HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc183-5
Mr. Stodart

I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 19, at the end to insert— (12) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section no charges under a levy scheme shall be imposed twice on the same carcase or on any part of a carcase upon which a levy shall already have been imposed. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to ensure that there shall be no escalation of levies. The matter was discussed at that rather memorable 13th sitting of the first Committee, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to take the points made and say that he would look at the matters involved. There was some discussion about who or what had the levy imposed on it.

When a certain amount of surprise was caused in the Committee by the hon. Gentleman saying that the levy would be imposed on persons, he explained that the person owning a carcase would pay the levy. When a beast is sold live no difficulty is likely to arise; once it is certified a levy will be deducted by the firm handling it from its cheque to the owner. I imagine that this is the system that will be followed.

But when stock is sent to a dead meat market for sale on the hook difficulty may arise. I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain what he thinks is likely to happen. The dead meat market does a great deal of its trade in sections of carcases. It is normal for a butcher with a big trade in fore-ends to buy from another butcher in another part of the city, doing it through the dead meat market, who has a huge demand for steaks and sirloins but virtually none for the cheaper cuts. This is where the dead meat market comes in. Where and when is the levy to be collected in this trading on the hook?

Also, as livestock products are levy-able as well, it seems to us that it is in this field that escalation could arise. I think that the hon. Gentleman agreed with us that it would be a reductio ad absurdum if levy was involved every time a carcase was cut up. The point of the Amendment is to ensure that there be only one payment on a carcase or any part of it.

Mr. Hoy

As the hon. Gentleman said, this Amendment was debated in Standing Committee B when we discussed the previous Agriculture Bill. I was surprised at that stage when the Opposition decided to divide the Committee on it.

I explained then, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we have always thought that the simplest and fairest way of imposing the levy would prove to be a single payment at the point of slaughter, but it was represented to us —by the groups of interests most likely to be asked to pay the levy—that we should not rule out the possibility of splitting any single payment of this kind, for example between producers and the meat trade. We accepted this, and Clause 13 is drafted to make such a split possible. The effect of the Amendment now proposed is a little ambiguous, but it would make it doubtful indeed whether a scheme could competently provide for payments to come from more than one source in the way that these interests had envisaged, and many of them would, I think, regret this.

I was not quibbling or making a mere drafting point when I emphasised in the previous debate that a scheme under the Clause cannot in fact impose levies on carcases as such but only on persons. Certainly, levies would be imposed on persons in respect of carcases or other products, but this would have to be done at some specified stage in the system of marketing and distribution. If the imposition was to be enforceable it would have to be on persons at that stage and not on carcases in some looser way.

As I have said, I expect that the Commission, after consulting the industry, will find that the best arrangement is a single payment. But the Clause is wide enough to allow it to work out—if it wants to—a scheme for imposing payments on two classes of persons in respect of the same throughput.

11.15 p.m.

Of course, I realise that the Amendment is intended to prevent an unfair scheme getting through. I must emphasise that I as much as anyone, would find any scheme which gave rise to a danger of double charging quite intolerable, and I am sure that this would apply equally to any Minister, no matter what his party. This is also true of the people who draft the scheme, of the interests concerned, who would be consulted about it, and, of course, of Parliament itself.

In practice, therefore, if there is any danger of double charging it arises not so much from the possibility of a deliberate provision in a levy scheme but because of some flaw in a scheme, and a provision of the kind proposed in the Amendment would no more prevent this than any statement by me now.

To sum up, therefore, we consider that this Amendment is, as a statement of intention, entirely unnecessary. It would be ineffective in preventing any accidental double charging which might arise from a flaw in a scheme. What it would do, no doubt unintentionally, would be to rule out any form of levy scheme which allowed for payments in respect of a single carcase being split between two persons.

In the light of my explanation of the intention to meet all the interests concerned, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel satisfied and withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.