HC Deb 06 April 1932 vol 264 cc224-30
Sir J. GILMOUR

I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out the words "to registered growers."

All the Amendments in my name to this Clause, with the exception of two, are drafting Amendments and for the purpose of making it clear that the right to deficiency payment on proof of the sale of wheat by registered growers may be claimed by a trustee or other person entitled to act on behalf of a registered grower and not necessarily by the registered grower himself. The Amendment is to meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps).

Mr. ATTLEE

I do not understand the need for this Amendment. I understood that in the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman accepted, which dealt with the case where the ownership of the wheat had passed to a trustee or committee or something of that kind, those persons were to be deemed to be registered growers, but as the Clause will now stand, with the Minister's Amendment incorporated, it will read rather curiously. It will enable payments to be made, but it will not say to whom. In the same way in the next Clause claims for deficiency payments may be made, but it will not say by whom they are to be made. I should have thought that these Amendments rather worsened the Clause from a drafting point of view.

Sir J. GILMOUR

It will be found that this and subsequent Amendments are connected with a new paragraph (g) which it is proposed to insert in Clause 4, line 28, as follows: (g) for securing that in the event of any wheat sown on land in the occupation of a registered grower becoming, before the sale of the wheat, vested in or under the control of any personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person, by reason of the registered grower having died or become subject to any legal disability or having entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as a registered grower in respect of that wheat, notwithstanding that he is not registered in accordance with the by-laws. That new paragraph links up with this Amendment and will finally make the Clause read correctly. We have gone into the matter very carefully, and I believe that we are correct in moving the Amendment in this form.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having dealt with the case of the farmer who, as I said, was driven into a lunatic asylum by attempting to operate this Bill, but I do not think that the words "to registered growers," which he proposes to leave out, should be left out. It is very undesirable to have the power to enable payments in advance to he made to nobody in particular. As the Clause was originally worded the draftsman thought it was necessary for the payee to appear. All that the right hon. Gentleman wants to say now is that that payee is to be either a registered grower or committee. He says that in the new paragraph (g) which he is to propose to insert in the Clause. This Amendment is rather a clumsy alteration which leaves out entirely the name of the payee. As it stands the payment might be made to the right hon. Gentleman or to anyone else.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, and I will undertake to look into the matter before the Bill reaches another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 40, leave out the word "them," and insert instead thereof the words "registered growers."

In page 9, line 3, leave out the words "by registered growers," and insert instead thereof the words: in respect of wheat sold by any registered grower.

In line 10, leave out the word "claimant's," and insert instead thereof the words "registered grower's."

In line 12, leave out the word "claimant," and insert instead thereof the words "registered grower."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR

I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after the word "whom," to insert the words" or to whose order."

As I understand it, it may happen that a farmer may not know to whom his wheat is despatched. It may go to the order of a merchant, who may subsequently cause it to be despatched to a person who is unknown to the farmer. The Amendment makes provision for such cases, and requires from a grower only such particulars m are within his knowledge. There is a. consequential Amendment to be moved later to line 24.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or," and to insert instead thereof the word "and."

I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at here. As we see it, the words ought to be "and to whose order." The name and address of the purchaser are stipulated, and it is the purchaser to whose order the goods are despatched. The Minister has either to put in the same person twice As an option or else he intends to get the names of both people, the person to whose order it is despatched and the person to whom it is despatched. If he intends to get the names of both and inserts the words "and to whose order," he will get what he wants. He cannot get three people out of the farmer.

Sir J. GILMOUR

What one is concerned about, of course, is to get from the farmer the information of which he is cognisant. The farmer does not know who is the purchaser when he sells to a merchant on commission. That is the reason for this wording, and I think the wording covers what we require. But I will look again carefully into the matter. My advisers tell me that this really covers what the Wheat Commission and those who are working it will require.

Sir S. CRIPPS

With great submission, that is not really an explanation, because the Clause already states the name and address of the purchaser or his agents. The farmer must know either the principal or the agent; he cannot conceivably be in ignorance of both. The Minister does not add anyone else by inserting the words "or to whose order."

Sir J. GILMOUR

As I am advised, to require the name of the actual consignee to be disclosed in every case would involve a disturbance of existing commercial practice, and that would be unacceptable to the trade. For that reason I have moved the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I beg to move, in page 9, line 19, to leave out the words "to registered growers."

Mr. ATTLEE

I do not know whether the Minister has read this Clause through very carefully with the Amendment included. The Clause is the only one that tells us about the machinery of the Bill, as to who are to receive these payments and so forth. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is really taking out the whole of the operative effect of the Clause.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I will undertake to look into the matter further before the Bill reaches another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In. page 9, line 22, leave out the words "to a registered grower."

In line 23, leave out the words "by him."

In line 24, after the word "to," insert the words "or to the order of."

In line 25, at the end, insert the words: after sale by the registered grower.

In line 28, leave out the words "required to be thereby certified," and insert instead thereof the words: entitling claimants to the issue of such certificates."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR

I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, at the end, to insert the words: (g) for securing that in the event of any wheat sown on land in the occupation of a registered grower becoming, before the sale of the wheat, vested in or under the control of any personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person, by reason of the registered grower having died or become subject to any legal disability or having entered into a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the personal representative, committee, trustee, or other person may be treated as a registered grower in respect of that wheat, notwithstanding that he is not registered in accordance with the by-laws. 8.0 p.m.

In the Committee stage the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) moved an Amendment to Clause 12, Sub-section (1), which covered the particular circumstances referred to in this Amendment, and I gave a promise then that before the Report stage I would endeavour to find a form of words which would cover all those points comprehensively. This Amendment is the result.

Mr. ATTLEE

I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for inserting these words which, I think, meet the point made by my hon. and learned Friend and which do in fact fill up a gap in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 20 to 25.

These words which I propose to leave out are as follow: Provided that, such by-laws may provide for receipts in respect of quota payments being issued, subject to the prescribed conditions, in advance of actual payment of the amounts due, but shall provide for the form of receipt showing in such cases that the receipt is so issued. We believe that this paragraph is quite unnecessary, and we object to payments in advance being made in this way because it is conducive to all kinds of doubtful transactions between people who will have no direct interest in the marketing of the wheat. It is conducive to speculation and to the buying of wheat by people who would not in the ordinary way be bona, fide dealers in it. If the paragraph is left out, it will not be possible for the quota payments to be made to these people, and the following paragraph lays down the conditions under which the quota payments may be made by the Wheat Commission and provides all the necessary machinery.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I dealt with this point in a letter which I sent to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I understood that there was some apprehension that there might be gambling in some form or other in connection with this matter, and I do not think I can do better than quote part of the letter which I wrote to the hon. and learned Member on the subject: I am advised that your apprehension of this kind of speculation seems to be based on a mistaken view that the receipts which are required, in order that an importer may obtain delivery of any parcel of flour from Customs charge, constitute a discharge of his liability to make to the Wheat Commission the quota payments falling due in respect of that parcel. This is not so. Nothing which may be done under Clause 5 (1) will affect the liability of an importer under Clause 3 to pay to the Wheat Commission the quota payments due upon any parcel of flour entered by him for home consumption or home use, calculated by reference to the rate of quota payments in force at the time of entry. Under Clause 5 (1) the Customs authorities will not release any parcel of flour for home consumption or home use except upon production and surrender of a receipt issued to the importer for an amount at least sufficient to cover the quota payments due upon the flour at the time of entry. This receipt may be obtained from the Wheat Commission, either against cash or, under the proviso to Clause 4 (2), in advance of payment. The Customs authorities will notify the Wheat Commission of the quantity of flour which is in fact entered for home consumption or home use, and it is upon this quan- tity that the liability of the importer to make quota payments, due as at the time of entry, under Clause 3, will be assessed; and the importer will be liable to pay the amount so due from him subject to this proviso, that any sum paid by him for the receipt by means of which he obtained delivery of the flour from the Customs, will be taken into account in ascertaining the net amount of his liability to the Wheat Commission. All that may sound very complicated, but it was only after the most careful research that I wrote this letter, and in short it may be said that these receipts are no more than the means by which their owners can obtain the release of flour from the Customs. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

I think the Minister has satisfied us that some form of payment in advance is necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.