HC Deb 04 May 1937 vol 323 cc1003-8

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham)

I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, to leave out paragraph (2).

As the Bill came down from the Standing Committee the fixing of the days and times for holding markets was to be controlled by livestock markets orders. In the Bill as it stands, in Clause 17 (1, c), similar provision can be made by by-law. On the whole we consider that it is undesirable that provision should be made for carrying out this one function by either of two separate methods. For that reason we propose to confine the fixing of days and times for holding markets to the markets by-laws procedure. The livestock market orders are, broadly speaking, intended to be mainly of a foundational character, for example, they will deal with the siting of markets, the planning, lay-out, equipment and so forth, whereas by-laws relate to matters of routine, such as the conduct and management of markets. The fixing of days and times for holding markets undoubtedly comes within the latter category. It is more suitable for by-laws and such a procedure would make administration much more convenient and flexible.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

Of course we are all anxious that if the Bill is to be put into operation it should work as smoothly as possible and with as little irritation as possible, but I confess that I can hardly understand why this paragraph was allowed to remain in the Bill in Committee and why this procedure is now suddenly to be adopted. Indeed, I think I ought to draw attention to the fact that this Bill is practically being re-made, not in Committee but on Report. We are being asked to take the Report stage and Third Reading to-day, and I notice that there are 66 Government Amendments on the Paper. That is a very curious way of dealing with the House on a Bill of this kind. Nevertheless, if it is quite certain that there is no really good purpose to be served by maintaining this provision for dealing with this class of arrangement by order, I should be prepared to raise no specific objection, but I cannot say that I am completely satisfied with the short and sketchy explanation made by the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. H. G. Williams

This subject is one on which I took a rather active part in Committee, and I think the Minister was frequently impressed by my hon. Friends and myself. He undertook to move Amendments on Report in order that the drafting might be satisfactory, instead of doing it hastily upstairs, and he properly decided to do it on Report. A great many of the Amendments are entirely of that character.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Turton

The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee and his followers on that Committee were led by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). This Amendment, I believe, has been moved in response to an Amendment which I moved in Committee on Clause 17. At that time the hon. Member for Don Valley said that for once he agreed with me and that he wanted the words that were in Clause 17 to be cut out. It is rather unfortunate that the Socialist party should now object to the Minister making an Amendment which he was invited to make in Committee.

Mr. Alexander

We have not objected.

Amendment agreed to.

4.7 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison)

I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, to leave out "business as an auctioneer," and to insert: 'right to carry on the business of effecting sales by auction This Amendment, in common with most of those which stand on the Order Paper in my name, arises out of the proceedings in Committee. My hon. Friends the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) feared that some difficulty might arise over the use of the word "auctioneer," which was in the Bill as drafted. They feared that it might be represented in future as not to apply to a firm of auctioneers. I considered these points and I now move this Amendment. There is no doubt that the Amendment and others of similar character which will be moved later make it clear beyond any doubt that a firm of auctioneers will be included. The Amendment refers to a person carrying on this business, but by Section 19 of the Interpretation Act of 1889 a person includes a firm of this character. The point will be made clearer by the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 25, leave out "business as auctioneers," and insert "the business of effecting sales by auction."

In line 27, after "area," insert "as may be specified in the order."

In line 27, leave out "can lawfully be used," and insert "are used or appropriated."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 14, line 29, to leave out "as may be specified in," and to insert: and the occupiers of which are, in the opinion of the Commission, likely to benefit by the operation of. This Clause relates to the power of the Commission to levy on market owners and auctioneers whose position is likely to be benefited by a livestock market order through the removal of competitors, and is to compensate those who may suffer loss or damage by the operation of an order. It is clear that a market geographically outside the area of a livestock market order might benefit every bit as much as a market which is geographically inside the area. So the Bill as originally drafted took power for the Commission to make a levy on a market of that character, even though it was outside the geographical area. The Bill proposed to leave the designation of such an outside market at large, but concern was expressed on this point in Committee and I promised to look into the matter. The words that I now propose leave the matter no longer at large, but require the Commission to satisfy itself that such an outside market will actually benefit from the operation of the order before a levy can be made upon the occupiers or auctioneers of the market in question. The Third Schedule to the Bill gives such an outside market, if it is affected, the same right to object as have markets inside, and the provision as to arbitration and as to whether or not a market is liable and what sum it shall pay by way of contribution, is included also.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

This seems to be a reasonable principle, but before we pass it the House ought to know that it is proposed to widen the area in which it may be said that a market benefits. Will the Minister give us any idea as to what is the kind of radius of operation of the provision? These people who are interested now in these markets ought to have some general idea as to what is to happen. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the Minister to lay down a sort of geographical radius which is to apply generally, but he ought to give us some idea as to what is the kind of area to be affected by the Bill.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty of specifying the area, and indeed it is not necessarily a matter of radius at all. It will depend upon the situation of the actual place, that is to say on the remoteness of the next market outside the area. It might be that if a livestock markets order were in operation inside a certain area and it closed some market on the edge of that area, then the market which would benefit by attracting the business diverted from the closed market, might be some considerable distance away. It would depend on whether there were intervening towns or markets. It was considerations of that sort which made me object to the test of radius as applicable to this question. The true test is, whether the market benefits by the operation of the order, and if it does benefit it ought to pay a levy to compensate those who lose. So we abandoned the test of actual radius and made our principle that if actually a market outside the area does benefit from the operation of the order, if it becomes a richer market, it ought to pay its fair share towards the compensation imposed by the order, with all the safeguards of arbitration and objection which are contained in the Bill.

Mr. Marshall

Here is a problem that might arise: I can imagine a state of things where a market is 10 miles beyond the area of the radius and owing to centralised slaughtering being brought into operation within the radius, that market might be very much injured. Can the Minister say what provision there is for payment of compensation in such a case?

Mr. Morrison

Any market that is at all injured by the operation of an order will have a right to compensation.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Richards

How is the right hon. Gentleman going to estimate the benefit that the new market has got as the result of some closing order? Is it merely to be the increase in the number of animals drafted to the market, or something of that kind? It frequently happens under the present orders of the Ministry with regard to swine fever or foot-and-mouth disease that when a particular market is closed another market, perhaps 20 miles away, benefits, that is to say the number of animals drafted to the other market is very considerably increased. Has the Minister in mind some definite standard for these markets, that is to say, if the number of cattle or pigs going to a market on a particular day is greater than it was formerly? Is that the kind of standard to be applied?

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I am glad that that question is not one that I have to answer. The scheme will lay down the principle upon which compensation is to be payable and the levy is to be made.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Riley

One appreciates the difficulty of fixing a radius, but does this mean that the Commission or the Advisory Committee will have the duty of making a survey of any market in the area which in their opinion will benefit under the scheme? Will they have the duty of investigating and exploring what is going to happen to the other markets, and will any contribution paid by these other markets go to a particular fund to meet the losses of markets which have been closed?

Mr. Morrison

That is the position exactly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 41, leave out "business as an auctioneer," and insert "the business of effecting sales by auction."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]