AGRICULTURAL MARKETING MACHINERY (Hansard, 27 April 1953)

§ Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)
I originally sought this debate on agricultural marketing machinery because I felt the point had been reached when such a discussion might be useful. The developments in the last few days involving the rejection of the Apples and Pears Marketing Scheme makes such a discussion desirable. The rejection of that scheme is a very serious matter. There were special considerations about that scheme and the rejection of it, but the fact remains that we on this side of the House regard producer marketing schemes as an integral part of the Government's agricultural policy. This second and by far the largest scheme to be produced under the 1949 Act has been decisively rejected. That raises a big question mark over the whole future of organised marketing.
There will be inquests in several places. There have already been inquests in the Press. There will be inquests at Bedford Square, no doubt, and in the Ministry of Agriculture, and there should be a brief public inquest in this House. There would seem to me to be two possible verdicts arising out of this decision. One is that the producer-marketing schemes have been condemned; that the farmer should be free; that there should be no more restrictions of this sort and that producer-marketing schemes should be abandoned. That is the verdict which some have come to—I think prematurely. The second is to ask what went wrong with this scheme; why did it fail and what are the lessons to be learned?
I reject the first alternative. To accept the idea that producer-marketing schemes are now condemned and cannot continue is to accept a complete vacuum in this important section of agricultural policy. The alternative, as I see it, is not between marketing schemes and freedom for the farmer, but between the Ministry of Food and marketing schemes for individual commodities; between State control and organisation by the industry for itself. We come, then, to the point of what went wrong with this scheme.
1917 Perhaps I should declare at this stage that I have no commercial interest whatever in this scheme, but, having a number of constituents who are keenly interested in its progress, I have followed it closely and I have some observations to make. I do not seek to over-simplify what occurred, but I think the opposition to this scheme may be put into two categories. There was opposition to the scheme itself and opposition to the methods used to put the scheme across.
Regarding the opposition to the scheme itself, I would say that there are undeniably elements in the industry opposed to all forms of marketing. We may disagree with them to that extent, but I would say there are not sufficient of them to obtain the rejection of this scheme or any other scheme. They alone were not sufficient to throw this scheme out. Speaking with a fair idea of what was in the minds of the opponents of this scheme, I would say it was not the idea of a marketing scheme, but the very extensive powers given to the prospective board, with a very dubious return.
The opposition centred upon the seventh section of the marketing scheme dealing with powers of the Board, of which some of us know a good deal already. In that part there is nothing particularly new. It was sanctioned in principle when we considered the Acts of 1931, 1933 and 1949. The fact remains that the powers given to this particular board were immense. There are two particular examples in Clauses 77 and 81, both of which I consider extensions of dubious principles, to say the least of it. The first concerns the inspection of premises, and the second the disciplinary committee. There is a justifiable mistrust of giving a right of entry to anyone not answerable to this House. The second point is not new in this House perhaps, but it is new to this Government.
When this scheme was first debated here I intervened to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, if the scheme was statutory, instead of a disciplinary committee, such matters of discipline could not be referred to the courts. I am bound to say I still ask that question, to which I think a number of those concerned with this scheme would very much like to see an answer. In that respect the industry has perhaps been more vigilant in the cause of freedom 1918 than we were in that debate. Clauses 67 and 68 also give very considerable powers.
The big growers have been blamed for the rejection of this scheme in at least one quarter, "The Times" newspaper. They felt most strongly that there is a danger of eliminating cheap fruit from the market, which is not a part of their stock in trade. Many of them are most anxious to see that, in that respect, the consumer gets a fair deal. They fear that if the consumer does not get a fair deal, the consequences for the whole industry will be unfortunate. They do not wish to see the best or medium fruit priced at a level which would be scarcity value. On those grounds alone I support the attitude of many of the big growers, speaking not in their own interests but, as they see it, in the interests of the industry and above all of the consumers and that should be stressed because the objection raised against many of these schemes is that the consumers' interest will be lost.
Summarising that particular criticism, I say all these powers of the board should be reviewed. I do not wish to criticise or suggest amendments to the Acts of 1931, 1933 and 1949, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order if I did so. It is not necessary to do so because these Acts are permissive and may be allowed to stand as they are. They are an umbrella under which various schemes can be framed, and the powers of these schemes can vary according to requirements. They can be extensive for big monopolistic schemes such as milk marketing schemes, perhaps involving the whole run of commerce from buying and selling, right up to distribution. There is, I know, a tendency in some quarters to say that discipline is needed in these schemes if sabotage is to be avoided. I believe that is wrong, and it is clear that, if a scheme is invested with too much power, it can be rejected and all is lost. Therefore, a balance must be struck.
I must add a word or two about the methods used to put this scheme through. The arrangements were in the hands of the National Farmers' Union, rightly recognised by the Government as representative of the industry, and I gladly pay my tribute to the thoroughness with which they did their job. Possibly, 1919 some may think, they were too thorough. Certainly, they considered the scheme a good one, and gave it the weight of their not inconsiderable propaganda machine, as they were fully entitled to do. It should be remembered that the scheme was on the stocks—lost in dust—for two years, and they found it necessary to remind people what it was all about.
As sometimes occurs in our own profession, the weight of propaganda on the one side led to a considerable weight of counter-propaganda on the other side. Indeed, that led to the first serious snag, which may affect other schemes, and that was the inadequacy of the machinery for objectors to the scheme to object before the poll was taken. Objections are like steam, the more one suppresses it, the more explosive it becomes, and in this case the objections became very explosive.
I do not want to exacerbate matters by making unnecessary observations on the conduct of either side in this dispute, but I am bound to say that, at times, though no doubt under provocation, the language of certain of the sponsors—the National Farmers' Union—was ill-advised, not because it was unfair or misleading, but because it simply added fuel to the flames already burning in the breasts of the opposition. It is all very well to say, as they did, that the growers were looking a gift horse in the mouth; what the growers wanted to do was to inspect the teeth of the gift horse, and that, I think, was fair enough.
They were also unwise, I think, to exaggerate the effect the scheme might have on regulating imports. That card was worth four and was used as an ace. In the original brief, the union said: No section of the agricultural industry can hope to make effective representation to the Government on import regulations unless it be well organised and takes active steps to improve both the quality and marketing of home products. That was an irreproachable statement, and they should not have gone beyond it at any time. Some speeches, however, did go beyond it and were rightly challenged.
In these lively preliminaries, which should not have involved more than a healthy difference of opinion, one particular difficulty arose, of which the hon. Gentleman who is to reply is aware, but 1920 which I must mention. Under Section 4 (2) (a) of the Act of 1931 and Section 80 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, the provisional board was sent a list of producers by the Ministry of Agriculture, and this was to be used for the compilation of the register. It is fair to say that opponents of the scheme allege—I stress allege-that this list was used by the N.F.U. and certain county branches for canvassing and for the distribution to county branches of their own propaganda. Whether that is true or not, it stimulated a desire among opponents of the scheme, organised into the Independent Fruit Growers' Committee, for like facilities, and that was fair enough.
These facilities were refused by the Minister, by the board and by the N.F.U. The Independent Fruit Growers' Committee took legal opinion, and were told that, under Section 80 (c) of the 1947 Act, such information could be given. Broadly, the Section says that information can be given to any person to whom the Minister considers disclosure would be in the public interest. Here we come to our old friend, the definition of the public interest, into which I shall not enter. The independent growers were subsequently offered by the board a list of the names as they were compiled from the initial register and as the names came in. This was not very satisfactory as the names came in slowly. Moreover, it left uncovered the main desire of the opponents of the scheme to impress upon everyone the importance of registering, for otherwise they could not vote. Many growers thought that by throwing the form into the wastepaper basket they exempted themselves from the scheme. That was not so.
I do not want to argue the rights and wrongs of this, but such doubts on that particular phase of the scheme must not arise again. Steps must be taken to ensure that. The rights of the sponsors of, and of the objectors to, a scheme must be put beyond doubt. Failure to do this placed the Minister of Agriculture at one point in an embarrassing situation. It left with the opponents of the scheme a sense of injustice, and was a major factor in the rejection of the scheme. I think it would be well if the compiling of the register could in future be done by an independent body having no vested interest in the promotion of the scheme. The manner of voting was not highly satisfactory. At one point the prospective 1921 chairman of the board said at Chelmsford that the voting papers would be in sealed envelopes sent to an independent body and not seen by the board.
I have here a voting paper sent to the board which was incorrectly filled in. It was returned to the man who had sent it by the board and he was requested to send it back to the board when he had Corrected it. Clearly, voting should not be conducted on those lines. An elector who had a ballot paper returned to him by a Tory agent to be corrected would be right in thinking that some democratic principle had been infringed.
The sooner this controversial and even bitter campaign—at least two writs were issued during the course of it—can be forgotten, the better for the industry. But I feel bound to touch upon these points which arose, because they bear heavily upon the future. It is undesirable that the much bigger schemes for livestock, wheat, eggs, and so on, which are now in preparation, should be subjected to the hazards which this scheme faced. In the inquest going on I hope there will be a minimum of recrimination and the maximum of heart-searching.
The industry owes the National Fanners' Union a great deal. It did its best to put forward what it thought was in the best interests of the industry. I have sympathy with its belief that a minimum of discipline was necessary. The question is, what is the minimum of discipline required in a scheme of this kind? It may be found to differ in every case. That minimum of organisation and discipline, that happy mean, must be found. That I think, will be the crux of future marketing schemes. I hope to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the mean will be sought.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on securing the Adjournment and making such an interesting and valuable speech about this difficult subject of agricultural marketing. It is both complex and important, and is likely to be more so. I agree that the campaign for the Apple and Pear Marketing Scheme has certainly raised new problems. The result of the poll itself, with its outcome 1922 of failure for the promoters, has raised more problems.
My right hon. Friend recognises the importance of these problems. Even before the poll, my right hon. Friend instituted in the Department a review to consider the existing policy and procedure and what possible solutions could be found to the problems which had been posed during the campaign. It is obviously much too early for me to speak in more than very general terms about what this review is beginning to show, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that my right hop. Friend attaches great weight to the criticisms which my hon. Friend has just ventilated, and considers, as I do, that it is most important that the initial poll should be held in conditions accepted as fair and reasonable by everybody.
We are most concerned to see that equal canvassing facilities, both for opponents and promoters, should be provided, and in so far as the Marketing Acts can so provide we hope we shall secure those conditions. This problem of providing the names and addresses of producers is quite a delicate and complex affair. I discovered on a little research into the beginnings of the 1931 Act that the original proposition was to require a compulsory registration of all producers of the commodity concerned. When the Bill reached the Floor of the House, hon. Members felt that the provision requiring compulsory registration with penalties for not so registering was too stringent and, after long and earnest discussion, the House finally amended it to its present form.
It was a compromise, and like many compromises it was not entirely perfect, the form being that the Minister was required to give the producer board the names and addresses from the agricultural returns. This arrangement has worked without criticism up till now for about 20 years, but, obviously, there are weaknesses, and, of course, this campaign has shown them up. The provision originally intended that the opponents of the scheme should be supplied only from the register as compiled. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend said, that the 1947 Act allows my right hon. Friend to disclose the names and addresses that he has in the agricultural returns, but he 1923 must satisfy himself that he is doing so in the public interest.
The difficulty in this particular context is that these names and addresses are returned by farmers in the quarterly returns required by law. They are given confidentially, and they have considerable commercial value. My right hon. Friend's difficulty is how to identify an official opposition. It would clearly not be right to disclose these names and addresses to anybody who asks for them and says, "I am an opponent of the scheme." The difficulty is to know how to identify an official opposition.
I cannot say more on the subject except that it is receiving earnest consideration in the Department, and that, in due course, my right hon. Friend will consider what is the best solution we can reach in the matter.

§ Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)
What does my hon. Friend mean by "commercial value"? I cannot see any objection to giving them to anybody. What commercial value will it be to them?

§ Mr. Nugent
The commercial value I should have thought was obvious. To anybody who wishes to circularise particular classes of producer to sell them one thing or another, the names and addresses are very valuable. My right hon. Friend must be extremely careful before he discloses them.
I will proceed to points on which there is more daylight. An improvement could be made by lengthening the interval between the publication of the scheme and moving it in the House. That would give hon. Members and the general public a chance to be better acquainted with it. Secondly, an improvement could be made by lengthening the period between the completion of the register and the date of the poll, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said the other day. This second improvement would not, of course, meet the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford about the unregistered producer. That is a problem that we still have to contend with.
Both those improvements are receiving sympathetic consideration in our review, and in due course we will see what we can do along these lines to improve the 1924 machinery. The Government could not continue to be responsible if there appeared to be unfairness. I am not commenting either way on the question my hon. Friend has asked, whether the result might have been prejudiced by any unfairness which has arisen. The National Farmers' Union would not wish to be associated with a procedure which appeared to be unfair. We should try to find the best solution we can, but it is not easy.
As regards propaganda, it would not be right or proper for me to comment upon the propaganda on either side. Both sides went to work in a very vigorous fashion, and as in most campaigns, even a General Election, the truth was sometimes presented in rather unexpected forms. However, that is not my concern, though it is right to say that the application form for registration that had to be sent out by the promoters, the information attached to which came in for a certain amount of criticism, was fair and reasonable and well within the terms of the 1931 Act, which gave the promoters the power to attach such information and such other particulars as the board thinks fit. The rest of the propaganda by leaflet was sent out later on, quite distincly from the actual registration form. That is as it should be. The whole process of polling must also be looked at, and seen to be as it should be.
With regard to the powers of the board, in the last two or three minutes remaining I sympathise with the point that they appear in some respects to be restrictive and dictatorial, but the safeguards given by the Act are pretty considerable. Firstly, there is the consumers' council to protect the consumer interest, and the committee of investigation presided over by a lawyer which receives complaints. Under the 1949 Act, the Minister appoints members to a board, not less than two and a maximum of one-fifth. There is the advisory committee which consists of trade interests, which must be consulted before the use of the restrictive powers. Then there is in this scheme a provision that the board must notify the Minister before the use of restrictive powers, which is a pretty considerable safeguard for consumer, trader and producer. Producers have a substantial influence; they have the last word.
1925 I have not time to say more tonight on this subject, but I do assure the House that we are earnestly looking at the whole of it, with regard to both procedure and policy, and I hope my hon. Friend will feel reassured that there is a good prospect that we shall get an improvement in the future.

§ Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)
I have listened with the greatest interest to my hon. Friend's reply, which, I think, has allayed some of the misgivings we have had about the method in which this scheme was put across. I should like to make one point arising out of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said. He rather 1926 suggested that it was only the big growers who were concerned about the proposals in the scheme. Certainly in my own constituency it was the small growers who were most anxious and it was the larger ones who were most in favour. I do not know how they voted, but that would be a fair summing up. It is important that we should realise that the small grower is rather more helpless than the large one very often—