§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Denman.)
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, on the Motion to go into Committee I desire to say one word on the subject of this Bill. I believe it was read a second time under circumstances which rendered discussion difficult or impossible, and I do not think the House has heard very much as to the reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to take the Bill up. It undoubtedly contains some extremely drastic and inquisitorial provisions. I was very much struck by an observation which fell from Lord Willoughby de Broke, who, in the course of his speech earlier to-day, said many sagacious things, to the effect that it is no use passing a law unless you can see your way to make people obey it. The law embodied in this Bill is certainly one which it will not be very easy to enforce. Beekeeping has increased enormously in Ireland. You hardly see a single cottage in the poorer parts of the country where there are not beehives, and the owners of these hives will be subject to the legislation contained in this Bill. Now what does the Bill do? It compels every owner of bees whose bees show symptoms of this disease to notify the fact, and if he fails to notify it he is liable to a severe penalty. Then inspectors are to be appointed who are to have power to enter at all reasonable times any premises where bees are kept, and anyone obstructing an inspector is liable to penalties. In the next clause the department or the local authority may order the destruction, not only of the bees supposed to be infected, but of all articles and appliances used in connection with bee-keeping which are infected with the disease or suspected of being infected; and there, again, a penalty is imposed for failure to comply with the clause. Finally, there is power taken to proclaim a whole area in which this bee disease 1394 is found to exist, and within that area the department may cause the whole of the bees, as well as the articles and appliances used in connection with beekeeping, to be destroyed. These are very strenuous powers, and I find at the end of the Bill that they can be delegated by the county council to a local authority. What I wish to know is whether His Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves by taking the advice of practical people that this is a kind of legislation which there is any prospect of successfully enforcing. Has there been any inquiry? Have the county councils been consulted? If not, I should like to know why there is so much hurry to force the Bill through Parliament, when, of course, there would be ample time for considering it at our leisure after the summer adjournment.
THE EARL OF MAYOMy Lords, I should like to say a few words with regard to the remarks of the noble Marquess. Other places besides Ireland have suffered from this bee pest. I am told by a noble Lord near me that every bee in the Isle of Wight last season was killed by this disease, known as foul brood. The Bill is required in order to encourage and promote the cottage industry of bee-keeping in Ireland. I cannot agree with the noble Marquess that this Bill is too drastic in its effect. The noble Marquess quoted the expression of opinion of Lord Willoughby de Broke, that it was no good having a law unless it could be enforced; but I must point out that there are provided in this Bill penalities for not declaring the existence of this pest in particular hives. Where there are penalties surely the law can be enforced. I can assure your Lordships that the Bill is really wanted in Ireland.
LORD DENMANMy Lords, I hope I shall be able to show the noble Marquess that, although the provisions of this Bill appear at first sight to be of rather a drastic character, yet they are not really so. The Bill, as the noble Earl opposite has just said, is urgently needed to stamp out, and to stamp out as soon as possible, this disease. The noble Marquess asked if the local authorities had been consulted. The answer 1395 to that is that we are promoting this Bill at the request of the local authorities in Ireland. I believe that nearly all the local authorities and the Council of Agriculture as well as the bee-keepers of Ireland have asked the Irish Department of Agriculture to introduce a measure of this kind. Our desire is to meet, as far as possible, the wishes of these local authorities and of the people interested in the success of bee-keeping. The disease with which the Bill deals has spread rapidly and caused very great loss. Experts are agreed that the only way to cope with the pest is by destroying the infected bees and also the appliances. That is what this Bill seeks to do; and compensation is to be paid to the owner of any bees or appliances destroyed to the extent of half their value. This compensation will be paid out of the funds of the Agricultural Committee of each county. These funds consist of a small rate, generally of 1d. in the £, and a larger sum in the shape of a contribution from the Department of Agriculture. The Department will bear a large proportion of the cost of administering the Act, for not only will they supply a considerable part of the funds but they will also provide the cost of inspectors and other people necessary to carry out its provisions. The Department of Agriculture recognise the urgency of this matter. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will consider that I have answered satisfactorily the points he raised. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Donoughmore, has some Amendments on the Paper which would considerably enlarge the scope of the Bill, and with the great majority of which I am unable to agree. I hope that, although the Bill has been brought up at a late period in the session, noble Lords opposite will not resist the passing of it into law before the adjournment.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. If I had been in possession of the information he has given to the House I should not have troubled him.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
1396§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE, who had two pages of Amendments on the Paper, said he had consulted the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and in view of the late period of the session he would not propose any Amendment to which the Government did not assent.
§ Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after Clause 4, the following new clause—
Any person who knowingly removes from his premises, or sells or disposes of to any other person, or imports into any district any bees, or any article or appliance used in connection with bee-keeping, shall be guilty of any offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding, for the first offence, five pounds, and for the second or any subsequent offence ten pounds.
He desired to enter an emphatic protest against the action of their Lordships' printers. He had handed the Amendment in in proper English, and it was circulated to their Lordships. The printers, however, had chosen, off their own bat, to reprint it and recirculate it, leaving out the most important word. The Amendment should read—
Any 'infected' bees or any 'infected' article or appliance.
As his Amendment stood on the Paper, the removal of a bee hive from one place to another would be an offence. It was curious that when their Lordships worked hardest the printers seemed to get slackest. It was a very strong thing for the printers to revise their Lordships' Amendments, and he thought the House ought to consider whether some inquiry should not take place into the slipshod methods of the printers. He moved his Amendment as he desired it to be put.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, to insert the following new clause: 'Any person who knowingly removes from his premises, or sells or disposes of to any other person, or imports into any district any infected bees or any infected article or appliance used in connection with bee-keeping, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall
1397
be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding, for the first offence, five pounds, and for the second or any subsequent offence ten pounds.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ LORD DENMAN moved to amend this proposed new clause by leaving out the words "any infected bees or any" and inserting the words "any bees infected with bee pest or foul brood, or any"; and by inserting after the word "bee-keeping" the words "and infected with that disease." He explained that the scope of the Bill would be enlarged by Lord Donoughmore's Amendment as it stood, and he wished to restrict it to bees infected with this particular disease.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
To leave out line 3, and to insert the words 'any bees infected with bee pest or foul brood, or any'; and in line 4, after the word 'beekeeping' to insert the words and infected with that disease.'"—(Lord Denman.)
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7:
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to amend Clause 7, so as to enable the Department to make regulations with respect to the method of isolation, cleaning, and disinfection of bees in addition to their destruction.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 3, line 12, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'isolation, cleaning, disinfection, or,' and after the word 'bees' to insert the words 'bee products or.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD DENMANsaid he would accept the Amendment if the noble Earl would delete the word "isolation." He had taken legal advice on the point, and had been told that there would be some difficulty in the matter of isolating a bee.
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE accepted the suggested alteration.
1398§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 195).