TRADING LICENCE (EX-SERVICE MAN'S APPLICATION) (Hansard, 18 February 1946)

§ Mr. Sidney Shephard (Newark)
On a point of Order. May I ask which Minister is to reply to this Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment? I gave notice a fortnight ago to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, and I do not see the hon. Lady here. I should like your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a point of Order for me. I cannot order a Minister to be here, but, if the hon. Gentleman continues with his speech, I have no doubt that the Minister will be here shortly. We have interrupted proceedings earlier than was expected.

§ Mr. Shephard
Amid the welter of legislation which this House is called upon to pass, it is well for us, from time to time, to keep in mind the individual problems of the man in the street. The matter which I wish to raise on the Adjournment tonight concerns a grievance of one of my constituents. In the normal way, one tries to get satisfaction from a Minister by question and answer in correspondence, and if that fails the only remedy left is to raise the matter on the Adjournment. My constituent, Mr. R. Willey, of 101, Boundary Road, Newark was from the age of 16 until the beginning of the war engaged in the corn and animal feeding 918 stuff trade. He worked for some years for Messrs. J. Carter amp; Co., a firm of seedsmen in London, and was paid on a salary and commission basis. One of the terms of his agreement was that, in addition to selling for his principals, he could also deal on his own account. For the three years prior to the war he did so to the extent of something like£2,000 to£3,000 a year. On 3rd September, 1939, being in the local Territorial Yeomanry, Mr. Willey was called up and served in the Army for six years, four of which he spent as a prisoner of war.
When he came back he was 39 years of age, and he thought the time had arrived when he should have the opportunity of striking out for himself. He applied to the appropriate Ministry for a licence to deal in homegrown grain and animal feeding stuffs. His application was refused on two grounds, first, that he had not acted as a principal before the war and, secondly, that there was no evidence to show that, in that particular area, the services of an additional merchant were necessary. He then came to me and I took up the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I wrote and asked her to reconsider this case. I pointed out, first, that the applicant had had a long experience of the trade, that he had served six years in the Forces and that he was 39 years of age. But I failed to get any satisfaction. With regard to the first reason for refusal of the licence, as I pointed out earlier, my constituent had, in fact, acted as a principal in addition to representing this firm. I have not the slightest doubt that had he been in this country when the register was made, he would have been included in it. But it is the second reason which seems to me to be open to very strong criticism. To ascertain whether the needs of a particular area require an additional merchant, reference is made to a local wheat commitee, composed of four merchants, four millers and four farmers. Such action was taken in this case. One would have supposed that, when the Minister referred this case to the committee, the secretary of the committee would have called a meeting, that the committee would have discussed the case and that they would have forwarded a recommendation to the Minister. I wrote to the Minister and asked if she would let me know the names of the members who sat on the committee on this occasion. I 919 received what was, to me, a most peculiar answer. The Minister replied: The committee is not under the control of this Department, and I am not in a position to give the names of members who may have been present at a particular meeting. There appears to be some mystery as to how this decision was made. Were the farmers consulted? Were the millers consulted? What was the method of consultation? I understand that the committee was never called together, and that this recommendation which was submitted to the Minister, was the recommendation of the secretary after consultation with a few of the members. Perhaps when she replies, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure me that she will look into this point, because it is very important. The importance of this point is that the equity of this committee rests in the fact that there are four of each— merchants, millers and farmers—and, therefore, if only four merchants were consulted, it would obviously be wrong.
But apart from that irregularity, and without imputing any wrong motives to any of the members of this committee, it seems wrong to me that members of a trade should have to sit in judgment on a man who wishes to enter that trade. A system of this kind is bound to be open to abuse, and, after all, this committee is in the nature of a tribunal. The Minister accepts their advice, and the essential thing in a tribunal is impartiality. It is very difficult to see how these committees can be impartial since some of their businesses might be affected by their decisions. What would it have meant, in fact, if this young man had been given a licence to trade? He would have been in competition with the merchants who sat on that committee. Starting out for himself after six years away at the war, he would probably have worked hard. We know many of those who stayed at home have not worked hard, and there has been no necessity for them to work hard; business has been so easy. He would undoubtedly have taken some of the business away from them. It also seems to me that the position confers a monopoly, and that is" a word which hon. Members opposite do not like. It seems to me to confer a monopoly on those people who were in the trade before the war.
If my constituent had been 23 or 24 years of age, it really would not have 920 mattered, but he is 39 years of age. He has done all this service for his country; he has had a long experience in this trade. He has the necessary financial backing, and I do not think he should be subject to this frustration. He is probably one of thousands who, during the time they were serving and during the time they were in captivity, were making plans for the time when they returned home, and it is this type of treatment which makes the ex-Service man so bitter. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this particular case and to look into the question of how this committee did its work. Also, would she please reconsider this particular Order, which I do not think is necessary now that the war is over? It was brought in as a wartime measure, and I think the need for it has now ceased.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill)
Although no doubt the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) has a wide knowledge of the work of the Ministry of Food, I feel that perhaps the licensing procedure followed is not quite clear to him. I will explain to him the general licensing policy followed by the Ministry. It is based on the fact—and I ask hon. Members to realise how important this fact is—that food, raw materials, labour and transport are limited. Therefore, every individual who applies for a licence has to satisfy certain conditions. We found that it was very necessary to prevent the indiscriminate licensing of new businesses, until it could be shown that those businesses were necessary in the national interests. I want to explain to the hon. Member how we apply our rules, so far as the homegrown grain industry is concerned. An applicant, whether he is an ex-Service man or not, is given a licence automatically, if he can prove that he has been engaged in business as a principal. In a moment I am going to deal with the case of Mr. R. Willey which the hon. Member has raised, but that point must be borne in mind. We divide the applicants into two groups, and if those who are ex-traders come into what we call our priority group, those ex-traders are automatically given licences.Secondly, it must be proved that the particular work an applicant wishes to perform will be in the national interest and that, so far as the grain industry is concerned, there is a need for an additional approved buyer 921 in the area in which the applicant wishes to trade, in order to ensure the orderly marketing of the grain.
In considering these applications it is also necessary—and this is where the committee to which the hon. Member referred performs a useful function—for the Ministry to have reliable information, first as to the need of an approved buyer, and secondly as to the suitability of the applicant. I would remind the House that it is essential for the Ministry to be assured that these approved merchants have available all the facilities necessary for ready marketing, and to ensure that new licences are not issued to persons who will be unable to provide such facilities. It is necessary of course to move the grain rapidly from the farm. If transport is not available, then the farmers blame the Ministry of Food for being inefficient. Furthermore, it is necessary to have warehouses. The grain would have to be moved from the farm to a warehouse and may have to stay there for a short time until it can be transported to the buyer.

§ Mr. Shephard
Is the hon. Lady aware that many of these merchants have no transport of their own?

§ Dr. Summerskill
Some of them have not, I agree, but I can assure the hon. Member the best approved merchants have, and those who have conduct their businesses perhaps more efficiently than the others. These factors are of course taken into consideration. Therefore, the Ministry has adopted the practice of obtaining recommendations from the local wheat committees covering the areas in question, and has taken those recommendations into account. I want the hon. Member to realise that it is not left to the wheat committee to make the final decision The committee does make a decision, and does advise us, but we can, if we like, revise that decision.

§ Mr. Shephard
If the local wheat committee recommends that this man be given a licence, surely the Ministry would act on that.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Not necessarily.

§ Mr. Shephard
Is there any point in asking for their recommendation?

§ Dr. Summerskill
Yes, certainly In the case we have before us, the local committee made a recommendation. The 922 hon. Member felt that his constituent, Mr. Willey, had not been treated fairly and communicated with the Ministry. I can assure the hon. Member that I investigated the case very carefully and quite objectively, and if I had thought that Mr. Willey had not been dealt with fairly, the decision would have been revised.

§ Mr. Shephard
I am sorry to interrupt again, but most of my case was based on the fact, or rather the assumption, that this committee was never called together. Has the hon. Lady satisfied herself on that point? Is she satisfied that every member of that committee was consulted, and if so, what was the method of consultation?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I was explaining to the hon. Member the procedure which we followed—our normal practice—and then I was going to deal with the specific case of Mr. Willey. If he will have a little patience with me, I will explain exactly the procedure followed in Mr Willey's case. First, let me tell him about the local wheat committee. There are 53 of these committees in Great Britain. They were appointed originally by the Wheat Commission set up to administer the Wheat Act of 1932. The members are unpaid, and comprise local merchants, farmers and millers, and, therefore, since the hon. Member said just now that it was not fair for this potential merchant to have his future decided by other merchants, I would remind him that the committee is composed not only of merchants but of millers and producers also. I think I furnished the hon. Member with a list of the members of the committee, and if he looks at that list he will find that of the 12 members of the committee only four are merchants. It is, therefore, impossible for the merchants to have the last word.
I know the hon. Member has a great deal of knowledge of these matters, and I think he would agree with me that it would be in the interest of the producer to have a large number of merchants, because that would probably facilitate the transport of his grain. So, he cannot argue that the farmers would necessarily vote against Mr. Willey's acceptance. He queried the function of these committees, but I think he would agree with me, as he knows his own area, that these men are surely the best to advise us on local conditions. We have no power or control over their activities, and the meet- 923 ings of the committees are held in private. I remember that the hon. Member asked us who attended the committee which decided Mr. Willey's case. One could not possibly disclose a matter of that kind; it would be unfair to ask the committee who attended, because it would be very easy, in a fairly small locality, for those people to feel that, in another case, their hands would be tied. If in each case it was revealed who attended and how they voted, perhaps the committees, which have done excellent service during the war, would be reluctant to continue to serve the Ministry.

§ Mr. Shephard
May I interrupt once again, because this is rather an important matter? I said I was given to understand that this committee never, in fact, met. The hon. Lady tells me that there are farmers and millers on the committee, and I agree that there are four of each, but if they were never consulted, would it be a fair decision for the secretary to send to the Ministry?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. At no time did we tell him that they never met. We have always said that they perform a useful function. I come now to Mr. Willey's case. In the first place, we interviewed Mr. Willey and then we asked the advice of the local wheat committee. They considered his case very carefully and then advised us—so they did meet in Mr. Willey's case. Mr. Willey applied in October, 1945, for a licence to trade as an approved buyer in home grown grain and feeding stuffs. He had served in the Forces from 1939, and he had served his country splendidly. We do not deny it. We recognise that well. We do not want to treat him badly, but the hon. Member will realise that there are other factors to be considered. The hon. Member said that Mr. Willey was engaged in the trade. He was certainly engaged in the trade, but he was employed by a firm of seed crushers from 1927 to 1933 as a salesman, and from 1933 to the outbreak of war, by a firm of agricultural seed merchants, as an agent. I repeat, as an agent. He was now seeking to become an approved buyer. He was now asking to be registered as a merchant, whereas before he was employed as an agent.

§ Mr. Shephard
Exactly the same.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am sorry, but I cannot agree that an agent to a firm of seed merchants is the same as an approved buyer.

§ Mr. Shephard
What is the difference?

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am trying to explain if the hon. Member would only be patient. I did listen to him very quietly. When Mr. Willey was an agent to a seed merchant, he was, I agree, allowed to do a little trading. But if the hon. Member makes further inquiries from Mr. Willey, I think he will find that that trading was of a very minor character. If Mr. Willey had been working when the registration was made, he would not have qualified for registration as an approved buyer. He was interviewed by an inspector of the Home-Grown Cereals Division; and the inspector was very impressed. He realised that Mr. Willey was of the highest integrity. There was no question of that. The application was subsequently referred to Nottingham wheat committee, who reported that the area was already well served by existing approved buyers. There were already twelve approved buyers in Newark. That was what determined the decision of the Ministry of Food. We were advised that there were already a sufficient number of buyers there. It is essential also that we safeguard the existting tradesmen. It was on this ground alone that we could not grant Mr. Willey a licence. I hope that the hon. Member is satisfied. I can assure him we have investigated this case, and it was only because the area was adequately served that we had to refuse him this licence.

§ Mr. Shephard
Will the hon. Lady look into this case, and assure herself that every member of that committee was consulted? I know the committee meet but I said that in this particular case the committee did not meet. That is the information I have. Further, may I ask how long is this farce going on? How long is it to be before a man of that age can start in business for himself?

§ Dr. Summerskill
When it comes to deciding who shall serve the country, and in what capacity, after the war, we cannot always take age into consideration. So far as the committee meeting is concerned no committee, of course, can ensure that 100 per cent. of its members 925 will turn up at a meeting. I cannot possibly guarantee that 1oo per cent. of the committee were there. How often do 1oo per cent. of the Members of this House turn up even on an Adjournment Motion of this importance? I will take steps to confirm what I have been told, but I cannot believe that responsible officials of the Ministry of Food would say that that Committee met and gave them that advice when the committee, in fact, never met.

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer (Worthing)
What would be the quorum of the committee in this case? Of a committee of twelve how many would form a quorum?

§ Dr. Summerskill
The quorum of this committee is five.

§ Brigadier Prior-Palmer
If the committee consisted of only four, would it not be valid?

§ Dr. Summerskill
Certainly not.

§ Mr. Shephard
Would it be valid if they did not meet at all? Would it be valid if the decision was conveyed to the Minister or officials by chatting in the market place? Would the hon. Lady consider that a proper way of dealing with this case?

§ Dr. Summerskill
No, I certainly would not. If the hon. Member can give me evidence that this committee never met, and that its business was conducted in the market place, I shall certainly examine it.

§ Mr. Shephard
That is the information I have had.