pity to leave this provision out. It is quite true that there may be some difficulties of administration, but I think we have to assume that the inspectors are reasonable men, and it will only be after strong evidence has been given that a bull is really not prolific that the licence will be refused. I think that, with reasonable administration, it is better to keep this provision in the Bill, and I should be sorry to see it go.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Am I right in thinking that there is an appeal to the referee if the inspectors act in an unreasonable way? If so, I do not see any reason for leaving these words out.

EARL DE LA WARR

In all these cases there is an appeal.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I really think it will be easier to administer the Bill if you leave these words out. Nobody but a fool would keep a bull that would not breed, and I think the owner might be trusted to eat him if he failed in that respect, without having an Act of Parliament to help him.

EARL STANHOPE

I hope that the noble Earl opposite will keep these words in. There is another side to the matter. It is true that the owner does not keep a bull that is not prolific, but, after all, it is an advantage to have a certificate, and the owner who has a certificate for his bull will expect to get a higher price for it in the market. You do not want a bull to be sold to somebody else, and then for the buyer to say that, although it has a certificate, it is not prolific and is likely to be quite useless.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is a very important one. We know there is a certain amount of criticism of this Bill, and that the inspectors will be open to a certain amount of suspicion at the beginning of its operation. It is important that, if a bull has one of our certificates behind it, it should be a good bull, and if such a bull is sold and turns out to be useless the buyer will say that he does not think very much of the Minister's certificate, and this may do the scheme a great deal of harm. I appeal to the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. If he is very keen on it, I am quite prepared to consider it and discuss it with him between now and Report.

THE EARL OF IVEAGH

I should just like to mention the fact that I have had bulls that were perfectly prolific for a certain length of time, and then for a further period of time were not prolific. In those circumstances, if I were an ordinary farmer I should sell them. The person who bought them would say that the Government had given a certificate to a bad bull when, as a matter of fact, the bull might recover later. I do not see how you can administer these words. I do not think you can tell what the future of a bull is going to be in this respect, so that you may be worse off than if you had never tried.

EARL DE LA WARR

It is true that there may be a certain number of bulls such as the noble Earl has mentioned, but I do not see how you could deal with them. There may be a small gap in this clause, but that is no reason for making the gap very much bigger by the removal of the words altogether. I am quite prepared to consider the point between now and Report.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I understand that the noble Earl will consider the matter between now and Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: The subsection says that the Minister— may refuse to grant or may revoke a permit on any grounds which appear to him sufficient. That is to say, the Minister, having brought about an Act which lays down the grounds on which you may do certain things, may throw aside that Act and give a decision on any grounds that he may deem sufficient. It is quite true that later in the Bill there is a clause providing for the setting up of a panel of referees, but I do not see the necessity for this subsection, in view of that later clause. It appears to me to be quite sufficient to enable the Minister to make regulations and to do pretty well what he likes, but the two provisions seem to me to be contradictory, and in those circumstances I hope the noble Earl will agree to omit this subsection.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think perhaps the noble Lord is under a slight misapprehension here. If he will read the clause, he will see that this refers only to a permit, and not to a licence. The difference between a licence and a permit is that one is for the use of a bull for breeding purposes, and the other is not. If a licence is refused, the owner has to apply for a permit to keep the bull in order to fatten it or to dispose of it in some other way. It may be perfectly obvious from the beginning that the bull is unprofitable and impossible to fatten, and there may be some suspicion of the bull being kept for other purposes, or it may happen that the permit is granted and the bull is then kept very much longer than is necessary for fattening. In the case of a permit, I think it is necessary for the Minister to have this power, and I hope that, after this explanation, the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I must admit that I did not quite gather the force of the word "permit." I see that there is a difference, and in those circumstances I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This is the subsection which says:— If notice is given under the last foregoing subsection to a person who is not the owner of the bull, it shall be the duty of that person forthwith to inform the owner accordingly, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to indemnify the owner against any loss the owner may suffer by reason of the failure. I really cannot see the point of this, and its only effect can be to make the Bill more unpopular than I believe it is certain to be. On that ground, I might perhaps be content to leave the subsection in, but as I desire to have something reasonable and workable, I beg leave to move the omission of this subsection.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I have a manuscript Amendment to this subsection. I must apologise to your Lordships for handing it in in that form, but I have an exactly similar Amendment to Clause 6, and what I propose is the insertion of the words "to take all reasonable steps" to inform. As Lord Banbury has said, the person may not know the whereabouts of the owner, and it is not fair to call upon him to take more than reasonable steps to give that notice. I hope in these circumstances Lord Banbury will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

I would like to call the attention of the noble Earl opposite to the fact that I have an Amendment to the same subsection.

EARL DE LA WARR

In reply to Lord Banbury, I have to say that this subsection was really put in for the protection of the owner, and that it really does not much matter to us, from the point of view of the operation of the Bill, whether it is retained or not. We all know that some people do lend or hire out bulls to neighbours, and supposing the licence was refused or revoked while that bull was on loan or hire, then I think it is only right that the person who has the bull in his possession should inform the owner, and that is the purpose of the subsection. With regard to Lord Cranworth's Amendment, perhaps we had better first dispose of the question now before the Committee.

LORD CRANWORTH

I would merely point out that my Amendment really effects what the noble Earl says is the intention of the subsection.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the noble Earl accepts the Amendment of Lord Cranworth.

EARL DE LA WARR

I would rather accept the Amendment of Lord Bertie of Thame, because I think Lord Cranworth's Amendment really limits the operation of the subsection, and we want to keep it as wide as possible, purely because it is a subsection for the protection of the owner who at the time has not the bull under his control or in his charge. If Lord Bertie of Thame cares to move his Amendment—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not think it goes far enough, because it only says "to take all reasonable steps."

LORD CRANWORTH

Perhaps the noble Earl will accept my Amendment, because he gave in favour of it all the reasoning which I was prepared to give.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid it limits us. If you take the Bill, you see that in subsection (4) of this clause the Minister has to give notice of refusal or revocation to the applicant or owner, and to safeguard the latter's position it is provided in subsection (5) that if notice is given to a person who is not the owner of the bull, it shall be the duty of that person to inform the owner. The person in question may or may not be the person who has the bull in his possession or control, and the adoption of the Amendment of Lord Cranworth would restrict the notification to one person—namely, the person "who has the bull in his possession or under his control." Will your Lordships take one case? Supposing I have my own bull and I apply for a licence, and before I know whether I shall get that licence or not—it may take a fortnight or three weeks to come through—I sell the bull. I do not get the licence, the bull is no longer mine, nor is it in my possession or control, but this subsection would make it obligatory upon me to write to the owner, the man to whom I have sold the bull, and tell him that I have failed to get a licence. Lord Cranworth's Amendment would save me from that obligation. Therefore I think it would be much better to leave the subsection as it is or, if you like, to put in the protecting words of Lord Bertie's Amendment, "to take all reasonable steps."

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not know that I quite follow what the noble Earl has said. It seems to me to be perfectly simple. I am the owner of a bull and have got a licence. The Minister revokes the licence and informs me. I have in the meantime sold the bull to my noble friend on my left. I shall naturally say to the Minister: "I have your notice, I have no longer a bull," and I shall refer him to my noble friend. I see no reason at all for having a subsection of this kind in the Bill.

EARL STAKHOPE

Will the noble Lord take this case? Supposing he is the owner of a bull certificate No. 2396. The certificate is revoked, and he must notify the owner, and he says: "I do not know who the owner is." Under Lord Bertie's Amendment, if he makes a reasonable effort to do so, he still comes under the proviso, and if he fails to notify the owner any loss which the owner suffers falls upon him.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the owner ought to be able to trace the bull. He knows to whom he has sold it and he writes to that person, who, if he has disposed of it, will write to the person to whom he has sold it. I do not see that what the noble Earl has suggested is likely to occur. The case which I gave to your Lordships is a case which I had in mind, and the reason why I do not want to accept Lord Cranworth's Amendment. If, however, your Lordships insist, I am prepared to drop this subsection, but I think you will find that actually you have removed a protection for the owner which you will regret, having done.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I hope the noble Earl will not withdraw the subsection. I think the intention is good, although the drafting is faulty. Would it not be possible to bring it up on Report?

LORD HASTINGS

Am I not right in supposing that the retention of this sub- section is a definite protection to the owner of the bull against the negligence of his own servants? Supposing a notice is given, in the absence of the owner, to a herdsman who fails to give it to the owner of the bull, this subsection would protect that owner, would it not? If I am right it has great value.

EARL DE LA WARR

It would do so.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I suggest that as there is a diversity of opinion about this subsection, the noble Earl allows it to be struck out and a new subsection put in on Report.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, I do not mind.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Change of ownership and duration of licence or permit.

3.—(1) A licence or permit granted under this Act shall become void on the expiration of one month after any change in the ownership of the bull to which it relates, but without prejudice to an application by the new owner for a new licence or permit, as the case may be.

(2) Upon any such change of ownership, other than a change in consequence of the death of the holder, the holder of the licence or permit shall forthwith deliver it to the new owner, and send by post to the Minister written notice of the name and address of the new owner, and the new owner upon delivery to him of the licence or permit shall become the holder thereof for the purposes of this Act; and, upon the death of the holder of a licence or permit, his personal representative shall become the holder thereof for the purposes of this Act.

(3) A licence or permit granted under this Act shall remain in force until it is revoked or becomes void under this Act or until the bull to which it relates dies or is castrated or exported from Great Britain, or, in the case of a permit, until the expiration of the period specified therein, whichever first occurs, and upon a licence or permit ceasing to be in force the holder thereof shall return it to the Minister within seven days.

(4) If the holder of a licence or permit fails to comply with any of the requirements of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This subsection appears to me to be the one serious flaw in the Bill. This Bill purports to be a Bill for the licensing of bulls, and this subsection converts it into a Bill for the licensing of men. The licence should surely attach to the animal, and not to the owner of the animal. It is a well known principle. After all, travelling stallions have been licensed these many years. The owner of the stallion obtains the licence. He then lets it to a heavy horse society who automatically take the licence with the stallion. They have not got to apply for a renewed licence. The licence is the animal's licence, not the owner's licence. It is not a certificate of respectability to the owner; it is a certificate of efficiency to the beast.

I am confident that the last thing the Ministry would desire to do is to do anything in restriction of trade, and it must be obvious that in normal circumstances a bull which has successfully received the Ministry's licence under this Bill must and ought to command in the market a higher price than a bull not so licensed. Very well, the individual desiring to purchase the bull purchases it in good faith with the licence attached, and, although it might not happen, it is under this Bill liable to happen that on application for a licence, which after all had already been given to the bull, he would not be able to get that licence. It would inflict upon him grave hardship. He would have paid for the bull a price which really the bull did not deserve to earn, and what is more serious still, it would give rise not only to grievous dissension and grave hardships to both seller and buyer, but very conceivably to serious litigation. The seller would have sold in good faith, the buyer would have bought in good faith, and then—for excellent reasons, no doubt—the buyer would be unable to receive a licence. It would be grossly unfair. It would act in restriction of trade. It would take away to a great extent the value which these bulls have in the market or in the private yards; and, however you approach the matter, it would be gravely unfair and vexatious.

It may be of interest to the noble Earl to know that in my county there exists a live stock club whose membership is composed exclusively of progressive stock breeders anxious to do all that they can for the improvement of animal husbandry. I had many copies of this Bill sent to them and they re- turned them to me and this was the one clause in the whole Bill to which they took exception. They said: "If you can induce the Government to take out that clause, we accept it with acclaim, but that clause is grossly unfair. It will hamper us in our business. There can be no possible purpose in leaving it in and we object to it strongly." I trust that the noble Earl will see his way to take it out.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Hastings.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Any Amendment that comes from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, we know comes from an enthusiast for the Bill. Therefore, we are naturally very anxious to meet his point. The trouble is that these bulls may change hands very swiftly. The noble Lord has mentioned stallions, but he will admit that the existing stallions are picked animals in the way in which any one of 60,000 bulls is not a picked animal. Further, the licences of stallions have at the present moment to be renewed annually, and if a stallion is sold a new licence has to be granted to the new owner. Therefore, what we intend to do under this Bill is exactly what is already done with regard to stallions.

But there is one point upon which I think we might meet the noble Lord. Under the Bill at present it is not clear that the man who has bought a bull with a licence will not have to get an entirely new licence, for which he will have to pay another 58. If it would meet the noble Lord at all, we should be perfectly prepared to move an Amendment on Report, showing that the new owner will not have to pay for a new licence. It will be just like when you have a stallion or a motor car to-day: you have to send the licence book in, and have it renewed to the new owner.

LORD HASTINGS

It does not meet the point.

EARL DE LA WARR

No, I know it is not quite the same point, but I think your Lordships will realise that it is a very big concession in that direction. Anyhow, the case which the noble Lord gives, the case of stallions, is not strictly fair, because the Bill will really operate exactly as we operate the stallion licence system, with this exception, that for bulls we do not insist on a new licence every year, as there has to be at present for stallions, in addition to a new licence when a stallion is sold. I think it will be very hard to keep trace of these bulls on any other system than this, and, for that reason, I hope that the noble Lord, with the concession we are prepared to make, will not insist on the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Is it not possible to arrange for a transfer of the licence?

EARL DE LA WARR

I think with the Amendment we are prepared to move, it would amount very much to that. You buy a bull, you send up the licence to the authorities, and you either have a transfer form or a renewal. It really comes to the same thing.

LORD DANESFORT

Without any further inspection?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, unless there was some good reason why an inspection should be made. I do not see why it would be necessary to inspect.

LORD STRACHIE

I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment. It seems rather ridiculous that you should license the owner under this subsection. We ought to license the bull; it is not a question of the owner. The noble Lord may be interested to know that on this occasion he will have the support of the National Farmers' Union, who felt so strongly on the point that they asked me to move to leave out the whole of Clause 3, but I think, if this Amendment were accepted, it would satisfy them.

EARL DE LA WARR

As we do see there is something in this point, perhaps we might discus it and see if we cannot agree something on Report.

Loan DANESFORT

I hope Lord Hastings will press his Amendment. I have not heard a single argument in favour of the subsection. You are licensing the bull, and the fact that it is sold to a new owner does not make it any less effective, or prolific, or satisfactory for the purpose of the certificate, than it was before it was sold. Therefore, why should not the licence be transferred with the transfer of ownership? The next subsection provides, very properly, that on a change of ownership the owner of the licence should inform the Ministry. Then the Ministry knows who the new owner is, and that is all that is necessary.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am inclined to think that the noble Earl has done everything he can in this direction, and I would really suggest that he be allowed to consider the point between now and Report. There is one very important point which the noble Earl has referred to, which I did not hear mentioned on this side of the House, and that is that the analogy with the stallions is not really the same because of the enormous number of bulls, and it is of the highest importance in the interests of all parties that very careful records should be kept of these bulls. One knows that there is a difficulty in case of a change of ownership, and I would suggest to your Lordships that if conditions can be found which do not make it a licence for the owner, as it has been put, rather than for the bull, the noble Earl should be allowed to produce words on Report which would meet the case.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am sure we could come to an agreement on this matter. I fully see the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and probably he sees that there is something in my point also.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Earl has heard several noble Lords on this side of the House pressing me to persist in this Amendment. If the noble Earl will undertake to produce words on Report which will remove the objection I take—which is that the man and not the bull is licensed—and provided he will guarantee that it shall be the bull that is licensed and not the man, I am perfectly prepared to accept anything he wishes to put in. After all, I am not proposing to interfere with subsection (2) which, as has been pointed out, sufficiently covers the point he has raised. There is no possibility of the Minister being without information on this subject. It seems to me that he should have that information and I do not desire to withhold it from him. All I wish to do is to license the bull and not the owner, and if the noble Earl can find words which will have that effect I will withdraw my Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

Provided we can find an agreed form by which we can make sure that the bull remains traceable, I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance he wants; but we must be absolutely certain that we can keep track of the bull.

LORD HASTINGS

That is absolutely so; we are agreed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), after the first "owner," to insert "together with notice of suspension (if any) the terms of which have not already been endorsed thereon." The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will see that subsection (2) of Clause 3 says:— Upon any such change of ownership, other than a change in consequence of the death of the holder, the holder of the licence or permit shall forthwith deliver it to the new owner.

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, after ("owner") insert ("together with notice of suspension (if any) the terms of which have not already been endorsed thereon").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after the first "thereof," to insert "subject to the terms of any notice of suspension which have not already been endorsed thereon." The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendment. I am told that it is better drafting to insert it after the word "Act."

EARL DE LA WARR

After the word "Act."

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35 after ("Act") insert ("subject to the terms of any notice of suspension which have not already been endorsed thereon").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My first Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 1, leave out ("exported") and insert ("removed").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:— Provided that where a bull is removed from Great Britain, the Minister may direct that any licence in force in respect of the bull shall, notwithstanding anything in this subsection, remain in force on such conditions as he thinks fit. The noble Earl said: This proviso is to enable a bull to be removed, say, to Ireland for the purposes of a show without any difficulties arising from the lapsing of the licence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 6, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (4), to substitute "one pound" for "five pounds." The noble Lord said: This is a penalty to which the owner of the bull is subjected if he does not give notice to the Minister on change of ownership that he has sold the bull, or if the bull dies or is exported from Great Britain in the case of a permit. I think small cases of this kind can easily be met by a fine of a sovereign. There is no need for a fine of £5. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 10, leave out ("five pounds") and insert ("one pound").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Noble Lords are moving a number of Amendments on points such as this. I would suggest to your Lordships that if a law is worth having it is best to have means of enforcing it properly. The sum we mention in the bill is the maximum penalty. It is to be administered by local magistrates and it is for them to use their discretion. There are cases where, possibly, a fine of £1 might be sufficient. There are other cases where it would not be sufficient. Only recently it has been found necessary to increase the fine under the Diseases of Animals Act, and I suggest it is best to leave this to the discretion of the magistrates.

LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE

I do not move my Amendment to leave out Clause 3.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Conditions of licence or permit.

4.—(1) It shall be a condition of a licence or permit granted under this Act that the holder thereof shall—

1. (a) forthwith notify the Minister of any change of his address; and
2. (b) submit the bull to which the licence or permit relates to inspection by any officer of the Ministry when required at any reasonable time by such an officer so to do, and render all reasonable assistance to that officer for the purpose of the inspection.

(2) An applicant for a permit under this Act shall state in his application the place where he proposes to keep the bull to which the application relates, and, sinless the Minister otherwise directs, that place shall be specified in the permit and it shall be a condition of the permit that the bull shall be kept at that place or such other place as may from time to time, on application made in the prescribed manner, be substituted in the permit for the place theretofore specified.

(5) If any condition of a licence or permit imposed by subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section is contravened, the holder of the licence or permit shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if any person allows a bull to serve a cow in contravention of a condition of a licence or permit imposed in pursuance of subsection (3) or by subsection (4) of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert: "Provided that the officer has given three clear days' notice in writing stating the day and hour at which he intends to make the inspection." The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment and I hope the noble Earl will accept it. As the clause stands, it shall be a condition of a licence that the holder shall submit the bull to which the licence or permit relates to inspection by any officer of the Ministry when required at any reasonable time by such officer to do so, and shall render all reasonable assistance to that officer for the purpose of the inspection. If I had a bull and obtained a licence, and an officer came to my holding, we will say, at two o'clock in the afternoon and said: "This is a reasonable time and I require you to show me the bull," should I happen to have an engagement which I could not avoid, it may be in the harvest field or the hay harvest field a mile and a half away, I do not know that the officer is coming. It is a reasonable time to come, two in the afternoon, but I did not know that he was coming and I should be fined because I was not there to see him.

I think the officer ought certainly to give notice of the day and time at which he is coming. My Amendment is that he shall give three clear days' notice in writing, stating the day and hour on which he intends to make an inspection. All these little visits by inspectors are most irritating to an ordinary Englishman who has been accustomed to live in a free country where, as long as he did not commit murder or burglary or steal, was supposed to do what he liked with his own. Now that we are going to change all this and submit everybody to be regulated by Ministers and inspectors, we might at any rate give the unfortunate people an opportunity of knowing when this particular inspector will call. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 20, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I have looked anxiously at the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord in the hope of finding one that I could accept. I am afraid we cannot accept this one. The Bill provides under Clause 10 that the officer of the Ministry shall have power at all reasonable times. The noble Lord finds fault with the word "reasonable." After all, the officer has no right to find a man. He has to establish his case before a court that the time was reasonable. Surely it is very much better to leave it to the discretion of the court whether the time was reasonable or not.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I interrupt the noble Earl to say that I admit that; but see the trouble that we are going to put the farmer to. If an inspector goes at an unreasonable time, he has to go to the Minister or other official or, perhaps, to a court of summary jurisdiction to prove that it was not a reasonable time. Surely, at this moment when everything is so bad in the farming industry, the noble Earl should accept the Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we shall have to try to find one later on. My reply to the noble Lord is that if the inspector behaves like that he has no right to be in his job at all. Why should we assume after three days that it is going to be any more convenient? Supposing the farmer got the letter on Wednesday, and had arranged to take his wife to the cinema on Saturday. Why should we assume that those three days will make it any better? On the other hand, one day might be much better. Perhaps the officer would ring up the farmer and say: "I am coming over to-morrow," and fix it up. I think it better to leave it to the man's common sense.

LORD DANESFORT

I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. It appears to me that what Lord Banbury says is perfectly right and reasonable. The Bill says an inspector may come at a reasonable time, but he is not bound, according to the Bill, to give any notice at all of when he is coming. He is not bound by the Bill to give any notice, and he goes up to the farm. The farmer may be at a fair, he may be away visiting a sick relative, he may not be at his farm for fifty different reasons, and yet he is liable to be brought before the court for a breach of the condition and fined £5 because he has not been there for his bull to be inspected. What possible difficulty can there be, when an inspector wants to inspect a bull, to writing a line to the farmer saying: "I am coming in three days' time"? That gives the farmer the opportunity of being there

and complying with the law. I cannot see that there is any hardship or difficulty in working that out. Therefore I hope that Lord Banbury will insist on his Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

If a man came without warning, I cannot imagine any court or anybody else saying it was a reasonable time. That is the answer.

EARL STANHOPE

I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. My experience of live stock officers is that they look upon the farmer as a friend. It is really very seldom a formal inspection. If they have the time, they can go to the farm that evening. It they have not time, they probably go to the farm next morning. Therefore it is often impossible to give three days' notice before the inspection. My experience is that farmers rather like the officers coming to see them. The officers give them advice, and talk about farming conditions, and if the farmers have formal notice of inspection it makes a difference. The farmer will suspect that something serious is going to happen.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am always most anxious to meet my superiors on the Front Bench, and to do everything I can to please them, but in these circumstances I think I must for once depart from my usual practice.

On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10 Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS.
Denbigh, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Lamington, L.
		Lawrence, L.
Hereford, V.	Danesfort, L. [Teller.]	Phillimore, L.
	Dulverton, L.	Redesdale, L.
		Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Bertie of Thame, V.	Hawke, L.
	Bridgeman, V.	Hav, L. (E. Einnoull.) [Teller.]
Argyll, D.	Esher, V.
Wellington, D.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Heneage, L.
		Jessel, L.
De La Warr, E.	Ullswater, V.	Luke, L.
Grey, E.		Marks, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Amulree, L.	Marley, L. [Teller.]
Iveagh, E.	Annaly, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Askwith, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Lucan, E.	Bayford, L.	Rochester, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Sanderson, L.
Midleton, E.		Somerleyton, L.
Onslow, E.	Clwyd, L.	Stanmore, L.
Russell, E.	Desborough, L.	Swathyling, L.
Stanhope, E.	Erskine, L.	Templemore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Hastings, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "unless the Minister otherwise directs." The noble Lord said: I do not quite see the point of these words "unless the Minister otherwise directs." The Bill says:— An applicant for a permit under this Act shall state in his application the place where he proposes to keep the bull to which the application relates and, unless the Minister otherwise directs,— What does that mean? Does it mean the Minister may say where the farmer is to keep the bull? I put this Amendment down really to find out what it means. It may mean that the Minister may direct where the bull is to be kept.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, leave out ("unless the Minister otherwise directs").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This is purely in order to give the Minister a certain amount of elasticity. People may not want to keep the bull in a certain place. There may be a place mentioned in the permit, but they may want to move it about. We do not have travelling bulls in the way that we have travelling stallions, but they do shift around a bit. They are loaned round here and there.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Then, as far as I understand it, if this Bill becomes an Act the Minister may direct where a bull is to be kept. He may say: "I do not like it kept on that particular farm, you must keep it on another farm."

EARL DE LA WARR

He cannot direct. It does not give power to direct. It merely says that the place shall be specified in the permit—and I think that is reasonable—unless a man puts up a reasonable case showing that he wants to move the bull from a farm. He may have two or three farms or he may want to lend it to a friend. There is power given to the Minister to say that it need not be specified in the permit where the bull is to be kept.

VISCOUNT HEREFORD

But line 24 says "unless the Minister otherwise directs." So he has power to direct.

EARL DE LA WARR

If your Lordships will read the whole clause, you will see that it provides that the place shall be specified in the permit. It is provided that the applicant, in his application for the permit, shall state where he is going to keep the bull. Surely that is reasonable. This applies to bulls for which a licence has been refused and therefore it is very necessary that careful track should be kept of them. Otherwise, the whole system may be evaded.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I will not press this Amendment. The words only make the Bill more unworkable and I think perhaps it is a good thing to leave them in.

LORD LAMINGTON

Does this mean that the bull may not be moved away for two or three days, but must be kept in that particular locality all the time?

EARL DE LA WARR

It is a permit, not a licence. It relates to a bull for which a licence has been refused, but there is a permit to allow it to be kept for a few weeks to fatten it up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (5), after "contravened," to insert "or not complied with." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 7, after ("contravened") insert ("or not complied with").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "five pounds" and insert "two pounds." The noble Lord said: This is merely an Amendment to reduce the penalty. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we have discussed this matter before, and I do not want to repeat myself. The same argument applies here as before. It is better to leave a certain margin to the court.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "twenty" and insert "five." The noble Lord said: Twenty pounds is a very large sum of money to a small farmer. Apparently, if he allows a bull to serve a cow in contravention of the condition of a licence, he is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds. I desire to leave out "twenty pounds" and insert "five pounds." It seems to me to be an enormous fine for a small thing of that sort, and I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("five").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I can only say the same thing again. This is a very important offence, a very serious offence, because, after all, the whole purpose of the Bill is to stop bulls not fit to serve cows from serving cows, and you are dealing here with a man deliberately going against the whole purpose of the Bill. It is a most serious offence and it is only right that the courts should have the right to impose a serious fine.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Appeal to referee.

5.—(1) If, as respects any bull, the Minister—

1. (a) refuses to grant a licence; or
2. (b) revokes a licence on any ground other than that a condition of the licence has not been complied with; or
3. (c) serves a notice of suspension;

the applicant for, or holder of, the licence, as the case may be, on application made within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, and on payment of such fee (not exceeding five guineas) as may be prescribed, may require a referee's inspection of the bull in accordance with this section.

(2) For the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting of such persons as may be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult.

Any person so appointed may be removed from the panel by the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid.

(7) The fee payable on an application under this section shall, if the Minister does not confirm the refusal, revocation or notice to which the application relates, be returned to the applicant by the Minister.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "two guineas" for "five guineas." The noble Lord said: This deals with a different point. It is not a question of a fine but a question of a payment. If the Minister refuses to grant a licence, or revokes a licence, or serves a notice of suspension, the clause provides that the applicant for or holder of the licence, as the case may be, on application made within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, and on payment of such fee (not exceeding five guineas) … may require a referee's inspection of the bull. Here is a man with a grievance against the Minister for something on account of which the Bill says he may refer the matter to a certain court. The man has to pay five guineas before he can do it. I really think it is an absurd fee, and I hope that the noble Earl will accept this modified charge of two guineas. Even that is a large sum.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

If the fee is too small we might be flooded with a large number of quite frivolous appeals. I would point out to your Lordships that the clause says "not exceeding five guineas." These appeals are going to cost a certain amount of money. We are going to have to pay somebody for acting as referee. We do not know exactly what fee will be charged to us. We have assumed that the fee will not exceed five guineas. If it is found possible to engage referees for less than that and it is found that the general expenses of the appeal come to less, there is no reason why the fee charged to the applicant should not be put at a lesser amount. The actual fee will have to be prescribed by regulation, and that regulation will come before your Lordships' House.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am aware that the Bill says "not exceeding five guineas," but this differs from the case we were discussing a short time ago because then it a question for the magistrates to decide whether or not they would inflict a lower fine, and the magistrates, being reasonable, would probably take all the circumstances of the case into consideration. This is different altogether. It is entirely at the option of the Minister whether he should charge five guineas when a person—

EARL DE LA WARR indicated dissent.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Is it not at the option of the Minister?

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps I may explain exactly what will happen. If the noble Lord looks at the subsection he will see it says "as may be prescribed." That means that it will go into the regulations.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Yes, but that is the Minister.

EARL DE LA WARR

This matter will be put to the Advisory Committee. They will go into the question of how much the job will cost, and the sum will be agreed upon and put into the regulations, which will have to be laid before your Lordships' House and the House of Commons. It is not merely for the Minister to decide.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

That is, if we have found it out in time and managed to raise the question. I do not think I have made any mistake. The Bill says:— on payment of such fee (not exceeding five guineas) as may be prescribed. That is all in the power of the Minister, and if the Minister or his officials—for it is the officials really, and the Minister will have nothing to do with it—do not want these cases to come before the court, they will say to the farmer: "If you go you will have to pay five guineas," and then probably the farmer will say that times are hard and that he will chance it and not pay.

LORD STRACHIE

I have a similar Amendment to this, which I put down at the instance of the National Farmers' Union. I hope the noble Earl may see his way to accept it. Five guineas does seem rather a large sum to make a man pay. I should have thought that two guineas would be quite enough, and I should prefer an even smaller sum.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I must support ray noble friend behind me on this Amendment. It seems to me that the object of the Ministry has been to propose a prohibitive sum. The expenses connected with this appeal can hardly, I think, reach anything like the sum of five guineas. A referee would be required, and his services could be easily covered by a fee far less than five guineas. I want to suggest that, if there is a chance of hardship being imposed upon the farmer by the idea that if he appeals he will be charged five guineas, rather than that such a suggestion should be possible, as an influence upon the farmer, it would be more in the interests of the Bill to put it at the lower figure. I should think that three guineas at the outside is the right amount to impose.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am placed in some difficulty, because the one criticism that the friends of the Bill have made of it has been on the question of expense. We have worked out very carefully what we think the Bill is going to cost. Placing the price of the licences against the cost of the salaries of officials, we have worked it out to be about £15,000 a year. If to that we have to add a loss on appeals, it is quite an increase of cost, and I am sure your Lordships do not want that. If the appeals can possibly be carried out for less, we intend that the sum should be lower. Let me again stress the point that it is to be a sum not exceeding five guineas. The moment this Bill is passed, all these matters prescribed by regulation will be submitted to the Advisory Committee, and it will be for them to go into the question whether it can be carried out for less. After all we have to have a first-class man to act as referee, and it is quite possible that he may have to give nearly a whole day to the work, or to travel some distance. If any of us ask for a surveyor to come out and advise us on our own estates we very seldom get off with a fee of less than three guineas. It is frequently five guineas, and I have paid ten guineas for a first-rate man, giving a day's advice. For first-class advice, whether medical or surveying or anything else, one has to pay.

I repeat my assurance to your Lordships that we intend to keep the costs as low as possible. It will be entirely for the Advisory Committee to discover how low the figure can be. If we put the figure below the sum that is arrived at—if, for instance, we prescribe two guineas or three guineas, and the Advisory Committee says that it is going to cost four guineas—then the State will have make up the loss. If we leave it at five guineas, and it is worked out by the Advisory Committee at a lower figure, that lower figure will be put into the regulations and submitted to Parliament for approval or disapproval. I venture to suggest that this really is the best way of proceeding. For that reason, while not wishing to impose an unnecessary charge upon the farmer, I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am willing to accept three guineas.

LORD BAYFORD

I should like to ask how the Advisory Committee, however learned, can prophesy what the expense is going to be? This five guineas, or whatever the sum is, will be remitted in every case where the appeal succeeds. How can they know beforehand in how many cases the appeal is going to be successful?

EARL DE LA WARR

I think I can deal with that point. The Advisory Committee, which will be representative of the National Cattle Breeders' Association, the National Farmers' Union and other representative bodies, will have the duty of drawing up the panel of referees, and it will be for them to agree, in drawing up that panel, what is a fair fee to pay the men who are to be on it. It will be for the men who are put on the panel either to accept or to refuse the suggested fee. It will then be for the Minister to ratify or, if he thinks the fee is excessive, to refuse to ratify the suggested agreement with the referees. Finally, the matter will be submitted to Parliament for consideration.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I do not know if I have quite made my point clear to the noble Earl. I feel that, in establishing a fee not exceeding five guineas, there is a prohibitive influence, just as with too low a fee there would be a danger of frivolous appeals. I should have thought that with a sum less than five guineas we could steer a clear course between those two possible eventualities. I should have thought three guineas would be quite enough.

EARL DE LA WARR

My only trouble is that this leaves me in a very difficult position, for, supposing I accept three guineas and the cost of appeals works out at more, we shall have to go back to the Treasury and get an increased grant for the Bill. I really think it is better to leave the matter as it is, and allow it to come up again when the regulations are laid before your Lordships, that is, if it is actually found that it must be put as high as five guineas.

EARL STANHOPE

May I ask the noble Earl whether he is likely to accept Lord Strachie's next Amendment?—[To insert "such fee to be remitted where in the opinion of the inspectors the appeal was justified and reasonable."] That will make some difference.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I can help there. I understand that Lord Strachie is not going to move it.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Surely five guineas is a very outside sum. If the farmers see that an appeal is to cost five guineas, the popularity of the noble Earl's Bill, which we all wish to increase, will, I fear, suffer considerably. I should have thought that three guineas would be quite sufficient as a maximum.

EARL DE LA WARR

If your Lordships insist, I suppose that I must reconsider the matter, but I do not quite know what will happen when I have to face my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Shall I suggest that we reduce it to four guineas, as a maximum, and when the matter comes before your Lordships again—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

No, that is too much.

EARL DE LA WARR

Otherwise we are taking a very big risk of holding up the working of the Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I said that I would accept three guineas. It was much against my will, but I said that I would and I will agree to that. Four guineas is nonsense.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not like it, but I think I have the Committee against me, so I must accept three guineas.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that Lord Strachie does now wish to move his next Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

I was under a misapprehension as to subsection (7), and I therefore desire to move to add to subsection (1) "such fee to be remitted where in the opinion of the referee the appeal was justified and reasonable." The noble Lord said: It seems to me reasonable that in such circumstances the fee should be remitted even although the appeal was not successful, because if in the opinion of the referee the appeal was justified it seems only common justice that the appellant should have the fee remitted.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 26, at end, insert ("such fee to be remitted where in the opinion of the referee the appeal was justified and reasonable").—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

If the appeal is successful the fee is remitted under the Bill.

LORD STRACHIE

That is under subsection (7). If the noble Earl assures me that my point is covered, I will not press the Amendment.

EARL STANHOPE

I do not think that subsection (7) does cover the point. In one case you remit the three guineas fee if the appeal is successful, but this is a case where the appeal is not allowed, although in the opinion of the referee it was justified and reasonable.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it must be assumed that the appeal was not reasonable if it was mot allowed. It is a pure question of fact; either the bull was good enough for breeding purposes or it was not, and if the referee says it is not fit to be used then the appeal is unreasonable. If it is good enough, then the appeal is not only reasonable but must be granted. I do not Clink you can have it both ways.

EARL STANHOPE

Take the case of a farmer who applies for a licence, and it is refused. The inspector says that on the whole he thinks the bull is not good enough, and the panel agree with the inspector, and refuse the appeal. But the case is just on the border line and is a case where they might have thought the bull was good enough and have allowed the appeal. It is a reasonable case in which the farmer might have hoped to win.

EARL DE LA WARR

After all, there is a saying that a miss is as good as a mile, and I think it is rather difficult to say administratively that an appeal is lost and is yet reasonable. I do not see how it is going to operate in practice. It will put the inspector in an embarrassing position, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "by" down to and including "consult" and to insert "the Agricultural Committee of the County Councils' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the Royal Agricultural Society of England." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is that the Minister should not be the person to select the panel from which the referees are to be selected. It seems to me to be only reasonable that the referees should be appointed from a panel selected by representative societies and that the power of removing an improper person if such has been appointed should be left to the Minister. My suggestion is that the referees should be taken from a panel appointed by the Agricultural Committee of the County Councils' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the Royal Agricultural Society of England, which seem to me to be bodies very suitable for the purpose. It does not appear to me to be reasonable that the Minister should appoint the panel who are to hear appeals against him. It is very right that there should be an appeal, and I venture to think that no harm could be done if the panel were appointed by these three bodies, who are perfectly fit to do it, and who would have the confidence of the farmers in the matter. I do not think you will get the confidence of the farmers if the Minister is to select the panel.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 29, leave out from ("by") to end of line 31, and insert ("the Agricultural Committee of the County Councils' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the Royal Agricultural Society of England").—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Of course, I have already told your Lordships that the Minister does definitely undertake to appoint an Advisory Committee. It is very difficult really in an Act of Parliament to specify the exact bodies that will be selected. The Royal Agricultural Society of England is a most suitable body in many ways, but we do not know that they are prepared to appoint anybody. I am not sure that the National Cattle Breeders' Association would not be a proper body, but it is not a statutory body and the only statutory representation would be from the Agricultural Council of England. I point that out merely to show the difficulty of specifying particular bodies. The National Farmers' Union and the National Cattle Breeders' Association are in existence to-day, but they may not be in existence ten years hence. They have no statutory existence. I really think it would be best if this were left to the Minister, who, after all, wants the Bill to work, and it is up to him to approach the best possible people. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to try and tie us down to any specific bodies, and although I think I should mention two, the National Farmers' Union and the Cattle Breeders' Association, that does not exclude any other bodies we might wish to consult.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, if he gives way on this Amendment, will nevertheless persevere with his next Amendment at line 31. Otherwise I would suggest that the noble Earl be asked to insert some words which would give representation to the appropriate breed society on this body. That, I think, is an essential measure. And I am not quite satisfied with the reference to two bodies which he made just now. For instance, he did not mention any body which would be competent to deal with such matters as the Channel Island bull, and when we get into questions like that what we want is the broad principle that the breed society should be consulted.

EARL DE LA WARR

I agree with some of what the noble Lord says. I think what he says, for instance, about the Channel Island breed merely shows the difficulty of tying oneself down too much.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

How far does the noble Earl propose to go to-night? We have a good number of pages of Amendments before us, and it is already late.

EARL DE LA WARR

I must say it never occurred to me that we should not get through the Committee stage. But I do not think there is anything very important to come, and if we stayed we could get through very quickly now.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I raise one point? The subsection speaks of consultations by the Minister with such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult. He is under a statutory obligation to consult with these various bodies. The noble Earl told us that, although undoubtedly the bodies which Lord Strachie mentioned would be those which he would consult, in ten years' time they might not be there. It seems to me that on the whole, as he is under an obligation to consult with the leading agricultural societies, it would perhaps be better to leave it without specifying them. We might find in time to come that we were left with nobody to consult. I do not think it would be possible for a Minister to consult with a society of no standing, and leave out the one of standing.

LORD STRACHIE

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Power to order slaughter or castration of bulls.

6.—(1) On or after the appointed day the Minister or any officer of the Ministry may, by notice served in the prescribed manner and in accordance with this section, require that any bull, which has attained the prescribed age at the date when the notice is served and in respect of which no licence or permit is for the time being in force under this Act, shall be slaughtered or castrated within such time after the notice takes effect as may be specified in the notice:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a bull which attained the prescribed age before the appointed day.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a notice shall be served—

1. (a) if served together with a notice of a refusal to grant a licence or permit, on the applicant for the licence or permit;
2. (b) if served together with a notice of revocation of a licence or permit, on the person stated in the licence or permit to be the owner of the bull;
3. (c) in any other case on any person for the time being having the bull in his possession or under his control.

(3) If a notice under this section is duly served on a person who is not the owner of the bull, it shall be the duty of that person forthwith to inform the owner accordingly, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to indemnify the owner against any loss the owner may suffer by reason of the failure.

(6) If any person, without the permission of The Minister, at any time after a notice has been duly served under this section removes the bull to which the notice relates from the place where the bull is at the time of the service of the notice, to any place other than a slaughter house for the purpose of slaughter, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (2), after "For the purposes of this section, a notice shall be," to insert "deemed to have been." The noble Viscount said: This part of the Bill, as drafted, seems somewhat unintelligible. But I see the noble Earl has a series of Amendments to clarify it, and therefore I will not move.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 7, line 6, leave out ("if") and insert ("in a case where the notice is") Page 7, line 9, leave out ("if") and insert ("in a case where the notice is").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has asked me to say he hopes the noble Earl will take into consideration his Amendment in subsection (3), after "bull," to insert "but who has the bull in his possession or under his control," in conjunction with the Amendments on Clause 2, which deal with this same point.

EARL DE LA WARR

This, again, is the same point which we decided to discuss on Report. In fact, in our view, it lessens the protection to the owner.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is not moved.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "forthwith," to insert "to take all reasonable steps." The noble Viscount said: This is the same Amendment as we moved on Clause 3.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 18, after ("forthwith") insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 8, line 19, after ("removes") insert ("(otherwise than to a slaughterhouse for the purpose of slaughter)") Page 8, Line 21, leave out from ("notice") to ("he") in line 22.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: This clause has been slightly altered. I think it is perhaps a little better. It is a very bad clause, but, as it is late, I think I will leave it for the moment, and I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate my kindness.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Duty to produce licence or permit.

7.—(1) It shall be the duty of any person for the time being having a bull in his possession or under his control—

1. (a) if a licence or permit has been granted in respect of the bull, to produce the licence or permit at any time if required so to do by an officer of the Ministry or a police officer;
2. (b) if a licence has been granted in respect of the bull, to produce the licence if required so to do by the person in charge of a cow about to be served by the bull.

(2) If any person fails to comply with this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and where an offence under this section is committed by a person other than the holder of the licence or permit, the holder shall be liable on summary conviction to the like penalty unless he proves that he did not aid or abet the commission of the offence.

(3) A failure on the part of any person having a bull in his possession or under his control to produce, on demand made by an officer of the Ministry or a police officer, a licence or permit for the time being in force in respect of the bull shall, in any proceedings taken under this Act against that person or against the owner of the bull, be evidence that no licence or permit was at the date of the demand aforesaid in force in respect of the bull.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: As I read this paragraph, it means that at any time—it might be 10 o'clock at night or 8 o'clock in the morning—and in any place the owner may be required to produce his licence, not only to an officer of the Ministry, but to a police officer. The farmer who owns the bull which has been licensed might meet a policeman in the market, and the policeman might say: "You have a bull, I believe, which has been licensed." The owner says: "Yes, it is down at my farm, five miles off." "Produce your licence," says the policeman. The owner says: "Oh, I have left it at home. I do not carry my licence about with me, I might lose it." Then, as far as I understand, there would be a penalty.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think my Amendment covers this. It makes the paragraph read:— (a) if a licence or permit has been granted in respect of the bull, to produce the licence or permit on demand made by an officer of the Ministry or a police officer; I think that really meets the noble Lord's point.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Lord does not move.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "at any time, if required so to do," and to insert, "on demand made." The noble Earl said: That is what I explained.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 8, leave out from ("permit") to ("by"), and insert ("on demand made").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "officer," to insert "in uniform." The noble Viscount said: I think your Lordships are always in favour of the policeman, when he does this sort of thing, being in uniform.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 7, after ("officer") insert ("in uniform").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This would be rather an irregular clause, I think, if we inserted this Amendment. The farmer is at perfect liberty, if he doubts the bona fides of the man, to question his authority. I think really there is no necessity for this Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to insert "at any place where the bull is for the time being." The noble Earl said: This is to meet Lord Banbury's point.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out all words in subsection (2) after "five pounds." The noble Lord said: This, I think, is an important Amendment—

EARL DE LA WARR

I can accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 14, leave out from ("pounds") to end of line 19.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 22, after ("made") insert ("as aforesaid").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Penalty for forgery, etc.

8. If any person—

(1) forges, or fraudulently alters or uses, any licence or permit granted under this Act; or

(2) without the authority of the Minister—

1. (a) places on a bull a mark prescribed under this Act or a mark so closely resembling a mark prescribed under this Act as to be calculated to deceive; or
2. (b) alters or defaces any mark placed on a bull for the purposes of this Act;

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had an Amendment on the Paper to move, at the beginning, after "if," to insert "with intent to deceive." The noble Viscount said: I see the noble Earl has an Amendment in better language than mine, and I do not move my Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does that cover several of the noble Viscount's Amendments?

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Yes.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) down to the end of sub-paragraph (b) and to insert:— (a) with intent to deceive— (i) forges or uses or lends to or allows to be used by any other person a licence or permit under this Act; or (ii) makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling such a licence or permit as to be calculated to deceive; or (iii) places on a bull a mark so closely resembling a mark prescribed under this Act as to be calculated to deceive; or (b) without the authority of the Minister, places on a bull a mark prescribed under this Act or alters or defaces any mark placed on a bull for the purposes of this Act; The noble Earl said: I move this in order to cover the points raised by the noble Viscount.

Amendment moved— Page 9, leave out from the beginning of line 30 to the end of line 38, and insert the said paragraphs.—(Earl De La Warr.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 42, at end insert ("(2) In the application of this section to England, the expression 'forges' has the same meaning as in the Forgery Act, 1913").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Importation of bulls rejected in Ireland]:

EARL DE LA WARR

The Amendment to Clause 9 is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 4, leave out ("any part of Ireland") and insert ("the Irish Free state or Northern Ireland").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Powers of officers and penalty for obstruction, &c.

(3) If any person obstructs or impedes an officer of the Ministry in the exercise of any power conferred upon him by this Act, that person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "Ministry," to insert "who has produced his certificate of employment to such person." The noble Viscount said: The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, accepted a similar Amendment to the Ancient Monuments Bill, and said that he thought that it was a reasonable one. I hope the noble Earl will take the same view of my Amendment and accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 20, after ("Ministry") insert ("who has produced his certificate of employment to such person").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL DE LA WARR

It is true that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby did accept a somewhat similar provision, but his Bill had not Clause 10 (2) in it, which really covers the same point and, therefore, makes the Amendment unnecessary.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Yes, I think it does cover it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Power to make regulations.

11. The Minister may make regulations (subject, in respect of fees, to the approval of the Treasury) for prescribing anything which under this Act is required or authorised to be prescribed.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, after "regulations," to insert "subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament and." The noble Lord said: My Amendment, I think, is identical with that of Lord Strachie, but it is in a better form and I will explain why. It is impossible to find out in another place anything about these regulations; nobody knows anything about them, not even old and experienced members. If they do find out about them, the matter comes on after eleven o'clock and, as the noble Earl probably knows, it is perfectly easy on the part of the Government Whips to keep in reserve a certain number of men to back them up. My noble friend below me will confirm this. At the same time it is arranged that about twelve o'clock when the supporters of the Address are tired and have gone away, to send somebody in to say that forty members are not present. There are plenty of members outside but they do not come in and the Address is not moved. If my Amendment is accepted the regulations will have to be submitted to Parliament for approval, everybody will see them, and a Motion will be made that they shall be approved. If the noble Earl is very anxious to see that the regulations are approved he should accept my Amendment in preference to that of my noble friend. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 32, after ("regulations") insert ("subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament and").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This, I think, is mainly a question of drafting. We like Lord Banbury's drafting but we like Lord Strachie's drafting better. So if the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, will excuse us, in spite of his preference for his own Amendment, we will accept Lord Strachie's Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am afraid that no member of any Government likes my Amendments on this point. They all hang together in such matters because it puts them beyond the power of ordinary common members of both Houses.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end to insert: Any regulations made under this section shall be laid forthwith before both Houses of Parliament; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall therefore be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.

The noble Lord said: I move the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Banbury thinks is not quite so good as his. I should have been content had his Amendment been substituted for my own. I realise that the noble Earl was not willing to accept it because it is much more strenuous and mandatory than mine. Mine is the common form which is put into most Bills.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN I do not quite understand. The noble Lord has two Amendments to this clause. Are they separate Amendments or are they the same Amendment in alternative forms? There is one to insert certain words and another to insert a new subsection. Are they the same Amendment?

LORD STRACHIE

They are practically the same. I move the first.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think there is a slight difference between them. The new subsection, I think, is really in the most regular form of drafting. I take it there are two alternatives here, and the addition to the Bill that we accept is the second alternative, the new subsection.

LORD STRACHIE

You prefer that?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

LORD STRACHIE

It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, but I agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved to insert the following new subsection:— ( ) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move,

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I should like to say that an Amendment such as I moved a few moments ago has been accepted and put into Bills. I hope that good example—I admit it took place some little time ago—will be followed.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Expenses of Minister]:

EARL DE LA WARR

These are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 10, line 37, leave out from ("Treasury") to ("shall") in line 38.

Page 11, line 2, leave out ("towards") and insert ("as an appropriation in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Interpretation.

13. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them:— The appointed day" means such day, not being earlier than two years after the passing of this Act, as may be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries:

LORD STRACHIE moved, in the definition of "appointed day," to leave out "two" and insert "three." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. He says he is most anxious to consult the various organisations and do everything he can to meet them. He will do that if he will put in three years instead of two. It will make a great deal of difference.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 8, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This matter has been given a good deal of consideration, and the number of years was settled in consultation with all the interests who were prepared to come and state their case. Scotland, as I think I have already mentioned, wanted one year. On the whole I think two years is a fair compromise. It is not earlier than two years, so that if the voluntary scheme seems to be working very well there is no reason why the compulsory scheme should not be deferred.

LORD STRACHIE I am satisfied with what the noble Earl says. He says it is not earlier than two years and that if it is thought desirable to put it off there would be no objection to that.

EARL DE LA WARR

I give no pledge.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Ant I to understand that if the voluntary scheme is a success possibly the Bill may not necessarily come into force?

EARL DE LA WARR

I cannot commit the Minister of the day naturally, but that is a possibility.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.