LIVESTOCK MARKET, BUNGAY. (Hansard, 21 July 1938)

§ Mr. Loftus
I desire to raise, in the few minutes at my disposal, the question of the action of the Livestock Commission in closing down the livestock market at the market town of Bungay, in Suffolk. Bungay is a small town of 3,000 population and the centre of a purely agricultural district, where the farms are almost entirely small holdings. The town itself is of considerable historic interest. It was the seat of the Earls of Norfolk, and there are still the ruins of a great castle there. It has one further distinction that it is the only town in England that retains the town reeve, the old Saxon officials who were succeeded by the mayor and corporation. On 4th July I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and he stated that: No market was in operation at Bungay between 1900 and 1929 That statement is denied by everybody in the district. It is true that a market was not held on the present site, but a market was held a mile or so away, at least so I am very definitely informed, and local opinion is urging that there shall be an inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case, when these facts will be ascertained at the inquiry. Then the Minister said: Very few livestock sales took place during the period between 1929 to 1937".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1938; col. 26, Vol. 338.] I am again informed very definitely that that is not the case and that there were livestock sales between those years.
Finally, comes the statement that no livestock sales took place during the period referred to in Section 14 of the Act, in the year ending 30th November, 1936. As the House knows, if a market had no livestock sale in that year, the Livestock Commission could, under Section 14 of the Act, close down the market and, acting under that Section, they have closed down the market in this case; but the local authorities claim that a sale was advertised. They have found an advertisement in a local paper of 14th May, 1936.
The market has passed through various vicissitudes. It was controlled from 1929 2582 to 1936 by a firm of auctioneers who also had a market in another market town seven miles away, and they discouraged the market and concentrated their marketing business in the neighbouring town. In 1937, the market was taken over by another auctioneer, and a local company was formed with a capital of £500. Here is an important point: Application was made then to the East Suffolk County Council for approval and authority to use it as a livestock market—this was only last year—and the East Suffolk County Council sent an inspector. They stated: "We will approve of this being used as a market if certain expenditure is undertaken to bring it up to our requirements." Something over £300 was spent about a year ago in so doing, and the East Suffolk County Council authorised it to be used as a livestock market. My right hon. Friend will understand that it is extremely hard that the whole of that capital should be completely lost, although it was spent in perfect good faith.
As regards the use of the market, I would mention that in the last six or eight months the market has increased. It is a fortnightly market, and every fortnight nearly 500 pigs and 50 or 60 cattle are sold. One of the results is that more pigs are being kept in the neighbourhood in small homes, because the people claim that they can get better prices at Bungay than in the neighbouring market. I have a letter from an ex-service man who is a smallholder, and he writes as follows: As a smallholder I would be prepared to keep more pigs and poultry if a market were held at Bungay and this is the case with several others in similar circumstances. We require a market here, as the cost of transport is very high and also loss of time is a big item in sending stock to a distant market. I have handed to my right hon. Friend a petition signed by over 700 inhabitants, including all the smallholders and farmers in the district. The urban district council has passed a unanimous resolution asking for the retention of this market. The whole town and district are asking that the market should be retained There is consternation at the action of the Livestock Commission.
I appeal for a public inquiry if possible. The "Eastern Daily Press," in a leading article, used these words, which I commend to my right hon. Friend: 2583 One of His. Majesty's judges has well said that it is necessary not only that justice should be done but that it should manifestly appear to be done. The same remark might well apply to the proceedings of Government Departments outside the courts. The closure of Bungay market is a case in point. That is the reason why I am pressing for an inquiry. I know we are told that we live in a period of centralisation. Efficiency and rationalisation are the watchwords of the age, just as 150 years ago the watchwords were "Liberty, equality and fraternity." This is the new bureaucratic revolution, and these are the watchwords, but I think I have proved that it does not make for efficiency, that the smallholders get better prices at less cost, and therefore the argument of efficiency breaks down.
What is this argument of efficiency? Are we not at the present day tending to mistake the means for the end? Efficiency is merely a means towards leading a full and satisfactory life, and I feel that probably to-day, more than ever, we are so concentrating on the means that we forget the ends of life. Certainly, in the countryside the end is to preserve the amenities and make the countryside agreeable to the people by preserving the traditions of these small country towns. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to inquire into and reconsider this matter. I remember as a schoolboy reading of Rhadamanthus, in Book VI of Virgil: castigat judicatque"— he chastises and judges. The Livestock Commission have chastised; I ask the Minister not to be more severe than Rhadamanthus, but, after the execution, at least to have an inquiry. I feel that if we do anything to damage and destroy these small market towns we do a real injury to our countryside. It is part of the historic heritage of England, and if we destroy and damage it I believe we are doing a hurt to the soul of England, and that is the last thing that a Conservative Minister should do.

§ The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison)
I am sure the House will have sympathy with my hon. Friend in raising this matter, and certainly his constituents have cause to compliment themselves on his assiduity in pursuing this topic. I should not like the House to think that this is a case of the Commission closing a market. It is a question of using the 2584 powers which Parliament gives of refusing to license or approve a market on premises where no livestock market was held during the year ending November, 1936.

§ Mr. Loftus
That is disputed.

§ Mr. Morrison
The only dispute that my hon. Friend brought out was that some advertisement was mentioned—this is the first that I have heard of it—of a sale. My information is that in fact no sale of livestock was held during the statutory year in question, and it therefore falls to the Livestock Commission to enforce the law. In these circumstances I have no power to intervene. It is a question that was left by Parliament entirely at the discretion of the Livestock Commission who are only bound to consult the bodies concerned first, and then the Livestock Advisory Committee, which is a thoroughly representative body. That they have done. It was on the advice of the Livestock Advisory Committee and after consultation with the bodies concerned that the Commission came to the conclusion that they should not allow this market to be opened on premises where no market had in fact been held during the year.
If one notices the history of this market one will not be surprised that the Livestock Advisory Committee and the Commission came to the conclusion that they did. The history is as follows, so I am informed. There was a market in Bungay from 1850 to 1900, when sales of livestock ceased altogether. In the next 29 years no livestock sales were held in Bungay. There were sales of dead stock, I am informed, but no livestock sales at all. In 1929 a stock market company was formed but it met with very mixed success. My hon. Friend says it is not true that very few stock were sold there but the figures are these:

1932: 1 calf and 30 pigs.

1934: 9 pigs, 2 sheep.

1936: No live animals at all.

In 1937 the lessees' tenancy expired and they did not renew their lease. The present lessee took over and held his first sale there in January, 1938, but he appears to have been in ignorance of the fact that the Livestock Industry Act was passed six months previously, as were the East Suffolk County Council. He applied for a licence, which was granted. Then 2585 the market tenant seems to have realised his position. He applied to the Livestock Commission for approval for Bungay market, but, as no market had been held there during the period laid down, they refused approval. In reaching that decision I have no doubt both the Commission and the Livestock Advisory Committee were influenced by the history I have narrated in addition to the fact that there are 12 livestock markets within 15 miles of Bungay and five within a radius of io miles. The chief livestock trade at this market has always been in pigs. These are animals notoriously difficult to conduct to a destination on their own feet, and they are therefore transported on a lorry. Therefore, there are adequate facilities for sales in that district.
From 1929 to 1937 the figures show that by far the chief trade at this market has been poultry and dead stock. I would point out that poultry and dead stock are not in any way interfered with by the Livestock Industry Act, and people can sell their poultry and dead stock there as long as they like. It is only cattle, sheep and pigs that are affected. I am sorry for Mr. Hunt, who appears to be a man of great ability, and to have expended money in ignorance of his legal position, but I see no reason to interfere, even if I had the power, with the Commission or the Livestock Advisory Committee. They seem to have acted after careful 2586 consideration, in accordance with the spirit of the Act, and for the greatest good of the greatest number.

§ Mr. Loftus
Is it not a fact that there have been two markets in the Eastern counties which were not used in 1936 and yet which have been authorised by my right hon. Friend—I think one is at Saffron Walden—to be utilised?

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
No, Sir, they have not been authorised by me. The Livestock Commission are empowered by the Act, where a market has not been held; to approve that a market should be held if they are of opinion that additional facilities are required. If they came to such a conclusion that fact does not in any way affect their judgment in the case of Bungay, where they came to the deliberate conclusion, on the facts that I have mentioned, that those facilities were not required. The fact that they did approve facilities in a district where they thought adequate facilities were not provided, shows that they have acted in this case with a proper regard to the circumstances.