§ MR. RAPHAEL (Derbyshire, S.)I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that at Melbourne, in Derbyshire, instances have occurred that, two days after nurseries have been declared by the inspector of the Board of Agriculture to be clear of mildew, notice has been received declaring the same nurseries to be infected premises, thereby closing the nurseries against the removal of trees by sale or otherwise; is he aware that notice is given not for actual but for the supposed existence of mildew; and if he will give orders that undue restrictions be not placed upon an industry on which numbers of people depend for their livelihood.
§ MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY)The Board are able, they believe, to identify the particular case to which my hon. friend refers. It was 786 detected in October last by an inspector of the Board and the local authority were duly informed, but owing to an oversight the formal notification of the existence of the disease was not served on the owner by the local authority until the 20th ulto. Some misunderstanding appears to have arisen as to the statements made by the inspector on again visiting the premises. He was satisfied that all visible evidence of disease had been removed from the bushes-in the main nursery in the manner contemplated by the American Gooseberry Mildew Order. But in view of the character of this disease, the Order requires that certain restrictions shall remain in force until the expiration of the year following that in which the disease was-last seen on the premises. The premature; removal of the restrictions from premises which contain bushes for sale would involve grave risks of spreading this serious disease. The inspector will again visit the premises and explain the nature of our requirements. The Answer to the concluding inquiry of my hon. friend is of course in the affirmative.