HC Deb 27 March 1929 vol 226 cc2420-1
33. Mr. VIANT

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the draft order dealing with imported rose trees can only be carried out by exposing the roots and damaging the trees; and whether, before issuing the order he will give further consideration to this matter?

34. Mr. R. MORRISON

asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that at the recent inquiry under the Merchandise Marks Act the importers of rose trees offered no objection to the proposed marking order, whether he will consider a slight amendment of the draft order to enable the labels to be placed on the shoots instead of the collars, and thus obviate the risk of damage to the trees?

36. Mr. ERNEST BROWN

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the draft Order in Council issued under the Merchandise Marks Act dealing with imported rose trees proposes to make it compulsory for labels to be attached securely by wire or other metal to the collar of each rose tree, there is any evidence in his Department that this can be done without ultimate damage to the tree?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness)

The minutes of evidence at the recent inquiry indicate that both the place and method of fixing the label were fully considered by the Standing Committee. The recommendations of the Committee undoubtedly follow in these respects the course of the evidence, which showed that the collar was the most suitable permanent part of the rose tree to which the label could be fixed, and that during the time in which the label is required by the Order to be attached no damage would result. The Committee's Report was fully considered before the Draft Order was issued, and I can see no reason to depart from their recommendations.

Mr. MORRISON

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is somewhat remarkable that the Committee has selected the one particular place on the plant where the wire attachment, in the opinion of experts, cannot be securely fastened without damaging the trees?

Mr. GUINNESS

All the experts in this country who gave evidence took an opposite view from that of the hon. Member. They did not think that any damage would be done to the trees. They said that this was the only place where the necessary attachment could be secured. The only evidence given to the contrary before the inquiry was that of the Dutch Agricultural Attaché, but that evidence did not convince the Committee.

Mr. MORRISON

Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of any instances where a wire attachment has been put on this particular part of the plant?

Mr. GUINNESS

There has never been any previous case under the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. BENN

Was the original Act intended to give powers to make orders not only to indicate the source of origin but to destroy the value of the goods?

Mr. GUINNESS

There is absolutely no evidence that it will hurt the plant. All my experts, the horticultural Commissioner of the Ministry among them, who have specially considered this matter, formed the view that there was no danger whatever to the rose trees?

Mr. VIANT

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared in the light of experience to reconsider the method that has been adopted?

Mr. GUINNESS

I would gladly reconsider the matter if experience shows that the fears expressed are well-founded.