HC Deb 24 February 1960 vol 618 cc383-97
Mr. J. Hare

I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, at the end to insert: and, with the consent of the Ministers, of any other functions which the Council may determine expedient to be exercised for that purpose". The Clause allots to the Council certain specified functions. We thought carefully about these functions, which are listed in Clause 10. They probably cover all the kinds of activity that, as far as we can see at present, the Council should carry out. I believe that the National Farmers Unions and the trade organisations also share that general opinion. But I suppose that there is always a possibility that some other activities might turn up which, in future, everyone would agree the Council ought to carry out, but which might not actually fit into the phraseology of Clause 10.

4.0 p.m.

I do not think that anybody would be pleased if that happened and I certainly would not be. When one is planning for the future it is probably always wise to allow a little latitude for the genuine unexpected contingency. I emphasise the words "a little latitude", because I am sure that it would be equally wrong to give the Council power to do what it likes, because it is asking Parliament for powers, subject to safeguards, to raise money and, therefore, there must be some control over the purpose for which that money is to be used.

I should like to explain the effect of the Amendment. The Bill gives the Council authority to perform the functions specified in Clause 10. If the Council wants to go beyond these functions to improve marketing and distribution then, under the Amendment, but not without the Amendment, the Council would have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself for our consent. There is another advantage. If we wanted advice on a subject which was not covered under the strict interpretation of Clause 10, we could empower the Council to give us that advice if the Amendment is accepted. I hope that the Committee will agree that the Amendment provides a commonsense way of ensuring that the Council will be able to serve the horticultural industry in the right sort of way whatever the changing circumstances of future years may be.

Mr. Willey

We on this side of the Committee welcome the Amendment and we are greatly obliged to the Minister for taking the steps which he has taken. We recognise that this is an enabling Bill. We know that by moving the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is not necessarily accepting the point of view which we expressed in Standing Committee, but he is allowing the Council to extend its powers if it feels that that would be the proper course.

We agreed in Standing Committee that generally the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Runciman Committee on Horticultural Marketing on the functions of the Horticultural Marketing Council. We felt in Committee that we should go rather further than the Runciman Committee recommended. We suggested, for instance, that the Council should have power to provide standard containers and should also have power to advise the right hon. Gentleman about the effect of imports on supplies. I remember calling the attention of the Committee to the proposal made by the Fruit Retailers' Federation, a considerable time ago, that a British Horticultural Commission with very wide powers should be established. The right hon. Gentleman has not accepted what we said in Committee, but he has given the Council power to seek the exercise of those further functions if it feels it appropriate.

This is the right way to tackle this problem. This is better than the proposals which we made of writing specific functions into the Bill, because it might well turn out in the light of experience that we were too limited in the proposals we made. I would much prefer that the Council should feel that if there is a good case for seeking further functions it can approach the Ministers. It is also right and proper that these powers should be sought in this way.

I was somewhat critical, and I remain critical, of the attitude taken by the National Farmers' Union about Amendments which we raised in Committee, but I appreciate the point which the union is now making that if such powers are sought they should have the good will of the three sections of the Council. It is very unlikely, but it is conceivable that two of the three sections represented on the Council might desire a particular function even against the wishes of the other section of the industry. In those circumstances it is a good safeguard that the Council should have to seek the approval of the Ministers, because that would give Ministers an opportunity to consider again the particular sectional representations that might be made.

Whilst, naturally, this will be a matter proper to the discretion of the Council, I hope that if the Council feels that there is a case for seeking an expansion of powers it will not hesitate to seek them. I am not convinced by the apprehension shown by the National Farmers' Union. It is a little odd that, at the same time—though probably quite properly—as the union is supporting a marketing board in establishing packing stations, it should be hesitant about the Council seeking to provide similar facilities. It would be much better to show a greater confidence in the Council and to hope that it will use common sense and discretion in the interests of horticulture generally and will not hesitate to take effective steps where they are necessary.

As we said in Committee, it is quite easy to envisage circumstances where there would be no dispute with any section of the horticultural industry about the provision of facilities which otherwise would not be provided by private enterprise. I am sure that the Council as a whole would feel that in those circumstances it would be far better if the facilities were provided. But, having expressed a personal opinion on this matter, I say again that the right hon. Gentleman's approach is the best, particularly in view of the difficulties which we know exist about financing the Council.

I can understand the apprehension of producers about the possibility of loading the Council with heavy financial commitments. In these circumstances, whilst we on this side of the Committee still believe that the Council should not hesitate to take the steps necessary to improve marketing, we recognise that the better course is not to define the functions in the Bill but to allow the Council to consider what steps it thinks necessary to take.

We discussed imports in Standing Committee and I hope that if the Minister feels that it would be right and proper to seek the Council's advice about matters affecting imports he will not hesitate to let it be known to the Council so that this new provision can be invoked. We welcome the Amendment. It has gone a long way to meet the case which we deployed in Committee and I am sure that it will assist the Council to perform its duties when it is established.

Mr. Denys Bullard (King's Lynn)

I am not as sure as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the wisdom of the Amendment. I shall listen to the Minister's reply with great interest. The Amendment seems to open the possibility of a very wide expansion of the Council's powers. In Clause 10, we have gone to a great deal of trouble to define the Council's functions, but the Amendment seems to me to provide a wide open door to enable the Council—though I agree with the Ministers'consent—to extend its powers.

If the Council wants its powers extended, it would be wise to come back to Parliament and ask for that to be done, rather than at this stage to give it authority under the Bill to do so, merely by consultation with Ministers. I have very much in mind the financial side of the question. I said during the Committee stage, and I hold to the view, that it is the producers who, in the long run, will bear the brunt of the cost of running the Council. It seems to me that the Council could take a decision to put considerable financial burdens on the producers, and I would be sorry if that were done.

The National Farmers' Union, in asking that this shall be a decision of the whole Council, is asking for something reasonable. At any rate, the producers' representatives should assent to any such decision to extend the powers of the Council. That, however, would involve close scrutiny by Ministers or Parliament of the individual votings on the Council. One of my criticisms has been that the Council is not subject to sufficient control by Parliament in any case. I have grave doubt as to whether, in spite of the lengthy description of the functions of the Council in Clause 10, this additional amount of manœuvre should be given to it. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on the points that I have raised.

Sir Richard Nugent (Guildford)

I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) in querying the wisdom of accepting this Amendment. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) explaining how he thought it might be used, my anxiety grew. I am happy to be in the capable hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who, I hope, will remain at his post for many years, but sometime he will be succeeded by somebody else and, although it is likely to be a long way off, his successor might even be a right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite. His successor might even be the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, and in those circumstances I could see what would happen—

Mr. Willey

May I allay the anxieties of the hon. Baronet? The initiative will lie with the Council.

Sir R. Nugent

We are all familiar with how these things work. I am not so naïve as the hon. Gentleman thinks. The Council may not be unsusceptible to suggestion, and if the Minister of the day would like to see a central service promoted for containers, or something of that kind, it might well come into being. We all have a certain concept of what the Council will do. I am sure it will be a useful body, but if it is to have a trading service of any kind permitted by this Amendment I would feel that it was changing its very nature.

I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the Amendment with a view to introducing it in an amended form in another place and to limit the latitude by specifically excluding trading services of any kind. If an Amendment of this kind is accepted, there will be a change of principle, and that should come back here to be decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn has said. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the Amendment again in that light.

Major Legge-Bourke

Before I make any observations on the Amendment, Dr. King, may I seek your guidance? Could you tell the Committee whether it is the intention to call during the Report stage the Opposition Amendment to Clause 10, page 8, to leave out lines 14 to 16?

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King)

I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information for which he asks. That Amendment is a matter not for this Committee, but for the House, and whether it is selected or not is a question for Mr. Speaker.

4.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke

In that case, perhaps I should speak now about what I would otherwise defer until the discussion of that Amendment.

The point is simply that the functions of the Council are set out clearly in Clause 10, at the end of which there is a proviso which, as it stands, would meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and my neighbour and constituent, my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). In other words, it rules out the right of the Council ever to indulge in trading.

What concerns me greatly, and I hope that the Minister has borne it in mind before bringing forward this Amendment, is the fact that there is an Amendment on the Notice Paper in the name of the Opposition asking for the removal of that proviso. Therefore, we should face the fact that however well-intentioned the present Minister may be on this matter, in the event of an alternative Government coming in, we can see what might easily happen.

The official Opposition on this Bill has deliberately sought, both upstairs and now again downstairs, to remove the very restriction which all of us on this side of the Committee think is essential, namely, that on no account should the Council have trading powers, however much it asks for them. If this Amendment were accepted, and we were then to accept the Amendment to Clause 10 to leave out lines 14 to 16 on page 8 of the Bill, there would be nothing to prevent the Minister, should he see fit, to approve a request by the Council to undertake trading. It is important that we should have clearly established once and for all that the Minister will stand firm against the Amendment to remove the proviso to Clause 10, and that he will restrict, and make it clear to the Council that he is so restricting, any suggestion that it should indulge in trading.

Mr. Darling

We had some speeches during the Committee stage from the staunch defenders of the sturdy individualism of the British farmer, after which we had to point out that if the present operations of individualism were so satisfactory, without any body to advise, to help or to undertake trading, British horticulturists would not be coming to the Government for public money. There is obviously something wrong with the marketing set-up of fruit and vegetables in this country, otherwise the Government would not be doling out public money to the people engaged in the industry.

In dealing with this Bill we have had to consider what is wrong with horticultural marketing. We welcome the Bill. We approve giving monetary grants to help the growers to put their side of the business right, and it is a necessary quid pro quo that the marketing side should also be put in order. Under this Clause and the next one the Horticultural Marketing Council will be set up to undertake those necessary duties so that, apart from other things, public money shall not be wasted. Not only is the growers' end wrong but the whole marketing operations in this country, from the grower to the consumer.

When we are considering the duties imposed upon the Horticultural Marketing Council, which will look after that side of the industry, it is impossible to say at this stage what should be its precise functions. It may be necessary to extend the functions beyond those laid down in the Clause. We do not know. One of the suggestions mentioned in association with this Clause in Standing Committee, in anticipation of this Amendment, was that to get the proper grading of produce, which both sides of the Committee agreed was necessary, and to ensure that the graded produce is sent from the grower to the retail shop in a proper fashion, the trade should have standard containers.

The problem of containers is a very serious one for many growers. It was suggested, for instance—I put this forward as a practical example of the need for the Amendment—that it might be the Council which should tell the manufacturers on behalf of everybody engaged in the industry what kind of container was required. It might be that the manufacturers would say, "We agree with you about the size, shape, composition, and so on, of the containers, but it would help us very much to produce the containers at a reasonable cost, and probably at a much lower cost than some of them are provided today, if we could have mass production orders. Could you organise the trade to give us mass production orders so that this service to the trade can be undertaken?"

Surely that is a service which would benefit everybody in the trade and one which the Council would undertake only if everybody in the trade asked it to do so. I cannot see why the activities of the Council should be so limited by Statute that it would be prevented from carrying out a service like that for all engaged in the industry. After all, the Council is set up to help them. It is illogical for hon. Members opposite, who are willing on behalf of their constituents that public money should be taken, not to give the Council these opportunities and make sure that the industry is properly organised so that the money will not be wasted. I repeat that it is not just a matter of helping the growers. We have agreed that they must come first, but also the whole of the marketing operations have to be improved.

I am very surprised indeed that hon. Members opposite should suggest that the Council should not undertake services on behalf of the trade although no one else is providing such services. If the central services could be provided by someone else, probably that would be all right, but it is illogical to suggest to the Council that it should not undertake such services. If this is the attitude that we are to have, the question of Government grants to any industry ought to be reconsidered, because we are not going to pay out Government money if opportunities are to be refused even to a body of this kind, which has not got statutory powers, of being of service to the industry.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior (Lowestoft)

I welcome the Amendment, partly because it goes very much towards a point which I raised in the Standing Committee about brand names. It is vitally important that a body other than the Board of Trade should control such matters as brand names for pre-packaged horticultural goods. I thought that the extra powers which the Minister would give the Horticultural Marketing Council as a result of the Amendment would enable it to exercise that sort of control.

When I first looked at it, I welcomed the Amendment wholeheartedly—provided that the proviso in Clause 10 is not taken away. I see very grave dangers in that, and I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on that issue. However, I think that, with the Minister's consent, there are many useful jobs which the Council can do, and I would mention in particular the matter of brand names for prepackaged goods, a subject which, at the moment, is causing a considerable amount of worry to a large section of the horticultural industry. If we can be assured that the later Amendment to which reference has been made will not be accepted, I think that we can take it that the Amendment which we are discussing will be a very valuable one.

Mr. Peart

When the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) rose, I thought he was about to join the little group which seems to be prodding the Minister today. In the Standing Committee the hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, criticised the Minister. I am glad that he welcomes the Amendment. I will not go into great detail, because the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) have explained why we need a Council which can, if necessary, indulge in certain activities which would benefit the industry. That, after all, is what we are seeking.

Consequently, we strongly support the Minister and reject the criticism which has been advocated by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). The hon. Member said that he was not sure about the Amendment and that he was against the Council being given wide powers. He argued that we ought always to return to Parliament to ask for further powers. My reply to that is: why delay? If the hon. Gentleman wishes decisions to be taken only after Parliament has been consulted, why does he not trust the Minister? I know that many hon. Members opposite do not. Indeed, many of them are very critical of the right hon. Gentleman's handling of agricultural matters. I will not go too far into that, but I must say that on this issue we support the Minister and think that it would be very foolish if the Council were hamstrung in the beginning by the criticisms that we have heard today.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said that he was happy to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister; but he, also, was not sure. He hoped that the Council would not at this stage engage in trading services. However, we believe that that should be a proper function of the Council, and, although it is not laid down in Clause 10, we feel that in the end it would help the producers, and I would make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has shown how the producers would be helped by the manufacture of containers.

This is not an argument for those engaged in the trade as against the producers. For the reasons that my hon. Friend has advocated, we are certain that if the Council could engage in such activities as pre-packing and the manufacture of containers, that would benefit marketing and, in turn, the individual producer. The proposal in no way threatens the individual producer. I am certain that that was what was in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).

Major Legge-Bourke

It is not that about which I am worried. I am worried about the intermediary between the producer and the consumer.

Mr. Peart

I am certainly worried about the producer, and that is why I feel that the Amendment is sound, for it will enable the Council to indulge in activities which will improve marketing, and the small producers will benefit from that.

I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, who represents many small producers, would have welcomed the proposal instead of taking a doctrinaire view about it. I know that the National Farmers' Union does not wish to support an Amendment of this kind, or has not supported the views which we expressed in the Standing Committee, but I would tell the National Farmers' Union that we are not being anti-producer but are simply anxious for the Council to improve marketing. We are certain that there are many functions which the Council could carry out.

There is nothing wrong in allowing this to be done in consultation with the Minister. If a decision is to be taken in marketing or any of the other functions listed in Clause 10, it will be the Council which will make the recommendations, and I am certain that the Minister will then have the necessary consultations. If the Minister feels that it is in the interests of national agricultural policy that a decision should be taken at the national level for the Council to undertake certain functions, why should he not the Minister have such views and, if necessary, make representations to the Council and have consultations at that level, and then ensure that the decision is implemented?

4.30 p.m.

We hope that the Minister will resist the arguments of some of his hon. Friends who take a contrary view. We feel that his critics, led by the hon. Members for King's Lynn and the Isle of Ely, are not acting in the best interests of their own producers, although they think they are. They are really seeking to hamstring a body in a way which would, in the end, be harmful for the small producers.

I want the small producers to benefit by improved marketing. I have always stressed that. My bias has always been on the side of the producers. We have had this out in Committee and my bias is there. Hon. Members and those outside in the industries in organised farming opinion are wrong, at this stage, to try and restrict the work of an important body like this. As the Minister said, why not have latitude? Why seek to restrict it, to corset it, at this stage? There are ample safeguards. In an industry where we need a new spirit, a new approach and a spirit of adventure, it will help to lay down a better marketing policy which will help the small producer. I hope that the Minister will resist those colleagues of his who seek to restrict the work of the Council.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

Would my hon. Friend agree that the National Farmers' Union did not oppose this Amendment? It simply wanted assurances as to the Council and the point of control of the Council. I understood him to say that the union was opposing this.

Mr. Peart

I said that there was an opinion in the union which would, I know, be rather cautious about giving powers to the Council to indulge in what we have been trying to obtain—marketing, etc. I hope that hon. Members who have opposed this Amendment will have second thoughts, and, in view of the Minister's assurance, will not only acquiesce in this Amendment but approve of it.

Mr. J. Hare

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) seems to think that he has a professional rôle to protect me against my own supporters. It is kind of him, but I can do without his assistance. He is not quite so skilful an operator as his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who was much more skilful, In welcoming this Amendment he did not let the cat out of the bag, but the hon. Member for Workington has done so. He said that I wished for great latitude and hoped that the proviso in Clause 10 would be removed, and that we would have this Council engaging in every sort of activity.

Mr. Peart

I said that they may indulge in this sort of activity. That is not letting the cat out of the bag; it is telling the truth. I did not want to qualify.

Mr. Hare

I do not think that the hon. Member need qualify. Everyone listened and knew what he meant. One of our difficulties is that we do not know what Mr. Speaker will do about an Amendment put down by the Opposition to deal with the proviso in Clause 10. All I can tell my hon. Friends is that if Mr. Speaker should decide to call that Amendment I hope they will support me in the Lobby, because I intend stoutly to resist any argument put forward on this subject by the Opposition. The last thing in the world I would do is move this Amendment unless it had been qualified by words in Clause 9, the detailed list of provisions in Clause 10, and, finally, by the proviso in Clause 10. I would not have dreamed of asking them to accept this Amendment unless Clause 10 stood without Amendment.

Far from having said that I wanted a lot of latitude, I used most careful words. I said that I think it is wise to allow just a little latitude for the unexpected contingency. That is very different from what the hon. Member for Workington said I wanted. I believe this little latitude, a matter of common sense, is a perfectly harmless and, at the same time, a rather useful provision for the Committee to accept. I hope that with this assurance my hon. Friends will support me against the Opposition Amendment on Clause 10 and that they will be good enough to give me their support on this Amendment.

Mr. Willey

I do not rise because I take umbrage at being called a skilful operator, but only to help the Committee. We tabled our Amendments before we saw the Government Amendment. Now that we have seen that Amendment we do not regard our Amendments as necessary. I think that this is the right approach. It is better to leave the initiative with the Council after putting in the further safeguard that it will only obtain further functions if it gets the consent of the Minister. I think that that is right.

I am not for a moment saying that we do not hold the view we take about the functions of the Council, but we recognise that the Council will have a difficult initial period and that it would be far better to show confidence in it. On matters like this, on which there are differences of opinion, it would be far better to let the Council consider it and, if it thinks that it has a case for expanding its functions, seek the consent of the Minister.

The necessity to seek the consent of the Minister is a valuable safeguard. Any section of the industry which might feel that the Council was seeking too wide functions would have the opportunity of making representations to the Minister before he gave his consent. That is a right and proper way to arrange things I congratulate the Minister on what he has done, not because I am a skilful operator, but because I genuinely think he has found the right solution.

Mr. Fell

Did I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly? I understood him to say that the Opposition were not any longer interested in their Amendment to delete lines 14 to 16 from Clause 10.

Mr. Willey

We raised these matters in Standing Committee and we wanted to pursue them here. Subsequently, however, we had an opportunity of considering the Government's Amendment. I am not suggesting that it wholly meets our point of view, but it is right and proper that the initiative should rest with the Council, that we should not further define the functions in the Bill, and that there should be this further safeguard—that if the Council finds it necessary to expand its functions it should have the consent of the Minister.

Mr. Fell

Am I right in supposing that the hon. Member is happy with this Amendment and that his Amendment, which may or may not be called later, will not be moved? I thought that that was what he said.

The Temporary Chairman

I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue too far an Amendment which may or may not be considered by the House.

Mr. Fell

If this were to be so—and it is my construction of what he said—it would arouse my suspicions. On the one hand, we have one member of the Opposition Front Bench saying that this will enable trading by the Council and, on the other, we have one of his colleagues on the same Front Bench saying that he does not mind about the provision which excludes trade. That leads me to the question whether we are absolutely certain that if we do pass this Amendment it will, in fact, be nullified as far as trading is concerned by the words in Clause 10.

Mr. Hare

I am only too willing to give my hon. Friend the exact guarantee which he wants. I will certainly see that the proviso to Clause 10 applies to this Amendment. It is very important that I should make that point, and it is also important that not only my hon. Friends but also hon. Members opposite should recognise it, in case there has been any misconception.

Mr. Willey

It would, of course, be a matter for legal construction. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for announcing his intentions. I cannot say that I am altogether happy with the provisions, but I am as happy as I can be with the present Administration, and since I cannot see them failing to remain in office for a time, while they remain in office I regard this as a good compromise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.