HC Deb 22 February 1935 vol 298 cc696-702
Mr. ELLIOT

I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out "(including provisions for exemption)."

When the Bill was in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) moved an amendment to ensure that the Ministers should have power if they wished to make any modifications in the scheme submitted to them, of including provisions for exemption from the operation of a scheme of any counties, districts or ports, together with any conditions qualifying such exemption. It was pointed out that the sub-section of the clause, without these words "(including provisions for exemption)" included, would already enable the Ministers to amend the scheme in such a manner if they thought fit, and my hon. Friend's attention was drawn to the provisions of Clause 3, paragraph (f), which enable the board when preparing a scheme, to include such provisions for exemption.

Anyone who looks at the problem will see that it would be impossible for the board to prepare a scheme for regulating the herring industry without making provisions for exemptions, and in fact the Duncan Commission drew special attention to this in its report. I agreed that the words now proposed to be left out would be the subject of reconsideration before the Report stage. It is provided that Ministers, in considering a scheme submitted to them and any objections to it, shall specially consider the question, whether the scheme contains adequate provisions for exemptions. As I have pointed out, the working of the clause without the words now proposed to be left out would clearly enable the Ministers to give consideration to this problem. We have taken the advice of officials and of departmental officers and they confirm us in the view that we expressed in Committee.

If any amendments is to be inserted—and I realise the anxiety of my hon. Friend that the point of exemption should be specifically brought to the notice of those responsible—I suggest that the House should adopt the wording which stands on the paper in my name. That will enable the House itself to draw the attention of Ministers, when the provisions are being considered, to the wording of the Act and to point out the special responsibility which is laid upon Ministers in this respect. It will enable them, under the terms of the statute, to draw ministerial attention to the provisions for exemption in a way which I think would be even stronger than is indicated in the actual words on the paper.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

When I moved an amendment on this subject in Committee I fully realised that the matter was already covered in the Bill. My motive was that explained in the concluding portion of his speech by my right hon. Friend. I wished to draw attention of the Ministers concerned to the possibility—indeed very likely the necessity—of exempting certain areas from any schemes which the board might submit. I was not very well satisfied with the amendment which was suggested in Committee by the Government but I think this proposal shows a considerable improvement and I beg to thank my right hon Friend for having moved this amendment which I, personally, find satisfactory.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

I wish to support what has been said by the hon. member who shares with me the honour of representing some part of the county of Cornwall. He knows as well as I do the apprehensions which have been felt in that part of the country as to the interference which might arise in connection with this Measure. We are anxious that a Bill which offers us no advantages, as far as we can see, should not bring in its train any ultimate disadvantages to us, as we have troubles enough already in that part of the world. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has met those apprehensions by the introduction of this amendment calls for our gratitude.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I would also like to say that some of those for whom I speak may have certain matters which will call for consideration in this connection, and I am very gratified that this proposal has been accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 17, at the end, insert: In considering the scheme and any objections the Ministers shall specially consider whether the scheme makes adequate provision for exemptions in proper cases."—[Mr.Elliot.]

11.29 a.m.

Dr. ADDISON

I beg to move in page 4 line 28, after "approved," to insert "either with or without modification."

I recognise that this Amendment raises a point of considerable importance. I move it partly because of the Amendment just accepted by the House and partly because of the exceptional character of the schemes which may arise under the Bill. I wish to thank the Minister for having met the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) with regard to exemptions and having put in words which will make sure that the exemptions, whatever they are, will be set out in detail in the scheme. Under this Bill we may be confronted with a, scheme, prepared by a board in connection with which there is no element of election by the members of the industry. There will be this difference from other schemes of the same kind—that all the board will have been required to do will have been to carry out what has been described as a strange, new experiment in democracy, in that they will have to obtain the prevailing opinion of the industry. In whatever way they may see fit to do so and however they may be satisfied, the fact remains that you may get a scheme in connection with which there has been no element of election at all but only an ascertainment of the prevailing opinion of the industry. There is a substantial difference in that respect from the other marketing scheme and although I recognise that the Minister himself will have ample opportunity beforehand of making alterations in a scheme and that his alterations will no doubt be in accord with such representations as may be made to him, still, as the matter stands at present Parliament itself is shut out from making any alterations in a scheme. In order to elicit from the Minister his opinion on that point I move the Amendment. It may involve an alteration in the Standing Orders, and that being so, I would not wish to press it at this stage but I should want an assurance that the House will be fully informed of the reasons why the Minister has or has not made any alterations which may be suggested in a scheme submitted by him to Parliament.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance on the point as to whether this amendment would or would not involve an amendment of the Standing Orders. I am afraid it would. In fact I am afraid it would involve an amendment of the British Constitution and that is a rather formidable undertaking, especially if we wish as I think we all do wish, that the Bill should come into operation as early as possible. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and indeed the House, to consider the deadlock which might arise in this case if either House made an amendment to which it could not get the other House to consent. There is an elaborate constitutional procedure for regulating such disputes in the case of amendments to a Bill, but there is no procedure whatever for regulating such disputes in the case of a resolution of both Houses. Consequently, while I agree that it is desirable that the will of Parliament should be expressed upon these matters and that Members should feel that their expressions of opinion are not merely beating the air but are definitely going to have an influence upon the schemes finally submitted, I am sure that the responsibility of accepting or rejecting a scheme as a whole is the point upon which we must take our stand. I would specially ask the House to accept that principle for this Measure and the scheme under it because, in this case, speed is of the essence of the contract and I should feel very uneasy if it went forward that amendments might be made by either House, that discussions might have to take place between the two Houses, that schemes might have to be withdrawn, altered, cut about, sent to the Board and then re-submitted. We should run the risk of a delay of weeks, if not months, which might easily stultify the real intention of Parliament with regard to this industry and this measure. We desire that the steps which we are about to take should be carried through in time to come into effective operation for this season's fishing. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

11.34 a.m.

Mr. TINKER

I wish to say something as to procedure bearing on this amendment. There is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a big constitutional issue involved. At the same time this is a matter to which Parliament ought to pay, some attention in view of the recent trouble which we had in connection with another Bill and certain regulations. We were not allowed to make amendments in that case. We were told that we had to accept what was submitted to us, with the result which all hon. Members know. The matter was taken out of the hands of Parliament and we had serious trouble afterwards. I do not like to be told that a Bill is necessary and that if we attempt to modify or alter it we shall be holding up something which is urgently wanted. That is asking Members to forgo an important right on the ground that something is being given to the people. I think this Bill is welcomed by everyone, and that is why I object that, when a Bill is a good Bill and we bring forward some amendment which would improve it, if we insist on it, the Government say the Bill will be held up and possibly destroyed. Then afterwards we may be told, "Oh, you agreed to that". I trust that these matters will be looked into more closely before we get to this stage, of a Bill being on the point of acceptance, and then it being found necessary to tell the House that if a particular amendment is insisted upon, it may hold up the whole thing.

11.36 a.m.

Dr. ADDISON

I anticipated that the Minister would make the reply he did make, but I moved the Amendment to draw attention to the exceptional character of the proceedings before the submission of this scheme. I take it that the Minister's assurance at the beginning really means that he will submit to Parliament, in some appropriate form, a full and complete statement of the case, including what alterations he has made and the grounds for them. It is very necessary that it should be set out in some special form.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

If I may speak again by leave of the House, I would say that I recognise the principle put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, that in the special circumstances of this scheme, which preclude public inquiry and also the possibility of many of the amendments which might follow as a result of such inquiry, a special responsibility rests on the Minister to inform the House if a departure has been made from the board's scheme, and the reasons, if any, for such departure. I do not wish to enter into detail on this point or to give pledges, but I fully realise the exceptional character of this scheme, and the responsibility which rests upon the Minister in connection with it. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to interpret that in the spirit in which it has been given. As for the point put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on the desirability of not abandoning principles on account of an emergency, I fully agree with that, but I say that the responsibility is the Minister's for submitting the scheme, for accepting the scheme; and the general principle has been accepted in many Acts passed by Governments of other political complexions than that of this Government.

Mr. TINKER

That is the point I am trying to argue.

Mr. ELLIOT

It is not to be decided on grounds of emergency or precedent. I say that it is desirable that this principle should be considered and should be worked out in practice. I fully agree that modification may be necessary, but I assure the hon. Member that I am not commending it to the House on grounds simply of emergency or precedent, but because I think this is the best procedure to use in the circumstances of the case. With that assurance, I am sure he will accept my further assurance that this principle, which, as I have said frankly, raises an important constitutional question, should be kept under review and modified, if the time comes to modify it, in the light of our practical experience.

Amendment negatived.