HC Deb 22 February 1967 vol 741 cc1905-8

This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seventy.—[Mr. John Wells.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Wells

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

My purpose in moving the Clause is two-fold. If one looks at the Select Committee's Report, one finds, on page 25 of the proceedings of 23rd November, the introduction of the word "viruses". The Chairman says, In particular, it has been thought desirable, taking that view of the definition as a whole, to introduce for clarity a special reference to 'viruses'. Since the seven Statutes which are being repealed, or in part repealed, and thereby consolidated, were originally enacted, the whole concept of viruses has arisen. They were not known in 1877—or, if they were known to the scientists, they were not known to our predecessors in the House. If we delay the present Bill a further three years, we may well hear from the scientists of a completely new organism beyond viruses.

This is by no means a far-fetched suggestion. I draw attention to the Sunday Times of 22nd January, which dealt with a completely new type of disease, although it is an organism which has been known to the House for over 200 years, because a Bill was brought forward in the reign of George III, although it never reached the Statute Book. This organism did not have a name and has no name today. It was dealt with at length in the article. The organism has certain biological properties very different from those of viruses. It cannot be destroyed by heat or by the conventional scientific methods. It is known to be the cause of a disease in sheep called scrapie and it is presumed to be the cause of most distressing diseases in human beings of the multiple sclerosis type.

This sort of organism may be affecting plant health. No doubt it will acquire a name. A great deal of research is being done into it. It is absurd, in a consolidation Measure, to introduce a completely new concept which is by no means a matter of consolidation. It is absurd to introduce viruses, suggesting that this is a tidying up operation, when a new scientific break-through is about to hit us. There is no great advantage in the present Measure, and if we delay it a little longer this new organism could be specifically included in the new Bill when it was introduced. The second reason I have for seeking to delay the commencement of the Bill is that I believe that the whole plant health legislation of the country is about to be shown to be completely out of date. It is essential to our horticultural industry that we should make new attempts to export. If we are to succeed with our horticultural exports—I am speaking primarily of nursery stocks—we must have a much closer liaison with the plant health inspector of other countries.

12.30 a.m.

It is absurd to bring before the Committee a mini-Measure of this sort, when we ought to be having a major plant health Measure within the next two, or at the most three years. I therefore suggest that this Measure is completely irrelevant and should be put off for three years.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) directed his observations to two points. He suggested that by introducing the term "virus" a change was being made in the law. That is seeking to go behind the findings of the Committee. It reported that it considered that the Bill was pure consolidation and represented the existing law. I would suggest that in this matter we must accept its findings.

Secondly the hon. Gentleman went on to say that there might be a great new break-through in research, and we might need to legislate again. That may be so, but it is no reason why we should not pass this consolidation Measure. I emphasise that this Bill effects no change in the substance of the law. This consolidation is useful from the point of view of everyone concerned. It is useful to the Departments who administer the legislation; it is useful to those who advise upon the law and to the public who are affected by it. Incidentally, it gets rid of three old and very ill-drawn Statutes.

As I have said before, when we consider consolidation Bills, we are not precluding any future amendment of the law. No doubt if it were intended in the immediate future, within the next few months, or before the end of the present Session, to embark upon substantial changes in the law, it would be assured to bring in a consolidation Bill at this stage. But that is not the case, and there is no valid reason for holding up consolidation because some hon. Members think that in one respect or another the law ought to be amended, or because they think that it may be necessary to amend it, as the hon. Gentleman said, in the next two or three years.

There is one other reason for resisting the Clause. There is a very close relationship between this Bill and that which we are about to consider, the Forestry Bill. It is not essential but it is convenient that the two Bills should be passed and come into operation together. Therefore I would invite the Committee to reject the Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Before this consolidation Measure completes its last stage through the two Houses, one should call attention to one point which arises from the long title to the Bill, which is: An Act to consolidate the Destructive Insects and Pests Act 1877 to 1927 … Perhaps I am too conservative, but I find it sad to say farewell to the destructive insects and pests. They are no longer mentioned as such in the Bill. We have been acquainted with them for nearly 90 years, since 1877, and now they will no longer be destructive and no longer be pests. In future they will be pests and diseases injurious. It sounds rather to have the lilt of a Gilbertian lyric all ready to be set to Sullivan's music.

During the last debate my mind was wandering a little from the speeches, with the following result: The destructive young insects are furious, They say that this Bill is quite spurious, They say that it's rot and assert that they're not Either pests or diseases injurious.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.