NEW CLAUSE 12.—(Composition of Marketing Boards.) (Hansard, 18 July 1933)

§ Major ELLIOT
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The compromise between the two Houses is that after the first year the person appointed to the board shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
Having voted against the Government on Thursday of last week because of the refusal on the part of the Minister to recognise that at least one individual representing the consumers should be on the board, we see no reason to waste the time of the House this afternoon by a further Division. I ought also to have said that we asked for a representative of the workers in the industry. We do feel that we ought to leave 1697 on record that we are not too certain that men with financial ability are the right persons to be co-opted or nominated to these hoards. We have had some experience of financial experts. The world is almost shattered beyond repair as the result of the action of financial experts, and we would very much prefer to see some other definition embodied in this Clause than that every person co-opted is specially qualified "by reason of his commercial or financial ability."We agree, of course, that a board ought to have one, two or more persons with the requisite commercial knowledge to guide these boards through the very difficult channels that lie ahead, but in view of the possibility of a financial expert utilising his power and presence there, not for the purpose of the consumer, or perhaps not for the purpose of the producer, but for the purpose of financial interests in this country, I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he comes to approve the nominated members who have been approved by the Market Supply Committee, will bear in mind that good business should be good business to the consumer.

§ Sir FRANCIS ACLAND
I think that the House is to be congratulated on the compromise now before us, and which we are asked to adopt. The procedure has been a little difficult to follow, because there have been no fewer than four stages, of which this is the fourth, but I think it is essentially a good compromise, an need not ask too much whether the view originally taken by the Minister and this House and that taken in another place should actually prevail. It could be argued both ways. I think the method of co-option which is now introduced will, in effect, be all that really was desired in another place, because one feels that persons originally nominated by the Minister will be of very great value to the deliberations of the board, and they are almost certain to be co-opted by the board after the preliminary period. Therefore, the view taken in another place that there should be persons of that kind on the board will actually be adopted not so much by statutory compulsion as by the good sense of the board concerned, who will see that their operations are very much facilitated, as I am sure they will be, by having as their members, in the 1698 early stages particularly, persons with the ability and experience which is here contemplated. The negotiation has been a little difficult to carry out, and at first one was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, not heeding his master's voice, moved to disagree with a new Clause proposed by the Minister in this House. But one realises that that had to be the procedure taken, and I think that the arrangement come to is not only a good compromise, but will work well in practice, which is more important.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I think there ought to be placed on record one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and that is as to the extraordinary contradictory nature of that speech. One minute he complained that in the Amendment we are discussing there are not trade union representatives and people of that kind on the boards, and the next minute he complained because there are to be representatives of financial interests. I would point out to hire, that although there have been failures among financial people, from what we have to suffer from miners' representatives in this House, we know that most trade unions return very bad miners' representatives.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
The hon. Member is aware that there are more financial experts in gaol than outside.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
It does not necessarily mean that they are not better. It may be that they have had less skill and time to get away with it. I was pointing out that, on the whole, it would be wise if the Socialist party could realise that when you are setting up these new boards, you should do everything you can to get people upon them who have had wide experience in dealing with financial questions of great magnitude. A reason why we should accept the Lords Amendment is that in some of the most successful financial undertakings, such as co-operative societies, you do everything you possibly can to encourage good business men to come into them, and I fail to see why, when you have a scheme of this sort, you should not do everything in your power, as the Minister is trying to do, to encourage good business men to come into it. In that way you are more likely 1699 to make this scheme permanent. It would be a horrible thing if we had a repetition of the Corn Production Act, and in the next two years have to repeal this Measure. Therefore, I accept this Amendment, and I think it is a very excellent method of bringing about a compromise more or less all round.

§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
I want to compliment the Minister on accepting this Amendment. I do think the statement of the hon. Member for Don Valley Mr. T. Williams) needs repudiation. These men are not put on these boards to represent financial interests at all. They are men who have financial and commercial knowledge, and I do not think it is fair to make a purely propagandist statement such as that made by the hon. Member. These men are to be put on because of their special knowledge. There is no reason to believe that they will not consider the interests of producers and consumers. It is a marketing board, and they must look after the producers' interests, and it is no specific duty of theirs, or any duty implied in the Bill, that they shall look after any financial interests. We ought to welcome on any agricultural marketing board the addition of two members who have got real business ability.