CLAUSE 11.—(Regulations to be made by Minister.) (Hansard, 6 April 1932)

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a).

§ Mr. COCKS
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, have you not left out the Amendment standing in my name, in page 17, line 16, after the word "premises," to insert the words: used for the purpose of the business of the said miller or importer of flour or person carry on business as a dealer in wheat or flour.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I thought it dealt with the same subject as the hon. Member's previous Amendment.

§ Mr. COCKS
No. With the utmost respect, the Amendment includes not private premises but only business premises.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It has been passed now, and I am afraid we cannot go back.

§ Mr. COCKS
It was not called.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
This Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a) in which the Minister may, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, make regulations for giving effect to the provisions of the Act and such regulations may in particular make provision for prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed for the purposes of the Act to be millable wheat. On the Committee stage we attempted to put into this paragraph (a) certain words which, in our opinion, might have made it of some value. We attempted to designate certain features by which the Minister should lay down a prescription for the definition of the term "millable wheat" because the term "millable wheat" forms, of course, the whole basis of this Bill, and it is fundamental to its proper understanding that the House should appreciate what is meant by that phrase. So far the Minister has successfully managed to evade giving any description of millable wheat whatsoever, So desperate, indeed, did some of his own supporters become during the Committee stage that I think they moved to leave out this paragraph as being of no value unless it was going to be properly defined. We have more or less given up the attempt to try to draw anything from the Minister which may give information to the agricultural community, and therefore we have come to the conclusion that this paragraph is w holly useless, because the Minister is wholly incapable of giving such a definition. That has been conclusively shown by his failure even to attempt to do it in the course of the Bill's passage through the House.
It is very vital in order to weigh the value of this Bill to the farming community, in order to weigh its cost to the consumer, and in order to evaluate what it is going to do for the country as regards agriculture, to know, in the first instance, what is meant by "mill-able wheat." It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in his Second Reading speech that about 85 per cent. of the wheat grown in this country would be millable wheat. That, I presume, is 85 per cent. after deducting 7½ per cent. of seed wheat and wastage and tail corn. Therefore, you would probably reduce it 277 to a figure something like 75 per cent. Are we to take it that the definition that is going to be made is to relate to the 75 per cent. of wheat grown by the farmer, or are we to take it that it is going to be left so vague that all the wheat grown by a farmer will substantially qualify as millable wheat? If not, how is the farmer now to know and how are the public now to know, when the Bill is before them for consideration, what sort of thing will disqualify wheat from becoming millable? Is it merely the damaged grain which comes out of the thresher as split, cracked and broken? Is it grain affected with certain well-known diseases, or is it grain of certain well-known qualities?
What is it that the Minister has in mind? Even if he is unable now to give us any prescription, is he not able to give some indication. He has had a long time in which to study the problem during Easter. Perhaps that study has brought him a little closer to a realisation either of the possibility or the futility of trying to define "millable wheat." If he has tried and if it has brought him closer to the possibility of defining it, then, no doubt, he will tell us either to-night or to-morrow what "millable wheat" means. If, on the other hand, it has brought him to a realisation of the futility of defining it, then, of course, he will accept our Amendment and will eliminate this Sub-section, because it is quite idle for him to have a Sub-section in the Bill which says that he may prescribe the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed millable wheat, if he knows quite well that he never can prescribe such a standard. We think that it is only fair and right that everyone who is going to consider this matter should know what is meant by millable wheat.
The Bill will have to be considered in another place and it is certain that one of the first things that they will want to know is what is "millable wheat." I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that sonic of the eminent lawyers in the other House will be certain to want to know what definition he has in mind, because no lawyer, eminent or otherwise, can read through a Bill of this sort and not desire to know what the definition is. The first thing that the lawyer would do would be to look at the definition section. He would say: "Here is a phrase unknown to 278 the law—'millable wheat.' Let me look at the definition section of the Bill and see what it means." He would not get any comfort from that. Then he would turn to this Sub-section, and he would say: "How is the Minister going to prescribe it? What does it mean? Is it a possibility at all?" He would be met, no doubt, by the right hon. Gentleman's extremely genial smile, but nothing more. Therefore, we feel that there is a very good case for omitting this Sub-section unless the right hon. Gentleman can tell us to-morrow that there really is some method of making a definition which will mean something and which will be of value to the milling and the agricultural community.