MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

HC Deb 13 July 1937 vol 326 cc1033-6

14. Mr. Macquisten

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a writ of summons was issued by four milk producers and was served on the Scottish Milk Marketing Board on 15th June, and that the said summons craves for the production of the minutes or other documents of the board by which they authorise themselves to make the levies now found to be illegal by the decision of the House of Lords, and for repayment of the moneys which were demanded and received in terms of such minutes; and when was he made aware of the service on the board of such summons?

Mr. Elliot

Yes, Sir, I was informed on 30th June that such a summons had been served on the board.

Mr. Macquisten

Why did not the Secretary of State tell the House of the action when he introduced the new Milk Marketing Scheme, which provides for a levy upon these very people to provide the money to recompense themselves? It might have had an important effect on the voting. Does he consider that it was right not to disclose such a very important fact to the House?

Mr. Elliot

I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend, who is learned in the law, should suggest that I should make any comment on a matter which is sub judice.

Mr. Macquisten

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it was his duty to tell the House that the action was served, and not introduce a Measure to alter something which was sub judice?

16. Mr. Macquisten

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the terms of a letter signed by D. Sinclair Hay, p. manager and secretary of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, dated 23rd October, 1934, and addressed to P. McCluskey, Fairfield House, Dalkeith, wherein it is set forth that the Court of Session, in a special case submitted to them, decided that the board's method of assessing contributions was legal, but that if any superior court revised this decision, and held the method of assessment to be illegal, the board would refund any excess paid to all milk producers; and why has it not been implemented in terms of the Ferrier decision?

Mr. Elliot

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the letter referred to. After the House of Lords' Judgment had been issued, however, the board were advised that the terms of the judgment did not warrant the payment of compensation to those producers who had paid their contributions without reserving a right to retrospective adjustment; and the board were thereby precluded from making such payments except in those circumstances. Undertakings given to individuals whose rights were reserved, have been or will be implemented.

Mr. Macquisten

Then I may take it that the Secretary of State has consulted his legal advisers, and they have told him to be dishonest in this matter and not refund the money? Is he not satisfied that, when he loses the action for reduction of the board's minutes referred to in Question No. 14, it will then become a question of fact, and not of law, and all the funds must then be refunded? Is that why he brought in his new scheme to stop it?

Mr. Elliot

As I specifically announced in the House, the Amendments had nothing to do with any legal rights enjoyed by any individual. All these were specifically reserved, and I informed the House to that effect.

Mr. Macquisten

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment. These answers are too unsatisfactory.

17. Mr. T. Johnston

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received any report of the inquiry, held some months ago at the instance of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland by Mr. Mackintosh, K.C., into proposed amendments to the milk marketing scheme; whether it is intended to publish this report and, if so, when; and whether milk producers who lodged objections to any of the proposed amendments will receive notification of the Commissioner's decisions?

Mr. Elliot

I received Mr. Mackintosh's report on 22nd February last. The report is confidential, and, following the usual practice, it is not intended to publish it.

Mr. Johnston

Since objections were invited, were not the objectors informed of the result of the hearing by Mr. Mackintosh of their objections?

Mr. Elliot

The objectors were informed of the decision of the Minister in the statement of the Minister to this House. There can be no division of responsibility.

Mr. Johnston

May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? He invites objectors to state their objections, and their objections are heard by his officer. Surely it would at least be courteous to inform the objectors of the result of the hearing?

Mr. Elliot

The right hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with the Agricultural Marketing Act, and he will remember that the Amendments are the responsibility of the Minister in this House.

Mr. Macquisten

Why do we not get the report? Does the report justify the amendments?