HC Deb 06 July 1931 vol 254 cc1867-74
Dr. ADDISON

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words, "to which this Act applies."

This Amendment is one of a group which will enable the House to dispense with the Fourth Schedule of the Bill. It will be remembered that in the Second Reading discussion a good many questions were asked as to whether there would be a definition of "agricultural product" in the Bill; and in the discussions upstairs, as we approached the Fourth Schedule, it became evident to every Member of the Committee that it would be much more satisfactory if we could have a general definition of "agricultural product" without trying to specify a particular product. At the same time, it was clearly felt that in defining "agricultural product," you must have something which is bona fide to be regarded as an agricultural product and not something which may be far removed from it although made from the same material. We may speak of animals' hoofs in the long run as agricultural products, but it is not desired in this Bill that articles of that kind should be brought into the definition. In order to secure that a definition should be incorporated in the Bill of a general kind, it is necessary to omit these particular words "to which this Act applies," and to insert a definition of "agricultural product" later on. The general definition which I am asking the House to accept—and perhaps it will be more convenient if I say what I have to say on this group of Amendments, so as to avoid repetition—is one which appears later on the Paper, and is the same as that which is incorporated in the Bill now in another place, and it will enable the national mark, for example, to be extended to I am. My Amendment would provide that an agricultural product would include: any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals.

Hon. Members in the Committee stage brought up curious and difficult questions which arose out of the Fourth Schedule, and this definition is an improvement in the Bill which was generally asked for. It is a general definition of "agricultural product" so far as we can devise one.

Viscount WOLMER

I think the Minister has taken the right course in moving this Amendment. I feel I am echoing the feelings of all Members of Standing Committee B in saying that the further we went with the Bill the less satisfied we became with the Fourth Schedule, which gave a list of articles to which the Minister thought the Bill might be applicable. When we came to the point of having to leave out the word "poultry" in order to insert "domestic fowls" we reached the summit of absurdity. The Minister was asked a number of questions which he was unable to answer as to whether turkeys were domestic fowls, and the like, and we all came to the conclusion that the Schedule was unsatisfactory. Therefore I was glad when I saw that the Minister had adopted the suggestion originally proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) that the Fourth Schedule should be left out altogether and that he should proceed to tackle the question in the way he is doing. Under this Amendment all agricultural products will be treated on an equality. If there is any demand for an agricultural product to be put under the Marketing Board the case will first have to be made to the Minister and then to Parliament, and each case will have to be treated on its merits.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON

This Amendment is really going against what the Minister did in Committee. Many of the items recorded in the Fourth Schedule require a much more precise definition than is possible under it. Take cattle, for instance. It may be desired to deal with fat cattle but not with store cattle. The same consideration applies to the various types of cereals. We ought to know from the Minister whether it is his intention to remove the Fourth Schedule altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what the Amendment does."] Then I think the Amendment is very desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee)

I beg to move in page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "two months" and to insert instead thereof the words "six weeks."

In the Bill as originally drafted the period was one month but in Committee it was decided to extend it to two months. Since that Amendment was made a great deal of change has taken place in the framework of the Bill, especially as regards Clause I, and the effect of what has been done has been to ensure that a period somewhere below six months and a year must elapse between the date of the submision of a scheme and its coming into force. There are two points to be considered in settling a period like this. In the first place it must be long enough for notice of objection to be given, but on the other hand we do not wish for delay to occur-In the circumstances and considering the very large number of safeguards which have been accepted, we desire to make the period six weeks instead of two months.

Viscount WOLMER

This Amendment goes back upon a concession which was made during the Committee stage, but, after carefully studying the Amendment, I am bound to say with absolute candour that I think that the Minister has good cause for asking us to accept it. This Amendment was originally proposed during the Committee stage before the poll was inserted in the Bill and at the point we were pressing the Minister to delay the various stages of the Bill in order to make sure that no scheme would get through without all the members concerned being made aware of it. The Minister then made the period two months, but subsequently he accepted the poll, which enabled a vote to be taken and which only becomes operative if two-thirds of the producers are in favour of it. The Amendment now ensures that every single producer will have the scheme brought to his attention.

I do not, however, think that it is playing the game to press the Minister for a concession and when he has given it to say "thank you for nothing." I recognise the importance of these two concessions, and I think that we should be meeting the Minister fairly if we do not divide against this Amendment. I think the period is still a very long one. Even if this Bill passes before August it will be impossible for any scheme to operate before next February and therefore there is no danger of anything being rushed through without the farmers and all concerned being made aware of it. Personally I do not believe, that there will be a large number of schemes under this Bill. The point is, whether the Minister is entitled to ask for a shorter period, and I think that this is a fair request.

Colonel ASHLEY

I am sorry to say-that I do not find myself in agreement with my Noble Friend. It is not a question of concessions or changes in the Bill that we have to consider, but really the question whether two months or six weeks is the proper time to give to the farming community in which to make objections. I do not see that the fact that a poll has been promised, or that a new Clause has been accepted, should make us change our minds as to whether the period should be two months or six weeks, and, with all deference to the Minister for his kindly consideration and courtesy, I do not think that, because he meets us in one thing, it necessarily follows that we must accept his Amendments in other respects. I agree that it is not a matter of very great importance whether the period is two months or six weeks; we have to consider what is most likely to suit the needs of the rural community. If this were an urban question, I should be prepared to agree that a month would be sufficient; but in the country districts farmers are rather leisurely in their methods, and do not, perhaps, read even the local newspapers as much as people do in the towns; and, therefore, I am inclined to think that it would be better if the original period of two months remained. Although, however, to my regret, I differ from my Noble Friend, I am bound to say that I should not go to the extent of voting against him.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "if," and to insert instead thereof the word "unless."

This Amendment and the next—in page 2, line 39, to leave out the words "desire to withdraw the scheme," and to insert instead thereof the words "assent to his modifications "—really form one Amendment. They make no real difference with regard to the right of persons to make objections, but the Sub-section provides that persons who object to the modifications made by the Minister may make their objections within four weeks, and that means that, even though the persons to whom the modifications have been submitted notified the Minister within one week that they agree, the Minister would be still held up for another three weeks. These Amendments provide that, where persons to whom modifications are submitted notify the Minister that they desire to withdraw the scheme, the Minister cannot proceed, but that if, on the other hand, they notify him that they are willing to proceed with the scheme, the Minister can proceed straight away. The only change is that, while the objections can be raised just as effectively, the purely arbitrary period during which the Minister has to wait without doing anything will be done away with.

Mr. BLINDELL

I do not rise to oppose these Amendments—I think they are quite good—but to call attention to a weakness in the whole scheme. Under this Sub-section, after objections have been made to a scheme and the Minister has considered them and made such modifications as he may desire, there is still only one course open to the people who have presented the scheme, to object to it as a whole, and it becomes nonexistent. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could find some means to allow the promoters to make counter representations so that the entire scheme need not be lost.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 39, leave out the words "desire to withdraw the scheme "and insert instead thereof the words "assent to the modifications."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the end, to insert the words: () As soon as possible after making an order approving a scheme the Minister shall cause the order to be published in the Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best for informing persons affected. As originally introduced, the Bill laid it down that it would be an offence for any unregistered producer to sell a regulated product, which in effect was a compulsion to register. The Committee took the view—and the Government agreed with the Committee—that no question of compulsion should be brought into operation unless two-thirds of the producers affected by any particular scheme were in favour of it. Accordingly at this stage, where the Minister or a prima facie demand for a scheme, has approved the preliminaries, there is no power to draw up a complete register and the only way that an adequate register can be drawn up before a poll can be taken is by full publicity. Therefore it becomes essential to the working of the Bill as now planned, with the new Clause 3 in it providing for a poll, to have some such words as these making certain that the Minister shall have the responsibility put upon him of securing the necessary publicity before a poll is taken, so as to ensure that a substantial body of the producers likely to be affected are registered. One of the main difficulties that the Bill is likely to have in the country, if it reaches the Statute Book, is the suspicion, not so much of the farmers and producers as of the other interests affected, the auctioneers and the people engaged in the distribution of agricultural products.

For that reason it is all the more important that there should be full publicity, not merely for the producers, but for those interests, as to what the scheme does and does not propose. There are still a great many local authorities that are apprehensive that these schemes are going to include all sorts of proposals for pulling down markets and erecting entirely new ones elsewhere. I do not suppose that that will happen under a scheme, but it is important for people who have those ideas that a scheme should have effective publicity. I know that there is this mysterious document, the "Gazette," but it is not everybody who sees the "Gazette." Therefore, I hope that, if the Minister accepts the Amendment, drafted as it is in technical and general terms, he will make it clear to the House and to the country that, when a scheme is approved, he will pay particular attention to the second part of my Amendment, and will by means of publication in the local newspapers and the like give effective publicity to a scheme before the next step is taken and the register is drawn up and the poll is taken as to whether it shall come into effective operation or not.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to second the Amendment. I commend it to the Minister. This is another example of how the Bill would be very much improved were the Minister to accept our Amendments, and I sincerely hope he will accept the present Amendment. It substitutes for penalties and compulsion the benign power of publicity. Any registered producer, if he sells the registered product, will not be subject to the penalties which would have been the case under the original Bill. In farming, very often a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and in this case I sincerely hope, if the Minister accepts the Amendment, that the knowledge which will be available will be of assistance, not only to the producers, but to the Minister himself.

Dr. ADDISON

I shall be glad to accept the Amendment in pursuance of the undertaking I gave that the widest publicity should be given. The more one knows about the matter the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I am glad that the Minister has seen his way to accept the Amendment, though I am very much astonished that he should do so. I am not astonished at him being reasonable, but I am astonished that the Government should depart from the methods of secret diplomacy which have percolated through to every comer of their minds hitherto. I am glad the Amendment is being accepted by the Government, although I notice signs of disagreement on the benches opposite. I must try and comfort hon. Members opposite. The Orders will cover a great deal of ground, but I hope they will be made as short and simple as possible. Unless there is the fullest possible publicity, the average person affected by the Orders—and a great many more people will be affected than is generally believed—will be at a great disadvantage. The Orders will affect not only the selling, but the buying of various articles, and it would be horrible to think that owing to a lack of publicity people might conceivably be prosecuted because accidentally they had bought an article which they had no right to buy in a particular way. In the agricultural community there is a dislike of the Bill. I have hoped throughout its stages that the Bill would become law, but I have always felt that, if it is to be successful, it must have the fullest confidence of the public, especially of the producers in the industry affected. To achieve that end there must be full publication. Take as an example new potatoes. We are dealing only with potatoes produced in this country; outside potatoes are not affected. How far does the Minister propose to publish the Order? Suppose there is an area in Cornwall growing the produce. It is no good publishing the Order in Cornwall and leaving out other parts of England. The west country papers will not be read in, say, the Isle of Wight or any of the southern counties. It is necessary to have wide publication.

Mr. DALLAS

They will get wide publication by substituting the "Daily Herald" for the "Gazette."

Mr. WILLIAMS

Publishing in the "Daily Herald" would not meet my argument. It might be all right for betting news but for business or political purposes people of common intelligence do not read it. If a product is to be regulated it is necessary that there should be the widest circulation. There might be a system for the buying and selling of mutton. In such a case, unless you were to have the Order broken by a largo number of people, it would be necessary to have the information circulated in areas outside the prescribed area, otherwise the Order might be broken in one way or another. The Minister has considerably improved the Bill by accepting the Amendment, and has done something towards ensuring for it a useful future.

Amendment agreed to.