HC Deb 30 May 1938 vol 336 cc1750-61

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 25, after "scheme" insert "or."

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

8.44 P.m.

Mr. Foot

The two Amendments which are on the Paper in regard to page 13 seem to go together. I want to object to the next Amendment. Will it be more convenient for me to do it on this or on the next Amendment? The next Amendment appears to follow from this one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)

Yes, I think that that will be the best way, if the Minister sees no objection.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

The Amendment which we are now discussing is in line 25, after "scheme" to insert "or."

If the Amendment is accepted by the House and agreed to, I think that the further Amendment will stand and enable a discussion to take place upon it in its proper place.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 27, leave out from "licence" to the first "to," in line 30.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Clause 9 provides for regulation, by the producers' marketing board, by means of a system of licences, in relation to boats and landing of white fish in Great Britain. Under certain conditions these licences may be refused, and paragraph (ii) (d) of this Clause, which has now been amended, gives the right of appeal to the Commission to any person aggrieved by a decision of the board in respect of a licence. The words proposed to be left out have this further effect. They enable the right of appeal to be exercised, not only with regard to the refusing or revoking of a licence, but with regard to directions given by the board with reference to the day-to-day administration of the scheme. On consideration it appeared obvious that, if persons were recalcitrantly minded, they could, by issuing an appeal against every day-to-day determination of this character, hold up a scheme and bring it to nought. It is felt that, while it is desirable to retain to the full the right of appeal with regard to the matter of licences, it would be a useless practice to permit appeals upon these matters of day-to-day working, bearing in mind that everyone aggrieved by the working of the scheme still has the right of referring the matter to the Committee of Investigation. If the Amendment is accepted, it will make possible the smooth working of the scheme.

8.47 P.m.

Mr. Foot

I object very strongly to the Amendment which is now proposed. It may be within the recollection of the House that when the Bill came before us on the Report stage, we on this side of the House drew attention to this particular Clause and to the very limited rights of appeal which are contained in the words as they stand. It is not provided that there should be right of appeal against every decision of the Marketing Board but only such appeal as may be prescribed by the marketing scheme. It is proposed by the Lords Amendment to cut down the right of appeal from the decisions of the board still further. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that, by leaving out these words, we are simply taking away the right of appeal against comparatively trivial directions of the board. We are cutting out the words: or by any direction given by the board in exercise of powers conferred on it by virtue of paragraph (c) of the preceding Sub-section. Paragraph (c) of the preceding Subsection is on page 11 of the Bill and refers, among other things, to the power which is to be given to the board to give directions for limiting the quantity of white fish (taken either in any waters whatever or in any particular waters) which may be landed from the boat in Great Britain or any part thereof. The board will have the power not only to refuse a licence to the fisherman but to prescribe how much fish he may land from his boat. There are two ways, therefore, in which it would be open for the board to put a fisherman out of business. In the first place, they can refuse him a licence, but, if they do not choose to do that, they have also the power to fix the quantity he can land from his boat at such a low figure that it would be impossible for him to carry on business. I do not say that that would be likely to happen, but that is the power we are proposing to entrust to fish marketing boards. It is obvious that the power to regulate the quantity to be landed from a boat is an exceedingly wide and important one. Supposing the board does this and puts this very strict limitation on the amount of business that a fisherman may do—for that is what it amounts to—it is provided by this Amendment that he is to have no right of appeal to the Commission at all, or to any independent body.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he could invoke the Committee of Investigation, I presume, similar to committees of investigation under the Marketing Acts. That is a very cumbrous procedure, such as is applicable, I should have thought, in cases where there is some general grievance that the price of the commodity to the public is too high or something of that kind. It would be entirely unsuitable in cases where you simply get an individual grievance of a particular fisherman. We have conferred this power of limitation of output already in some of the Agricultural Marketing Acts, and this power which it is now proposed to confer on marketing boards under this Bill is a very considerable power to give to anybody. It limits the extent to which a man can carry on or can develop his own business, and if an unreasonable limitation is put on by the board—one can quite conceive that a number of fishermen might consider such limitations were unreasonable—surely, it is fair to ask that there should be some right of appeal. There appears to be no case for this Amendment at all.

8.53 p.m.

Sir Douglas Thomson

I should like to support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has said. It would be very much better to give the fisherman the right to appeal. If a number of frivolous appeals were made, the fact that one or other of them was refused would tend to discourage the making of frivolous appeals. If we give fishermen no power of appeal at all except to the Committee of Investigation, surely, that committee only reports to the Ministers if any provisional marketing scheme is contrary to the interests of consumers or to any persons affected by the scheme. It certainly would be contrary to the interests of consumers, and, if the Cornmittee of Investigation have to study all the detailed questions of individual fishermen, you will be no better off than if the Commission did this. How much further on are you by handing on these things to the Committee of Investigation, who are already making other investigations regarding the public interest, than if you left them to the Commission? Some right of appeal to the fisherman, who can have his livelihood taken away by any improper use of this power, should, without doubt, be given.

8.54 P.m.

Mr. Shinwell

I am in considerable sympathy with the views that have already been expressed, and I cannot understand why the Minister is so ready to accept the Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the Commission will not be hampered in their operations—that was the reason given by the Minister—but if revocations or suspensions of licences are frequent, clearly there is some need for an appeal. On the other hand, if revocation or suspension of licences took place infrequently, it could hardly be claimed that the board would be hampered by an ordinary appeal. Therefore, I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman has come to this conclusion. It has occurred to me that, in the revocation of licences, where there is a loss of livelihood—and I take it that that is bound to occur— the question of compensation arises, and where there might be some difficulty of assessing or even obtaining compensation, surely, it is only right that the aggrieved person should have the right of appeal. It is of substantial importance to the person concerned.

As regards the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that matters of this kind may be referred to the committee of investigation, I am bound to say that it had never occurred to me during the Committee stage—and this matter was under review for a length of time—that the committee of investigation was to be used for this purpose. I understood that the committee of investigation were primarily a consumers' concern and had nothing to do with the question of the revocation or suspension of licence. If that is not a sound argument to advance, I would submit this point to the right hon. Gentleman, that a committee of investigation, however influential it may be, is only an advisory body, and it may well be that the personnel of the committee is not qualified to come to a conclusion as to whether a licence should be revoked or suspended. The board is in a much more powerful position to judge than the committee of investigation can possibly be. Moreover, if the committee of investigation is to consider such an appeal it must, whatever its conclusion, refer the matter to the board, so that in the end the board have to consider the matter. It would surely be much better to allow the person aggrieved to go direct to the board, instead of proceeding in this roundabout fashion. Therefore, I am not convinced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and as there seems to be no practical defence in favour of this Amendment, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it.

8.57 p.m.

Sir A. Wilson

I had intended to make the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). The Committee of Investigation, as I read the Bill, has no power to allow an appeal to be made from such a decision. It is not an adjudicating body, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider the question further. Every other marketing board with which I am acquainted has made provision for an appeal.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Beechman

I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friends opposite. The appeal which was given in the Bill as it stood seemed to me to have been of the greatest importance. My right hon. Friend has said that by taking away the right of appeal, in its context, we are only taking it away, if we do take it away, in regard to minor matters. There I must dissent. I think we are taking the right of -appeal away on matters of major importance. The question of revocation of licence may be a matter of life and death to the producer.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

We are not taking away any appeal in respect of a decision to revoke a licence. It is only in respect of matters referred to in paragraph (c) of the preceding Sub-section that the right of appeal is taken away. The right of appeal against revocation of licence is maintained in its entirety.

Mr. Beechman

If that be so—and I say with great respect that it is not at all clear—it takes away the appeal in regard to matters of consequence. We seemed to be making a step forward in having this right of appeal. My right hon. Friend has referred to the Committee of Investigation. I should like to endorse what has been said, namely, that that committee has only general powers, and I fail to see that it has any power to consider a particular instance. Under its general powers it can say whether a scheme is working properly, but it is not invested with the mandate to consider one particular instance. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not insist on endorsing the view that has been taken in another place.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Law

I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the arguments used against this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture supports the Amendment by the argument that although it does remove the right of appeal it removes it only from an extremely limited field and that it is only on matters of more or less routine administration that the right of appeal will be taken away. I submit that paragraph (c) deals with highly important matters. As I understand it, the Board could, theoretically, institute a northern waters order for 12 months of the year, which would be much more vital than merely revoking a licence for one part of the year. That would affect not merely the trawler but every branch of the industry, and yet if this Amendment is to be accepted it appears that even action so drastic as that could be taken and there would be no right of appeal against it, except through the somewhat cumbrous method of the committee of investigation. I can see the point of my right hon. Friend that it is no use having a Board if it is to be hampered in its day to day routine, but it seems to me that the Amendment goes far deeper than that, and I should like him to think again before he accepts it.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Ede

The Minister interrupted the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) to say that there was no power to revoke a licence dealt with in paragraph (c). I would point out that in paragraph (c) there is reference to paragraph (c) of Subsection (1). That paragraph (c, iii) refers to any decision of the Board to revoke, or suspend the operation, of a licence in relation to any boat in the event of a contravention," etc.

9.3 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

It is very important that the House should realise what the Amendment does, because some of the criticisms directed against it have proceeded on the assumption that it removes the right of appeal from a much wider category of matters than it really does. If we accept the Amendment the Sub-section will read as follows: enabling any person aggrieved by any refusal of the board to grant, renew or transfer a licence under the scheme, by any decision of the board to revoke or suspend the operation of such a licence, to appeal to the Commission, and determining the powers exercisable by the Commission on any such appeal. Therefore, in all that very important category of matters affecting trawlers the right is by this Sub-section, even if we agree to the Amendment, absolutely retained. The only matters that are affected by the Amendment are those matters dealt with in paragraph (c) of the previous Sub-section. If the House will turn to that paragraph they will see why I described those matters as matters of day to day administration and of lesser importance, and I think they will agree that the description was accurate. In the first place the directions, against which it is proposed appeals should not be allowed, are referred to in paragraph (i); that is to say, directions with regard to equipment to be used on board ship.

Mr. Shinwell

Is that a matter which could properly be referred to the Committee of Investigation?

Mr. Morrison

Certainly. For example, regulations with regard to equipment can be referred to the Committee of Investigation and, if the Committee of Investigation thinks the complaint well-founded, the Minister has power to give directions to correct the matter at once. Hon. Members will find that in Clause 15. But the most important matter referred to here is in paragraph (c) (ii) where, set out in legal phraseology, is what is known as the trip allotment system. The whole desire of the producers of white fish in asking the House for these powers is that they feel that if they have power among themselves, by their own democratically elected body, to allot to each one of their members the amount of fish which can be caught and disposed of it would be to their advantage in preventing the wasteful destruction of fish or the disposal of it at uneconomically low prices. If you are to have the system of trip allotments, which the House has already accepted, how can you combine that system with appeals day by day from producers because they have pot been allowed to catch a greater amount of haddock? It would hold up the whole scheme, and the producers would not be able to regulate the catch to their own advantage.

Mr. Foot

The paragraph does not refer to the allotment of one trip, but the board would have power to regulate the number of landings of white fish which might be effected by any boat during any specified period. It might determine the number of landings for a whole year. If you take an extreme case, one particular trawler might have only one landing during the 12 months, and under the Amendment there would be no right of appeal.

Mr. Morrison

What the hon. Member is forgetting is that the Clause deals with the powers of a democratically elected board, the producers' marketing board, and any body which acted in that way would be acting quite contrary to our experience of democratically-elected bodies. In this House we have power to pass Acts of Parliament of the most injurious description, but we know what would be our fate if we were to indulge overlong in that practice. It would be quite impossible for these producers to regulate their day-to-day catch and so preserve the amount of supply reasonable for the people and remunerative to themselves. It is impossible to have day-to-day regulation of landings if every individual producer is to have the right to say that he ought to be able to catch more haddocks than his own board have allotted to him. In all questions of importance such as the revocation and suspension of a licence, matters which are vital, the right of producers to appeal to the Commission is maintained.

Mr. Shinwell

I am trying my best to understand the right hon. Gentleman. May I put this question to him? He is proposing to strike out the words: or by any direction given by the board in exercise of powers conferred on it by virtue of paragraph (c) of the preceding Sub-section. Paragraph (c) of the preceding Subsection says: To vary from time to time, or revoke, any directions given by virtue of this paragraph… to revoke, or suspend the operation, of a licence. Those are the powers which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to delete. That is how it appears to me. It may be that this involves a contradiction. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to leave in the words: renew or transfer a licence under the scheme by any decision of the board to revoke or suspend the operation of such a licence. And at the same time to delete the words which follow.

Mr. Morrison

The difficulty of the hon. Member is possibly the word "direction." If he will look at the paragraph we are proposing to amend he will see the words or by any direction given by the board. If he turns to the preceding sub-section he will see that power is given to give directions to vary or revoke these directions, and if he reads on to revoke or suspend the operation of a licence. To revoke or suspend a licence is not a direction, and not being a direction is saved from a denial of appeal by the words which still remain in the Bill, namely any decision of the board to revoke or suspend the operation of a licence. A suspension or revocation of a licence as a decision of the board still remains open for appeal to the Commission. The only limited categories in which we say that a right of appeal should not be exercised are when directions are given on such matters as equipment and trip allotment.

9.14 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris

The Minister has been criticising the proposals in his own Bill. We are considering Lords Amendments, and the right hon. Gentleman is now finding fault with the words of the Bill he presented to the House. We appreciate that the right of appeal in the case of the revocation of a licence still remains, but the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that it is too much to give this right in reference to directions as to the quantity of fish to be caught. I suggest that these words should not be left out of the Bill at the direction of another place. The right hon. Gentleman seems afraid that fishermen will be unreasonable and bring the Bill to a standstill by constant appeals. I do not imagine that fishermen will be constantly resorting to what to them will be the alarming process of an appeal from a decision of their own board, except in those cases where they feel a real grievance. All this interference with trade and with the occupations of people who are trying to earn a livelihood should be viewed with very great suspicion. We have been assured by the Minister that the individual will get ample protection from needless interference by having the right of appeal. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the original drafting in the Bill. The other place has its qualities, and on some big problems such as that of coal, Noble Lords are probably more learned than hon. Members, but the simple problem of catching fish, of going out in trawlers to earn a living from the sea, is surely one with which the House of Com

mons is more qualified to deal. Very few Noble Lords have to earn their living in that way. They are more familiar with coal than with fish. I hope the House will resist this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the power to revoke licences and the appeal under this Sub-section will come within the terms of reference of the Committee which he has set up to-day, or will that Committee deal only with penalties and fines?

9.17 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

Although I do not recollect the precise terms of reference of the Committee which has been set up, I know that the intention is that it should deal with the monetary penalties imposed by Marketing Boards and not with matters such as the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. R. Law

With the leave of the House, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether, under Sub-section (2), the board are to have the power not merely to limit the quantity of fish, but to ban altogether certain landings?

9.19 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

A matter of that sort would be a matter for the Government under the ordinary procedure. What is provided here is that they may, for example, say that for a certain space of time not more than a certain quantity of Bear Island fish shall be landed so as to give the near-water fishermen a chance, but the wholesale prohibition of the landing of all fish, throughout the country or in different districts, would be a matter for the Government.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 85.

Division No. 225. AYES. 9.19 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Christie, J. A. Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Clarke, Frank (Dartford) Eckersley, P. T.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Aske, Sir R. W. Conant, Captain R. J. E. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Beit, Sir A. L. Courtauld, Major J. S. Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Bossom, A. C. Cox, H. B. Trevor Evans Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Boyce, H. Leslie Craven-Ellis, W. Everard, W. L.
Bracken, B. Crooks, Sir J. S. Fleming, E. L.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Cross, R. H. Fremantle, Sir F. E
Brown, Cot. D. C. (Hexham) Davies, C. (Montgomery) Fyfe, D. P. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Denman, Hon. R. D. Goldie, N. B.
Butcher, H. W. Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Hambro, A. V. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Hannah, I. C. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Harbord, A. Moreing, A. C. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Holy-Hutchinson, M. R. Palmer, G. E. H. Storey, S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Perkins, W. R. D. Strauss, E. A. (Southwork, N.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Procter Major H. A. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hope Captain Hon A O J Radford, E. A. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Hopkinson, A. Ramsbotham, H. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Hutchinson, G. C. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Keeling, E. H. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Wakefield W. W.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Reed, sir H. S. (Aylesbary) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Reid, W. Allen (Derby) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Latham, Sir P.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Remer, J. R. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Leech, Sir J. W. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ropner, Colonel L. Wayland, Sir W. A
Lipson, D. L. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Lloyd, G. W. Rowlands, G. Wells, S. R.
Loftus, P. C. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Lyons, A. M. Salt, E. W. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Samual, M. R. A. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Sandeman, Sir N. S. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Sanderson, Sir F. B. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Magnay, T. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Margesson Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Selley, H. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Markham, S. F. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pathick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Harris, Sir P. A. Price, M. P.
Batey, J. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Quibell, D. J. K.
Beechman, N. A. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Ridley, G.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ritson, J.
Benson, G. Hopkin, D. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Broad, F. A. John, W. Sexton, T. M.
Bromfield, W. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Shinwell, E.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Kelly, W. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Burke, W. A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cape, T. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G Stephen, C.
Charleton, H. C. Lawson, J. J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cluse, W. S. Leach, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cove, W. G. Leslie, J. R. Summerskill, Edith
Daggar, G. Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) McEntee, V. La T. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, R J. (Westhoughton) McGovern, J. Tomlinson, G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Maclean, N. Walkden, A. G.
Dobbie, W. Marshall, F. Watson, W. McL.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Mathers, G. Welsh, J. C.
Ede, J. C. Maxton, J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Milner, Major J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Foot, D. M. Muff, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gallacher, W. Noel-Baker, P. J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Oliver, G. H. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Owen, Major G. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Paling, W. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Groves, T. E. Parker, J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE: NOES.—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.