New Clause.—(SUPPLY OF PRODUCE TO CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING BUSINESSES.) (Hansard, 25 February 1964)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)
I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
There are two Amendments having the same subject-matter, Mr. Speaker, namely, in Clause 4, page 6, line 10, at the beginning to insert: Subject to section (Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses) of this Act and in Clause 7, page 8, line 10, after "above" to insert: and section (Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses) of this Act". I suggest that it might be convenient if we could consider these Amendments with the new Clause.

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, if the House so pleases.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who, unfortunately, is unable to be with us today because of illness, it falls to me to commend the new Clause to the House.
The Clause derives from the promise I gave in Committee to consider whether a provision could be incorporated in the Bill which would have the effect of pro- 246 moting a larger and steadier supply of members' produce to support the marketing facilities provided by the co-operatives to which they belong. This was an issue raised originally in Committee by hon. Members opposite, but I think that the whole House will be glad to know that it has been found possible to devise a suitable way of giving effect, through this new Clause, to the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).
The hon. Gentleman proposed that Ministers should be empowered to require a co-operative to bind its members to supply particular or ascertainable amounts presumably a specified percentage—of their produce to the co-operative business on pain of action for damages in the event of failure to do so. But, as was pointed out in Committee, and as was pointed out by the Departmental Working Party set up in 1960 to go into the whole question, there are other methods of achieving exactly the same result as the hon. Gentleman wanted. For example, there can be differential charging to penalise the less loyal members or a provision for expulsion or suspension of their membership. Methods of this kind can be just as effective as lawsuits.
The new Clause has, therefore, been cast in general terms so far as concerns the sanction for securing adequate support from the members of a co-operative. In other respects, it is, perhaps, more precise. It lays down that an over-riding qualification for eligibility for grant to a co-operative, whether under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme, 1960, or under Clause 4 of the Bill, shall be the existence of provisions in the co-operative's constitution which are designed to ensure that members will give it adequate support by supplying to it a reliable and sufficient volume of the produce which they grow.
My right hon. Friends are to retain discretion to decide generally the scope of the provisions which may be necessary in particular circumstances. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) referred in Committee to co-operatives the members of which grow a wide variety of horticultural produce. In this class of 247 case, it might be sufficient to require that if, after a period of time, it were found that a member had persistently failed to supply a reasonable proportion of his produce, he should be exposed to disciplinary action by his fellow members.
The new Clause is an effective but flexible method of achieving what we all desire. Before determining whether a grant should be made, an examination of the constitution of the co-operative will be made to establish whether the prior condition laid down in the Clause is met. If it is not, the co-operative will not be eligible for grant. On the other hand, the co-operatives are left free to choose which of the several sanctions open to them they wish to employ to meet the condition, or, in a particular and pardonable case of default, to waive all of them.
I hope that the new Clause and the subsequent Amendments will commend themselves to the House as fair and positive contribution to the strengthening of horticultural co-operatives.

§ Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)
I am sorry that the Minister is not here, and I hope that he will have a speedy recovery.
The Parliamentary Secretary had a large share of the burden in Committee and we are glad that he is in charge today, not, of course, for the reason that his right hon. Friend is ill, but because we hope that he will keep up the spirit with which he has started the proceedings. We are grateful for this concession.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who pressed this suggestion not only in Committee on this Bill but also when the Horticulture Act, 1960, was going through the House. He and other hon. Members on both sides sought then to safeguard the position of producer co-operatives. I pay tribute also to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who brought forward during our discussions in 1960 a Clause on similar lines.
We are grateful to the Minister. My hon. Friend sought to safeguard the interests of co-operatives assisted by means of grants, and it is only right and proper that individual members of these co- 248 operatives should fulfil their obligations. I am glad that there is to be a measure of flexibility and that it will be left to co-operatives to decide what type of sanction should be used. On the other hand, it is a useful safeguard that the constitution of a co-operative will be examined before a grant is given. We accept the new Clause and we hope that it will work satisfactorily.