§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that innocent persons are frequently summoned before the magistrates for contravention of the Swine Fever Order of 1908 for visiting a swine fever infected place within the meaning of the Order without any knowledge or means of ascertaining, in the absence of any notification upon the premises, under Article 2 (4) of the Order, that it has been so declared by a notice, in the Form A set forth in the Schedule, served by the inspector of the local authority upon the occupier; and whether, in view of the annoyance and expense consequent upon such proceedings, he will so alter the wording of Article 2 (4) of the Order as to make it obligatory instead of, as now, permissive for the inspector to acquaint the public, by a notice or mark upon such premises, that they are for the time being an infected place?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but I should be glad to make inquiry with regard to any specific cases which may have been brought to the hon. Member's knowledge. I do not think the procedure suggested in the second part of the question is necessary. A notice prohibiting the entry of unauthorised persons into the place where diseased pigs are kept is always served upon the occupier of the premises, and in ordinary circumstances this should be sufficient to secure isolation. In some cases it may be desirable that special attention should be called, by placard or otherwise, to the fact that disease exists on the premises, but this may well be left, as at present, to the discretion of the local authority.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTArising out of that answer, I should like to ask whether it is not desirable it should be left to the discretion of the police officer whether these notices should, or should not, be upon the premises?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have said, at the end of my answer, it might be left to the discretion of the local authority.