§ 24. Mr. Macquistenasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the House of Lords, in the case of Ferrier versus the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, decided that the board were not entitled to levy on producer-retailers any levy be yond what was necessary to pay the costs of administration; and, seeing that, not withstanding this decision, the Milk Marketing Board persists in making levies for sums far beyond the costs of administration, will he intervene to put an end to this action of the board?
§ The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith)The contributions payable by producer-retailers under the English Milk Marketing Scheme are assessed in accordance with paragraph 65 of the Scheme and are not affected by the case to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. In any case, I have no power to intervene.
§ Mr. MacquistenIs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is nothing in either of the Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933 which authorises the Milk Marketing Board to take the earnings of one set of producers and give them to another set, and that if any milk marketing scheme pretends to do so it is in defiance of and unauthorised by the Marketing Acts?
§ Sir R. Dorman-SmithI do not think it is. There are two different schemes, the Scottish and the English schemes, and under section 65 of the English marketing scheme it seems to be correct.
§ Mr. MacquistenAre not both these schemes based on the Marketing Acts, and does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that the House of Commons passed an Act which gives power to take one man's earnings and give them to another?
§ Sir R. Dorman-SmithInasmuch as this is a pooling scheme and all producers have to contribute, I think it is correct that the producer retailers should pay their fair share.
§ Mr. MacquistenBy what right has any man to be compelled to contribute to any pool when the Act of Parliament did not authorise it?