§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes)I beg 380 to move, Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'twelve' and insert:
'not less than twelve and not more than fourteen'.
§ Mr. SpeakerI suggest that with this Amendment it would be convenient to take also Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
§ Mr. StodartWould it not be more suitable to take Amendments 2 and 3 together and 4 separately, as it seems to be on a separate point?
§ Mr. HughesI felt that it was appropriate to take Amendments 2, 3 and 4 together, as you suggested Mr. Speaker. The Amendments are related, and I would prefer to speak to them together.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the hon. Member wish to press his objection?
§ Mr. StodartNo, I do not want to waste time.
§ Mr. HughesThese Amendments follow from an undertaking which I gave in Committee to give further consideration to the proposals in Clause 2(2)(a) dealing with the appointment of the independent members of the Authority in the light of the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides. The proposal in the Bill was that there should be 12 members of the Authority, three of whom would be independent members. The effect of Amendments 2 and 3 would be to make these minimum requirements, and to provide for a maximum of 14 and 5 members respectively. This follows the precedent of the Home Grown Cereals authority, and is designed to give Ministers a greater degree of flexibility in the appointment of the independent members.
The authority will be concerned with all aspects of the marketing of home produced eggs in the United Kingdom and, bearing in mind the nature and extent of these responsibilities, our aim must be to secure the widest possible range of relevant knowledge and experience in the membership, from within the industry and outside it. We are providing in the Clause for the appointment of nine members, after consultation with the producer and trade interests, and it seems to us that this is a reasonable provision for the industry's contribution to the membership.
The independent members will also have an essential part to play in the authority's work and we have reached the 381 conclusion, after reconsideration and after taking careful account of what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen said in Committee, that we could not be sure of achieving the right balance if the number of independent members were to be limited at all times to a maximum of three. On the other hand, although there is nothing sacrosanct about a particular figure, it was the general view of the Committee that a total membership of 12 was just about right, and we would be reluctant on general grounds to go above this figure.
I can give the House an assurance that we shall not appoint more than the minimum of three independent members for which provision is made under this Amendment unless we cannot otherwise secure the properly balanced membership which we consider to be essential.
To come to the third Amendment, this will have the effect of ensuring that the independent member appointed to the authority as being specially conversant with the consumer interests will not become the chairman or deputy chairman.
An Amendment designed to achieve this result was moved in Committee by hon. Members opposite. Although we were unable to accept it at the time, I promised to look at it again as part of our overall consideration of the proposals in Clause 2(2)(a), I am glad to say that with the greater flexibility in the appointment of individual members which we shall be securing through the previous Amendment we will be able, by means of this Amendment, fully to meet the point of view pressed upon us by hon. Members opposite. I hope that on reflection they will see their way clear to supporting these Amendments.
§ Mr. SpeakerI understand from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that while we are taking these three Amendments separate he wants to divide on one. Which one?
§ Mr. StodartPossibly on No. 2. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession that he has given to us. He has met our point in Amendment No. 4, but the reason why I rose earlier to ask about the grouping of these Amendments is that although they deal with the board numbers of the composition of the authority, the effect of 382 Amendments 2 and 3 disturbs us slightly. We want to explore this. I am not entirely certain at this stage what will come out, but the Minister said that the number of independent members would not be exceeded except in special circumstances, or something like that.
Amendment No. 2 takes us back to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) in Committee. As the authority is constituted in the Bill, there are two independent members, namely the chairman and vice-chairman, one consumer representative, five producer representatives and four representatives of ancillaries. The hon. Member proposed an authority of 12 with two independents, still the chairman and vice-chairman, four producer representatives instead of five, three ancillary representatives instead of four, and three consumer representatives instead of one.
The Government are now suggesting an authority of between 12 and 14 with from two to four independents, five producer representatives, four representatives of ancillaries and one representative of the consumer. The only difference is in the loading of independents. It is possible that the extra couple of independents could be consumer minded.
I do not think that either the Government's Amendment or that tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is as good as the original. However, I almost prefer the one moved by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe to the Government's compromise. That may be because I am a little biased, since the hon. Gentleman was so forthright in his criticism of the Labour Party's agricultural policies. He spoke of the bitter opposition of the Co-operative Movement, which he described as being the only effective spokesman for the consumer at the time, to the original Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are not discussing the Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner). That is not before us.
§ Mr. StodartI was just coming to the end of my reference to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. This was an entirely Labour Government inspired act, and we were grateful for the hon. Gentleman's praise for our efforts to amend it.
383 There are strong reasons for the Government standing firm on their original proposals. The first reason is that, without having very strong views on it, they prefer 12 to 14. The Reorganisation Committee suggested an authority of 6 or 7 independent people. That may not be of much help to my argument, but 6 or 7 is nearer to 12 than to 14.
The second reason why the Government should stand firm is the existence of two other authority-type bodies which have been set up in recent years—the Home-grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission. The latter body relies on specialist committees, and the balance of its composition is not of much help to us. That is probably the pattern which the Reorganisation Committee had in mind, but clearly the Government do not agree. The Home-grown Cereals Authority has a membership of 21 to 23, of which independents number 3 to 5, producers 9, and ancillary representatives 9. The producer representation is almost identical with that proposed in the Clause at present. The producer representation is 10 per cent. higher than the Government would have it if they appoint a 14 member authority.
The balance of the authority is quite important. The objectives of the authority are primarily, though not entirely, of significance to producers, and it is the producers who will have to pay a fair whack of the expenses. The composition of an authority to a great extent should reflect the financing of the authority. I believe that if producers are to pay the bulk of the costs they are entitled to the representation that is in the Bill now.
10.30 p.m.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can ignore the misgivings of producers, which he must know about, at the removal of the Producer Marketing Board. Those misgivings are very strong, and I believe that they will increase to a pitch where the authority might be rejected altogether if the producer influence on it is reduced too much. If the remark that the right hon. Gentleman interpolated into his speech—I dare say that it was slow of me not to catch on to it—has the effect of keeping the 384 balance as I believe it should be kept, we would be happy. But we are not happy with the Amendment as drafted, because we believe that it will take away the influence and the voice of producers from the board to an extent which it ought not to do.
§ Mr. Tony Gardner (Rushcliffe)It would be churlish of me not to thank my right hon. Friend for attempting to meet, at least in part, the proposals which I made in Committee. I apologise for not being here when he began his speech in moving the Amendment.
I was slightly disappointed to hear him assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that he would only use the two extra members if he felt that there was an improper balance on the new authority. I am not sure what that meant. My view is that the balance was to some extent out of skew because the consumer was under represented and the producers shared with the wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers a heavy preponderance on the authority. It seemed to me and to other people concerned that the consumer needed a greater voice.
When I saw the Amendment I was gratified. I hope that when my right hon. Friend considers whether he will make use of these two extra appointments, he will look at the balance on the authority not merely from the point of view of producers against distributors, but also from that of the consumer. I should have been happier if my right hon. Friend had specifically stated in the Amendment that two extra consumer representatives would be appointed.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) quoting my words in Committee as a condemnation of the Government's agricultural policy. I did congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the wording that they put into two Agricultural Marketing Acts. I repeat, they were good Acts and the representation given to the consumer was an improvement on what we had done. We all like progress, and we live and learn. I said that the consumer had always opposed the Agricultural Marketing Acts. I maintain that this was a fair statement.
385 The producer boards were primarily set up to organise the industry in the in-interests of the producers. They were not set up as a result of pressure from the consumer or anybody else, but because the producers wanted a stable market for their products. This is reasonable. I also want stable markets for products. But, given that we want stable markets for products and given that the marketing of products has to be organised, in some cases in the form of a State appointed monopoly, I believe that the consumer ought to be fairly represented on these bodies. It is still my view that the consumer was not, and is not even now, represented on this Egg Marketing Authority. If we are talking about the Government's agricultural policy in general—and I shall stray from the rules of order for only a moment—I must say that I much prefer my right hon. Friend's policy to that advocated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I still doubt whether we have this right.
I was disturbed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the fears of the industry. I have read the note which the N.F.U. sent to us all. I was a little worried about the remark that this could be the last straw for the producers, and that it could lead to a massive rejection of the authority. There was a lot of talk in the House last night about people outside the House influencing the Government. This sort of threat, if threat it is, is equally dangerous to legislation and to the activities of Her Majesty's Ministers.
If the House in its wisdom decides that the authority shall be of a certain composition, that it will replace something of which the producers have made use, and that it is necessary in the interests of producers to have this authority, it ill-behoves people to suggest that it will not be supported. There is no difference between the view expressed about this authority and what we were told was the view of people outside about another Bill which is going through the House.
§ Mr. Peter MillsThe hon. Gentleman has forgotten one thing. The primary duty of the authority is the marketing of eggs, and it is the producers who pay the bulk of the costs.
§ Mr. GardnerThe producers pay for it, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition have tabled a number of Amendments to suggest that the Government should pay substantially more towards the costs of this authority. It may be that the House will accept those Amendments. If that were to happen it would strengthen the argument that if we are to have this kind of authority the taxpayer and the consumer should be represented on it.
§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)To which Amendments is the hon. Gentleman referring?
§ Mr. GardnerI was referring to support buying, but I shall be out of order if I deal with that now.
§ Mr. GardnerThere are Amendments dealing with that matter.
§ Mr. PeytonWill the hon. Gentleman now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling)?
§ Mr. GardnerLater we shall discuss—and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will want to participate in the discussion—whether the Government are making a big enough contribution towards the work of this authority.
May we come back to the main point? I still maintain that members——
§ Mr. Joplingrose——
§ Mr. GardnerI think that we must——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)Order. The Chair is having some difficulty in deciding whether the hon. Member's remarks are in order. Perhaps he will help me.
§ Mr. GardnerMay we get back to the main point? This authority is concerned with the marketing of eggs. It is in the interests of the consumer that there should be a stable market, and that eggs should be marketed efficiently and at the cheapest possible price. It is also in the interests of the producer that there should be a stable market. If we are to set up bodies of this kind, the consumer, who, after all——
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The three Amendments which the House is discussing are concerned with the constitution of the board. I am finding it difficult to see how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to that proposition.
§ Mr. GardnerI defer to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the Amendment which enables the Minister to appoint two more independent members, and I am saying that there might not be a proper balance on the board. It seems to me that part of the business of being in balance is the question whether the people most concerned with eggs in the last resort—the consumers—are fairly represented. When my right hon. Friend considers the question of balance, I hope that he will bear that fact in mind and will not listen to the pleas of those who want this Authority to be completely dominated by producers.
§ Mr. Peter MillsI am opposed to the Amendment. In Committee on 20th November, 1969, I said that I was opposed to it, and I still am. The Bill seems to be right in respect of numbers. A maximum of 12 seems to be the basis for an effective body. In Committee, on 20th November last also, the Minister said:
we are naturally anxious to keep the total size of the Authority within manageable limits".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 20th November, 1969; c. 63.]I believe that he was right, and I do not understand why he has changed his mind. He has not put forward a satisfactory case for this increase in the number of members. The Reorganisation Commission said that it was right to have a small committee, and I agree.The National Farmers' Union, which will play a big part in the future of the authority, is firmly opposed to any increase. In a letter that I have received from it, it says:
There have already been strong criticisms from producers that the Government is moving from a Board dominated by producers to an Authority where producers have a less than 50 per cent. share of the members. If the Government does not drop this Amendment, we envisage widespread opposition by producers to the Authority as a whole. It could be the last straw as far as producers are concerned, and could lead to a massive rejection of the Authority.388 I believe that that is true. We have only to remember what happened to the Agricultural Training Board to realise the strength of the objections. Any authority has to have the confidence of the members concerned—the producers—or it will fail. There are serious words, and I ask the Minister to pay heed to them. Without co-operation the authority is bound to fail. Egg producers who have been in touch with me feel strongly about this matter.If the Government insist on the Amendment the producers must have more representation. If the independents are increased from 3 to 5 the producers must be increased by 3 and the trade by 2. But that is a second-best idea; the smaller number is surely best, as the Minister agreed in Committee. If the Government say that they may do this for the consumer they should also say that they may do it for the producer. As it stands the Amendment will weaken the producers' representation.
I suggest that the Minister leaves the situation as it is and asks leave to withdraw the Amendment. If, after the authority has been set up and is working, he finds that it needs an increase in membership, the question can be dealt with at another time. There will be another Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill at some time. At least he will then have a valid reason for increasing the number of representatives on the authority. At present, I do not think that he has a valid reason. I ask him to think seriously about this matter. The producers believe that this could be the last straw. They are very unhappy. I am not allowed to go into all the other things the Government have failed to do about this authority, but the producers feel that this matter is so serious that it might upset the whole working of the Authority.
I welcome Amendment No. 4. The Government are wise to bring it forward. It clarifies the intention that the consumer representative should neither be chairman nor deputy chairman. Success or failure depends, again, on the type of man chosen as chairman. There must be confidence in him. He must be impartial and truly independent. This has been so with other authorities. We want it to be so with this one. Amendment No. 4 389 makes the situation clear but I am bitterly opposed to the other two Amendments.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. J. B. Godber (Grantham)I support my hon. Friends. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about Amendment No. 2 but was confused at the end. I think he was trying to be helpful to the House, but I was not clear about what he was saying about the Amendment. He appeared to be saying, "Give me the Amendment. I shall not use the powers under it unless certain specific things happen". That is not good advice to give to the House of Commons. Once an Amendment like this is passed, the powers are there and, although the right hon. Gentleman may be well intentioned, we do not know what will happen.
It is clear that there is genuine concern among producers about the composition of the authority. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) referred to producers' attitudes. In fairness, he will accept that producers have had to give up a producers' marketing board for this commodity and also the benefits of the guarantees which existed, on the withdrawal of which they received no warning. They are entitled to consider what is being put in place of that system.
The type of authority originally proposed, if one is to have a change of this nature, was fair in the representation it would have given to the producers. But if one is to change it in this way, or make provision to enable the right hon. Gentleman to change it—and he says that he does not want to change the balance but wants the power if he is forced to do so—one is bound to be weakening the position of the producers in relation to the authority.
We should consider the position of the egg producers. It has been eroded substantially. They have lost the benefit of the guarantees and have no undertaking from the Government that they will provide funds for help with support buying, for example, about which we feel strongly. Now the authority itself is to be overloaded, so the producers feel—I do not want to overstress this—with people who will not necessarily understand their point of view. We want a strong authority but we believe that the balance proposed originally by the right 390 hon. Gentleman was fairer. He has not made out a case tonight for making the change he now proposes. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming with the House when he replies to the debate, or will be willing to return to his original position about the composition of the authority. We shall otherwise feel so deeply unhappy about this matter that we shall have to record our view.
I join the welcome given by my hon. Friends to what the Minister has done in Amendment No. 4. We are grateful to him for acknowledging the need for a change of this kind. However, it is a pity that in making this helpful move forward he has taken a retrograde step, and I hope that he will be able to reassure us.
§ Mr. Cledwyn HughesI feel that these Amendments represent a genuine attempt by the Government to meet the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides in Committee. I am therefore somewhat discouraged to find that they have not had a better reception from some hon. Members. This demonstrates the impossibility of pleasing everybody—a fact which comes home to politicians, especially Ministers, fairly frequently.
The question which the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and other hon. Members put to me was in what circumstances Ministers would exercise the power to appoint additional independent members of the authority. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said that an increase from 12 to 14 members would make the authority unmanageable. I am sure that that would not be so. We want the authority to be manageable; but in addition we want it to represent both producer interests on the one hand, because it must have the confidence of the industry, and on the other hand consumer interests. We are seeking the right balance.
I repeat that we shall not appoint more than the minimum of three independent members unless we cannot otherwise secure a properly balanced membership. The hon. Member for Torrington said that we should leave it as it was and return to the House with further legislation if that proves necessary. I should have thought that there was every argument for having flexibility to enable the 391 present Minister of Agriculture or a future Minister of Agriculture to make this small change in the membership of the authority. That is surely not unreasonable. It has been done time and again in previous legislation and it is not sensible to make a big song and dance about it.
The circumstances in which a Minister might wish to appoint one or two additional members could arise, for example, as a result of territorial considerations. The authority will be the authority for the whole of the United Kingdom and while there cannot be any question of regional representation as such, regional balance within the authority would clearly be important. I have always attached great importance to regional representation in so far as it is possible. I have taken the view throughout the period that I have been in the House that a board, or authority, or committee, was totally inadequate unless it contained at least one Welshman. No doubt the right hon. Member for Grantham would feel the same about Lincolnshire and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) about Scotland and the hon. Member for Torrington about the South-West. I would not disagree with them. Although it cannot be a primary consideration, the question of territorial com-
§ position is of some importance in these islands. This is one of the factors which might point to an increase in the number of independent members. Flexibility is important, and we are not seeking a too considerable degree of it.
§ Then there is the question of the balance. We recognise that if more than three independent members were appointed, this might appear to dilute the influence on the authority of the five members to be appointed after consultation with the producer interests concerned. I have already assured the House that we should not exceed the limit of three independent members unless there were very good reasons. If the issue arose, we should certainly wish to satisfy ourselves, by consultation with the Chairman, that this would not impair the harmonious working of the authority.
§ It is, after all, of paramount importance that the authority should have the confidence of the industry, that it should work well—it will have a complicated task and that the producer interests should be well represented. With these explanations, I hope that the House will agree to support the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:
§ The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 117.
393| Division No. 94.] | AYES | [10.58 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Dickens, James | Horner, John |
| Anderson, Donald | Dobson, Ray | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Doig, Peter | Hoy, Rt. Hn. James |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Huckfield, Leslie |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Eadie, Alex | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Edelman, Maurice | Hunter, Adam |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Hynd, John |
| Beaney, Alan | Ellis, John | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) |
| Bence, Cyril | Ennals, David | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) |
| Blackburn, F. | Faulds, Andrew | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Fernyhough, E. | Kelley, Richard |
| Booth, Albert | Finch, Harold | Lawson, George |
| Boston, Terence | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Ford, Ben | Lee, John (Reading) |
| Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) | Forrester, John | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Galpern, Sir Myer | Loughlin, Charles |
| Buchan, Norman | Gardner, Tony | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'hurn) | Garrett, W. E. | McCann, John |
| Cant, R. B. | Golding, John | MacDermot, Niall |
| Coleman, Donald | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | McElhone, Frank |
| Concannon, J. D. | Gregory, Arnold | McGuire, Michael |
| Conlon, Bernard | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Mackie, John |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | McNamara, J. Kevin |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) |
| Davies, E. Hudson (Conway) | Hamling, William | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hannan, William | Marks, Kenneth |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Hazell, Bert | Marquand, David |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Henig, Stanley | Mendelson, John |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Hooley, Frank | |
| Millan, Bruce | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Miller, Dr. M. S. | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Tinn, James |
| Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | Pentland, Norman | Varley, Eric G. |
| Molloy, William | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Price, William (Rugby) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Probert, Arthur | Wallace, George |
| Newens, Stan | Rhodes, Geoffrey | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Norwood, Christopher | Richard, Ivor | Watkins, Tudor (Bercon & Radnor) |
| Oakes, Gordon | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Ogden, Eric | Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy | Whitlock, William |
| O'Halloran, Michael | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| O'Malley, Brian | Rose, Paul | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Orme, Stanley | Rowlands, E. | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Oswald, Thomas | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) | |
| Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Palmer, Arthur | Sillars, J. | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Park, Trevor | Silverman, Julius | Mr. Walter Harrison |
| NOES | ||
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) | Gurden, Harold | Peyton, John |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Awdry, Daniel | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Biffen, John | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Pym, Francis |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Hawkins, Paul | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Body, Richard | Hiley, Joseph | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Hilt, J. E. B. | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Holland, Philip | Scott, Nicholas |
| Brewis, John | Hooson, Emlyn | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Hunt, John | Sharples, Richard |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Iremonger, T. L. | Silvester, Frederick |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Speed, Keith |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Stodart, Anthony |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Jopling, Michael | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kershaw, Anthony | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Clark, Henry | Kimball, Marcus | Temple, John M. |
| Clegg, Walter | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Tilney, John |
| Crouch, David | Kitson, Timothy | Waddington, David |
| Crowder, F. P. | King, Tom | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Wall, Patrick |
| Dean, Paul | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Walters, Dennis |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | MacArthur, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Doughty, Charles | Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Drayson, G. B. | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Eden, Sir John | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Emery, Peter | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Fortescue, Tim | Miscampbell, Norman | Wright, Esmond |
| Foster, Sir John | Monro, Hector | Wylie, N. R. |
| Fraser, R t. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) | More, Jasper | Younger, Hn. George |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Murton, Oscar | TELLERS FOR THE NOES; |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Mr. Anthony Royle and |
| Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Nott, John | Mr. Anthony Grant. |
| Goodhart, Philip |
§
Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'three' and insert:
not less than three and not more than five'.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]
§
No. 4, in line 8, leave out from beginning to 'of' in line 9 and insert:
(ii) two (neither being the member appointed pursuant to sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph) shall also be appointed by the Ministers to be chairman and deputy chairman respectively.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]
§ Mr. BuchanI beg to move Amendment No. 6, in line 17, leave out from 'engaged' to end of line 21 and insert:
'in activities comprised in the marketing, distribution or sale by retail of eggs, in activities ancillary to the production of eggs, being 394 activities comprised in the hatching or rearing of domestic fowls, or in activities comprised in the production, marketing or distribution of egg products, or the use of egg products as materials for the purposes of manufacturing businesses carried on by the persons in question'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 7 in line 21, at end insert 'for egg production'.
§ Mr. BuchanThis subsection attracted a certain amount of attention in Committee, not because of any disagreement in principle but largely because hon. Members found the wording somewhat 395 obscure. In particular, hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned to ensure that only organisations representing persons engaged in the hatching and rearing of domestic fowls for egg production, as opposed to broiler production, should be consulted by the Minister under the provision.
In Committee we suggested that the wording met the point, but we promised to examine the matter. Having done so, we have redrafted the provision. There is little change in substance, save that we have brought organisations representing the users of egg products within the scope of the consultation procedure. This will meet the anxieties expressed in Committee, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that Amendment No. 7 is not necessary.
§ Mr. Peter MillsWe welcome Amendment No. 6 because it clarifies the wording of the Clause and meets the point we made in Committee. We tabled Amendment No. 7 to exclude those concerned with broiler production from the authority. After all, there could have been a powerful lobby to obtain this representation. We did not want the Minister to be hoodwinked over this, remembering that those who rear fowls or chickens for broiler production will not pay the levy. Representation on the authority should, therefore, be restricted to those who rear fowls for egg production. Those who produce eggs will pay the levy and support the authority. Those who are in broiler production will not be levied and, therefore, should not be represented on the authority.
I hope that the Government appreciate the danger here; that many producers are, as it were, entwined with feed suppliers and other big producers of table poultry. I trust that the Minister understands our fears, and I assure him that his Amendment is very welcome.
§ Amendment agreed to.