CLAUSE 21.—(Entry and inspection of market premises.) (Hansard, 3 May 1937)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn)
I beg to move, in page 18, line 30, at the end, to insert: (2) Any local authority other than a county council shall have power to enforce, within their area, the provisions of this Part of this Act and the provisions of any livestock markets order or livestock markets bylaws for the time being in force; and, in relation to any local authority having powers of enforcement under this sub-section, the preceding sub-section shall have effect as if any references therein to the Commission or to Great Britain were a reference to that local authority or their area, as the case may be. The purpose of this Amendment is to give local authorities power to enforce in their own areas, under Part IV of the Bill, any livestock markets orders under Clause 15 and any livestock markets by-laws under Clause 17. The Amendment is really little more than a machinery Amendment. If it were not inserted it would be necessary for the Commission to employ a large number of permanent inspectors to see that these orders or bylaws are properly carried out, and the duties of such inspectors would overlap the duties of the inspectors of the local authorities. It seems a pity that the Cattle Fund should be charged with expenditure of this kind for work which can easily be carried out, without any additional financial burden, by persons already dealing with similar matters at the present time. The local authorities, of course, have power to prosecute as common informers in the ordinary way, but if they took that course they might be surcharged the cost unless they had 814 this statutory authority which we propose to give them. There is only one apprehension which has, I believe, been expressed in regard to this matter, and in case any hon. Members still entertain it I should like to assure them positively that this Amendment does not confer any power on inspectors to look at the account books of auctioneers. I assure the Committee that the powers for that purpose in Sub-section (8) of Clause 16 are possessed by the Commission alone; this Amendment does not give power to any representative of a local authority to carry out any function of that kind.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I am wondering whether this is a back-door method of restoring to local authorities the power to make a contribution to the reorganisation proposals.

Mr. Wedderburn
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Williams
That may be so, but I remember that when the Bill passed Second Reading it gave power to a local authority to make a contribution towards a slaughtering scheme, and that power was removed in Committee. This new Sub-section enables the local authority to do the police work for any marketing scheme which may be established. It will not be a very costly matter to local authorities, but it will impose further burdens, no matter how slight, upon ratepayers which they ought not to be called upon to bear. I am not sure that I can conscientiously oppose this new Subsection, because should there be any real marketing organisations set up I want to see them as effective as possible. I want to see the law carried out, and I think that the people on the spot, who know the district and the local psychology, are, perhaps, the best ones to carry out the by-laws. In any case this new Subsection does appear to be in the nature of a side-wind by which the local authorities, that is to say the ratepayers, can make a financial contribution, directly or indirectly, to this organisation.

Mr. Wedderburn
I think there is a difference between subscribing money and using the staff which the authorities already have for the purpose of undertaking this work. This Amendment, so far from imposing a new charge on the local authorities, might relieve them of a 815 charge, because they would have the right at present, if they think the by-laws are not being observed, to prosecute offenders, and the grant of statutory authority to them would relieve them of the possibility of being surcharged in respect of their expenses.

§ Captain Heilgers
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that the people on the spot would be the best people to do the work, and with that I agree, but I regret the omission of the county councils. A county council's, after all, a county parliament, it is the most influential body in the county, and in most cases—I may quote cinemas and rural housing—it has power to delegate its authority to urban district councils or rural district councils. Markets are often held in towns, and therefore the urban authorities may be the best people to deal with the matter, but there are cases in which markets are held in rural districts, and I do not regard rural district councils as authorities equally competent with the county councils to deal with markets. Apparently, the situation is to be different in Scotland, as under a later Amendment the Secretary of State for Scotland is proposing that precisely the opposite course shall be followed there. Therefore, I should like the Minister to explain why the Government have omitted the county council as the authority in this case, because most county councils have a very good agricultural staff and have the best knowledge of local conditions.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte
This little Amendment appears so much to bring about a delegation of powers as to set up two parallel authorities, the Commission and the local authority, both doing the same work. What I fear is that instead of saving the Commission work we shall have two lots of officials doing the same duties, with extra expense to the local authorities. I should like to be assured that the Commission will allow the local authorities to do the work.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
I should like to make a reference to the point which has just been brought up by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). I think 816 that the Clause, if it is amended in the way proposed, will be a curious Clause. Under the Clause as it stands the Commission have the power of inspection but no power of enforcement. Under the new Sub-section the local authority are to have the power of enforcement, and are also given the powers of the Commission, which are already in the Clause as it stands, in other words, the power of inspection. Therefore, the Clause will say that the Commission may inspect and, with the new Sub-section in it, that the local authority may inspect and enforce. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 48 they will find it is there laid down that: It shall be the duty of the Commission to enforce the provisions of Parts IV and V of this Act. and this Clause comes in Part IV: and any order byelaws or scheme having effect by virtue of any of the said provisions. Therefore, we are really setting up two authorities to do the same job, and I regard that as a bad thing. I think that whatever happens to-day with regard to this Clause and the proposed Amendment the Bill will ultimately need to be tidied up in relation to Clause 48, because nothing is more likely to lead to trouble than to have two independent authorities each with power to do the same thing. Such a state of affairs is often the cause of profound irritation and in the end it may be that neither party will enforce the law each thinking that the other is going to do it. Therefore I hope the Minister will look into this point.

§ Mr. R. Acland
If this Amendment be carried, will the local authorities have this power in addition to the powers of the Commission, or in substitution for them? It seems to me that it would be a pity to cut out the powers of the Commission to inspect and to enforce. I think the way out would be to give the Commission power to delegate their powers, if they desire to do so, because that would enable them to employ the large staffs of inspectors and other officers who are now in the service of the local authorities.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
In reply to the speeches which have just been made, I would remind the Committee that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, the purpose of the Amendment is to enable co-operation to 817 take place between the Commission and the local authorities in the enforcement of by-laws made under the Bill. The root of the matter is to be found in Clause 48, which places the responsibility for enforcing the Bill upon the Commission. Nothing in this Amendment or in any other provision of the Bill removes that ultimate responsibility from the Commission. If matters are left as they are there might be some risk of that duplication of staff to which hon. Members behind me have drawn attention. If the Commission, charged with the duty of enforcing by-laws, were unable to use the employes of the local authorities for the purpose, they would need to create an entirely separate staff of inspectors of their own for the purpose. It is precisely that duplication of officers and inspectors which it is the object of the Amendment to prevent.
The Amendment suggests that a local authority, which is already on the spot with inspectors who will have to attend markets in any case, may appropriately use them for this purpose in the way in which they are always being used, namely, enforcing by-laws. So far from this provision making for duplication, it enables the local authority to use existing officers on the spot and thus we avoid the necessity for fresh officials. I think this was the source of apprehension of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland). I hope the matter is now clear. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) drew attention to the omission of the county councils from this list of local authorities, but they do not enforce market by-laws. The Amendment proposes no change in the existing system of inspection of markets and the enforcing of the by-laws.

§ Mr. Riley
Is the Amendment mandatory upon local authorities?

§ Mr. Morrison
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Riley
If a local authority refuses to exercise these powers, do we understand that the Commission will have to take powers?

§ Mr. Morrison
The hon. Member has stated the position exactly.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte
The two authorities will still do the same work. I 818 suggest the Commission should appoint the local authority as their agent, but as things stand at the present time there is no such appointment. In doing the work of the Commission on the spot the local authorities will only take over if they wish to do so.

§ Mr. H. G. Williams
I am afraid that I am still unhappy. It is the duty of the Commission, under Clause 48, to enforce the decision which they make, but if they decide to take no action, that does not in any way limit the powers of the local authority to take action separately. There may be cases where the Commission have decided that things should be left alone, but the local authority will decide to enforce what they think are their powers. The result is that you may have great lack of uniformity in the administration of the same law. I really do ask the Minister to consider whether, in another place, he could not consider the point which has just been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) that in the matter of the enforcement the local authority shall be the agent of the Commission and not independent. That would avoid the risks which some of us have in mind. We have had experience from time to time of individual local authorities adopting coercive methods and causing great local irritation.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
Perhaps I ought to say to my hon. Friend that everything which he said will be considered, but I would point out to the Committee that this is no new position. At the present moment, under the law relating to diseases of animals, I find myself in the position in which the Commission will be under the Bill, and the local authorities have, at the same time, to enforce the orders which I make in regard to the diseases of animals. The two concurrent authorities go on perfectly smoothly together. The important point is to have the responsibility for enforcement upon one authority, and, in the case of diseases of animals, it is on me. The local authorities do sometimes prosecute and in other cases they prefer us to do so; it depends upon the magnitude of the offence. The Committee may rest quite satisfied that we are following a practice which has given rise to no difficulty in the past.