HC Deb 15 July 1927 vol 208 cc2545-55

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. GUINNESS

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House is well aware that one of the must serious losses with which farmers have to contend is the toll which is levied on them by destructive insects and pests. It is estimated that it costs the agricultural community something like £12,000,000 a year. In the last 50 years powers have been given to deal with the difficulty. The first Act, which was passed in 1877, gave powers to deal with the Colorado beetle. That Act was extended in 1907 to cover other insects and fungoid pests. In 1914 the administration was taken away from the local authorities because it was found necessary to centralise the arrangements which were made, and it was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture without any financial powers being transferred which alone could make these administrative duties really effective. Our inspectors keep a careful watch on uncertified imports of vegetable produce from foreign countries and it is necessary that they should be given further powers to destroy, with compensation, any crops which may be infected from pests arriving in imported produce. At the present time we are alarmed about the Colorado beetle which is working north from the Bordeaux district where it first showed itself in Europe, and at any time we may be faced with the necessity of destroying crops or produce as the only means of preventing this disease getting a footing in this country. It attacks potatoes, and it is a very serious matter if it begins to spread as it would mean an extra cost of about £2 an acre owing to the spraying operations which would be involved and the necessary equipment and labour which would be necessitated by it.

The first Clause of the Bill will allow us to deal effectively with alien immigrants in the form of these insects. Where a non-resident pest arrives it is obviously necessary to be able to act at once and smother it on its arrival, while it is in a restricted area, and we want to be in a position to give compensation for the destruction of crops, up to £2,000 in any one year. Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 increases the penalties. At the present time the £10 penalty is not always a sufficient deterrent. Under the Orders relating to wart disease in potatoes, a man may make a much larger sum by disobeying our Regulations than he risks losing by a penalty. Sub-section (4) removes the limitation of a portion of the value to be given in the form of compensation. It is very unjust, when a defective crop is destroyed, that the local authority can compensate only up to three-quarters of the market value, and undoubtedly it is a great deterrent to early notification.

Mr. PALING

Will this allow the whole of the value to be given?

Mr. GUINNESS

Yes. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the principal Act made that limitation, and that limitation is now repealed. Clause 5 is important. It enables us to deal with bacteria and virus diseases. We do that by an extension of the definition of insects to include bacteria and other vegetable or animal organisms and any agent causative of a transmissible crop disease, and this new power will enable us to take action against such diseases as mosaic and leaf roll in potatoes and reversion in black currants. The Bill has been approved by the Horticultural Advisory Council, which represents all branches of the industry concerned, and I hope the House will pass this little Measure which, I believe, is greatly needed for the defence of British agriculture.

Mr. BUXTON

I am sure that the House is in universal sympathy with any effective measure for dealing with insect pests, but I think the Minister really might give the House more information as to the situation and the grounds for legislating. It has not been made perfectly clear why any Act is needed now. The local authority system, confirmed in the Act of 1907, certainly is not rapid in connection with animals or plants, but it is rather a mystery, which the right hon. Gentleman has not fully explained, why he is bringing in a Bill now. Government time is considered to be fully occupied and there are many things which the Government said it would have been ready to pass had there been more time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will speak again and tell us a little more about this extremely important subject, because everyone knows that the national welfare is seriously diminished by the prevalence of these diseases. The right hon. Gentleman gave an inclusive figure. It would be very valuable if he would enlighten the public a little more as to the incidence of that figure. Are the losses greatest in the familiar diseases? Are they considerable in connection with big bug, black eye in strawberries, or any of the well-known diseases? I should like more knowledge myself than I have been able to acquire. Then again, if the administration has been adequately conducted since 1914 and compensation on the scale that was legal has been given, what is wrong with the present method of administration? Was it possible to alter the present methods of administration without passing an Act; and if there is an Act I do not know why the matter of the rates of compensation was not settled also. The Minister is doing and spending a great deal on research. The laboratory at Harpenden is an interesting institution, and the right hon. Gentleman might tell us whether research has produced tangible economic results and justified itself in any evident way by introducing better methods. All this is the more important as we are becoming increasingly a fruit-growing country. We know the extraordinary precarious position of fruit crops. The black currant industry was becoming a very big thing in East Anglia and elsewhere, and the raspberry industry in Scotland was developing. We are now more dependent on methods of coping with pests than we were under the ordinary methods of farming.

The more interested the country is in this matter, the better for national prosperity on these lines, because the country will be more willing to devote money to the research that is required. It is none too willing now, and in the economy campaign that prevails to-day, I am afraid that expenditure is being cut down in various directions, research and educational, under the Ministry, at the instigation of the wielders of the economy axe, and if the country is not sufficiently aware of the importance of dealing with plant diseases, there may be very disastrous effects in the long run. I congratulate the Minister on having time to deal with a contingency which, as far as we gather, is not immediate and may be remote. It shows one thing which I have endeavoured to urge before, the importance of having more regular annual reports of the Ministry. Other Ministries, for instance the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, issue regular annual reports, and I think it would help the progress of control of disease, as well as many other things, if the Ministry of Agriculture would arrange for regular reports by its various Departments. Subject to knowing rather more the ground on which the Bill is based, we desire to give it our support.

Major GEORGE DAVIES

It is not my intention to delay the Second Reading very long, but there are one or two comments I want to make upon the Bill. I suppose there is not a single Member who was in the trenches between 1914 and 1918 to whose mind the title of this Bill does not inevitably recall some of the most trying and irritating incidents of the War. Whilst it is true that we had no Bills before us, we had a good many acts aimed at the suppression of insect pests, in the execution of which we found no difficulty. This curse of insect ravages has been with mankind and with the animal kingdom all through history, from the Old Testament time of flies, lice and frogs, to the more modern times of locusts and wild honey and the tsetse fly and microbes. Indeed a poet has told us that Big fleas have little fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas save lesser fleas, And so ad infinitum. I believe that profound truth is the real reason why the farmer to-day is prone to describe agriculture as being—I am here quoting, so I assume I am in order—"one damned thing after another." That seems to be perfectly true. We have the fly after the turnip and the farmer after the fly, and the agricultural policies of the two parties opposite after the farmer—a vicious circle in harmonious progression. What is it that this Bill seeks to do? It seeks to give the Ministry of Agriculture power to destroy certain crops which may be found to be infested with certain insect pests. It is applying to them the same treatment that we have to-day to apply to foot-and-mouth disease. I should be the last to wish to prevent in the slightest degree the method that we at present apply, but, after all, "prevention is better than cure," particularly when the cure is of such a drastically surgical nature as is the cure of destruction. It seems to me that to have to apply these methods of destruction is in itself a confession of failure to find out the causes of these diseases and the true way of dealing with them. In fact, in our present state of knowledge or rather of ignorance, we are thrown back on the advice of the "Bad Boy's Book of Beasts," about microbes: Let us never, never doubt What nobody is sure about. Nature provides her own antidotes for these diseases. If that were not so, we should long ago have seen the complete elimination of our flocks and crops. It is the part of science to discover what nature's balance is; where it has been lost to seek to restore it. It is only when man has interfered with nature that we see this loss of balance. For example, it is only where we have extensive areas assigned to the cultivation of one particular crop, or where there are large numbers of one particular animal in one area, that these diseases really become a menace, not only because they can so rapidly spread over a homogeneous area, but because the damage that they can do in that particular area becomes magnified and multiplied. Therefore, the same methods of coping with it are less effective. It is as absurd to look over hundreds of thousands of sheep in Australia that are affected with sheep tic—though you can deal with it by a liberal application of Erribol—as it would be to deal with thousands of citrus trees in California infested with fruit fly by saying, "Let us spray." These are not the ways to deal with these pests on a large scale.

These insect pests are primarily, or nature's control of them is primarily, of two sorts, predatory and parasitical, and the parasite is the more difficult to deal with, not only because of its microscopic nature, but also because it is possible that these parasitic microbes may not confine themselves to the beneficent work for which they are primarily intended. By "predatory" is largely meant such things as birds and spiders and ladybirds and so forth, which keep the insects in check. But they are not always confined to anything so small. I remember once, in connection with a copra plantation in which I was interested, reading the manager's report which described how a great deal of damage was done on account of the ravages of wild pigs that had come to eat the young cocoanut trees, and of the further ravages of tigers that had come to eat the wild pigs. So that the predator was more dangerous than the predatee, and the cure worse than the disease.

I personally have had experience in achieving remarkable success in getting back nature's control over what has been a great menace of agriculture. Many years ago the total sugar cane crop of the Hawaian Islands was menaced with complete annihilation by two diseases, one which was popularly called the leaf hopper, a little creature which laid its eggs in the ribs of the leaves of the plant, and the cane borer, which got into the stem of the cane and deposited its eggs there. We took the opportunity of getting the best world scientists and field entomologists together and sending them abroad to find out the original habitat of these pests and to try to bring back nature's balance, if it could be found. We met with remarkable success in that way. Two insects were discovered and brought in, one of a quite microscopic nature, which laid its eggs in those of the leaf hopper, and the other which devoured the larva of the cane borer. In precisely the same way as when Socialist theorists bring up their young to be Socialists and the Communistic cell gets to work with the result that when maturity arrives, instead of up popping a, little Socialist, out pops a little Communist; so, instead of a little leaf hopper popping out, a little parasite pops out, and the same thing applies to the case of the cane borer.

To-day those two diseases have been practically eliminated, and no one troubles about them now. Nature's balance has been restored, and that has been done without employing methods of destruction which, as I have said, are in themselves a confession of failure. I would appeal to the Minister when he gets this Measure not to rest content with having the authority to effect destruction where necessary and to pay the necessary compensation. He ought to go further on the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), and see whether, in the case of many of these diseases which are causing immense loss to farmers and horticulturists, we cannot discover a means of restoring the balance of nature in the way I have described. He should see if it is not possible to discover a means of doing so, and by importing it, assist nature to assert itself once more. If he did that, and if he met success, even with only one thing, the right hon. Gentleman's name would go down to posterity as the Minister of Agriculture who did more for the agriculture of this country than any of his predecessors.

Mr. PALING

I am sure the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken will convey to the Tory headquarters his idea about eliminating Socialists and Communists with the hope that it will be as successful in that case as it Was eliminating the insects from the sugar plantation. I am afraid, however, he will not find the one task as easy as the other has already proved to be. I desire the Minister to give an explanation of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2. The Sub-section reads as follows:— The Minister may out of moneys provided by Parliament pay compensation (to be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act) in respect of any crop removed or destroyed by or under the instructions of an inspector authorised by him, and any other expenses incurred by him in the execution of the principal Act. It seems to be clear that if a crop is destroyed under this Bill, or if an inspector recommends that a, crop should be dealt with, then full compensation is to be paid to the owner of the crop. I understood from the Minister that there is already in operation an Act which provides that only 75 per cent. can be paid in compensation, and I gathered that it was because full compensation was not provided for, that the Act did not work successfully.

Mr. GUINNESS

The real difficulty is that at present the compensation has to be given by the local authorities and the local authorities do not administer the Act. We want to be able to take better measures by means of centralized organisation.

Mr. PALING

But I understand also that the action of the local authorities in the matter of compensation is limited to 75 per cent.

Mr. GUINNESS

It has been a dead letter.

Mr. PALING

That may be so and the present Bill may be to make the system more effective, but still provision is made that compensation is to be paid for the loss of a crop. Most of us are in agreement with the Bill, so far as it goes, but I wish to know precisely what is included in this Sub-section. Is compensation to be paid only for the loss of a crop, or will the labourer who may be thrown out of work be brought into consideration in connection with the question of compensation? Is the compensation under this Bill as under every other Bill brought in by this Government, to refer only to loss of property. The argument is used that if cattle are slaughtered or if a crop is destroyed, the owner loses his livelihood and compensation must therefore be paid. We do not entirely disagree with that view, but there are many cases in which the man who works for the owner also loses his livelihood. Because the loss of his livelihood is not the loss of property, he is not recognised by the Government. A man in those circumstances ought to be recognised under this Clause and I ask the Minister if such an interpretation as I suggest can be placed upon it. I think he will admit that the hardship imposed on men who lose their jobs is as great as the hardship imposed on the owner who loses his crop or his cattle. At present the agricultural labourer is at a disadvantage as compared with every other worker in the country.

The principle of compensation for the loss of employment has been recognised by the Unemployment Insurance Act, but the agricultural labourer does not come under it. It is notorious that he is about the lowest paid worker in the country, and, when other workers protest against reductions of wages, they are always told that they get more than the agricultural labourer. That being so, the loss of his job is a very serious thing to the agricultural labourer. He has no opportunity of saving for a rainy day, and his prospect of getting another job is not too good. We hear that agriculture is approaching a crisis and that farmers cannot pay wages. All these circumstances make it difficult, in any case, for the agricultural labourer to retain his job, and when he loses it—particularly in circumstances like this—he has great difficulty in getting another. We think that the principle of compensation should be applied equally. If the agricultural labourer is thrown out of work in these circumstances, the least you can do is to apply the compensation principle impartially to him as well as to the owner. It may be that, if the Government choose to do so, a generous interpretation can be given to this Clause, and it may include compensation to the worker. I notice, however, it is provided that the amount of compensation and expenses is not to exceed in any one year £2,000, without the consent of the Treasury. Does that mean that if the right hon. Gentleman goes to the Treasury and represents that a case has been so serious that £2,000 is insufficient to meet the damage done, he can exceed the limit of £2,000 provided he makes a good case? I hope the Minister will inform us on these points, and that he will be able to tell us that by means of representations to the Treasury he can provide for compensation to the worker, as well as the owner, or else that it can be done within the limit indicated in the Clause.

Mr. GUINNESS

The criticisms of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) and the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) are founded on a misunderstanding of what is provided by the Bill. It is not suggested that we should go in for a general destruction of crops as the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil seems to fear. This only applies to compensation far the destruction of crops which are infected with nonresident pests. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to draft a form of words which makes it clear that that restriction is to apply. You might get, just beyond the port of entry, a delivery of infected imported produce to an agriculturist, and, under these circumstances, it would be necessary that the consequent infestation of his crops should at once be stamped out. That explanation perhaps will reassure the hon. Member for Doncaster that no unemployment could possibly arise. It is not a matter of destroying farm crops wholesale, but we want this power of compensation, because otherwise a very serious delay might take place in stamping out an initial outbreak.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH

Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the name of some of the chief non-resident pests?

Mr. GUINNESS

By far the most serious is the Colorado Beetle. As a matter of fact, about 25 years ago it did arrive in this country. The Treasury sanctioned an expenditure of about £150 for measures to deal with it. and it was stamped out before it spread to any extent in this country. It has spread at the rate of about 80 miles per year in the United States, and it is now in France. The House will see that the danger from the disease resulting from the importation of this pest is near, and measures are therefore necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) asked how it was that this Bill was necessary if we had powers to deal with this matter in 1914 without legislation. Under the original Act powers were given to the Ministry of Agriculture, and by delegation to the local authorities, and it was by arrangement with the Treasury in 1914 that the Ministry was authorised to act, because the local authorities found it impossible to administer the powers with effect. But of course the original Act did not provide for payment by the Ministry of even the small sum necessary in case of emergency, and it is for that reason we want to supplement the original legislation. The right hon. Gentleman asked what insects and pests were causing loss. He asked about Big Bud. We do not need any legislation to deal with the Big Bud which is already in the country, and is caused by an insect. The most serious losses are caused by mosaic and leaf roll in potatoes. In some cases 80 per cent. of the crop may be lost, and probably on the average 10 per cent. of the potato crop is destroyed in this way. We want to be able under this Bill to regulate these virus diseases, and keep them under control. Fungoid diseases are covered by the existing legislation. We do not want to provide for compensation in these cases but to prevent the spreading of virus diseases and to ensure that virus disease will be adequately dealt with. Really there is no danger of unemployment being caused by this Bill, and there is no danger of large expenditure. I hope therefore the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.