§ Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)I beg to move, in page 16, line 9, after "seventeen", to insert:
(or such larger number as the Minister by order may determine)".
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in page 16, line 23, to leave out "one shall be a person" and to insert "two shall be persons".
§ Mr. ChampionYes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Obviously, the two go together.
84 This is a matter which we have to some extent thrashed out before. After listening to the last few Amendments by the Minister, we are bound to say that his attitude and approach to the Amendments which have come from the Opposition during the passage of the Bill has been most reasonable.
§ Mr. WilleyWith an aberration.
§ Mr. ChampionNo, he has done it very well. The right hon. Gentleman has acceded to what I regard as the wholly admirable suggestions of members of the Standing Committee on many aspects of the Bill. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why he appears to be obdurate in the matter of increasing the membership of the Authority by one and, in particular, by one person who is employed particularly in production, There seem to us be excellent reasons for increasing the Authority by one person and that that one person should be somebody employed in the production of pigs.
The first reason is that there is necessity for encouraging workers to take an increasing interest in the industry. It is not merely a matter of workers getting their employment from the industry and leaving it and ceasing to think about it immediately they cease work. We want workers to take an interest in the industry as a whole, in its finances, its general economy and in everything which will be involved in the work particularly of the Authority.
The House of Commons has talked in terms of encouraging industrial democracy and of encouraging workers to participate in the job of running the industry. Here is just one instance in which the Government could very well encourage the workers to take an interest in the industry in which they are employed. It is true that they are to have one representative, but we feel that they should have two.
One of the reasons is that two great trade unions happen to be involved in the recruitment of farm workers. Obviously, the Minister will have to consult these unions before he appoints the workers' representative to the Authority. It would seem to us to be reasonable that the Minister should appoint somebody after consulting each of those two great unions and it would be quite obvious that each of them could very well put forward one 85 name which the Minister could accept; or they could put forward a number of names and he could choose one from the suggestions of each of the unions. We hope that the Minister will consider this important aspect.
The third reason is that the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon itself, which considered the whole matter, made the recommendation that two people who are employed in the industry should have membership of the Authority. The Minister has departed from the recommendation of the Commission by increasing the number of representatives of the pedigree pig breeders. He did so on the ground of balance between the pedigree and the commercial breeders. In doing so, he reduced the number of workers' representatives who are directly employed in the production of pigs. It is inevitable that in these circumstances the men in the industry and their union have a feeling that the Minister has let them down. They are bound to have that feeling and the Minister now has the chance of putting it right.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will tonight indicate his acceptance of the Amendment and that he will put right what the workers within the industry and in the unions in particular regard as an injustice. His reply on this point in Committee was wholly unconvincing. His case was a bad one. It is true that he said he was greatly impressed by the grasp of the technicalities of their job by the men of all ages, both the youngsters and the older men. That was a reference to a certain section of the industry, but I am sure that it could be applied over the whole industry. That is an attitude deserving of every possible encouragement by this House and by the Minister in particular. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's reasonableness so far, he has rather blotted his copybook concerning the number of workers' representatives on the Authority.
I plead with the Minister to accept the Amendment and thus ensure that we leave the House tonight feeling reasonably happy that we have achieved something more and so that the right hon. Gentleman himself will gain our further commendation for his reasonable approach to suggestions which are properly made by this side of the House.
§ Mr. P. WellsI beg to second the Amendment.
I would impress upon the Minister the importance placed upon this matter by both the trade unions concerned, and I hope that he will not remain pig-headed about it. I should like him to visualise the position of the agricultural workers' representative upon the Authority. He will have no colleague to consult, no colleague to second any motion he may move, or to support him in bringing forward any matter he wants to submit.
Agricultural workers are very important people. We have all been saying so for a very long time. They are more important than makers of pork pies or sausages, who are given, I notice, equal representation upon this Authority. I hope that the Minister will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said about the fact that there are two trade unions concerned in the organisation of agricultural workers. It would simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman would make this very small concession. We have not got much out of him or out of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary yet. I hope that he will see the wisdom of agreeing to this Amendment.
Mr. AmoryI wish I could agree to these two Amendments, but after very careful consideration, which I have given to this as to other matters, I have concluded that I ought not to. There are two aspects of the matter. One is the number on the Authority and the other is the composition of the Authority.
As to the size of the body, this is a very important Authority which is being set up, and it will have difficult work to do. I am very anxious indeed that it should not grow gradually and become too big a body. The Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon itself was very alive to that danger, and it made its suggestions with that in mind. I know it will be said that this proposal is to add only one member to the Authority. However, if we were to add, as is proposed, to the number on the Authority the whole question of the composition of the body would have to be reconsidered.
That brings me to the second aspect of the matter. The Reorganisation Commission thought that the numbers would be right if there were two representatives 87 of the workers in the industry upon the Authority, and I, too, thought that it would be the right proportion. If we were to make such a change as is now proposed, then, to get the balance right, there ought to be an increase in the representation of the workers in branches of the industry other than the production branch.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I am not resisting the Amendment because we are hostile to the idea of worker representation on a body like this. On the contrary, if the Reorganisation Commission had not made a recommendation to that effect we certainly should have commended that there should be two representatives of the workers on the Authority. I believe that if we were to change our mind now upon the matter we should be led into further complications, and should have to reconsider the whole composition of the Authority. We should be under considerable pressure from other sections of the industry to increase their representation.
I believe that the wise thing to do is strictly to confine ourselves now to 17 and to keep the representation where it is at present. If in the light of experience some other number or some other composition is found to be desirable, that, I believe, ought to be the subject of fresh legislation.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. DyeThe right hon. Gentleman has just made his worst speech upon the Bill. He did not speak with conviction. He knows quite well that he is dealing with the request of the workers in this industry for adequate representation on this important Development Authority. The right hon. Gentleman often—and quite rightly—pays lip service to the value of the farm workers. Now he is being asked to give them adequate representation on this Development Authority. The reason he gives for not acceding to the request is merely that to increase the Authority from 17to18 would be to make it disproportionate, so that it could not work effectively, and that others might ask for further representation.
Let the right hon. Gentleman consider the proposal in the Amendment from the point of view of the farm worker who is to sit on the Authority. That man will not be in the same position as any other 88 person chosen to be on the Authority. He will not have had the same training and education. He may feel that he is inferior to the other members of the Authority. If there could be two workers' representatives, one from one part of the country and one from another, each would give the other confidence, and each would have greater confidence than either could working alone. The contributions which they could make to the Authority's work would be much more worth while than the contributions which either of them alone would be likely to make.
A farm worker, despite his experience in pig breeding, feeding and management, taken from his farm and brought to the Authority's meetings in London, would be at a disadvantage in discussions with the other people upon the Authority, but if there were two farm workers who could talk things over wth each other before going to the meetings, and who, at the meetings, could support each other, there would be more likelihood of their joint contributions being of more worth, from the agricultural workers' point of view, than the contributions of one representative only. If the Minister could for a moment imagine himself in the position of the solitary farm worker selected to serve on the Authority he would understand the argument which I am trying to put to him.
The contributions which the agricultural workers can make to the improvement of the pig industry entitle them to an increased representation, and two representtatives would be able to make better contributions than one. They would not approach the problem in the same way as a pedigree pig breeder, or any of the other people who have experience of this kind of work. I hope that we shall see the time when the farm workers as such, men who have acquired knowledge and experience in the industry, and who are beginning to play a part in discussions about it, will be enabled to play an effecttive part in the development of their industry. To that end we must give them the confidence that is to be found in numbers. The country as a whole would benefit.
The other workers in the industry would feel it worth while to send suggestions to their representatives on the Development Authority if they had two representatives rather than one on the 89 Authority. Looking at it from the point of view of the workers, I should have thought wisdom would have said that there was ample ground for making the number two and it would not harm anybody else to increase the membership of the Authority from 17to18.
We want this Authority to be a success and it car, only be a success if there is genuine co-operation on the part of scientists, manufacturers, farmers, and farm workers. Let the Government give a good start and not say that they will start with a membership of 17 and that if, in the course of years, they see that there is ground for a change they will change the membership later on. Let the Authority start on the right foot, or rather on both feet, and let the Government give the farmers what they are asking. It is only justice.
§ Mr. WilleyThe Minister has shown a surprisingly rigid attitude, whereas generally he is very reasonable and conciliatory about matters of this kind. His reply will he disappointing to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) who, unfortunately, is prevented by public business from being present here today. We have shown particular interest in the representation of agricultural workers on this Authority, but that is not the issue raised in the Amendment. The Amendment is much broader. It would not compel the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind. It would merely offer him the opportunity to change it.
We are not saying, in the first Amendment, that the Minister must change the composition of the Authority. We are saying that he should have the opportunity to do so without the necessity of fresh legislation. Surely that is a reasonable approach. In Committee, we discussed the representation on the Authority of other possible interests. We dealt with the consumer. It is a mistake to approach this matter from the point of view of the difficulty of getting a representative of the consumer. When we have a council of this size we try to get a voice which will express the point of view of the consumer and will bring the problems of the consumer before it.
I have taken the consumer interest as an example. We want representation of that kind on an Authority such as this. I should have thought that the Minister 90 would have conceded the possibility of such a voice being heard within the Authority. I would make three claims on the point of trade union representation. In the first place, as has been pointed out, two unions cater for agricultural workers. I should have thought, for that reason, that it would be better to provide for two representatives. I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman about trade union representation as such. I do not suggest for a moment that he is hostile to it. I concede that in this Authority he is allowing for two trade union representatives, but only one represents agricultural workers. We are all anxious about bringing the representation of workers into industry at an effective level, and I should have thought that if it is only a question of two or three in this case we should have allowed this additional representation.
My third reason is a straightforward and practical one. It is quite clear that the Authority will not work through full meetings of the Authority but rather through sub-committees. Is it expected that the agricultural workers' representative will be required to serve only on one sub-committee?
Mr. AmoryNo, by no means. It would be open to the Authority to co-opt outside people on its sub-committees and it would be open to it, if it considered it useful to do so, to invite other workers' representatives to serve on the subcommittee.
§ Mr. WilleyI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but when we are dealing with co-option we are dealing with the Authority working through subcommittees, and it is an important point whether the workers' interests are sufficient to entitle them to fuller representation on the Authority. There is difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the unions and I should have thought that he would have given way on the point. I concede that there is power for co-option, but when a sub-committee is responsible to the full Authority I should have thought that the unions would be heard if they felt that they should have direct representation to allow them, from the Authority, more fully to man the sub-committees. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the T.U.C. on the point.
91 We are moving the Amendment without prejudice to the matters which I have just discussed. We are doing no more than appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to keep these things in mind. We are not seeking powers to compel him to increase the composition of the Authority. I bring in support of the Amendment two further arguments. The right hon. Gentleman, for some reason, believes that there is some mystic virtue in the number 17.
§ Mr. Amory indicated dissent—
§ Mr. WilleyWell, then, in the number which is written into the Bill, which happens to be 17. In this respect, the right hon. Gentleman is not in accord with the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon. The Commission spent more time on the subject than did the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. WilleyIf the right hon. Gentleman has weakened, he is unreliable and he ought to accept our advice. I will be more than fair to him and put him on a parity with the Reorganisation Commission. At present, we have before us two different pieces of advice. The right hon. Gentleman recommends 17 members and the Commission recommends 16. All we say is that, in the circumstances, we cannot be absolutely sure who is right and, therefore, we will provide an opportunity for the figure to be corrected if experience shows the Authority that it should be altered.
I do not think that in this case there is any particular virtue in 16, 17, 18 or 19. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read a very interesting article the Economistrecently on executive bodies. When the figure 17 is reached we get beyond executive consideration and deliberation. That is why I referred to the sub-committees:
6.30 p.m.
This is a body which will review the work of the sub-committees and be responsible generally for policy. If we are talking about a body in that context, we get the right kind of representation, the 92 right kind of voices to be heard within such a body. For that reason, I should think the right hon. Gentleman would not be unduly rigid, and would say, "After all, we have had no experience in this field of work. The Government think at the moment that 17 is the right number. We may find in the light of experience that it is not, and therefore, we will allow ourselves an opportunity to review it."
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at the point again in that spirit. He should put himself in a position where he is obliged to keep the matter under review. I do not conceal the fact that there would be pressure from certain quarters about representation. That is not altogether a bad thing. It keeps the Authority alive to the work it is carrying out, and it keeps other bodies alive to the work being carried out within the Authority. If they seek further representation, and the Minister has to consider it, this will not hurt the Authority.
So I hope that, without prejudice to the second Amendment about which we have not changed our views, with regard to the first Amendment the right hon. Gentleman will meet us so far by saying that he will accept it.
§ Mr. GodberThe hon. Gentleman has been very persuasive on both points. I will reply briefly to the question of the wider Amendment. My right hon. Friend has said all he can say about the second one.
On the first Amendment, enabling us to broaden the membership of the Authority at any later stage by an Order, we feel that it would not be wise for us to take such powers because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we are bound to be under pressures from all kinds of bodies. We have seen it already. We feel that the Authority could conduct itself with greater security if we keep to the existing position.
It may well be that in the light of experience it might be considered right to make a change at a later stage—we do not know when. If that were so, it would be better to do it through fresh legislation at the time. I do not think it would be right to do it by means of an Order as a result of this Amendment. In any case, the Amendment would not be suitable, because it 93 seeks only to increase the size of the Authority and not to show how the membership would be split or altered.
In its present form, the Amendment would not meet the case entirely, and we feel that it would be better to give the Authority an opportunity to establish itself on the grounds we have set out. The hon. Gentleman says that 17 is too large a figure for an executive body, and that this would merely be a deliberative body in any case. As to that, I do not know, but I would have thought that to make it any larger would make it more unwieldy.
The second Amendment seeks to introduce one more agricultural worker. Although we have the greatest respect for the ability of the agricultural workers—they include, particularly, some of the best pig-men today—and although we have no doubt that they would be able to bring valuable knowledge to the Authority, this would upset the balance. It is important to realise this. If we accepted this Amendment, we would feel bound to introduce another worker on the other side, and we would again be exposing ourselves to great pressure from other people who felt they should be represented.
§ We should also be exposing ourselves to demands for increased representation from those who are now represented, and we should be getting ourselves out of balance in that we have seven now on either side—the production side and the curing and distributive side—together with the three independent members. If we upset that, we would be bound to take corrective action and so enlarge the Authority even more.
§ So, on balance, while we see the validity and strength of the demand for the extra agricultural worker, we feel that the position is met to the extent that there is already one representative, and because of the ability of the Authority to co-opt —and I hope it will co-opt freely—wherever it is felt that agricultural workers could be of assistance in the deliberations. I hope very much that it will make ample use of that power, which is probably the more effective way. Therefore, although we sympathise, we must stand on the number already stated.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 170.
| Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| Skeflington, A. M. | Viant, S. P. | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| Slater, J. (Sedgefleld) | Wade, D. W. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) | Watkins, T. E. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank | Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Stonehouse, John | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) | Woof, R. E. |
| Stones, W. (Consett) | West, D. G. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Sylvester, G. O. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. | |
| Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) | Wilkins, W. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Tomney, F. | Willey, Frederick | Mr. Rogers and Mr. Deer |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, W. T. | Grlmston, Hon. John (St. Albans) | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Nairn, D. L. S. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Arbuthnot, John | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Atkins, H. E. | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Page, R. G. |
| Balniel, Lord | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Barter, John | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. | Partridge, E. |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Hobson, John (Warwlok & Leam'gt'n) | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Holland-Martin, C. J. | Pott, H. P. |
| Biggs-Davison, J. A. | Hope, Lord John | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence | Remnant, Hon. P. |
| Braine, B. R. | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Renton, D. L. M. |
| Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | Ridsdale, J. E. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Howard, John (Test) | Robertson, Sir David |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral, J. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Sharpies, R. C. |
| Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Shepherd, William |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Cooke, Robert C. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot | Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) |
| Cooper, A. E. | Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Kerr, H. W. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Kershaw, J. A. | Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.) |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Kimball, M. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Kirk, P. M. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) | Lagden, G. W. | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) | Lambert, Hon. G. | Teeling, W. |
| Cunningham, Knox | Lambton, Viscount | Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Deedes, W. F. | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Longden, Gilbert | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Elliott, R. W.(N' castle upon Tyne. N.) | Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswiok) | Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F, |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Wall, Major Patrick |
| Finlay, Graeme | McKibbin, A. J. | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Fisher, Nigel | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, C. | McLaughlin, Mrs. P. | Whitelaw, W. S. l. |
| Freeth, Denzil | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| George, J. C. (Pollok) | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Gibson-Watt, D. | Maddan, Martin | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Godber, J, B. | Maltland, Cdr. J.F.W. (Horncastle) | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Goodhart, Philip | Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) | Woollam, John Viotor |
| Gough, C. F. H. | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Yates, William (The Wrekin) |
| Gower, H. R. | Marshall, Douglas | |
| Graham, Sir Fergus | Mathew, R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) | Mawby, R. L. | Mr. Barber and Mr. Bryan |
| Green, A. | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. |
§ 6.45 p.m.
Mr. AmoryI beg to move, in page 16, line 13, after "no", to insert "substantial".
The object of the Amendment is to give the Ministers just a little more freedom of action in selecting and appointing 96 independent members. The words in the Bill provide that an independent member shall have no financial interest at all in the industry concerned. We feel that would be a little too restrictive. We do not want to rule out an independent member of this Authority if, for instance, 97 he keeps just a few pigs in a domestic way; nor would we necessarily want to rule out a business man if he happened to be a director of a company which had some small interest either as provision merchants or retailers and might, therefore, handle in some way some product containing pigmeat.
The new words that we have selected follow the provisions of the Sugar Act. 1956. I should like to make it clear that as Minister I should not dream of appointing anyone as an independent member who had an appreciable interest —certainly not anyone with a substantial interest—but I regard the chairmanship of this Authority as a very important position and I am anxious we should not lose any possibility of securing men as chairman and vice-chairman of the right calibre.
Mr. T. WilliamsWe readily accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman because we feel that the provision would otherwise be too restrictive, and might deny the right hon. Gentleman from getting the persons of the type he requires for what I regard as a very important post. Because of that we not only do not disagree, but we fundamentally agree with the conception of the Minister.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 36, after "manufacture", insert "marketing".—[Mr. Godber.]
§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)I beg to move, in page 16, line 42, to leave out "and deputy chairman".
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), when introducing an Amendment a few moments ago, said that he was doing so in order to find out what the Minister was going to say. That is the reason for this Amendment.
The Minister has power to appoint 17 members of the Authority, and he then appoints the chairman and deputy chairman. What some members of the industry would like to know is why the Minister feels it essential that he should have the power to appoint the deputy chairman as well as the chairman. If the worst came to the worst, it is possible. I suppose, that the Authority might appoint as chairman one of the members representing one of the interests. If 98 that were done, it would be done with the Authority having its eyes wide open to what it was doing. What is more likely is that it would appoint one of the two independent members other than the one already appointed as chairman.
There are to be three independent members. One is to be the chairman, which would leave only two from whom the deputy Chairman would normally be expected to come. If the Minister had selected his Authority carefully, it does not seem unreasonable to think that the responsibility of picking the deputy chairman from one of these two members is one that he might well leave to the members of the Authority to consider.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary earlier this afternoon has been finding fundamental principles in various Amendments which have been put forward. It is in the hope that he may explain the fundamental principle behind the words already set out in subsection (3) that this Amendment is put down.
§ Captain F. V. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South)I beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. GodberI am getting a little nervous of the word "fundamental", so I do not propose to use it in this context. I think that it is important to clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine). We have looked with a good deal of sympathy at the Amendment, but we do not think that there is justification for changing the line that we have set down for this purpose.
We are directly following the recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission, which said, in paragraph 176 of its Report, that
a fresh and impartial approach to the problems of the industry is required and we, therefore, recommend that the chairman be chosen by the Ministers from outside the industry, together with two other independent members, one of whom should be Vice-Chairman.We accepted that recommendation because we considered that there were two objectives which would be achieved by providing for both the chairman and deputy-chairman to be appointed by the Ministers from among the independent members. First, proper weight would be given to the public interest as opposed to the sectional interest of the industry and, secondly, a proper balance would be 99 held between those sectional interests within the industry.What we feared was that if we did not keep to the independent members there would be hesitation on the part of some sections of the industry within the Authority to vote for what was clearly a strong candidate from another section, for fear that they would be outweighed by one who might conceivably occupy the chairman's position during the chairman's absence, perhaps for a considerable period. It would be unfortunate if, for that reason, they had to choose someone they felt to be weaker.
We therefore felt that it would be right to keep the whole independent status of the body and that it would give strength to it if we were to abide by the recommendation of the Commission. That is the sole reason for putting it in this way. I hope that on consideration my hon. Friend will realise that it will probably be for the benefit of the Authority if both the chairman and the deputy-chairman are from the independent members.
§ Mr. Godman IrvineIn view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.