CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of S. 20 of principal Act.)

HC Deb 06 July 1944 vol 401 cc1364-412

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

On a point of Order. Before the first Amendment on the Paper is moved, can an indication be given what Amendments to this Amendment are going to be called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)

I think we had better wait until we come to the Amendments to the Amendment. I think it is proposed to call, at any rate, the first Amendment, and we shall see how we stand when we get there.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from the beginning to the end of Sub-section (2), and to insert: (b) for the refusal of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion, having regard to conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with and the registration should be refused, and for the cancellation of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion the regulations are not being complied with and the registration should be cancelled. (3) Any regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b) of the last foregoing Sub-section shall—

1. (a) require notice to be given to the person affected of any intention to refuse or cancel the registration, stating the grounds on which it is alleged that the regulations cannot be or are not being complied with, as the case may be, and his rights of making objections and representations in accordance with the regulations;
2. (b) enable the said person, within the time prescribed by the regulations (which shall not he less, in the case of a refusal, than twenty-eight days or, in the case of a cancellation, than twenty-one days, from the date of the service of the said notice), to object, in respect of all or any of the grounds stated in the said notice, that the regulations can be or are being complied with, as the case may be;
3. (c) provide for the reference of any such objection to a tribunal constituted in accordance with the regulations;
1365
4. (d) provide for the procedure of the said tribunal, and in particular for entitling the person objecting to appear before the tribunal with any witnesses he desires to call, and to require the tribunal to inspect the premises to which the objections relate;
5. (e) require the said tribunal to determine whether the objections are made out and, if not, on which of the grounds in respect of which they are made they are not made out, and provide that, in the event of a difference of opinion among the members of the tribunal, the determination of the majority of them shall be the determination of the tribunal;
6. (f) require that the determinations of the the tribunal shall be reported to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and communicated by him to the person objecting, and provide that the determinations of the tribunal as stated in the report shall, for the purpose of the proposal to refuse or cancel registration, be conclusive evidence of the facts found thereby;
7. (g) enable the said person within the time so prescribed to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries that the registration should not be refused or cancelled on the grounds stated in the notice mentioned in paragraph (a) of this Sub-section;
8. (h) provide that no registration shall be cancelled—
1. (i) in any case, until the expiration of the prescribed time for making objections or representations under the regulations;
2. (ii) in a case where an objection is made within that time, until the report of the tribunal thereon has been received and considered by the said Minister;
3. (iii) in a case where representations are made to the said Minister within that time, until the representations have been considered by him.

(4) Any premises being immediately before the commencement of this Act a dairy farm, and any person then carrying on the trade of a dairy farmer, shall be deemed to have been registered in accordance with Milk and Dairies Regulations by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries at the commencement of this Act; and those regulations shall include provision for ascertaining the premises and persons deemed to have been registered as aforesaid and for making consequential adjustments of the register kept by any authority under the said regulations immediately before the commencement of this Act, and may include provision for any matter incidental to or consequential on the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section. The purpose of this Amendment is to meet certain apprehensions that existed as to the effect of the Clause in its original form and I propose to explain the method that is being adopted to deal with that position. This Amendment seeks to leave to the tribunal which is suggested the ascertainment of facts, and to separate that from the application of policy, which is essentially a matter for the Minister and the exercise of which no Minister could possibly abdicate. It is really going further than the suggestion in the Report on Ministers' Powers, because we are making here the complete separation and leaving to the tribunal the determination of the facts while the Minister performs the proper executive act of applying those decisions in accordance with the policy which he thinks is for the general benefit of the community. If I may, very shortly, apply this suggestion to the particular circumstances of the Bill, I would say that the Regulations will deal with buildings, equipment and methods, and there will be two main classes of applicant, first of all, the would-be new entrant into this activity, and, secondly, the person who has a licence, where the question of the cancellation of that licence has come up for decision. With regard to the new entrant, the question of fact, as shown in paragraph (b) of the Amendment, is whether, having regard to the conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with. That is the question with regard to the new entrant, and that is a matter which will go to the tribunal and on which the decision of the tribunal will be conclusive and binding. With regard to the person who has got his licence, the question will be whether he has broken the Regulations—a much simpler task—and that will again be a matter for-the tribunal. The procedure will therefore be that notice will be given to the person against whom grounds of complaint are alleged, setting out those grounds. He will then have the right to make objection to them and his objection will be referred to the tribunal. The decision of the tribunal will be by a majority, and they will report their determination to the Minister, who will pass on their determination on the grounds of complaint to the applicant, who has to go before the tribunal. At the same time the applicant, without prejudicing his position before the tribunal, can make any further representations he likes to the Minister, so that every possible angle of the field will be covered. Then the Minister will consider the determination of the tribunal.

If the tribunal decides that none of the grounds of complaint remain valid, that the applicant wins on every point before him, then the Minister will have nothing further to say; but if, to take an example, the complaints have been with regard to ventilation and water supply, the tribunal might say, "There is nothing in the complaint with regard to ventilation, but we find that there is with regard to the complaint on water supply." Then it will be for the Minister to say, applying the standards which he thinks right for the general benefit of the community, whether the water supply alone is a proper and sufficient matter in order to refuse or cancel the licence. That is the way it works, and I submit to the House that that is a proper and logical division of functions between the tribunal on facts and the Executive, which must preserve the general standard.

I am only dealing with the matter at this length because of the interest which it aroused among many of my hon. Friends on the last occasion, and, if I may, I will take points which were at issue, and show how we have dealt with them. There was objection to the old wording "will not be," which it was said was too wide, and, therefore, we have crystallised that question by substituting the words, "cannot … having regard to the conditions existing at the premises." The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) wanted an extension of the days which would be allowed for the appeal. The Amendment introduces, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend, 28 days in the case of a refusal and 21 days in the case of a cancellation. The existence, jurisdiction and powers of the tribunal are now set out in the Bill, as was desired by many of my hon. Friends.

I now come to the question of the composition of the tribunal. The House will observe that its composition is left to be dealt with by the Regulations. That, I think, is a proper way of dealing with it, because we must maintain flexibility and we must provide for the fact that bodies that would be useful to-day may not be there or may be in a different form to-morrow. Therefore, I ask the House to leave that matter to the Regulations. I do not want to appear to be sidestepping a point which did cause some heart-searching in the House. My right hon. Friend suggested, as the form of the tribunal, that it would have one member chosen from a panel appointed in consultation with the National Farmers' Union, another member from a panel chosen in consultation with the Milk Marketing Board, while the third would be the Superintendent Veterinary Inspector. My right hon. Friend and I like that form of tribunal, and we would like the House to be fully seized of the reasons. In the first case, it is an expert tribunal, as opposed to one which has no qualifications in the subject matter. I have considered very carefully, in view of what has been said, the rival claims of non-expert and expert tribunals. I just give two expert tribunals which are in my mind and which I have found very satisfactory—those of the Report of the Registrar of Trade Marks and the Official Arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act. There are two admirable instances of expert tribunals, which have been most helpful and have saved a good deal of time in considering matters. Therefore, I think we should have expert tribunals here. I do not like myself the set-up, for all tribunals, of a limited number of members with assessors. I much prefer that those suggested as assessors should have the responsibility of giving their decisions as part of the tribunals. Otherwise, they are irresponsible in the strict sense of the word and are apt to be disregarded.

The procedure of taking members from panels appointed by the Minister in consultation with various interests is one which has worked very well in other spheres. My hon. Friend sitting opposite me at the moment knows how well it has worked in regard to the National Arbitration Tribunal in the four difficult years since Order 1305 came into existence. It is a well-tried procedure and one which I do not think we should lightly reject. Then we have suggested that the tribunals should act by a majority, it being clear that, on the suggested composition, the Minister's representative—a member of his staff, the Superintendent Veterinary Inspector—would be permanently in a minority on the Committee. I know what has been said, and from the Amendments on the Paper it would appear that some of my hon. and gallant Friends are still in doubt on this point. They say that they would prefer the composition, or at any rate the chairmanship, of the tribunal to be in entirely independent hands. It would, in their view and according to their suggestion, probably be in legal hands. We have considered that matter.

Mr. Petherick

I must make it clear that when the Solicitor-General said "in legal hands," what we meant was that the Lord Chancellor should make the appointment but not necessarily that he should appoint a lawyer.

The Solicitor-General

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It was rather difficult, in picking up the course of the Debate, to be clear on that point. We have closely considered the point and, for the reasons I have given the House, we are very anxious—because it is essentially a practical problem—that the matter should be left to a practical tribunal of the kind that we have suggested. There are the difficulties of which many of my hon. and gallant Friends know. Since the State has taken over the veterinary service, there would be difficulties in obtaining a veterinary officer who was not either wholly or partially in the service of, or under contract with, the Ministry, and everyone would agree that it would be unfortunate, if we had not someone with these qualifications on the committee. I ask my hon. and gallant Friends, who are in doubt on this point to remember one very simple and successful official tribunal which has operated for 70 years.

In the field of Income Tax, the assessments to Surtax and certain other matters, are made by some of the Special Commissioners. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) is very familiar with this, because we traversed this ground a short time ago. If the taxpayer objects to an assessment made by the Special Commissioners, the assessment then comes on appeal before certain other Special Commissioners, members of the same body, who sit as an appellate tribunal. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok and many other Members who discussed this matter stressed the fact that during these 70 years, despite this rather curiously-seeming procedure, there has been substantially no objection or opposition to the Special Commissioners as a tribunal.

I would like to say, in order to clear up the point—it may be anticipating the matter—that we raise no objection to representation before this tribunal. We would like to ask the House to consider whether they would insist on legal representation, because, before tribunals like this, it is sometimes convenient to have someone who is not an advocate. It has been done before the National Arbitration Tribunal, and in other cases. We are not objecting to an appeal in the ordinary way to the High Court on a question of law which might follow from the constitution of the tribunal. On a minor point, Sub-section (4) carries out the undertaking which the Minister gave, that the existing registrations would be taken over so that no further application would be necessary.

It is very difficult, when one is establishing a new body, to find a form which satisfies everyone, and I am the first to appreciate that everyone who has spoken from different angles has the most honest, clearly defined and strongly held views as to what the best form of tribunal should be. But I submit that we have, in our approach, shown the logical and proper consideration of functions. We have left the truly justiciable issue to a tribunal and left what is truly the matter of fixing national standards to the Minister. With that approach I suggest that no one should quarrel. We have left the form of the tribunal to the regulations which my right hon. Friend has to make. In honesty and fairness to the House, I have indicated to the House without any equivocation the kind of tribunal which my right hon. Friend and I like. We are the last persons who would ever refuse to learn by experience, but it is our responsibility to suggest to the House what we think is the best form. We are doing that, but we are leaving the Clause in a substantially flexible style so that, if we learn that we are wrong, the Minister will have the power to change it by regulations in the usual way. I ask the House to recognise this as a hard-tried attempt to meet their wishes and to support us in the Amendment which I now beg to move.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

Can my hon. and learned Friend advise the House on one particular point? Under the proposals which he has before the House he is setting up a tribunal. I want to ask him if he regards it as the result of that, that the provisions of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, apply to that tri- bunal, and if they do, whether the findings of the tribunal would have the legal effect of an award. As I understand it, by Section 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, and Section 20 of the Act of 1924, these Acts apply to every arbitration under any Act passed before or after the commencement of these Acts. Very important legal considerations would follow if one of the findings by this tribunal had the legal effect of an award which could be enforced in the manner that such documents are enforced.

The Solicitor-General

I did consider this point and at one stage I had actually prepared a draft with reference to the Arbitration Act, specifically setting out that it should not apply. But my right hon. Friend and those with whom I consulted in the matter preferred that the Arbitration Act should not be excluded, and that the effect should be that if any subject could get recourse to the High Court because of what the tribunal had done, we would do nothing to shut him out from it, and, therefore, I excluded it.

Mr. Petherick

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can you now inform the House which of the Amendments to the Amendment, beyond the first one, you intend to call? If one or two of the major Amendments are not called we shall be in some difficulty in stating our points of view. We would prefer to do so on the Amendment as it now stands if you do not happen to call certain of the Amendments to the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)

As I understand the matter, nearly all the Amendments to the Amendment will be called. The third, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—in line 21, leave out "Regulations," and insert "Second Schedule hereto"—is out of Order as it appears on the Order Paper. The two Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) more or less stand together, and it might be for the convenience of the House if we took them together in one common discussion. Beyond that I would prefer not to go at the moment; I would rather wait and see how we get on.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I would like your advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. While bowing to your Ruling as to the Amendment in my name in line 21, may I ask if it will be in Order to move the Second Schedule as shown on the Order Paper, with the deletion of the second paragraph thereof?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I believe that that would put the matter in Order as I understand it, but if the hon. Member's first Amendment is called and fails then the Amendment to the Schedule would not be called. If the hon. Member proposes to move the Schedule in the approved form, then, in all probability, his Amendment would be called.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am still in a little difficulty. If it is not called, I shall lose my opportunity of raising points of substance on the Amendment as it now stands.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

They can always be raised on the main Question.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

Brigadier-Genera Clifton Brown (Newbury)

May I ask the Solicitor-General to explain the tribunal a little more fully? The headquarters of the National Farmers' Union may be in favour of the Bill and of this tribunal, but certainly the local branch which I represent in Berkshire is not. They have written to headquarters to protest vehemently against the form of appeal concerning the registration of milk producers. The Solicitor-General made the point that it did not stop men going to the High Court or to any other appeal. But how does he expect the small dairy farmer, with 10 or 15 cows, to go to a court of law to appeal against the decision of the tribunal? It is really nonsense. If the Minister thinks that he is going to get cleaner milk in that way, I do not see it. He will diminish the number of milk producers very considerably, and, as the Minister knows, a very large number of them are very small producers. They are worried enough by the forms that they have to fill up already.

As a milk producer myself, I do not in the least object to an official of the Ministry of Agriculture coming down to inspect but I want to point out that you will never get things standardised even through the Ministry. You will get milk standardised, you will possibly get the cattle all tuberculous-free, but you will never get the conditions standardised under which the small and big farmers have to work in Sussex, and in the North of England. You will never get, in my lifetime at any rate, water laid on for every farm. Some have water laid on and some have not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite talked about standardising all these things and said it was better to have Government control of the lot. I say you will never standardise what alone can be standardised by the local authority which understands the tenancy position of farms—whether water is laid on or not, where the wells are and so on. Unless the Solicitor-General can assure me that some members of the tribunal represent the actual local conditions of that part of England in which the milk is produced, I do not think that the tribunal will do what is intended, namely, to produce cleaner millk. The Government must take into consideration local conditions, and they do so. When the Government wish to inspect my young bulls, they ask a local vet, to do it and, in the same way, they must employ the local authority on certain of these things, especially on the sanitary lay out and so on. If he is still able to make some alterations in the tribunal, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must give serious thought to having proper representation of the local authority in the locality in which the milk is produced.

Mr. Price

I think this Amendment goes a long way to meet many of the criticisms which have been raised against what is regarded as the arbitrary nature of this Bill. I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Clifton Brown) that all wisdom and light rest with the local authorities in this matter. I have had considerable experience of dairy farming, and I have not found that the Minister's representatives are in the least degree unreasonable. At the same time, I think there is a strong case to be made out for the small dairy men, and the large ones too, having the right to appeal to have their case thoroughly considered. As I say, I think this Amendment goes a good way to meet it although, frankly, I am not quite clear as to all the implications of this rather complicated Amendment. I do not know whether I am in Order in referring to it, but there is an Amendment to the Amendment which may be called, in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think we had better leave that till we come to it.

Mr. Price

I would like to suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the discussion might be made wide enough to cover same of those Amendments, but if you say it is not possible, I will not refer to this one. I think there is a good deal to be said for not having anybody on this tribunal who is a servant of the Minister, and who is in receipt of any salary from the Department. In that respect, I think a case can be made out for having a more independent and judicial point of view. I have just said that I have the greatest respect for the officials of the Minister; at the same time, the rights of the individual citizen are strongly involved here, and we should try to have as impartial a body as possible. I have no doubt it can be done, but I would like whoever replies to make clear who is going to be appointed. On the other hand, I would not like to see particular interests taking entire control. I would not like farmers or consumers only to have the power to decide this matter. Let them be represented, but there should be a number of quite independent persons, having nothing whatever to do with the industry—and certainly that should be the position of the impartial chairman. I do not know whether the Government have in mind something like the Agricultural Wages Board, Where you have representatives of the workers and the farmers and an independent chairman, or in general what is to be the line?

I am a little concerned about appeals. If we are to have appeals to the High Court, I can conceive that the carrying out of this Bill, when it is an Act, might be held up almost indefinitely. I am not quite sure whether it would not be better to aim at getting a judicial body in the first stage, rather than have the whole thing put off for an indefinite period. I am as anxious as are hon. Members on other Benches to safeguard the rights of the individual citizen, but I feel very strongly that nothing must be done to impair the general principle of the Bill, which must aim at getting good, sound regulations in regard to the production of clean milk. So I hope the Minister, or whoever speaks, will be able to satisfy me on this matter.

Mr. Petherick

I take it that I may move the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name and that it will then be possible, on the Motion that the words of my right hon. Friend's Amendment be there inserted, for hon. Members, if they wish, to discuss the main issue. Is that so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think we had better discuss the point in each Amendment separately as it is called.

Mr. Petherick

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "existing" to insert "or likely to be existing."

As the Amendment now stands, the Minister may refuse any registration of a dairy farmer if in his opinion, having regard to conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with. This, in my opinion, is very little more than a drafting Amendment, and all we seek to do is to make sure that a new entrant into the dairy industry—if he is a sound fellow, properly financed and likely to be successful—shall not be refused his registration. Therefore this point arises. As it now is, the Minister can refuse registration if he thinks that, in respect of the farm the man wants to buy or to develop, the conditions are bad. It is quite possible that a man newly entering, or wishing to enter into the trade, may have reclaimed a considerable area of land and wishes to start a dairy farm upon it; or it may be that he takes over an old farm, and the buildings are so bad that they cannot be said to be in a fit state. In the first case, of course, the Minister cannot refuse registration because he cannot say that the conditions are such that it makes it undesirable to give registration. Therefore, it seems to me, unless these words are inserted, it is going to be extremely difficult for anybody, however good or promising or well financed he may be, to set up in the dairy industry at all. If these words are accepted, it will be possible for the Minister, both in the case of the existing dairy farm and in the case of a prospective dairy farm, to accept the registration of a new-corner into the industry.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton) rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I had better warn the hon. Gentleman that if he seconds this Amendment, he cannot move the next one.

Major Studholme (Tavistock)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hudson

I hope, after the explanation I am about to give, that my hon. Friend will realise that his proposed words are not necessary or desirable. Indeed this Amendment almost amounts to a complete volte face from the position which he and his friends took up on the Second Reading, when it was suggested—and pressed very strongly—that the power that was proposed to the Minister under paragraph (b) Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill—to refuse registration, if, in my opinion, the regulations will not be complied with—was far too wide. It was in order to try to meet this point that we inserted the new wording in the Amendment in my name, namely, a requirement that the regulation shall provide for the refusal of any such registration by that Minister if in his opinion, having regard to conditions existing at the premises to be registered, the regulations cannot be complied with and the registration should be refused … My hon. Friend put forward two hypothetical cases, both of which will be easily solvable in practice. If a man wants to buy a farm, which he wants to convert into a dairy farm, he will be able to approach my authorities and say, "In the conditions prevailing at this dairy farm, is it likely that I shall be given a registration or not? Or what requirements will you expect?" That is currently the practice to-day. If I buy a farm and want to produce tuberculin tested milk I go to the authority concerned and I say, "Will you have a look at this and tell me what your requirements are to enable me to comply with the regulations?" Being sensible people on both sides we reach a conclusion, and I decide whether or not the expense is worth while. I suggest that the only criterion by which the suitability of a dairy farm for registration can be judged is the physical condition prevailing at the time and, where conditions are thoroughly unsatisfactory, I venture to submit it is absurd to suggest that, nevertheless, registration should take place because at some future undetermined time conditions might have improved. If and when con- ditions have improved, it is always possible to apply for registration. The question will be decided on the facts and conditions prevailing at the time of application. I hope, therefore, that in the light of that explanation my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Petherick

May I put a question to the Minister? In the case of the man who is starting up and has taken the trouble to reclaim a considerable area of land, he cannot possibly claim that conditions are existing. He may have to spend an enormous amount of money and then be refused his application. How is that to be dealt with?

Mr. Hudson

Normally he puts forward plans and if he is going to alter buildings, he has, anyhow, to obtain the consent of the local sanitary authority and will not be in any worse position under the Bill than he is to-day.

Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)

Will regulations be printed and circulated throughout the country with regard to the requirements made upon a man who is likely to make these alterations?

Mr. Hudson

I think the Regulations will be in such a form that he would be able to ascertain with reasonable certainty whether or not the alterations he proposed to make in a building would satisfy the requirements.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 20, to leave out "a," and to insert "an independent."

I would like to refer at the same time to the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), in line 21, to insert: (d) provide that no officer or servant of the Minister of Agriculture or of the person objecting shall sit on the tribunal during the hearing of an objection. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I discussed the two together, and I want to make it quite clear that they are not consequential. They are separate points affecting the same tribunal. The Solicitor-General, in introducing this new Amendment, made it clear that in his opinion the great merit of this tribunal was that it was to be an expert tribunal. In my view it would have been more seemly for the Solicitor-General to have claimed that its great merit was that it was to be an impartial tribunal. I cannot think myself that you will ever get a tribunal to be impartial unless it is made independent. It may be that at the present time the tribunals which are judging these cases are not satisfying the Ministry of Agriculture or some other Department, but when these cases are tried it is the rule that nobody can sit on the cases in court if he is interested either in the Ministry of Agriculture or in the particular farm under consideration. I think it is imperative that we should try to make it clear that Parliament will not tolerate a tribunal that is partial to judge these questions of fact. It was said at an earlier stage of the Bill that the Minister, in his Regulations, was proposing to set up a tribunal containing representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board and the Regional Superintending Inspector——

Mr. Hudson

Would it be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we had a discussion on this Amendment, my hon. Friend's next Amendment in line 21, which he mentioned just now, and also the Amendment in line 21 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), to leave out "Regulations," and insert "Second Schedule hereto?"

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if these three Amendments were moved separately, and we had a discussion that covered all the points which, although separate in point of order, are yet very similar in their application to the Bill. That would mean that we could have three Divisions, if necessary, but only one main discussion, which would cover the three Amendments.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

That would include the new Schedule, would it not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The new Schedule is consequential on the Amendment and falls with that Amendment.

Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)

If the Amendment to the Amendment which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has just moved is carried, his second Amendment would be inserted in the Bill, because if there is to be an independent tribunal there could not be on it a servant of the Minister of Agriculture. He could not be independent.

Mr. Turton

Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend. I was about to explain the purpose of my two Amendments. My first is undoubtedly the greater, and I was making, my case for an independent tribunal. If we are not to have an independent tribunal, but the tribunal which the Minister is proposing, then I claim that on no hearing shall there be people who are concerned in the objection. I got as far as saying that the Minister's tribunal was to be composed of representatives of the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers' Union and the Regional Superintending Inspector. Frankly, I think it is unwise in a Bill, and in any Regulation, for a Minister to ask any union, whether it be the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Railwaymen, the miners' union or any other, to put forward a member of the tribunal. I do not want this tribunal to be composed of representatives; I want it to be a tribunal representing what the ordinary man thinks about these things, and which knows something about cow barns. At the present time these matters are judged by justices of the peace. The Minister is taking away powers from the courts of summary jurisdiction and is proposing to have a corporate tribunal composed of representatives of the Milk Marketing Board and the N.F.U. and, worst of all, one of his own superior officers. I do not believe that this is the kind of tribunal that the House would desire to see set up either in a Bill or by means of Regulations.

The Minister having given that outline of his view, I think it is desirable the House should make it quite clear that in this Clause, as amended, the tribunal should be an independent tribunal. There are plenty of men in the country who have the requisite knowledge and who are independent. In any region you will find men who have devoted a considerable part of their lives to the study of dairying and dairying methods. There are young men, who are not servants of the Ministry of agriculture or any other body, who have knowledge of clean methods of dairying and veterinary surgery. There is a wide field from which the Minister can draw for the appointment of this tribunal. The House should particularly beware of a proposal to place on a tribunal one of the Minister's own officers. May I ask the House to remember what the procedure will be? The farmer is applying for a licence to carry on a dairy farm. The Minister's veterinary inspector makes an objection. Under the proposal outlined on the Committee stage the appeal against the objection of the veterinary inspector will be heard by another veterinary officer who is the immediate superior of the one who makes the objection. Every loyal civil servant will, undoubtedly, be naturally prejudiced in favour of the objection, because he must support his junior officer as far as possible. I have been in the Army long enough to see what happens there, and to realise that the same sort of thing happens in any other well run Government Department.

Mr. G. Griffiths

Has the hon. Member tried it on?

Mr. Turton

I have been a junior officer who has met with great loyalty on many occasions from a superior officer. We must have a clear indication from the Minister or the Solicitor-General that when the tribunal is appointed one of the Minister's own officers will not be placed on it. I hope we shall get an assurance that the tribunal will be fully representative of all interests in dairying. I do not find a great deal of difference of opinion between the N.F.U. and the Milk Marketing Board. I have great respect for them, but I believe that this matter is primarily one of public health and, secondly, one of agriculture, and I should expect the Lord Chancellor or the Minister, when appointing the tribunals, to draw from men who have had considerable experience in health and agricultural matters, men who represent local authorities, men such as veterinary inspectors in private practice or members of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association. These are the types of men I should hope to find on an independent tribunal which was to judge these questions.

If the House rejects—as I hope it will not—the insertion of the words "an independent" then I ask Members to accept my second Amendment to provide that on the hearing of any one case there shall not sit an interested party to deter- mine the rights or wrongs of the objection. I have drawn it widely; it is not merely an officer or servant of the Minister involved but, equally, an officer or servant of the person objecting. It is a well recognised canon of justice that no prejudiced man shall hear any particular case. Suppose, for instance, the farmer who was trying for a licence, which the Minister was refusing, was a member of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Would anybody think it right that on that tribunal, determining his appeal, there should be another member of that society? Clearly that would be wrong. Equally, take the case of a large land owner. Supposing he was having his licence cancelled, would the House tolerate an agent of that land owner being on the tribunal? I put these two examples to give the two extremes.

I am quite sure that the House does not wish the tribunal to be weighted in favour of the Minister by having on it an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture. We do not want to have weighting of the tribunals. I very much regretted in Committee when the Minister started talking about the tribunals being weighted. We want judicial tribunals to determine this and I ask the House to accept my first Amendment. I do not think the Bill requires to state in detail who should be members. I think we should lay down the pattern, and the pattern should be impartiality and independence. For that reason I ask the House to accept my Amendment rather than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who goes into some detail and wants a representative of the farming industry and another of milk consumers.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

I beg to second the Amendment.

This matter has been considered by the industry as a whole rather thoroughly. On 12th April and 5th May there were. meetings of the principal agricultural organisations of the country, the Royal Agricultural Society, the Central Landowners Association, and the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Transport and General Workers Union were also present. They drew up a statement of their view of the lines on which they hoped agriculture would develop. They said among other things: In return for a guaranteed price level all owners and occupiers of rural land must ac- cept the obligation to maintain a reasonable standard of good husbandry and good estate management and submit to the necessary measures of direction and guidance, subject to the provision of an appeal to an impartial tribunal. I submit that "impartial" and "independent" are practically the same words. This statement is one to which I subscribe, as I think a great many other people do. To add to its present importance, this is the first occasion, as far as I know, on which the Minister has begun to implement some of the things that we wish for. I am very glad to see it and I hope we shall see many more, but I think it is very important that we should start in the right way and in the way indicated by this very large representative meeting, that is, that where there are regulations there should be opportunities for an appeal to an impartial tribunal.

Mr. G. Griffiths

I support the Amendment. I am amazed that the Minister should have asked for this power. It is a one-sided power. If a tribunal of this kind were set up in mining districts, there would be the devil to pay all over the country. If he proposed to set up a tribunal and to appoint someone engaged in the industry as chairman, we would not stand for it at all. If the tribunal is not independent there will always be a bias and, no matter which way it goes, people will feel that they have not had a square deal. I have had representations from farmers and farm workers in my constituency. They asked me, "What is the Minister up to now?" I was speaking at a trade union meeting the other night. I do not belong to the Farmers' Union. They were young and very intelligent men and I was delighted to address an Agricultural Workers Union meeting. No one could put the case better than the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has done. He knows something about it. He has been in the Army and he has given his experience. If he, as a junior officer, reported something to an officer above him against someone else, it is human nature that the officer above him would say, "All right. I believe what you say." It is no wonder that the Minister is not looking at me. I think he is ashamed of this proposal and will withdraw it.

If he puts his regional officer in charge, he is bound to look at that officer's side of it. The sense of the House on all sides is against him and I expect if the Independents and Common Wealth and the Communist Party were in the House they would support us. It is obvious that this is a very unpopular way of constituting the tribunal. I support the Amendment whole-heartedly.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston (Thornbury)

I should like to bring the House back to the Bill and the situation that we are trying to meet. We want to get cleaner milk.

Mr. Griffiths

Have I not been on the Bill?

Sir D. Gunston

I apologise to the hon. Member. He was certainly on the Bill. Present conditions are very difficult. When the Minister first introduced the Bill I did not have a single letter of complaint from farmers. I do not know that the Farmers' Union or anyone even asked for a tribunal.

Sir E. Grigg

Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the resolution quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) demanding an impartial tribunal in matters of this kind was passed at a meeting at which the National Farmers' Union was represented?

Sir D. Gunston

The National Farmers' Union may have been represented, but they have never asked for a tribunal as far as I know. It was suggested not by the opponents but by the supporters of the Measure that that tribunal should be set up. What would happen if we adopted the suggestion and the Amendment were accepted? It would mean that no man could sit on the tribunal who was a member of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Turton

I never said that. No officer or servant of either of the parties could possibly sit, but I thought it unwise to mention any union in the Bill. It is far better to let the Minister or the Lord Chancellor choose completely independent people. Let him draw from local authorities, from the farmers and others. It is not right for my hon. and gallant Friend to suggest that I said that no member of the Farmers' Union could be appointed.

Sir D. Gunston

In practice I believe it would be very difficult to have mem- bers of the National Farmers' Union appointed if the tribunal had to be independent. It is suggested by the Attorney-General and the Minister of Agriculture that a panel should be set up for consultation with him drawn from the Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board. It is a remarkable fact that the farmers as a whole are in favour of the Bill and have agreed to it, which means that many farmers will have to accept Regulations which are not in force at present. That is a very great and a very wise advance, because you have to secure clean milk and to obtain the confidence of the country in clean milk. If it is going to work, you have to carry the farming community with you, and it is very remarkable that we have carried them. If you get a representative of the Farmers' Union on the tribunal it will help very much, but you have the other suggestion of a representative of the Milk Marketing Board to represent the consumers. In that case how are you going to work the tribunal? You cannot have a representative of the Milk Marketing Board and the Farmers' Union as well. I do not see how you are going to carry it out.

Mr. Petherick

My hon. and gallant Friend does not begin to understand the position. No one has said that one of the appointed members should not be a member of the Farmers' Union. They may be anyone, members of the Farmers' Union or anything else, but they must be persons independent of the Ministry.

Sir D. Gunston

I cannot see how a man can be independent if he is a member of the Farmers' Union, or a farmer, when a discussion comes up. Now we come to the difficulty of the chairman. I see my hon. Friend's point. He suggests it is almost the act of a Hitler or a Mussolini to appoint one of these officers as chairman. But what would happen? Let us take the analogy of the junior Army officer. The veterinary officer on the tribunal is bound to support the veterinary officer of the Ministry.

Mr. G. Griffiths

He would already have the evidence in his own hands.

Sir D. Gunston

He may or may not have. Who will this chairman be? He will be bound to be an officer of the Ministry. I think veterinary surgeons are sensible men. They know the standard which the country wants, and I do not think they will be unduly prejudiced. We want to get a uniform, minimum, decent standard throughout the country. That is all we want. If you are not to have as chairman somebody from the Union or a veterinary officer of the Ministry, whom are you to have? If you say you have got to have an independent person, who is it going to be?

Captain Cobb (Preston)

Month after month the Minister of Pensions said it was impossible to man these pension appeal tribunals, but they have been manned and are sitting now.

Sir D. Gunston

I repeat, whom are you going to get? You might get a man in one county who will not know the standard in another county. If you have these veterinary officers I think you will get a sensible, uniform, minimum standard throughout the country and they will know, more or less, what other districts think is a minimum standard. I think, on the whole, the House should not be led away by the arguments that have been put forward, because we are dealing purely with a practical matter—trying to get clean milk. On the whole, this Amendment goes a long way to meeting what my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I listened with great interest to the argument put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) in favour of having tribunals which were neither independent nor impartial and his sole argument seemed to be that he apprehended a difficulty in finding fair-minded people in this country who could apply their minds to this question. I entirely disagree with him and, indeed, I must admit that I was not entirely able to follow the logic of his argument. Let us consider what, in fact, this tribunal has to do. I gather that the hon. Baronet is against any tribunal at all. If he will read the Amendment with the Bill he will see that the tribunal has to consider questions of fact, and nothing more. All the tribunal has to consider is whether the Regulations have been or will be broken, as the Minister's representatives will suggest, or whether they have not been broken and will not be broken. That depends upon what is put in front of that tribunal by the Minister's representatives, on the one side, and by the farmer and his witnesses on the other. It is a pure question of fact, and just the same question of fact that a jury has to decide day in and day out in this country. We do not demand that our juries should be experts on a particular subject.

I do not follow the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that it was necessary to have an expert tribunal on this matter, solely to decide a question of fact—whether or not a farmer was guilty or not guilty of a breach of the Regulations. He gave the instance of certain tribunals which are manned by experts, but the general course in this country is, I think, to have your fact-finding tribunal completely independent and impartial. When the facts have been found by the tribunal the Minister will have to decide, as I see it, what sentence shall be imposed; whether a farmer shall be bound over and given another chance; whether he shall be struck off, or what shall be done with him. I am content that the responsibility for that should be left with the Minister; but the suggestion that, in addition to the Minister having his servant acting as prosecutor before this tribunal, he should also, in addition to acting as judge and deciding what is to be done if the farmer is found guilty, have someone on the jury to determine whether or not a breach has been committed, seems to me quite wrong. I apprehend no difficulty at all in finding three or four people who can listen to what is put before them and arrive at a correct decision. I have no apprehension that there will be many of these tribunals required throughout the country, nor do I apprehend that they will have much work to do. I am concerned, however, that they should be impartial.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) rather questioned the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members with regard to putting forward a Schedule to this Bill. I would like to see the constitution of this tribunal dealt with in the Bill, because it seems to me that is the right place for it. In the Pensions Appeal Bill we dealt with it in full detail and it seems to me that we should do so here too. I agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that what we really want is an independent body, and it does not very much matter how the personnel is arrived at. Indeed, the only reason why in the draft Amendment which stands in my name we have put down one representative of the farming industry and one representative of the consumers' interest is because of the words used by the Minister on the Committee stage and our desire to meet him as far as we could. But the vital thing is that the people on the tribunal should be free from bias. If you want a fair decision you ought not to appoint anyone who is known to have, or is likely to have, a bias in one direction or another.

One final point. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury said that farmers had never raised this point. It may be that in his part of the country they have not done so, but when this point came to the notice of farmers in my part of the country they took a very keen interest in it indeed. I know they are not satisfied, at the moment, with the concession the Minister made on the Committee stage. Personally, I welcome the Amendment in his name to-day, and hope he will go a little bit further and make this tribunal as fair as we all want it to be by providing that no interested party shall be appointed to it.

Sir E. Grigg

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has gone such a long way to meet the feeling of the House in regard to these provisions in the Bill that I hope he will just take one further step and meet what he must realise is the overwhelming feeling in the House. We really do not want to be controversial about this, and there is not one of us who does not share the intense desire that this country should have the highest possible standard of milk production. Even in politics there are some ultimate values, and the rights of the subject are things which none of us can play about with without the greatest danger. We all feel that every man must have a chance in a free and democratic society, and what we are asking for is a very simple thing. I do not want to say that the tribunal should be of one kind or another; I am prepared to leave that very largely to the discretion of the Minister. All that I ask is that the chairman of the tribunal should be an impartial and independent man. That is the sole point. By "impartial and independent" I mean a man who is neither sharing the case of the prosecution nor sharing the case of the defendant. That is the simple point, and that is what the House of Commons, which is very representative of the country in this matter, feels very strongly. I was astonished to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) that he has heard nothing on this subject from farmers. His correspondence with farmers must be very eclectic,^* because I have heard a great deal both from farmers in his constituency, in which I reside, and farmers in my own constituency and other parts of the country. They must have formed the impression that he is not agreeable to receiving communications of this character.

Sir D. Gunston

I must inform my hon. Friend that the representatives of the Farmers' Union in my constituency have thanked me for supporting this Bill.

Sir E. Grigg

I also support the Bill, but that does not go one step forward. The issue at the moment is a special question which has nothing to do with the main merits of the Bill. The Solicitor-General must be aware of what are plainly the merits of the very simple thing for which we are asking. I believe that there is an overwhelming feeling in the House and the country in favour of the case we are making, and I should deeply regret to see the great efficiency, enthusiasm and ability which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has put into the service of agriculture in the course of this war compromised by his standing fast on a question of principle which has nothing to do with clean milk but has a great deal to do with the liberties of Englishmen.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh)

The Solicitor-General has told us that he was willing to listen, to any arguments for an improvement in these provisions. I am not an interested party and know nothing about this business, so that I have been able to listen from an independent position. After listening to all that has been said I feel that there ought to be an independent tribunal. A tribunal carries with it the implication of independence. Whenever we talk about a tribunal we have in mind a body of men who are free from bias and are impartial. The Minister has said that he is willing to set up a tribunal, but it will be such that there will be left in the minds of applicants for licences ^* [See OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1944; Vol. 402, C. 194.] the idea that they have had somebody to judge their cases who was already prejudiced against them. They will have a feeling of dissatisfaction that the thing was weighted against them and that they had not had a fair chance. In matters like this we have to have regard to the feeling of the House as a whole, and I am satisfied that there is a strong feeling in favour of an independent tribunal. In the mining world, if we had to go before a tribunal which we thought had been chosen by the Ministry or the coalowners, we should feel that we were not getting justice. That feeling will be in the minds of the applicants for a licence under this Bill if the tribunal is not independent. I appeal to the Minister to bow to the wishes of the House in this matter.

Major Studholme (Tavistock)

I agree with everything that has been said with the exception of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thorn-bury {Sir D. Gunston), and with that I entirely disagree. It was very largely irrelevant to the point at issue. We are grateful to the Minister for having gone so far to meet so many of the points that were raised by my hon. Friends during the Committee stage, but I think that he might go a little further and I hope that he will accept the Amendment. It is a vital principle that the tribunal should be really independent. It has been argued that by having one of the Minister's regional superintendent veterinary officers on the tribunal we should obtain uniformity, because they alone have the expert knowledge of the standards and so on required throughout the country. Surely there must be other people in the country besides these 15 officers with suitable experience and commonsense who are capable of exercising sound judgment, I doubt whether we want to sacrifice the vital principle of independent justice for a problematical uniformity. It is legally unsound and psychologically stupid to have these people on the tribunal. None of the members of the tribunal should be a servant of the Minister. However conscientious, able and disinterested the Minister and his officials may be, they are not the sole repositories of human wisdom, and they make mistakes like other people. The fact that a member of the tribunal was a nominee of the Minister would at once lay him open to the suspicion that he was biased. It is essential that the tribunal should be entirely independent. I believe that farmers are now waking up to the implications of the Bill, and I do not believe that the Government will win their confidence unless they set up a tribunal entirely independent of Whitehall.

Sir W. Wayland

As a dairy farmer, I entirely support the independence of this tribunal, but I do not agree with those who are against the Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board appointing representatives. The Farmers' Union is composed of about half the farmers in the country, and its chief committee is composed of men in whom the farmers have every confidence. At a meeting of farmers on Saturday I asked them whether they would be prepared to support a tribunal composed of a representative appointed by the Farmers' Union, one by the Milk Board, and one by the Sanitary Inspectors' Institute. Every one said that they would be. At that meeting there were about 50 dairy farmers and it was a representative meeting. I have every confidence in the Farmers' Union appointing an independent man. I have every confidence that the Milk Marketing Board, with which I have had transaction since its foundation, would appoint an independent man. I am also confident that the Sanitary Inspectors' Institute would appoint an independent man. We should also have confidence in the Lord Chancellor appointing a legal representative as chairman. If we had that independent chairman it would be a perfect tribunal from the farmer's point of view. There should be a representative of the National Farmers' Union, a representative of the Milk Marketing Board, one from the Sanitary Institute and one appointed by the Lord Chancellor as a legal representative.

Mr. James Griffiths

I venture to intervene for a moment to put some of my own experience at the disposal of the House, in connection with tribunals, and in order to offer a suggestion. In setting up a tribunal, one has to be satisfied that its constitution will be such as to create confidence among those who will be affected by its decisions. Its constitution cannot be divorced from the job it has to do. In order to create that confidence, it must create the impression, not only that it will arrive at an inde- pendent judgment, but that it has the technical knowledge without which any such judgment is of no use. I have had to appear before various kinds of tribunal, and once or twice I have sat as a member of a tribunal. I have had to argue on mining problems before an independent, single arbitrator; before a body of arbitrators; before what is called an independent tribunal—and I presume that what hon. Members are now asking for, as an independent tribunal, is that its members will be drawn from outside the industry affected. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then perhaps hon. Members will let us know what they mean.

Mr. Turton

Perhaps I might make this point clear. What we mean by "independent" is that nobody should be a member of the tribunal who was likely to be a party to the appeal; in other words, DO member of the Ministry of Agriculture should be a member of that tribunal. Otherwise, the members should be good, knowledgeable people.

Mr. Griffiths

I thank the hon. Member for clearing up that point. I was frying to apply my own experience. I have appeared before a tribunal of three people dealing with mining, an industry with its own technique, when the people on the tribunal knew nothing at all about mining. I did not question their independence of mind or character, but it was most painful to try to explain points which were quite beyond them, as they did not understand technical mining matters expressed in technical language. I can imagine nothing worse than appearing before a tribunal composed of very eminent people of very great knowledge, for whom the special body of knowledge in question is a closed book, particularly when, as in this case, they have to decide matters of fact which presume a knowledge of agriculture. I have come to the conclusion that a tribunal which has to decide matters of great importance must be such, therefore, as to create real confidence and satisfy any person who has to appear before it that the members of a tribunal understand the full implications of his case. If it is suggested that the independent tribunal should be composed of people not connected with, and largely ignorant of, agriculture, I suggest that that would be a mistake.

Mr. Turton

Has the hon. Member had experience of a tribunal hearing a case when a member of the tribunal is a superior officer of the prosecutor?

Mr. Griffiths

I am coming to that point. I was offering an opinion and a suggestion, as a result of my experience. It is essential for some members of the tribunal to have real, practical knowledge of the matters they are to investigate. If I was led to believe that hon. Members were suggesting a tribunal of people with no technical knowledge, I apologise. The best kind of tribunal is, in my opinion, one of three members, two of whom are chosen because of their ripe knowledge of the matters in question, and the other, a person of experience, independent, acting as an independent chairman. I have appeared before all kinds of tribunal, but if I had to choose I would not like to go before three persons drawn from all over the country, and knowing nothing about mining. I would like three persons who understood the industry, its language and its problems, and the full implications and consequences of any case that came before them. No industry has suffered more than the mining industry from unforeseen consequences of the decisions of tribunals who did not fulfil those qualifications. The sort of tribunal I would like to see adopted for my own industry, and which I suggest might be the best in the present case, is one containing two members with technical knowledge and experience and a third member of experience and judgment, and with ability to arrive at an independent decision.

Mr. Petherick

In the early part of his speech, the hon. Member who has just addressed the House was pursuing a false scent, through an open door.

Mr. Griffiths

I did not think I was pushing any door. I could see hon. Members opposite apparently in conflict, and it occurred to me that I might be able to help to cement them together.

Mr. Petherick

The hon. Member had the idea that we were urging the adoption of a certain form of tribunal which was far from our intentions. We had not any idea that the members of the tribunal should be persons who painted spots on rocking horses, for example, and knew nothing about the industry. We had been trying to persuade the Minister of Agriculture and the Solicitor-General to agree to an independent tribunal, which does not mean a tribunal knowing nothing about the trade of dairy farming. When the hon. Member really understood what it was we wanted, he was in his concluding remarks in entire agreement with us. All we have been asking for is a tribunal of three persons, of whom the chairman should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and should be an entirely independent person, supported by two members who know and are conversant with the trade in question, from one angle or the other. We can be very grateful that we have the complete support of the hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths

I hope that the people for whom I speak may in future have the equal support of the hon. Member.

Mr. Petherick

My hon. Friend will certainly have my complete and wholehearted support on the rare occasions when his party happens to be pursuing the truth.

Mr. Griffiths

Through an open door?

Mr. Petherick

As the hon. Member for Llanelly quite rightly pointed out, it is important that a person who comes before the tribunal shall be satisfied that the tribunal knows something about the job and the trade in question. But that is only half of that on which he has to be satisfied. The other half upon which he must be satisfied is that they not only know the trade but that they will give him an absolutely fair and independent decision.

May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) this possibility? I do not know if he is a dairy farmer or not. If he is, supposing he had an admirable herd, very well kept in very good premises, and that he always produced clean milk, and that for some reason or another his licence was refused or cancelled, he would then raise, quite properly, a very serious objection. Supposing there had been a miscarriage of justice on the part of a servant of the Ministry, and my hon. and gallant Friend went before the tribunal and found as chairman of it, a veterinary officer in the employment of the Ministry who had already had their report from another employee of the Ministry, would he feel satisfied, if his registration was cancelled, that he had received an absolutely fair and unqualified decision to which he could not possibly take exception? Of course he would not. He would feel a sense of grievance, and that is the kind of thing which may happen. It will not happen all over the country if these tribunals are not independent. The servants of the Ministry will not consciously oppress. Of course, they will not. What we have to look at is not the vast majority of cases in which reasonable justice may be done, but the small number where injustice may be done.

What we mean by an independent judiciary in this country is a judiciary independent of His Majesty's servants, and independent of the Executive. It is not only necessary that justice should be done. It is also part of the judicial system that if injustice has been done it shall be rectified. It seems to me clear that there must be a tribunal which will give confidence, on the one side, that it is impartial and independent, and on the other side, that the persons on it know something about the trade. What can be simpler or better than a tribunal such as has been suggested, with an independent chairman, appointed maybe by the Lord Chancellor, maybe by the Minister, and two others who, by the nature of their employment, know something about the trade either from the producing or consuming angle?

I hope that this will be put into the Bill and will not form part of the regulations, and furthermore, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) I hope that no association, whether it is the National Farmers' Union or the Co-operative Wholesale Society, or any association shall be mentioned in the course of the Bill. I think it is unsound. It assumes that only certain associations or societies really know anything about the trade in question. That is entirely undesirable, and, far more important, it is a sort of vestige, or, if I may use a non-Parliamentary expression, a hint of a slight smell, of a beginning of the corporate State, and we must beware of that, any time it raises its ugly head. A succession of Governments over a period of time have resisted on Committee stages, time after time, any introduction of names of associations, and I think they have been quite right. I urge the Government to resist such a desire on this occasion or to any claim that may be made to introduce such associations into this Bill. I am quite sure the Minister would be wise to give in to what I believe ' is the overwhelming view of persons in all parties in this House that we must have an independent tribunal, so that justice may not only be done but may be seen to be done.

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Rye)

I think my right hon. Friend the Minister will have to give way. I have been a dairy farmer on rather a large scale for a good many years. Unless these Debates had taken place on this subject I would have said that it did not much matter who formed the tribunal; they would have to decide perfectly elementary matters, decisions of simple fact. But one thing that is necessary is that the farmer who is appealing against the decision of the local veterinary inspector should feel that the people who hear the appeal and make the decision are honest, impartial fellows—that he must feel confidence. I did not think it would matter who they were and what offices they held, but after all these Debates, if the Minister is still determined, and resists this or any similar Amendment, I think he will merely have convinced the farmers that he does not mean to have an impartial tribunal, and that it will destroy the confidence which is absolutely essential to the administration of this Bill. So I hope that in spite of his difficulties—I know his difficulties—he will give way to what seems to be almost the unanimous opinion of those who have spoken.

The Solicitor-General

I have listened with the greatest possible attention and tried to follow every point which has come from every quarter of the House, and I hope that hon. Friends in all quarters will realise the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend and I are on this matter. We started with the views that were expressed on the Committee stage, and we did our utmost to evolve a proper approach to the problem. That approach has been, I think, unanimously accepted by the House, that is the separation of the sphere of facts and the finding of facts and the determination of facts, from that of the operation of this policy by the Minister. That we are, in general, agreed upon and the question we have been considering to-day is the more limited question, What is the best form of tribunal to deal with the findings of fact? And in his intervention a short time ago, I suggest my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was putting the view too highly as to the unimportance of expert knowledge and experience in the composition of this tribunal. My hon. Friend was sweeping that aside, on the basis that so long as you got three men of good will, then it did not really matter whether they know much about the subject or not.

Mr. Turton

I would beg my hon. and learned Friend, bearing in mind his position, to withdraw that. I think I can repeat my opening words. I quoted my right hon. Friend as having said that he regarded this tribunal as being in the first place an expert tribunal. My rejoinder was that the first thing was that it should be an impartial tribunal, and that the expert matter came second. It is quite unfair and improper to suggest I said that any Tom, Dick or Harry should form this tribunal.

The Solicitor-General

I at once withdraw. I am very sorry indeed if I misunderstood my hon. Friend, and the last thing that I should desire to do would be to misrepresent him, but I certainly understood that the balance of my hon. Friend's speech was that the expert knowledge was, comparatively, an unimportant matter in dealing with this subject. That is the point which I want to controvert. If it is not my hon. Friend's point, at any rate I want to controvert that point. I thought that most of us were in agreement. It was put very fairly and comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that you had to have someone who understood the subject, and that, if you did not, anyone who appeared before such a body had his difficulties doubled. I think the majority of us want to find a tribunal which has this expert knowledge. We are going to get that in part, it is suggested, from the representative of the producers' panel. I do not think it matters very much whether he is a representative of the National Farmers' Union or not, so long as he is someone who represents the producers' side, and I suggest that he should be appointed in the usual way, from a panel, set up after representations from the producers' side of the industry. We are going to get someone representing the consumers' side. Then we have two members of the tribunal, with regard to whom there is general agreement in the House.

What are we to do after that point? My right hon. Friend and I have to envisage not only the possibility, but in many cases the probability, of disagreement between these divergent points of view, and we have to consider how the tribunal can best be strengthened to deal with that position. I should like to impress upon the House that in this case it will be an essential part of the operation of the tribunal that they will go and see the premises, and that they will in many cases largely make up their minds on the question of the premises, the equipment, and the probable methods, from an actual view of the premises which are in discussion in the case. Therefore, again I think that we want somebody who will contribute expert knowledge. I am very chary of quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. I hope that he will believe that it is with the most entire innocence that I attribute it to him if it was somebody who said it, and I ask his forgiveness in advance. But I think it was my hon. Friend who suggested an independent veterinary surgeon. With great relief, I find that I am right. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has appreciated the same difficulty as my right hon. Friend and I do, that we might want somebody else, apart from the producers' and consumers' representatives, who is able to contribute the expert knowledge on which my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, rightly, in my view, sets such store.

The difficulty, I am informed, in regard to veterinary surgeons is that, apart from the regional veterinary superintendents of the Ministry, a great number of other veterinary surgeons who would be suitable assist the Ministry in one way or another. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown), who spoke earlier, on a different Amendment, called attention to that fact, and mentioned the case of the veterinary surgeon that he would employ coming round on behalf of the Ministry to deal with his bulls. I hope that the House will bear this in mind, because I am trying to find the composition which will meet the House and which will meet the problem. I hope that the House will consider that the need for a veterinary surgeon is a strong one, and that there is this practical difficulty, if you are going to have a veterinary surgeon, of having someone entirely independent of the Ministry, and not under contract or connected with it.

Several of my hon. and learned Friends put the question of interest of members of the tribunal. They did not draw the distinction, which I think we have to draw when we consider a matter of this kind, between a particular interest, related to a case which comes before the tribunal, and a general interest, which may or may not have some effect. My hon. Friend opposite, who has appeared before so many benches of magistrates, in so many cases, knows particularly the difference I have in mind, and so does everyone who has had to deal with the point. It is a very real point. If you have somebody who has actually had to deal with the case under discussion, or with some aspect of the case under discussion, that is quite fatal, and you cannot have him on the tribunal for a moment. But when you come to consider the effect that a person's position may have, that, I suggest, is a different fact, and I ask all my hon. Friends who have considered this to think again as to whether it is really fatal that a tribunal should consist in part—if necessary, in quite a small part—of a senior official of the Ministry.

This is not the first time that it has been tried. It has happened in many aspects, as my hon. Friends know, of my right hon. Friend's own Ministry. When you have had to appeal to the Minister, the appeal has taken the course of going before a senior inspector, of one kind or the other, of the Ministry, who has heard the appeal. Again and again that has occurred during the last 25 years, without complaint. I suggest that the House considers this compromise. We have, as I ventured to point out in moving the original Amendment, agreed not only to the tribunal, but to four other important points which my hon. Friends behind me suggested, on the Committee stage, were important.

The only outstanding point is this question of composition. I ask the House very strongly, bearing in mind the length to which we have gone to meet the requests that have been made to us, to leave this matter, without enforcing the Amendment that any member of the staff of the Ministry is, ipso facto, disqualified from being a member of the tribunal. I ask the House not to press that upon us, but to allow my right hon. Friend the freedom which is given by the proposal to constitute the tribunal in accordance with the regulations on his assurance that he will consider again the composition of the tribunal, and will consider specially the point which has been urged by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) and others that there should be an independent chairman. I have been trying, as my hon. Friends know, for a long time now, to get what will be a via media acceptable to everyone, and I suggest that if we had an independent chairman, and if we had also these representatives of consumers and producers, the House should really allow my right hon. Friend this grace—that he should be allowed to consider the question of the remaining composition of the tribunal, and that he should have to put that in his regulations, which regulations will come before the House.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)

They will not come up for amendment.

The Solicitor-General

No, but they will come up for discussion and, of course, if the opinion of the House is still as it was when my right hon. Friend has reconsidered the position, my hon. Friend knows the method which can be adopted by which the will of the House can be enforced. I ask the House to consider at this stage that that will be sufficient, having the undertaking that the composition of the tribunal will be the subject of regulations, that the introduction of an independent chairman will be reconsidered by my right hon. Friend from the most favourable point of view, and not to tie us down to the exclusion of any member of the staff of the Ministry, because it may well be—and I ask hon. Members to appreciate this point—that the best way of dealing with that would be to introduce another balancing factor, which would give you two and two on each side, with an independent chairman in the centre as chairman of the tribunal. It is because I should deeply regret if the House committed itself to-day to the exclusion of a possible contribution of real help in deciding this problem, that I ask the House not to press for any definition in the Bill, but to leave it to the regulations with the assurances I have given.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett (Bridgwater)

Others much better versed than I am in the procedure of Parliament will be able to judge to what extent my right hon. Friend the Minister has made a concession. I think he has made a very considerable concession, but I am still a little distrustful of it, because, in pointing out the concession he had already made, he went on and instanced to us that he made a concession on the matter of appointing the tribunal. But what is the good of a tribunal unless it is an impartial tribunal? I only rise to emphasise this point. If my right hon. Friend is going to reconsider the composition of the tribunal, will he do so with this in mind? What happens in this House is extraordinarily important to him and to the rest of us, but so is what happens in the country, and I want very strongly to support what the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthorpe) said. The Minister of Agriculture, in the next few months, has got to impose, or, rather, to persuade the farming industry to accept, a great deal of regimentation which it will not like. It would be unnatural if it did like it, but in the national interest it must be done.

It seems to me that in this present case the Minister is well able to make a further concession, and would be well advised to do so because it is quite clear that, after the Minister of Agriculture has appointed these tribunals, they will be profoundly distrusted by agriculturists if they are not going to have the emphasis laid upon their impartiality. Upon the fact that you must have expert knowledge on the tribunal, there is general agreement, and there has never been any real difference, but these tribunals, surely, must convince the country that they are impartial, and it is mainly in support of what the right hon. Member for Rye said that I urge the Minister to remember that.

Mr. Hudson

I have been very much interested in what my hon. Friend just said, but I venture to suggest to the House that we have to consider this from a realistic point of view. It is all very well talking about an impartial tribunal. The tribunal which the Solicitor-General suggested should be set up will really consist of a member from a panel of the Milk Marketing Board, a member from a panel of the N.F.U., and a senior member of the Ministry of Agriculture. I am as anxious as anybody that the decisions on facts of this tribunal should be regarded by everybody as being impartial. Obviously, if I am to decide the issue, I must assume that the tribunal, in finding the facts on which eventually I am to base a decision, has reached an impartial, but also a correct and knowledgeable, conclusion on the facts. I really fail to see why it should be considered that a member of the National Farmers' Union panel or the Milk Marketing Board panel is impartial and yet a member of my staff is not. I venture to remind the House of the origin and purpose of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to try to remedy a state of affairs in the production of milk which, by general agreement, is unsatisfactory. The solution put forward in the Bill—not necessarily the only solution but, at all events, a solution accepted by the House in principle on Second Reading—is that the Minister should now be responsible, personally and through his Department, for the provisions for cleaning up the milk. I have to satisfy two sets of people. I have to satisfy the farmer that his case is being regarded impartially, but I have also to satisfy the public——

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

And that is what they are all forgetting.

Mr. Hudson

—and consumers of milk, that this tribunal—[Interruption.] I have to satisfy the public of this country that this tribunal which we are setting up, in deference to the expressed views of the House, will not only see that the farmer has justice but that the consumer is protected. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir H. Williams) had been in the House at the time, he would have heard from the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) what nearly everybody in the House thought was a very convincing speech in favour of an expert body on these questions.

Sir J. Lamb

Under an independent chairman.

Mr. G. Griffiths

An independent man, not a regional officer.

Mr. Hudson

It must be a knowledgeable body and an expert body. The possible solution as suggested by the hon. Member for Llanelly would be a body consisting of an independent chairman and a representative, on the one hand, of the producers, which would include also the Milk Marketing Board, which is a producers' organisation, or the National Farmers' Union, and, on the other hand, a representative of the consumers. That is the sort of body suggested. You would have, on the one hand, the producers and, on the other hand, the consumers represented, and I am undertaking to see that it should be done. That is quite a possible tribunal, to which I myself would not have any particular objection, but it would not be necessarily acceptable all round.

I am prepared to stand by the offer made by my hon. and learned Friend. This sort of thing cannot come in for a considerable number of months, because we cannot get the necessary staffs together, though we want to feel that we can make a beginning with the organisation. It cannot come in until the appointed day and the regulations have been approved by the House. I would suggest that we should leave it at that. I am aware of the views expressed in certain quarters of the House, and I will do my best to see if we can, in the course of the next month, work out some scheme which will achieve the object I have in view. But I have responsibility under the Bill and I have to be satisfied that the tribunal will be a competent body, otherwise it would be very foolish of me to undertake responsibility for the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

It is necessary that I should say a word or two in support of these forlorn Ministers, who are handicapped by the "yes" men. I am in favour of an impartial tribunal. I am of the opinion that the Minister is an impartial Minister in this respect, and I am satisfied that a representative appointed by the Minister would be impartial. But there are two things that are being mixed. There is the question of impartiality, and the question of independence. Hon. Members opposite, in the guise of impartiality, are asking for independence. Independence from what? They are asking for a tribunal independent of the Minister and of this House. As the Minister said, it is not just the dairymen who are concerned with this, but the people of the country. Members on the other side want two nice country gentlemen and a nice legal man appointed by the Lord Chancellor to take into their hands, independently of this House, the fate of the people of this country. What is the matter with the House of Commons? Hon. Members, time and time again, get up and argue against totalitarianism, and yet they are introducing the worst type of totalitarianism in handing away their own powers.

If the Minister appointed a representative to the tribunal and any Member of this House could prove that that representative at a particular point showed the slightest partiality towards one section or another, that representative would be condemned and thrown out immediately. Time and time again Members put questions and write to Ministers and the matters are considered by the Department. Is there any Member who dare get up in this House and say that impartial consideration has not been given to their complaint? What sort of conditions are we getting into because of the "yes" men continually insisting on taking all the power from the House of Commons and getting people outside to decide independently of the Minister and of this House? I say, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, you should have an expert chairman, a representative of the trade and a representative from the Minister representing the people of this country. Whom does the Minister represent? [An HON. MEMBER: "Southport."] He does not represent Southport; as a Minister he represents the people of this country. I wonder if any hon. Member opposite who has been making such play of impartiality would dare

Division No. 29.	AYES.
Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)	Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)	Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Kimball, Major L.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h. Univ.)	Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Linstead, H. N.
Apsley, Lady	Foster, W.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.	Frankel, D.	McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Barr, J.	Fyfe, Major D. P. M.	McEntee, V. la T.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Gallacher, W.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)	Garro Jones, G. M.	Mack, J. D.
Beit, Sir A. L.	Glanville, J. E.	Mainwaring, W. H.
Benson, G.	Glyn, Sir R. G. C.	Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)	Gower, Sir R. V.	Mathers, G.
Bossom, A. C.	Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Molson, A. H. E.
Bower, Norman (Harrow)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Bowles, F. G.	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.	Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)	Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)	Groves, T. E.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)	Gunston, Major Sir D. W.	Oldfield, W. H.
Cary, R. A.	Guy, W. H.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Charleton, H. C.	Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.	Pownall, Lt. Col. Sir Assheton
Conant, Major R. J. E.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Price, M. P.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)	Pritt, D. N.
Cove, W. G.	Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.	Pym, L. R.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford	Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan.	Rankin, Sir R.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Hubbard, T. F.	Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)
De Chair, Capt. S. S.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Drewe, C.	Hughes, R. Moelwyn	Salt, E. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)	Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)	John, W	Scott, R D. (Wansbeck)

to get up in this House and say that the Minister of Agriculture is not impartial and not to be trusted. What is all this fuss about impartiality?

Sir E. Grigg

We are not dealing with the Minister of Agriculture as being a particular individual but as a large number of individuals who may be Ministers of Agriculture and who have no more idea than I have who may be Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Gallacher

It is possible that the ancient regime may be looking ahead and wish to hand over the whole business. The important thing is that not one Member who has spoken about impartiality dare challenge the Minister with being other than impartial; he dare not deny the fact that the Minister, being impartial, should also be responsible to this House and should likewise be impartial in respect of the people as a whole. There has been too much handing over of the powers of the House to groups of people outside and leaving ourselves with no right to discuss important questions that come before these particular bodies. I say, let us have the most impartial tribunal imaginable, but a tribunal responsible to the Minister and responsible to the House of Commons.

Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 112, Noes, 48.

Sloan, A.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)	Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver	Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)	Woodburn, A.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)	Thurtle, E.	York, Major C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.	Walkden, E. (Doncaster)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)	Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)	Mr. A. S. L. Young and
Suirdale, Viscount	Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)	Mr. Beechman.
Sutcliffe, H.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

NOES.
Albery, Sir Irving	Harvey, T. E.	Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.	Hopkinson, A.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)	Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.	Smithers, Sir W.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.	Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.	Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.
Cobb, Captain E. C.	Keeling, E. H.	Storey, S.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Studholme, Major H. C.
Eccles, D. M.	Lipson, D. L.	Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.	Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)	Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Fildes, Sir H.	Loftus, P. C.	Tinker, J. J.
Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.	Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)	Touche, G. C.
Furness, S. N.	Magnay, T.	Wayland, Sir W. A.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Mellor, Sir J. S. P.	White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.	Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)	Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Gretton, J. F.	Petherick, M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemaworth)	Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Mr. Turton and Colonel Clarke.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg formally to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of other hon. Members, in line 24——

Mr. Speaker

I did not select that Amendment. We have disposed of that by the Division.

Mr. Turton

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Deputy-Speaker gave a Ruling earlier that we were to have a general Debate covering all three Amendments and votes on each of them.

Mr. Speaker

It seems rather nonsensical on the Report stage, to divide the House three times on the same subject.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I did say line 24, which I thought was the Amendment you intended to call.

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry, I thought the hon. Gentleman said "line 21."

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 24, after "call," to insert: and to be represented if he so desires by a lawyer. I think the Solicitor-General, in dealing with the Amendment, indicated that it was not intended to restrict the farmer to appear by himself, and it was the intention to allow him to be represented by anyone if he so desired. In those circumstances, and on the understanding that the words to provide for that will be in- serted at some stage, I should be perfectly prepared to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

The Solicitor-General

I am ready to accept the principle of this Amendment with the addition I indicated earlier. In my view anyone who appears before the trilbuna21 ought, if he desires, to be represented by counsel or a solicitor, a member of the National Farmers' Union or even an agent, if that were easier. The only point I would ask my hon. Friend to consider is that this could be more easily inserted in the Regulations. It is within the sphere of Regulations in dealing with the formal matters connected with the tribunal. Perhaps on that understanding my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In view of what the Solicitor-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the next two Amendments on the Order Paper fall together.

Mr. Petherick

I rise to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 26, to leave out "made out," and to insert "sustained."

This Amendment, and my next Amendment in line 28—to leave out "not made out," and to insert, "overruled," are concerned purely with drafting. At present paragraph (e) of the Minister's Amendment reads: Require the said tribunal to determine whether the objections are made out, and if not, on which of the grounds in respect of which they are made they are not made out. …

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry, but my attention has been drawn to the fact that the hon. Member has spoken on the main Amendment, which has been moved by the Minister. Somebody else must move this Amendment; the hon. Member cannot do it.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)

I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 26, to leave out "made out," and to insert "sustained."

Dr. R. Thomas

I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hudson

I find it difficult to see any objection to the words "made out." They seem simple, clear and unambiguous and are defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "to establish by evidence, argument, or investigation." I should have Thought——

Mr. Austin Hopkinson (Mossley)

If my right hon. Friend will look at that dictionary carefully he will probably find, after that definition, in brackets, the letters "Vulg."

Mr. Hudson

I should have thought that the words expressed what are required, namely, that the farmer being in the position of an appellant, must establish by evidence, argument or investigation his objections to the Ministry's proposal to refuse or cancel. It rather reminds me of a description by an author, which I read the other day. He talked about "equine visaged females" when what he really meant was "horse-faced women." I think this Amendment is of the same type.

Mr. Petherick

I think I should be in Order in speaking on what ought to have been my Amendment if I had not been rescued by two of my hon. Friends. I think the wording I suggest is rather better. My right hon. Friend talked about "horse-faced women," and it reminded me that on the race-course the phrases "objection sustained" and "objection overruled" are used by the Jockey Club, who ought to know their business in these matters. I was not trying to obstruct; I put down my two Amendments because I had to read paragraph (e) two or three times before I understood it, whereas if I had read it with the word "sustained" in it instead of "made out" and "overruled" instead of "not made out" I should have understood it straight away.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I wish to support the Amendment. The words "sustained" and "overruled" are not words to which the reference made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) could properly be applied. It seems to me that the words "made out" as they appear in the Amendment indicate this: if an accusation is made against a farmer the objection to the accusation is put by him and the onus is upon him to prove his innocence. Unless he makes out that he is innocent the charge against him is found proved. On the wording of the Minister's Amendment the onus would be upon the appellant of proving that he is not guilty, instead of it being on the other side to prove that he is guilty.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Captain Cobb (Preston)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "reported," to "to," in line 32, and to insert: by the tribunal to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and". The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that at the end of the hearing the tribunal shall announce their decision to the applicant and to the Minister of Agriculture. We feel that it is only reasonable that the prospective dairy fanner should know on the spot what is the decision of the tribunal. There is no reason why he should be kept waiting while the decision hangs about in the Ministry. The Amendment will effect a very substantial improvement from the point of view of the applicant.

Mr. Lionel Berry (Buckingham)

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir A. Southby

I support the Amendment. I think the dairy farmer is entitled to know what the tribunal's decision is without tie result having been first passed through the sieve of the Ministry. We all have great respect for the present Minister, but he will not last for ever. It would be entirely wrong if what is supposed to be an impartial tribunal should have to send its finding back to the Ministry, where pressure might be brought to bear upon the tribunal to alter the terms of their finding. The farmer is entitled to know exactly the decision to which the tribunal has come.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will explain exactly why we find the express provision that the decision of the tribunal shall be reported to the Ministry of Agriculture and then communicated by the Minister to the farmer. That is, to my mind, an entirely novel procedure, and I can see no point in it unless it is intended that the Minister shall in some way "vet," filter or alter the decision of this independent and impartial tribunal. I can see no reason at all why the tribunal which is to decide whether the Minister's accusation is made out or not should not give its decision on the issue of fact straight away to the appellant at the same time that it reports to the Ministry. If this procedure is adopted it must mean that many farmers will be left with the impression that something has gone on, before they are told of the decision, which has affected the decision of the tribunal and prejudiced their case.

The Solicitor-General

There is no sinister suggestion behind the present wording and we have only one point in mind, which we thought and still think is an important point. Our wording reads that the determination of the tribunal shall be reported to the Minister and communicated by him to the person objecting. What we were worried about was the possibility of the tribunal coming to a majority decision and that fact being reported to the applicant with information as to how the tribunal was divided. We consider that that is a very bad way of dealing with it. We do not want the applicant, if the decision is against him, to go away thinking that the National Farmers' Union member was in his favour and the Milk Marketing Board and the representative of the Ministry against him. Equally, we do not want to have the feeling that, if there is a majority decision, the Ministry should know who has been in the minority and who has been against them. We want the clear decision of the tribunal itself. Therefore we suggested that the tribunal should send on their majority determination to the Minister, who should send a copy to the applicant. I am quite prepared that that should be a certified copy, so that there could be no question of there being any alteration it. My hon. Friend knows how these things can arise. One does not want an informal decision to be given which would disclose the divergencies immediately afterwards. I hope my hon. Friend will accept it from me that it is purely that point that is in our mind and that there is no desire to keep anything back or alter it in any way.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

As I understand it, the reason why the conclusion is to be communicated to the Ministry is to stop the farmer knowing who has decided in his favour and who is against him. What I do not follow is this. If the fanner is to get a certified copy of the decision, showing which way people have voted, after it has gone through the Ministry, why should he not get it direct? Further, who is going to certify? All I am asking is that the farmer should be told, not who voted, but the decision, straight away, whether the first, second and third charges are proved or not. That could be dealt with without going to the Ministry at all.

The Solicitor-General

He will get exactly that information. The tribunal will have to answer the questions and say, "Charge one is proved or not proved," and put it in writing and send it to the Ministry. In case of a divergence of opinion we did not want an extempore judgment given which would disclose that variation and might contain matter which would make the functioning of the tribunal difficult in future. But there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself as to what the applicant will get. There will only be a difference of 48 hours in the time at which he gets it.

Mr. A. Hopkinson

It is amazing to me that counsel learned in the law, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, should have argued in the way he did. He says it is very undesirable that the victim of a decision, the litigant, should know how the bench was divided. Surely, that is done in all appeal cases. One knows who the dissenting judges are. When there is a dissenting judgment we know from the papers who has dissented, because we have reports of their speeches dissenting.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Member is quite correct about the Court of Appeal, but it is not the practice in the Judicial Committee or in the Court of Criminal Appeal for dissenting judgments to be given. It is a matter that differs according to the position and functions of the tribunal. I think, with regard to a tribunal of this sort, which is a judicial intervention in an administrative course of action, it would be unfortunate if either party to the litigation got to know that a certain member was in the habit of taking a certain line. I want to avoid that.

Mr. Hopkinson

The hon. and learned Gentleman bases his argument this time on the fact that these are either courts martial or criminal courts. I understand that the unfortunate victim in these cases is not a criminal in the eyes of the law and that these tribunals are much more in the nature of civil courts. They are extraordinarily like the courts we heard about in Moscow during the first revolution or the sort of courts that are set up in Germany at the present day.

Sir A. Southby

I take it that these are really in the nature of appeal tribunals. When the Solicitor-General said that there will be a certified copy, I take it that it will be certified by the clerk to the tribunal, that it will merely state that the tribunal came to a certain decision, that that will be all that will be furnished to the farmer, and that it will not state that one individual voted one way or another another way.

The Solicitor-General

That is what I endeavoured to convey.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Hudson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "the said Sub-section (1)," and to insert: Sub-section (r) of the said Section twenty of the principal Act. This is a drafting Amendment, because we have inserted so many words that to leave in these words would be almost meaningless.

Amendment agreed to.