HC Deb 08 July 1937 vol 326 cc641-4

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth

I should like to ask the Minister why this particular Clause is necessary. In Clause 3 there are powers given to prescribe the conditions as to the furnishing of information and the production of accounts, books and other documents. I should have thought that it would have been sufficient to ascertain the price according to the information furnished, without taking any further powers as are asked for in this Clause. What I am really worried about is that, if you fix a maximum price, that price invariably becomes the minimum price to be charged. I should have thought that it might have been wise to have left that question, without the provision of a particular clause, in order that prices might be allowed to come down and lime or basic slag be supplied at a cheaper price. I should like to hear the explanation of the Minister as to why this Clause is inserted.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it has not been found possible to include in this Clause a provision that, should an approved supplier be found to charge an excessive price, he should be struck off the list of approved suppliers. I raise that point for this reason. Everybody knows that a large majority of the class of persons who will be buying these fertilisers will not be familiar with figures and books and that kind of thing, and indeed, will have little time to bother with them. The average farmer will only be able to ascertain whether or not he has been overcharged by comparing notes with his neighbours. The Minister is well acquainted with the mentality of the average farmer, and knows that there is nothing that he detests more than studying a large number of papers. I think that farmers are only less reluctant than medical men to deal with papers and documents, and they have the further disadvantage that perhaps they have not had the grounding in this sort of thing as have medical men. Therefore, I would like to see some stronger provision to protect farmers against overcharging by the suppliers of these commodities, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to put in some additional safeguard.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I would say, in reply too the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), that, if prices come down below the approved prices, this Clause will be of no effect. The Clause only comes into play if a man charges more than is approved by the scheme. The reason why the power is taken in addition is that in certain cases where a man charges more than he promised to charge, the person who suffers is the occupier of the land who has paid the money. Though the offender may be struck off the list, he does not pay the money back to the man who has been deprived of it. It is like the position after Derby Day when they fine bookmakers who have defaulted; the strong arm of Justice is a sorry consolation for those who have lost their money.

Mr. Thurtle

You do not know about these things.

Mr. Morrison

I have heard about them. I would draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) to Clause 3, Subsection (i) (b) where power is taken in the scheme to: prescribe the conditions subject to which persons may become or cease to be approved suppliers. That gives power to effect the further disciplinary action that he has in mind. If a man has been guilty of something of which you disapprove, he may be struck off the list of approved suppliers. The two are complementary, one with the other.

Mr. Garro Jones

May it be taken that the Minister recognises that that is a suitable course for striking a supplier off the list, and will he make provision for such Regulation to be made under Clause 3, Sub-section (1, b)?

Mr. Morrison

Every case will have to be looked at on its merits, but in general, if there is persistent overcharging, it will disqualify the man from being on the list.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I want to follow up the analogy which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of people who are dealt with after Derby Day. I have to sit at Epsom on the Thursday after Derby Day to deal with them, and I would point out the great advantage of pursuing what is advocated here. One frequently finds that there are no prosecutors because the apprehension of the offender has caused his friends to go round and pay to the backers all the money that had been taken from them wrongfully, and ask them what grouse they have got. I suggest that if he took these people and dealt with them quite severely he might find that in order to escape some of the severity they might be willing to hand back some of their ill-gotten gains.