HC Deb 13 July 1937 vol 326 cc1141-70

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made. and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 3.—(Livestock Advisory Committee.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 19, leave out "who," and insert "which."

7.2 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next two Amendments which follow are purely of a drafting and verbal character.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

May I on these purely drafting Amendments—because we shall be passing entirely from this Section of the Bill—be allowed to ask a question of the Minister as to whether he is now able to announce to the House what steps he proposes to take with regard to the setting up of an impartial Livestock Commission?

7.3 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

The Livestock Commission will be set up as soon as authority has been given by Parliament for its selection, and the idea is that it shall include the members of the present Cattle Committee plus the additional members who fall to be appointed. We hope that it will be possible to set it in operation by 1st August.

Mr. Alexander

On a point of Order. The difficulty is this: I can quite see your reaction to the matter. Apparently some announcement has been made in the other place on this matter, and has not been made to this House.

Mr. Speaker

This is not in order here.

Mr. Alexander

May we raise it on the Third Reading? But then we have had the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker

The Third Reading has gone.

Mr. Alexander

We are in a difficulty here.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Subsidy to producers of fat cattle.)

CLAUSE 5.—(Subsidy arrangements.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 33, after "purposes," insert, and generally for securing that subsidy payments are, properly made,

7.5 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is little more than a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to secure that the subsidy scheme may also provide for other matters of a minor and incidental character such as the marking of certified animals.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Regulations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 9, leave out from "that" to "if," in line 10, and insert, no subsidy payment shall be made in respect of any animal or carcass.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker

I would point out to the House that this and all the Amendments down to the bottom of the page raise the question of privilege. They deal with the regulations under which the subsidy is payable. The House can accept them or not.

Mr. Morrison

This Amendment and the next Amendments are intended to make it clear that the provisions of regulations under Clause 6, which enable Ministers to withhold payments to certain classes of animals and to prescribe how the weight of an animal shall be computed, shall be applied to carcases also.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

Speaking as only one Member of this House, I view with increasing concern the growing tendency on the part of another place to put in Amendments of a financial character. This has happened on far more occasions during the past 12 months than it happened in four years in my previous experience of this House, and my anxiety in this direction is not allayed by the attitude which the Minister has taken towards a similar constitutional point which was raised on the power of the House of Lords to veto financial proposals by Resolution. I have put on the Paper a Motion asking for the total number and the titles of the Statutes in which that power is given to another place, and although it would be out of order to pursue that here, I think that it is time someone raised a protest against this habit on the part of another place of interfering with the powers and privileges of this House. Speaking for myself, if this practice continues I shall be at great pains to oppose it.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

If we were dealing entirely with the constitutional point which my hon. Friend has raised, I think that there would be strong unanimous opinion on this side behind him. I think that the real point is that these are important alterations in the administration of the scheme which we are surprised the Government did not anticipate before the Bill left this House. These Amendments are required in order to put the payment of the subsidy on a sound basis, but it is rather to be deplored that such a long and important series of Amendments should not first be submitted to the House of Commons.

7.9 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

All these questions of mixed finance and administration arise in questions of this character with varying emphasis. Here, although there is a financial bearing which raises the question of Privilege, all that the Amendment does really is to make an administrative change which, I think, it is generally agreed is for the better. I apologise to the House for the fact that this House did not see the necessity for the Amendment previously, but I think that we ought to accept this and the following Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 6, line 19, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 37, leave out from the beginning to "that," in line 39, and insert:

  1. "(a) In the case of a male animal, that by reason of late or ineffective castration the animal shows the physical characteristics of bulls, or
  2. (b) in the case of a female animal."

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The point here is to rule out from the subsidy animals which by reason of late or ineffective castration do not give steer beef but inferior beef. In some cases, the age limit fails to exclude undesirable animals, or excludes desirable animals.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

Special entries will be made in the Journals of the House that the Amendments raise the question of Privilege.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 7, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Transitional operation and repeal, of Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 14, leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2) and insert: (1) Section four of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, shall cease to have effect at the beginning of the appointed day, and the functions of the Committee appointed under that Section shall, in relation to the arrangements mentioned in Section two of the said Act, be discharged, on and after the appointed day, by the Commission.

Mr. Speaker

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege. It arises from the alteration in the appointed day.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

As Mr. Speaker said, this Amendment arises from an alteration in the appointed day. Owing to the time over which this Bill has occupied the House, it has not been found possible to name an appointed day earlier than 1st August. As a consequence, there is no overlapping between the end of the operation of the present Emergency Provisions Acts of 1934 and 1936 and the present Bill. Under those Acts animals have to be sold on or before 31st July, 1937, to be eligible for the subsidy. There is no overlapping in time, because the appointed day is 1st August, and when one provision for a subsidy ceases to have effect the other comes into operation immediately. It is still necessary to make provision for the payment of subsidy in the case of animals or carcases which were sold before 1st August, 1937, but were not certified until that date or after. It would not be necessary to have such an Amendment if there were not a change in the authority charged with the payment of the subsidy, but the Cattle Committee is to go out of existence and is to be succeeded by the Livestock Commission.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 41, leave out "as amended by this Section."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. S. Morrison.]

Mr. Speaker

I have to point out to the House that this Amendment and that in page 10, line 13, raise questions of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

CLAUSE II.—(Power of Board of Trade to regulate importation of livestock and meat.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 13, at the end, insert: (4) nothing in the preceding provisions of this Section shall authorise the Board of Trade to regulate the importation of bacon.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

7.14 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

Why is there this Amendment denying the President of the Board of Trade the power to regulate imports of bacon—not that we are desirous that he shall have that power—when the Board of Trade are already regulating the import of bacon to the extent of 5,000,000 cwt. per annum compared with 1933 imports? It seems rather ridiculous that this Amendment should be embodied in the Bill when the President of the Board of Trade is already exercising the power which is refused to him in this Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

There is nothing new in this. In the Bill as it stood "meat" for the purposes of this part of the Act did not include bacon. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Definition Clause in the Bill as it left the House —it was then Clause 56—he will see what the position was then. All that has happened is that instead of excluding bacon in the Definition Clause, the exclusion of the power to regulate bacon has been moved up to the relevant part of the Bill. This Amendment therefore is purely drafting in character. The reason for the exclusion in the original Bill was that it would be inconvenient to have two sources of authority in regulating the importation of bacon. Under the present law it is conditional on a marketing scheme being in existence.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

We are in a position of some difficulty because a statement was made by the Minister recently to the effect that he hoped to make some announcement with regard to the policy of the Government in relation to bacon. There are several ways in which that policy may be directed. It may mean such an alteration in the bacon marketing scheme that this Livestock Commission may be entrusted with the impartial administration of the bacon scheme. Yet by this Amendment we are specifically taking away from the Livestock Commission a power which may be required, although I hope it will not be required. We are much handicapped when we get an announcement made in regard to a policy like this in another place, while we have had no word of it here. This also affects to some extent the actual constitution of the Commission.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

Speaking again by leave of the House, may I say that I understand the preoccupation which the right hon. Gentleman has in regard to this matter, but I would point out that for the purposes of our present discussion the actual position in regard to regulation is not changed by the Amendment. As the Bill left this House it contained precisely the same provisions as to regulation which are now re-expressed in these new words. As regards agreeing or disagreeing with the Amendment, the House may be assured that there is nothing but a verbal change.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page II, line 22, agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(General regulation of holding of livestock markets.)

Lords Amendment: In page II line 24, leave out "August" and insert "November."

7.19 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment arises from the postponement of the appointed day. The Commission will have to consult with the Livestock Advisory Committee and other bodies, and in consequence of the postponement of the appointed day it is necessary to allow them extra time for these consultations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page II line 37, after "thereof" insert: or for the purpose of effecting at the farm sales of livestock on any occasion in respect of which special exemption of the farm from the operation of this subsection may be granted by the Commission.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It refers to sales of commercial stock which take place from time to time on farms where the occupier is not an outgoing tenant and where the stock includes stock which is neither the occupier's own stock nor agisted stock. It provides that such sales may be exempted by the Commission on receiving an application from the occupier of the farm. An exchange of letters will be sufficient to secure the exemption. When the Bill was previously in this House this subject caused a great deal of discussion and perplexity. It was the general opinion of hon. Members that we ought to try to find words which would ensure that the Commission would have full power over genuine markets, but at the same time it was felt that certain classes of sales incidental to farming should be exempt. For example, one of these was the case in which an owner of pedigree stock had a periodical sale on his land and where, in order to give the sale a better appearance, additional stock might be brought in from other farms to take advantage of the presence of buyers on that occasion. We tried to find general words which would define accurately what was a market and what was the sort of occasional sale which ought to be exempted. We found it impossible to do so, but in another place this Amendment has been accepted which will make it easy and simple for genuine bona fide sales of the character I have mentioned to be exempted without an order, but merely by the permission of the Commission.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

From the Committee stage of this Bill onwards to the Third Reading we objected to any extension of these exemptions which would have a tendency to sidestep the central marketing scheme. All kinds of Amendments were moved to exempt this kind of sale and that kind of sale, and I am not sure that we welcomed the exemptions which were already in the Bill when it left this House. This Amendment from another place widens the facilities for sales at farms as distinct from the central market which is to be set up under the terms of the Measure. Exactly what kind of sale is contemplated here? Whose cattle are to be sold and on whose farm are they to he sold? We argued in Committee that if sales of this kind were exempted there would be nothing to prevent farmers from two or even from ten farms in a district sending their cattle to one farm, applying for an exemption order and conducting a sale on that farm—it might be on John Brown's farm to-day and on Brown John's farm a month hence—and to that extent the central marketing scheme would be short-circuited.

The body which is to grant these exemptions is a commission, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander) said, we have no idea of who are to constitute the commission or how they are to be appointed. All we know is that they are to have certain powers under this Measure. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied us as to the kind of sale contemplated in this Amendment. Certain exemptions are already provided for in Clause 14. This is an addition to them, and despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not see a great deal of difference between the words which are now proposed and the words which were proposed in Committee except that the term "pedigree cattle" is omitted. But the same sort of principle is in this Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the kind of cattle likely to be brought to these farms where sales are held and the places from which they are likely to be brought for specially exempted sales. Then we shall better understand the reason for the exemption. At the moment I do not know what sort of special sales these are to be, but it seems likely that they will short-circuit the marketing scheme. They will ultimately be to the advantage of the farmers on whose farms they take place, though they may be to the detriment of those farmers who are transacting their business through the central scheme. We would like some information on that point and also as to the kind of people who are to constitute the commission which is to grant these exemptions.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

As to the kind of people who will constitute the commission, they will be for the most part the Cattle Committee, who have administered the emergency legislation, I think, to the satisfaction of the House and of the entire community affected by their operations. This body will retain control. There is no question of their being short-circuited. They have to say whether an application to exempt a particular sale should be granted or not. I think the real question is whether or not the premises in respect of which an application is made are being regularly or frequently used for this purpose. Clearly there is a point at which an "occasional" sale may become so regular and so periodical that it develops into a market, and in such a case the commission, having been charged by this House with the control of markets, would refuse permission. At the same time, these occasional sales do exist, and it would be a hardship to the agricultural community to ring those sales round with too many restrictions.

We have already provided that where a sale takes place on the occasion of a change of tenancy different farmers other than the outgoing tenant may bring their cattle to that farm to take advantage of the concourse of buyers attracted by the dispersal sale. There are occasions other than that of a change of tenancy on which a periodical sale of this character may take place. I have already given one example, namely, the case of the sale of a pedigree herd. In such a case there is no change of tenancy, but a man may desire to get rid of a herd which has won a reputation either because he wants the money or for some other reason. The sale of such a herd naturally attracts to those premises for the time being a large number of buyers, anxious to take advantage of the opportunity and to bid against each other for the stock. It is a common thing for farmers who have other stock in neighbouring farms, purely of a commercial character—not necessarily pedigree stock but any kind of stock—to make an arrangement with their neighbour and to have their stock moved on to his land and have them bid for by the buyers who are gathered together there. It is a very harmless practice, and, if watched by the Commissioners, as it will be watched, it cannot possibly give rise to any grievance. I quite see that one can imagine a case where a practice of this sort hardens into a market, but for the Commission to grant permission in such a case would clearly be for it to disable itself of market control. I think we can leave it to the Commission with confidence to decide on the proper cases in which to grant this occasional privilege and to refuse that privilege when, as I say, regularity hardens these sales into a market.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

There seems to be a certain amount of sweet reasonableness in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and yet there is enough in the Amend-

ment and in what he says at least to leave some suspicion in the minds of some of us that the points that were pressed by my hon. Friend in Committee have been got round. The actual wording of the Amendment is very wide indeed, because it gives power to the Commission to exempt any such sales "on any occasion." It is left to them completely, and I gathered from the Minister in his explanation—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—that in fact such permission would never be withheld unless it was shown that a sale was being made a regular market. That makes it even wider still, and I have some recollection in the earlier Debates that my hon. Friends mentioned that there could be collusion between the farmers in a district. How often does a man or a group of farmers in a district need to make such application before the single farm in the group becomes a place which can be termed a market? These words are likely to be destructive of the purpose which my hon. Friends on the Committee stage had in mind, and if that is so, I do not think we ought to accept it.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 100.

Division No. 282.] AYES. [7.33 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Gridley, Sir A. B.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Grigg, Sir E. W. M
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Grimston, R. V.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Gritten, W. G. Howard
Aske, Sir R. W. Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Guy, J. C. M.
Atholl, Duchess of Craven-Ellis, W. Hannah, I. C.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Crooke, J. S. Harbord, A.
Balniel, Lord Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Harris, Sir P. A.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cross, R. H. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Crowder, J. F. E. Hepworth, J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Cruddas, Col. B. Higgs, W. F.
Beechman, N. A. Davies, C. (Montgomery) Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Bernays, R. H. Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Holdsworth, H.
Blaker, Sir R. Denman, Hon. R. D. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Bossom, A. C. Denville, Alfred Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Boulton, W. W. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Horsbrugh, Florence
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Brass, Sir W. Duggan, H. J. Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Duncan, J. A. L. Hume, Sir G. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Edmondson, Major Sir J. Hunter, T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Elliot, Rt. Hon, W. E. Hutchinson, G. C.
Butcher, H. W. Ellis, Sir G. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Cartland, J. R. H. Entwistle, Sir C. F. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Cary, R. A. Erskine-Hill, A. G. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Chorlton, A. E. L Fildes, Sir H. Kimball, L.
Christie, J. A. Fleming, E. L. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Goodman, Col. A. W. Latham, Sir P.
Cobb,Captain E. C. (Preston) Gower, Sir R. V. Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Lewis, O. Procter, Major H. A. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Liddall, W. S. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lloyd, G. W. Ramsbotham, H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Loftus, P. C. Ramsden, Sir E. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Rayner, Major R. H. Thomas, J. P. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Titchfield, Marquess of
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Wakefield, W. W.
McKie, J. H. Ropner, Colonel L. Warrender, Sir V.
Magnay, T. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Rowlands, G. Watt, G. S. H.
Markham, S. F. Royds, Admiral P. M. R. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Salt, E. W. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Samuel, M. R. A. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Sanderson, Sir F. B. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T.(Hitchin)
Morgan, R. H. Savery, Sir Servington Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Wise, A. R.
Nall, Sir J. Simmonds, O. E. Withers, Sir J. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Womersley, Sir W. J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe) Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Peaks, O. Spans, W. P.
Perkins, W. R. D. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Petherick, M. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Green, W. H. (Deptford) Parker, J.
Adamson, W. M. Grenfell, D. R. Parkinson, J. A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Ridley, G.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Groves, T. E. Riley, B.
Banfield, J. W. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Barr, J Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Batey, J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Rowson, G.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Broad, F. A. Jagger, J. Sanders, W. S.
Bromfield, W. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Silkin, L.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Kelly, W. T. Simpson, F. B.
Burke, W. A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cape, T. Kirkwood, D. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Chater, D. Lathan, G. Sorensen, R. W.
Cluse, W. S. Leach, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lee, F. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cocks, F. S. Leonard, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leslie, J. R. Thorne, W.
Dalton, H. Logan, D. G. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lunn, W. Viant, S. P.
Dobbie, W. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Walker, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Maclean, N. Watkins, F. C.
Ede, J. C. Mathers, G. Watson, W. McL.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Messer, F. Wedgwood, R1. Hon. J. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Milner, Major J. Welsh, J. C.
Frankel, D. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gallacher, W. Muff, G. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Gardner, B. W. Nathan, Colonel H. L. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Garro Jones, G. M. Noel-Baker, P. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Oliver, G. H.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 41, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Livestock markets orders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 31, leave out "those," and insert "any such."

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sub-section (2) of Clause 15 as it left this House provided that the Commission should notify bodies representative of local authorities and other affected interests of any proposal to draft a livestock markets order, and, so far as local authorities are concerned, the Commission no doubt would notify the national associations of local authorities, which would in most cases communicate with their constituent bodies. But it is also desirable that the Commission should be able to consult, and should consult, any ad hoc bodies which may be set up representative of local authorities in and around the area proposed to be controlled. As the Bill left this House the relevant lines read: and shall give those bodies"— that is, those bodies that have been notified— a reasonable opportunity of making to the Commission representations. While it did not preclude the Commission from consulting bodies other than those notified, the Bill did not impose the duty on them to do it, and it is thought that that duty should be imposed upon them. The Amendment will ensure that the Commission will in fact consult any ad hoc bodies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment in page 13, line 37, agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Matters for which provision may be made by livestock markets orders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 26, after "respects," to insert "particular occasions or."

7.42 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is connected with that made to Clause 14, page II, line 37, of the Bill, and makes it clear that where a livestock markets order makes provision for exemption from the requirement that no premises other than approved market premises shall be used for the holding of livestock markets, these exemptions can relate to farm sales held on particular occasions as well as to particular classes of sales. It means that areas which are controlled by livestock markets orders can be treated in a uniform manner with areas which are not so controlled.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 16, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Apportionment of liabilities incurred in connection with livestock markets orders by owners of market premises.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 16, and insert: Where, by virtue of a livestock markets order, the owner of any premises incurs any liability—

  1. (a) to make any payment (whether to the Commission or to any other person) on account of the cost of making any alteration of those premises which has been required by the Commission to be made, or
  2. (b) to make contributions to the Commission in respect of those premises."

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I beg to move, "That this House, doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Clause to which this Amendment relates permitted an owner of market premises to apply for the apportionment of liabilities incurred under a livestock markets order which required him to make alterations to his premises. It was not quite clear that under paragraph (1) of this Clause the provisions for apportionment extended to cases where alterations were carried out by the Commission in default, and this Amendment makes it clear that such liability could in fact be apportioned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: in page 18, line 28, at the end, insert: (2) Where, under any livestock markets order, any sum is recoverable by the Commission from a person in respect of any such liability as aforesaid incurred by him as being the owner of any premises, and that person proves that he—

  1. (a) is receiving any rent of the premises merely as agent or trustee for some other person, and
  2. (b) has not, and since the date of the service on him of a demand for payment has not had, in his hands on behalf of that other person sufficient money to discharge the whole of the demand of the Commission,
his liability shall be limited to the total amount of the money which he has or has had in his hands as aforesaid, but the Commission may, if they are or would be debarred by the preceding provisions of this subsection from recovering the whole of the said sum from an agent or trustee, recover the whole or any unpaid balance thereof from the person on whose behalf the agent or trustee receives the rent.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Clause to which this is an Amendment deals with the apportionment of liability in connection with livestock markets orders by owners of market premises. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit in certain circumstances the liability which a person may incur who owns a market in the capacity of agent or trustee. Although it limits his liability to the amount of money whch he has or has had in his hands, it does not in any way debar the Commission from receiving the remainder of the sums due to it from the owner or the person whom the trustee is representing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 21, after Clause 20, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Delegation to Commission of certain functions under Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts.) A. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the case may be, may by order delegate to the Commission all or any of the functions which are exercisable in relation to markets by the said Minister or Department under the following enactments, that is to say:— Section nine of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887, as amended by section two of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1926, (which enables the said Minister or Department to grant exemption, in respect of particular markets, from the obligation to provide facilities for weighing cattle); Section two of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, (which requires suitable accommodation for weighing cattle to be provided to the satisfaction of the said Minister or Department at markets other than those exempted by his or their order); Section four of the said Act of 1891, as amended by section two of the said Act of 1926 (which enables the said Minister or Department to exempt auctioneers at any particular market from the requirements of the said section four in respect of the sale of cattle); Sub-section (4) of section one of the said Act of 1926, (which enables the said Minister or Department to exempt auctioneers at particular markets from the requirements of that section in respect of the offering of cattle for sale); and any such order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner as the original order.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Although this new Clause looks formidable, it is almost self-explanatory. It will enable certain functions which are at present exercised by the Minister and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, 1887 to 1926, to be delegated to the Livestock Commission. Under those Acts weighing facilities are required to be provided at markets in certain circumstances unless they are exempted. Under Clause 16 of this Bill a Livestock Markets Order may provide inter alia for the service of notices by the Commission requiring improvements to be effected to market premises which might include weighing facilities. In respect of areas where such orders are in operation there might be a certain amount of duplication of functions because the Commission might require weighing facilities to be provided under such a notice. It is desirable that the responsibility for such a decision should rest with one authority only, and as it may be some time before livestock markets orders apply to more than a limited area of the country, I do not think the House will think it desirable that two authorities should exercise the same functions in respect of different parts of the country. Therefore, it is thought that the best method of meeting that position is the delegation when required of Ministerial functions to the Commission in order to avoid the overlapping and duplication that I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker

This new Clause raises a question of Privilege in that it transfers certain charges from the Treasury to the Cattle Fund.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

We do not object to that transfer, but I am not concerned with that here. May I ask whether there is likely to be any confusion between the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, the Ministry of Agriculture here and the Commission, or do we understand that the Commission will have absolute authority to carry out the functions referred to in this new Clause, and that neither of the two Departments will intervene once the power is handed on to the Commission?

7.50 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

There is nothing in this suggested Clause which will tend in any way towards confusion. Indeed, its purpose is to prevent confusion by preventing two people doing the same thing at the same time. The statutory powers to which my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions referred are themselves in no way altered by this new Clause. Further, the final responsibility for the exercise of the powers contained in the Weighing of Cattle Acts still remains with the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, because a delegating order can be varied or revoked. It is thought that when the Commission is active its agents will be in the markets, and it may be found a matter of administrative convenience for these two State Departments to delegate some of their powers to the Commission. If the Ministry or the Department did delegate their powers they would not then exercise them.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Matters for which provision may be made by slaughter-house schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 16, after "payment" insert "or an allowance of an amount."

7.52 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

We are now in the part of the Bill which deals with slaughtering. It was provided in the Bill that certain slaughtering charges could be made and that the slaughter-house itself might acquire certain offals. It is thought that many people who send their beasts to the slaughter-house might find it administratively more convenient that what they are entitled to receive for the by-products should be set off against the charges for slaughtering rather than that the full fee should be paid and then a refund made. Without this Amendment it would not be possible for the books to be kept in that way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 20, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 23.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

When the Bill first came before the House this Clause provided that not only the central slaughter-house. but also those slaughter-houses which were to continue to function in the area of the scheme when the scheme came into operation, should contribute towards the expenses incurred by the Commission in compensating owners of slaughter-houses that were closed. During the passage of the Bill upstairs, the Clause was amended so as to provide that compensation for closed slaughter-houses should be paid direct by the central slaughter-house authority and for the liability to contribute to the Commission's expenses to be limited to the central slaughter-house authority only. In consequence of that, it is thought that sub-paragraph (k) (ii) providing for arbitration in the event of disputes as to what is payable by way of levy becomes of less significance because compensation, will no longer be met by a levy on a number of slaughter-houses. Had that state of affairs remained, it would no doubt have been necessary and desirable for arbitration to be available, but it has gone and, therefore, it is thought that the next sub-paragraph, which provided for the reference to arbitration "of disputes as to any such other matters as may be specified in the scheme" is sufficient to include the limited subject matter of subparagraph (ii).

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

I am afraid I have not quite grasped the whole reason for this Amendment. I had in mind the possibility that a local authority or some other interest may submit a draft scheme, the whole essence of which will depend on the fixed charges in the scheme to be levied upon those using the abattoir in order to meet the charges on the capital involved. I cannot say that there is any good reason for deleting those words. I do not think it is to be assumed that there will be any such dispute arising as that specified in sub-paragraph (ii). I am not yet clear in what way the Amendment passed in Committee renders the words unnecessary. At any rate, I cannot see that they do any harm, and it may be a safeguard to those who may be responsible for submitting a draft scheme.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I am afraid that it is my fault I did not make the matter clear to the right hon. Gentleman. The position before the Bill went upstairs was this. The compensation for closed slaughter-houses fell not only on the central slaughter-house, but also upon such slaughter-houses as were left to function in the area of the scheme after the scheme began. During the passage of the Bill upstairs it was decided that the Clause should be amended to provide that compensation for the closed slaughterhouses should be paid direct by the central slaughter-house authority; in other words, it would be unnecessary to put a levy on the remaining slaughter-houses, but the contribution would come direct and solely from the central slaughter-house. As sub-paragraph (k) (ii) provided for reference to arbitration of disputes as to whether any sum is payable by any person by way of levy, it becomes unnecessary and no advantage is obtained by leaving it in. Sub-paragraph (iii) is now considered wide enough to include everything contained in the scheme about which reference to arbitration might be required.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Power of local authorities to provide and carry on slaughter-houses.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 12, leave out "is," and insert "are."

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker

A series of Amendments on page 25 raise questions of Privilege as they extend the powers of local authorities and so might affect the rates.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

Some time or another we ought to make up our mind whether a collective body is plural or singular. Many of them are singular. If we look at this Bill we find on page 8 that the Commons House of Parliament is a singular body. In the second line it says, "on which that House has sat," instead of "have sat." On page 10 Parliament is also collectively regarded as a singular body, because it refers in line II to, "Parliament is dissolved," not "Parliament are dissolved." When we come to the Commission on page 12, line 15, they are a plural body, and when we come to the Board of Trade it is also plural, although it consists of only one person. "Local authority" in this Clause is changed by a Lords Amendment from a singular to a plural body. On grammatical grounds it does not matter whether we call a local authority singular or plural, but in Parliamentary draftsmanship we ought to make up our minds once and for all whether a body, a committee, a commission, Parliament or local authority are to be regarded as plural or singular bodies. Acts of Parliament ought to be consistent in this matter, but in this Bill we have two cases where a collective body is singular and two where is plural and one where it changes from being a singular body to a plural body. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, who before he became Minister was a distinguished lawyer, will express his view on this question of draftsmanship.

Mr. Speaker

This Amendment does not raise the question of Privilege. The question of Privilege is concerned with the four Amendments which follow.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I do not know that I am an authority on the vexed question of grammar. There is authority for both versions. I do not think this is a matter of such substance that we ought to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Alexander

I really think that "local authority are" is very bad English, and I shall be very much surprised if the Minister of Agriculture is so ungrammatical as to agree with the Lords Amendment. Having regard to some of the English which I read in a report of a recent Debate in another place on the Marriage Bill I am not astonished at a mistake in number of this kind, but I hope that we shall not agree with it.

Mr. Sanders

I think the House will recollect that a collective noun is singular when it is used collectively and is plural when it is used distributively.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 14, leave out "and carry on."

8.2 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment has to be considered in conjunction with the Amendments which immediately follow. The Clause to which they relate gives power to a local authority to provide and carry on a slaughter-house. It was always intended that if a local authority provides a slaughter-house it should be open to it to leave the carrying on of the business to some other body who, perhaps, might take the building under a lease. Some doubts have been raised as to the power of local authorities to provide and lease a building in these circumstances, and for that reason the Amendment is suggested.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

A local authority will still retain the power to own and to run a central abattoir, which is essentially the object of the Bill, but in another place they still suspect municipal socialism of any kind and have therefore transformed the Clause into one which also gives power to a local authority to purchase an abattoir but to let it out to a public utility society or some cooperative body. It is typical of another place to express in every way its suspicion of any possible efforts in municipal socialism.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 23, agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Service Schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 7, leave out "engaged in" and insert concerned with."

8.5 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

We have now reached that part of the Bill which provides for service schemes in connection with the livestock industry, and one body of persons connected with that industry who are anxious to avail themselves of the facilities to join in this part of the Bill are auctioneers. There was some doubt whether it could be said that auctioneers were "engaged in" the industry, and so the wider words "concerned with" are substituted in order to put it beyond any doubt that auctioneers may, if they like, use the provisions of this part of the Bill for service schemes for their own purpose.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

I have very grave doubts about this Amendment. The Clause as it left this House was perfectly good and showed clearly who were the persons who were to be regarded as entitled to put forward service schemes, but if we put the words "concerned with" into the Bill, Heaven only knows who will be given a right to bring up such schemes. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this alteration is made specifically to include auctioneers, but there may be all sorts of people who are "concerned with" an industry whenever they like to represent that they are concerned with it. I think this is a most objectionable Amendment. My hon. Friends on this side are all in favour of sound service schemes, but the schemes ought to be submitted by those who really are engaged in the industry. That was the whole object of the Clause. I do not believe that the Minister, able lawyer as he is, can get up and say that these words "concerned with" do not widen the Clause to such an extent that many other people besides auctioneers may be given a right to submit schemes. Moreover, I am not so much in love with the connection of auctioneers with the sale of cattle that I want the Clause to be specially widened in order that they may submit schemes. The whole object of a service scheme is to promote the general interests of the industry as an industry, and I think it would do so if we could wipe out auctioneers from it altogether.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I can speak again only by leave of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's fear is that under the wider expression "concerned with" many more people will be able to submit schemes to the Commission. I do not know whether that will prove to be actually the case, because they have to prove that they are "concerned with" one or more of the following activities: the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock and the preparation for sale and the marketing, treatment and use, of products of the slaughtering of livestock. That is the context into which these new words will now fit. Of course the Commission have to consult the Livestock Advisory Committee, and will retain the right to disapprove of any scheme, and therefore, even if the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this does enlarge the number of persons who can apply for a scheme, though they may apply, they may not get it. I think it is better to be on the safe side and to make sure that this body of men who want to take advantage of this part of the Bill are not excluded.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

"Take advantage" is the right phrase.

Mr. T. Williams

I am afraid that I take a slightly different point of view on this Amendment from that of my right hon. Friend. I should object to the auctioneer coming in at all if he were to become a drag against service schemes. If we were to increase the number of people who are regarded as substantially representative of the interests concerned and that prevented service schemes coming into existence, I should say that auctioneers ought to be left out. As auctioneers have been definitely and specifically referred to, I should like to ask whether they will not only have the power of initiation but the power to become a drag upon a service scheme. Only when persons substantially representative of the interest concerned demand such a scheme can a scheme come into existence. It may be that a large number of the persons interested want a service scheme, but the auctioneers, for reasons best known to themselves, do not, and therefore may become a drag on the progress of the Measure. Further, I should like to ask whether any considerable body of consumers have the power of initiating a service scheme or suggesting it to the Commission.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

Again I can speak only by the leave of the House. The hon. Member asks whether this Amendment would allow auctioneers to become a drag on a service scheme. No, Sir, it would not. It does not really alter the position at all in that way. The real point is that in order to submit a service scheme there would have to be a class of person submitting it—or a body representing them—engaged in the marketing of livestock. It may be that it could be argued that an auctioneer was not "engaged in" the marketing of livestock, because he acts for both buyers and sellers, but "concerned with" does let him in. Of course one cannot have a scheme initiated without the assent of the majority of persons who are affected, and if it appears to the Commission that there is such assent, there is no danger of the auctioneers proving to be a drag. The hon. Member's second question was whether consumers can in any way promote a service scheme. The Clause, if it is amended in the way proposed, will read: On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons concerned with one or more of the following activities, that is to say, the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock and the preparation for sale, and the marketing, treatment and use, of products of the slaughtering of livestock. Consumers might claim that they are users of livestock, but I do not know how many vegetarians would object to that claim; I imagine, however, that that form of use would not be entitled to a service scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 31, line 2, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 15, at the end, insert: "(4) A service scheme for the improvement of breeding of livestock shall, if it contains provisions whereby livestock kept or approved by or on behalf of the authorised body may be made available for breeding, be of no effect unless it also—

  1. (a) specifies the breed or breeds of livestock which may be so kept or approved, and
  2. (b) is so framed as to secure that no person other than a person carrying on the business of keeping livestock of the said breed or breeds shall be liable to contribute under the scheme towards defraying any expenses of the authorised body."

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an Amendment to ensure that a service scheme for the improvement of the breeding of livestock shall specify the breed or breeds with which the scheme is concerned, and to provide that nobody will be liable to contribute under such a scheme towards the expenses of the authorised body unless that person is engaged in keeping livestock of the particular breed or breeds specified in the scheme. It would prevent a Red Poll breeder being compelled to contribute towards Shorthorns, or a Shorthorn breeder to contribute towards Red Polls. The principle is, Shorthorn breeders contribute to Shorthorns and Red Poll breeders to Red Polls. Breeders are not liable for any contribution towards a scheme which they have not promoted.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

Does that mean that there will be a series of these service schemes, for the Red Poll, the black bull and all the other breeds? Are we to understand that there will be schemes for every breed?

Mr. Morrison

I sincerely hope that if the breeding industry finds it necessary, that will be so. The real object at which this Amendment is aimed is to prevent the person who is interested in one aspect of the breeding of livestock from having to contribute to a service scheme established primarily in the interests of another breed. It would mean that the man who is interested in Guernsey cattle and in continuing the breed of that cattle should not have to contribute to a scheme for, say, Friesians.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 35, line 16, agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(The fund for purposes of this Act, and payments to be made thereto and therefrom.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 3, leave out Sub-section (3).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that a question of Privilege is raised in this Amendment.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Sub-section which it is now proposed to leave out relates to a contingency which will not now arise. As I told the House upon an earlier Amendment, there was an expectation that payment would be made not later than the end of June. This would have meant a long period of time to wait until the Estimates were passed, and in such a long period the Civil Contingencies Fund might not have been a sufficient standby to fill up the gap. This provision was inserted in the Bill to enable the Treasury to step in with the resources of the Consolidated Fund. The postponement of the appointed day means that there is no difficulty at all about any interim sum that may be required being borne upon the Civil Contingencies Fund, and the reason for the Sub-section therefore ceases to exist.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 37, line 30, agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Apportionment of expenses of Commission.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 34, at the end, insert: and for the purposes of this Section, any payment made out of the Fund under Subsection (6) of the last but one preceding Section shall be deemed to form part of the expenses lawfully incurred by the Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This is a Privilege Amendment.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose of the Amendment is merely drafting, and to make clear the financial arrangements; in particular, to make clear the allocation of expenses to the various funds. It is purely a technical drafting matter and raises no point or any change of substance from the Bill as it left the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 41, agreed to.

Mr. Alexander

It is not treating the House properly. There ought to be explanation of these changes.

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 2, after Clause 47, insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Incidental provisions as to orders, regulations and schemes.) B.—(1) Any order or scheme under this Act may make provision for such matters as are incidental and supplementary to any of the matters for which provision is made by the order or scheme by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (4) of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, orders, regulations and schemes under this Act shall be deemed not to be statutory rules to which that Section applies.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I will explain these alterations to the right hon. Gentleman. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Clause 47 have been left out. That was a drafting Amendment. We now have to insert this new Clause. What has happened really is that this is a re-draft. It splits up into two Clauses the subject matter of Clause 47. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of that Clause become the new Clause B, and Sub-section (2) of that Clause, dealing with compensation of local authority officers or servants, now stands by itself. All that has been done has been to disentangle the matter by splitting it up.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 45, line 6, agreed to.

CLAUSE 55.—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 22, leave out from "Any," to the end of line 24, and insert: sums payable by a local authority by way of a levy imposed under a slaughter-house scheme to defray the expenses incurred by the Commission in the preparation, promotion or operation of the scheme.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It will be seen, from a comparison of the Bill as it left this House with the Lords Amendment, that the Amendment merely makes a verbal alteration, which improves the clarity of expression. It simply makes more explicit the power to defray these expenses. It is purely a matter of language, and I think the House will agree that the new words are clearer than the old.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 47, line 23, agreed to.

CLAUSE 56.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 33, leave out from "be," to the end of line 35, and insert: the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have to point out that a question of Privilege arises on this Amendment.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

As I have already said, it was expected that we should have the appointed day for the purpose of these subsidy payments at a date before the end of June this year, but our expectations have been disappointed in that regard, and now the appointed day is to be 1st August. It is our hope that the subsidy will be available for producers of fat cattle at the earliest moment after the Measure receives the Royal Assent, and the purpose of the Amendment is merely to postpone the date.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 50, line 37, agreed to.