HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc362-8

8.45 a.m.

Sir Frank Pearson

I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 81, line 31, to leave out from ' flocks' to the end of line 33.

This Amendment refers to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which gives power to the Meat and Livestock Commission to maintain and publish certain registers. It reads: Maintaining and publishing registers of cattle and pig herds and sheep flocks appearing to the Commission to be efficiently managed and to conform to the standards specified by the Commission. A similar Amendment to that now being moved was debated in the Standing Committee, more or less as a probing Amendment. However, as our probing proceeded, it became more and more evident that there was a point in regard to subsection (1) which needed closer scrutiny. If the Commission is empowered to maintain and publish these records, records which will, in fact, pick and choose between various types of enterprise, the publication of them will set the hallmark of efficiency and approbation. Then, quite clearly, we shall get ourselves into the position whereby the Commission must not only have a complete survey of the whole field of production, but, having made the survey, must also make a survey as to efficiency.

This would appear to be an enormous task, and what worried hon. Members in the Standing Committee was that this list should be published in such a way as almost to achieve a form of industrial blackmail. Having expressed these very real doubts in the Committee, we were relieved to have a most sympathetic hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary and, although he was here a moment ago, I regret that he appears to have disappeared just when I would very much have appreciated his presence.

I would like to quote from the record of the sitting of the Standing Committee on 9th August last, in which the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the point we raised. He then said: I believe that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) has hit on a point here in suggesting that this might give the impression that the Commission was selecting from and discriminating between herds. I see no reason why we should not look at this wording to see whether we can avoid creating any idea that the Commission is making a judgment without some reason."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 9th August, 1966; c. 587.] That, at the time, appeared to be a highly satisfactory assurance and it is with very great regret that we have looked up the present Bill and found that no alteration whatever has been made to meet this very firm assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary.

I hope that the Minister will fully justify why, after making these statements, no alteration in the Bill has been made. The only interpretation we can place on this failure to take action is that the Minister has purposely set out to create a register which will discriminate, and discriminate most harmully between producers.

If that is really his intention, when the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted that such discrimination is highly unsatisfactory, it will need a great deal of argument to convince this side of the House that the Minister was justified in not altering the record in any way.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I support my hon. Friend. I support the maintenance and publishing of registers of this type for breeding stock, because they are a great help to people in the industry, particularly commercial breeders, since they let them know where to get breeding stock. The accredited poultry scheme, for example, did a great deal of good. On the other hand, unless there are objective standards by which the register is made up the whole idea of a register completely fails, because it will not commend itself to the industry and there will just be a lot of bickering, and so on.

The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the launching of P.I.D.A.'s list of accredited and elite herds. The register in that case is based on progeny testing and performance testing, which are two of the best objective standards one can have. Yet even that scheme has taken a long time to get under way, and it led to a great number of difficulties between breeders. Those who were not included wanted to know why, and a lot of kid glove handling was needed by those responsible for launching it.

Even with objective standards, the Parliamentary Secretary must realise that such registers lead to difficulties and the matter is not easy to handle. I would therefore be interested to hear how the thoughts within the Ministry have developed after the assurance in Committee, because it is very important not only to breeders to know where they stand but also to the great mass of commercial breeders in the livestock industry, who will depend for schemes of improvement on how this kind of register is made and administered.

Mr. Hoy

I think that I know a little about the scheme which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) recalled and about the difficulties in putting it into practice. However, this is somewhat different.

If the Amendment were accepted, it is arguable whether it would, in fact, prevent the Commission, when maintaining and publishing registers of herds and flocks under the provisions in paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1, from excluding those herds and flocks which were inefficiently managed or failed to conform to standards specified by the Commission, but if Parliament had deliberately deleted such a provision it would be bound to influence the Commission against using criteria of the types described to exclude some flocks and herds from registers.

We think that that would be wrong, since part of the purpose of maintaining and publishing registers would be to let buyers of the products of those herds and flocks know that they could rely on the fact that the herds and flocks had been efficiently managed and that they conformed to other minimum standards laid down by the Commission.

In other words, we think that some element of selection is an essential ingredient of the function of maintaining and publishing herd and flock registers. The Commission would, of course, have to apply the specified standards and methods of measurement in a uniform and consistent manner from herd to herd and flock to flock. There could be no question of discrimination between one herd and another. But in the sense that some herds would be accepted for the register because they were up to certain minimum standards and others would not be accepted because they failed to reach these standards, there would be—in the words of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) in Standing Committee—some sorting of" the sheep from the goats."

It is difficult to see how effective recording schemes aimed at identifying animals of superior merit for breeding can be run on a national scale unless information about the production performance of animals, both individually and on a herd or flock basis, is available centrally; and it would be essential not to include in the registers herds or flocks which failed to reach minimum standards.

At the same time, the fact that a herd was not on a register would not necessarily mean that it had been refused acceptance, because paragraph 5 provides only for voluntary participation in registers. No one is obliged to take part, and there is no question of producers being forced into an over-centralised system. If a herd is not on the register, it could be because it had applied and failed or because it simply had not applied. A register would say something positive about those included, but anything about those not included would be irrelevant.

We suggest, therefore, that the important considerations are, first, that the register should be on a voluntary basis, and, secondly, that the specified standards should be consistently applied. That is what we think the Bill should provide, and that is why we could not accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment; but I think he will agree that I have given a fair explanation of the position, and I hope that he will find it satisfactory.

Sir Frank Pearson

I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for what up to a point quietens my fears, though I must say that had we not been debating this at an early hour of the morning and had more time been available there is a great deal of scope for worth-while debate. This is one of the reasons why I regret that we have had to curtail debate on these latter stages of the Bill: there are a number of most important points that are of interest to the industry.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given us the valuable assurance that this is entirely a voluntary scheme. I should greatly have appreciated it had the Parliamentary Secretary, who took such a keen interest in the Amendment in Committee, been able to be on the Government Front Bench at this moment. However, in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 86, line 6, leave out from 'that' to end of line 8 and insert: 'each member is appointed by reference to one only of the above paragraphs, and one member at least by reference to each of them '.—[Mr. Hoy.]

9.0 a.m.

Mr. Henry Clark

I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 86, line 13, after 'Scotland', to insert 'and Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We are considering, at the same time, Amendment No. 87, in line 38, after 'Scotland', insert 'and Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Clark

The Amendment has been tabled to put right the omission to take full account of the interests of Northern Ireland in the affairs of the Meat and Livestock Commission. I argued this point at some length in Committee and received a reasonably sympathetic hearing from the Government. I therefore move this Amendment in the hope that it will be accepted. I do not want to labour the point.

Northern Ireland, though a small part of the United Kingdom, contributes about one-seventh of the livestock produce of the United Kingdom. I do not suggest that Northern Ireland interests be represented on the Production Committee, but someone on the Distribution and Consumers' Committees should be in a position to advise these Committees and the Commission about Northern Ireland affairs.

We in Northern Ireland produce a great deal of meat and virtually all of it comes across to Great Britain and into the area controlled by the Commission. I hope that the Minister, having had time to consider this matter, will be prepared to accept the Amendment and see that Northern Ireland interests are properly looked after on the Distribution and Consumers' Committees.

Mr. Hoy

It is true that this Amendment was considered in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said he would look at it again. We have done so in the light of what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) said. But having done so with great sympathy, we see no reason to alter our view or to accept the Amendment.

The Commission will be concerned only with matters within Great Britain and the subjects to be considered by the Production and Distribution Committees will all be matters of relevance to the production, marketing and distribution of livestock and livestock products in Great Britain. It is true that we expect the Commission to establish and maintain close relations with the Northern Ireland industry through whatever channels may be available and appropriate. Surely that is the best way to ensure that the interests of the industry on both sides are not overlooked.

Mr. Henry Clark

It is now rather late in the morning—indeed, after the time at which I usually get up. Being normally rather short-tempered at breakfast, I have some sympathy with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Nine o'clock is my worst hour of the morning, as well. But here is a simple Amendment which would improve the Bill and there is no reason for rejecting it. Could not the Government for once accept an Amendment?

The hon. Gentleman's reasons against the Amendment are spurious. I do not want to labour this, because there is no point in prolonging the sitting unnecessarily but it is just on the Distribution and Consumers' Committees that Northern Ireland interests should be represented because the consumers of Northern Ireland meat are very largely in Great Britain.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and its taxpayers will be paying a lot towards the cost of the Commission. They should have some say not on the Commission itself, but on these two Committees. Just to show that, after this long night, there is no ill feeling between the two sides of the House on this important matter, the Government could well accept the Amendment in the interests of Northern Ireland and a better Commission.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 86, line 32, leave out from "that" to end of line 33 and insert: each member is appointed by reference to one only of the above paragraphs, and one member at least by reference to each of them".—[Mr. Hoy.]