CONTROL OF PESTS AND DISEASES AFFECTING BEES (Hansard, 10 March 1980)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minstry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, in the schedule, page 5, line 35, at end insert— 9A. Payment of compensation for bees or other things subject to control destroyed in accordance with section 1(4). I call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in these amendments.

§ Mr. Wiggin
The Bees Bill has been generally welcome both in this House and in another place. It has rightly been seen as a highly desirable measure to prevent the introduction into this country of bee diseases which do not occur here and to combat those which are endemic. One issue only has caused a slight rift in this otherwise harmonious acclaim for the Bill. That is the question whether the Bill should provide for the possibility of compensation for bees compulsorily destroyed by authorised officers in the interests of controlling disease and preventing its spread.
1113 As introduced, the Bill continued the policy of successive Governments on the question of compensation. The only difference was that this time the Bill expressly provided in clause 1(6) that no compensation shall be payable. During the course of our debates on the Bill, many arguments have been advanced as to why compensation should be paid in particular circumstances—some real, some hypothetical—and we have explained why we have not found these arguments persuasive. However, it has also been argued that the possibility of compensation being paid should not be ruled out for ever and that there should be a permissive power so that in future it would be open for Governments to decide whether or not to have compensation in any given circumstances.
It is true that the Bill, as introduced, would have closed the door, but not perhaps for ever because Parliament could have decided at any time on an amendment. But we do not often have new legislation on bee diseases. Indeed, the present Bill is only the second such measure in some 40 years. We see the force of this argument and the Government are therefore willing for the Bill to stand as amended.
The Lords amendments allow compensation to be paid for bees and other things destroyed because they are diseased or have been exposed to infection. Before any compensation could be paid the detailed provisions would have to be made by order. The amendment to clause 1 would allow for the possibility of compensation in the circumstances covered by clause 1(4) and the amendment to the schedule would allow for orders to include detailed provision for payment of compensation. However—and here I break a small promise not to crack another pun about bees during the progress of the Bill—the sting is in the tail. I must make it clear to the House that, in accepting the Lords amendments, the Government do not intend to pay compensation for bees and other things destroyed in accordance with this legislation.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
As the House is willing to waive its privileges, I shall cause an entry to be made in the Journal to that effect.