HC Deb 21 February 1968 vol 759 cc460-5
Mr. Stodart

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 40, after represent ' to insert ' producers of livestock and '.

In Committee, when the Government considered this matter and undertook to reconsider it, I made the point that by Clause 5 the Ministers are obliged to consult the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We felt that in a matter of this kind the producers of livestock should be consulted as well. To that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) in effect said this: "We do not want to waste words. We are bound to consult the producers under the heading of interests concerned ' and if we were to start to specify any particular group of people we should have to string along a whole host of others." This, of course, is an argument which was not advanced for the first time. Indeed, I can well recall using it myself on one occasion—I do not know with as much conviction as I would have liked. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has already been specified in the Clause, and, therefore, I would say of the hon. Gentleman's argument that that particular pass has already been sold.

There is, I would have thought, no question as to the relative importance of the livestock producers. I am not going to say whether there are other people who are important and who might have to come in as well. The hon. Gentleman did not specify who they were. I would certainly say that in this matter the producers are what one may describe as primi inter pares with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Mr. John Mackie

Primi?

Mr. Stodart

They are in the plural, not the singular. I think that if the hon. Gentleman reflects he will see that I am meticulously accurate in this matter.

The National Farmers' Unions have expressed their approval of this Amendment. I do not say that that should weight heavily with the hon. Gentleman, but I would have thought it a reasonable request, and I hope he has reconsidered it and will give us a favourable reply.

Mr. John Mackie

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that we had a long argument about this in Committee, when he made all the points he has made today, including the point that we have particularly mentioned the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. This, as I think he may agree, is in a slightly different category, for this is a question of animal welfare. By the words "other interests concerned" the National Farmers Union is included. If there is any body capable of putting forward views for consideration it would be that one. I think those words cover the point which the hon. Gentleman makes about the N.F.U. I do not think he brought forward any new arguments today to alter the position. I said that we would look at it. Our lawyers give us the advice that the Amendment is unnecessary. We do not want to clutter up the Bill with unnecessary phrases. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all interests are adequately covered. I hope that, with that assurance, he will be content, as I thought he was in Committee.

Mr. Peter Mills

I am still not satisfied by what the Minister has said. I do not think we are cluttering up the Bill at all by just including three or four words. That seems a very stupid answer to me. These words should be inserted, and I support my hon. Friend very much in seeking to have them inserted. These very important producers should be consulted. That is not to say that the N.F.U. will not do its job properly, but it should be made quite clear, and clear to all future Ministers of Agriculture, that the producers of livestock should be consulted.

I want to reiterate again the reason why I think this Amendment should be made. Farmers are doing many of the operations which are necessary on their farms. This is right and proper. As farmers become more and more skilled, so it is right and proper that they should do these things. Perhaps the agricultural training board can help in this so that farm workers as well may be able to do more of this sort of work. Indeed, with ever rising costs upon farmers it is important that farmers should do as much of their work themselves as they can. I would be very upset if they were to be restricted in this type of work. Therefore, it is vitally important that they should be consulted at every point.

The Minister may say we are making a lot of fuss about a very small point. He nods his head. If he will think about this carefully he will realise that we are not, and I hope that he will allow us to have this Amendment.

Sir Frank Pearson

I think it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept this Amendment because by doing so he would maintain a real balance within the Clause. The people who will be really affected by the operation of the Clause will be the livestock producers themselves. Of course, he is absolutely right in saying that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may well, at the final point, he the experts in any of these cases when they come up. They will be the experts, but all too often in agricultural practice the practical farmer finds that he has certain cause, sometimes at any rate, to be not wholly convinced by what the experts tell him. All too often he gets one expert telling him one thing and another expert telling him another thing.

Therefore I would have liked to have seen this Amendment accepted, if only for the one reason that it would make it quite clear in the drafting of the Bill that we recognise the producer of livestock as an important person and that his processes of production do mean something to us, that we realise his difficulties, and give him a special place in this Clause about consultation. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that the N.F.U. will be consulted, but there are so many other bodies, poultry societies, breed societies, a hundred and one different societies and interests which might well be consulted. If he can give an assurance that the general terminology of national farmers unions includes other special interests which will also be taken into account, that will be helpful. Nevertheless, I would like to have it in the Bill, and I think it is a pity that the Minister has not been able to accept this specific Amendment and give the producer a very special place in this Clause.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

The entire House will sympathise with the view of hon. Members who have spoken that the producers of livestock should be consulted in a matter of this kind, but provision is made in general terms for this. It is a matter of drafting. I should have thought it would have been quite abundantly clear now, as it must have been to those who read the speech of the hon. Member in Committee, that it would be highly undesirable to single out for special mention any single category of persons to be consulted. On a matter of statutory construction, I can match the hon. Member's primi inter pares with another tag, a canon of construction, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. By specifying one category, it might be open to Ministers to come to the conclusion that it was not incumbent upon them to consult any other category of person who might be very importantly connected.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I want to support the Amendment in plain East Anglian English. I cannot think of a worse reason for rejecting any Amendment than the one that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave, namely, that he had consulted his lawyers. He said that his lawyers had told him that it was unnecessary. But does he not realise that most troubles with legislation arise because lawyers are consulted? What is important here is not what lawyers have told him but what those who will be empowered to enforce this Measure will do.

In the Clause as it is now drafted, it is clear that the Minister has made a distinction between that minority which is to be consulted by Statute, namely, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the rest, who will only be consulted at the Minister's discretion. I am sure that any Minister of Agriculture would never dream of bringing in regulations without consulting the National Farmers' Union, but there are other bodies representing livestock producers who might not be consulted, and I think that the Minister should take the point that, among those to be consulted by statutory right, there should be those who produce the livestock. If they did not produce, the need for the Clause would not arise and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would not have a job to do. I ask the Minister to think again and recognise that he ought not to distinguish between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who will be consulted by right, and the livestock producers, who may be consulted if he so decides.

Mr. Stodart

We have had a very disappointing reply and a most unfair one. The hon. Gentleman said that I had given no new reason for the inclusion of the Amendment. However, he did not ask me to. In the light of the arguments advanced upstairs, he agreed to think again, but he did not ask for any new reasons.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he had consulted lawyers, my mind went back to an occasion upstairs when he was forced to admit that the one category of people about whose advice he was dubious was his lawyers, and he said some extremely dusty things about them.

Will he tell us who are the others he may have to string along? This is an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. In such a Bill, mention must surely be made of agriculturists. They are among the people who are worthy of mention under the covers of that Bill.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not show himself to be completely solidified on this issue.

Mr. John Mackie

If I may, I will deal first with the argument about what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has called "stringing along". He made the point that this was an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and, therefore, should concentrate on agriculturists. I would remind him that some of his predecessors, with Mr. Christopher Soames at their head, were under tremendous pressure and, as a result, appointed the Brambell Committee. This Measure results from that Committee's Report. There are interests outside agriculture who have had quite a say in it, and I would point out to him that, if we included one agricultural interest, the pressures to include other responsible categories would be just as great. We do not want to differentiate in any way. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is in a different category, but there would be no case for not stringing along a lot of other interests if we accepted the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Clithero (Sir Frank Pearson) made the point that there were a number of other bodies interested in livestock production which might not be included in the N.F.U. However, I can think of no facet of animal production which has anything to do with this Clause and which is not included in the N.F.U. For example any other type of breeding which is not agricultural has nothing to do with the Clause, and I am certain that, if the hon. Gentleman went to the N.F.U., that body would give him the same assurance.

I do not think that we should go too much into our belief or otherwise in lawyers. I think that they are a necessary evil. Although I may have made the facetious remark attributed to me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, we have to pay some attention to them. They have given us certain advice on this matter and, accordingly, I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, because I at least have been persuaded by them that the Amendment is unnecessary.

Sir Frank Pearson

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he said that he could not think of any sphere of livestock production which was not covered by the operations of the N.F.U. However, let us take the case of someone who breeds dogs, which might come under the Clause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech on Report.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to