HL Deb 10 May 1921 vol 45 cc276-83

LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move—

"That it is desirable that counsel should be allowed to appear before the Royal Commission appointed 'to enquire into the admission into the United Kingdom of live stock for purposes other than immediate slaughter at the ports; whether such action would increase and cheapen the meat supply of the country, and, if so, to what extent; and whether it was advisable, having regard to the necessity of protecting live stock bred in this country from the introduction of disease, and of restoring their numbers after the losses to which they were subject during the war.' "

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion I have on the Paper arises out of the Royal Commission which has been appointed by the Government to inquire into a matter of very great importance indeed—namely, whether it is desirable or not that store stock coming from abroad should be permitted to enter into this country. As your Lordships are aware, no cattle can come into this country at the present moment, except for slaughter at the port of debarkation. The question has arisen from the fact that at the Imperial Conference in 1917 it was urged very strongly upon His Majesty's Government that Canadian store stock should be admitted freely into this country, and should not come under the law of slaughter. It so happened that two Cabinet Ministers at that Imperial Conference gave a pledge that after the war store stock should be admitted from Canada. This pledge was given by Mr. Walter Long and Lord Ernie, It was considered by the Prime. Minister that it was necessary to have a Royal Commission to inquire whether that pledge could be carried out without any injurious effect upon our flocks and herds in this country

The Royal Commission which has consequently been appointed is to be an entirely independent Commission, unlike the Sankey Commission in every respect. The Commission is to inquire into the following five matters: the admission of livestock into this country; the increase of the meat supply; the cheapening of meat; protection from disease; and the making good of the large decrease of livestock that had occurred through losses owing to the war. I have been asked, on behalf of all the agricultural, breed and milk-producing societies, to bring this question before your Lordships' House, because it is felt by the executive committee, which represents all these societies, that it is perfectly impossible that their case against the free importation of stock from abroad can be properly put before the Royal Commission unless they are allowed to be represented by counsel.

It seems tome that it would be a great advantage if the Government were willing to allow this course of procedure. If it were allowed, you would have counsel appearing before this Commission representing the whole of the agricultural interests who are opposed to the importation of store stock from abroad. If you did not allow it, you would be obliged to admit representations from all these great agricultural societies, who might put their case from different points of view, with the result that there would be a considerable waste of time. If, on the other hand, the whole of the societies, just as they have combined at present and appointed an executive committee to represent them, should combine to lay their case before the Commission by counsel, you would have the important difference that counsel would be able to consolidate and present their case without overlapping, and thus you would save a great deal of time. It is important to save time, because I understand that it is desired by the Government that the Commission should make their Report before the meeting of the imperial Conference this year in London.

Then again, it has to be considered that not only those charged with presenting the case of the agriculturist of this country, but witnesses on the other side, will come before the Commission, and will have to be cross-examined if their evidence is to be properly sifted. That can only be done properly by counsel who are adequately instructed upon this matter and are able to cross-examine witnesses. On the other hand, if we did not allow counsel to appear, what would happen? The individual members of the Commission would then have to cross-examine the witnesses. Of course, in asking for counsel to appear on behalf of the agriculturists who are opposed to the importation, I take it for granted that, on the other side equally, Canada and organisations in this country who desire the free importation of store stock would lie represented. This Royal Commission has been appointed upon an entirely different basis from that of the Sankey Commission. That is to say, no experts have been appointed, and it is supposed to be an entirely independent Commission which knows practically nothing about this subject. These gentlemen would hardly be qualified to cross-examine witnesses severely, to sift their evidence, and to bring out the exact state of things.

I may be told that there is no precedent for allowing counsel to appear before a Royal Commission. I do not know whether that is so or not, but even if it is so I venture to think that this is a question of such enormous importance, a question which is so exercising the minds of agriculturists throughout the length and breadth of the country, that it would only be fair, if it is necessary to make a precedent, to do so in this case. I can assure your Lordship's that this is a very complicated question, and wants going into very thoroughly. I feel certain that agriculturists in this country and equally, very likely, those who are in favour of free importation, will feel that justice has not been done if they have not been able to have their case properly put before the Commission or the witnesses on the other side duly cross-examined. These are my reasons for moving the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Lords, before an answer, is given to my noble friend, I should like to say one word in support of the appeal which he has made, in view of the fact that this Commission is to inquire into a question which is calculated to affect the interests of the agriculturists of this country more materially than any question of a similar character that has arisen during the last forty years. My argument would simply be this: that farmers are traditionally and notoriously incapable of stating their case, however convincing that case may be. For that reason, if for no other, I venture to suggest that a fair decision cannot be arrived at by this Commission unless the case is stated by counsel who are used to assembling facts and to presenting a case in a convincing way such as will appeal to the judicial minds which will fortunately be exercised amongst the personnel of that Commission.

LORD ASKWITH

My Lords, might I, as a member of the Royal Commission, state that the Commission meets informally for the first time to-morrow morning at half-past eleven, and this question which is raised by the Motion is one of the matters which the members will discuss. It is rather difficult to have the procedure of a Royal Commission laid down in the manner in which the noble Lord suggests. In fact, I am doubtful whether there has ever been a case of a Royal Commission where a member of one House of the Legislature has dictated, or laid down, the procedure which the Commissioners ought to adopt in carrying out the functions which His Majesty has bestowed upon them.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to add one word, as Lord Askwith has put before your Lordships in his capacity as a member of this Royal Commission his view of the proper procedure. I think, as a matter of fact, and I do not know that the noble Lord is likely to differ from me, that it must be an advantage to the Royal Com. mission when they meet to know something of the arguments, very fully and ably expressed by Lord Strachie, which seem to make the hearing of counsel before this Commission practically imperative, if the whole case is to be exposed and adjudicated upon. Of course, unless the hearing of counsel were included in the form of appointment of the Royal Commission, and therefore by the terms of their appointment it would be an instruction to them, I take it that the matter rests wholly within their discretion, and all that my two noble friends have desired to do is to make public what they conceive to be the strong arguments in favour of hearing the two respective cases through counsel on this particular occasion.

Without repeating in any sense what my noble friends have said, I should like, if I may—and as I happen to be chairman of this executive committee to which my noble friend alluded, I am, of course, deeply interested in the matter—to put the plea upon the ground of the obvious economy of time. It stands to reason that on both sides a case of this sort has to be presented in two ways. It has to be presented with a great amount of technical detail, which is done by evidence, but it also has to be represented by a great deal of general argument, which is far better brought out by counsel, accustomed to argue matters of this kind, than by putting witnesses in the box, whose duty it would be to make a speech pointing out the various social, political and other arguments in favour of, or against, the particular proposals. A counsel can do in an hour what it might take three or four witnesses a day and a half to do. From that point of view alone it is quite evident, I think, that a great economy of time would be secured by allowing counsel to appear.

I can only speak to this particular concession being unanimously desired by one side. I have no reason to suppose that the other side take a different view, but of their predilections in the matter I know nothing. I am not aware whether the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture has any defined views on the matter—he may not find it possible to express a strong opinion one way or another—but I think your Lordships will agree that a discussion of this sort is not without its uses, and is only intended to assist the Royal Commission when it meets.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)

My Lords, I may say at the very beginning, as the noble Marquess has just said, that this short debate may be of some use to Lord Finlay, and other members of the Royal Commission, when they come to discuss the question of procedure as to whether it would be desirable or not for the parties interested to be represented by counsel. So far as the Ministry is concerned, I regret to say that we have not thought it right or proper that we should interfere. The matter has been gone into very carefully, and in a case like this it would be an entire departure from custom for the Ministry, or anybody else for that matter, to lay it down how the Royal Commission should act in this regard. It has almost, invariably been the custom that a Royal Commission makes its own rules as to procedure.

All I have been able to do in the past, and all I am afraid I am able to do in the future, is to lay the views of noble Lords, who hold the opinion that counsel should appear, before the Chairman of the Commission, and ask him to consider the ease very carefully. I have already written to Lord Finlay on the subject. I understand that the Commission is to meet for the first time (as Lord Askwith, who is a prominent member of the Commission, has said) to-morrow morning, and no doubt this will be one of the first questions which the members will then decide. I regret that I cannot satisfy the noble Lord further in this matter by saying that the Ministry have thought it their duty to make strong representations to the Chairman as to what the procedure of the Commission should be.

Lord Bledisloe, I think, was little hard upon farmers, when he stated that farmers notoriously could not state their case. My experience rather differs from that of the noble Lord. I have known many farmers who could state their case remarkably well, and surely on an occasion like this, and on an important subject like this, they would be able, with a little preparation, to make out a very good case. They have plenty of spokesmen who, I believe, would present their case extremely well. That is a matter of opinion, of course. On the question of procedure, as I have already said, we feel that the almost invariable custom should be fol lowed, and that the Royal Commission should decide for itself. I can only hope that the noble Lord will not press this Motion to a Division, because I think it would be almost unprecedented for this House, by Motion, to lay down for a Royal Commission how it should proceed about its business.

LORD CAWLEY

My Lords, I do not think that the bringing of lawyers into the case would tend to expedition in any way. The Royal Commission is made up of men of ability, who are very well known, and in my opinion they are quite capable of examining the witnesses and getting through their business as quickly as possible. I do not see any reason for altering the usual procedure. Lawyers may bring out some points which otherwise would not be brought out, but whether they would be necessary points and very germane to the question I have my doubts. My own view is that they would muddle the Royal Commission, and can very well be done without.

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, may I say at once that I have no wish to press the Motion. As the noble Marquess explained, we have no desire to put any pressure upon the Royal Commission, but only to ventilate the subject and let the Commission be aware, publicly, of our feelings in this matter. In fact, I have had an opportunity of speaking to the noble Viscount who will preside over the Commission, and I told him that I would not bring the Motion forward if he had any objection to my doing so. He said that, on the contrary, he had no objection at all to the matter coming before your Lordships' House, in order that it might be before the public and thoroughly ventilated. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, who represents the Ministry of Agriculture, state just now that he had made representations to the Royal Commission, and I hope it was on lines which will be generally acceptable to the agricultural interests which he represents in this House.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not wish to be misinterpreted. All I did was to write to the Chairman of the Commission to say that there were certain societies anxious to be represented by counsel, and that I thought he ought to know that. I made no representations as to what he should do.

LORD STRACHIE

I did not wish to imply that, but only that the noble Earl had expressed an opinion showing what agricultural opinion was.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.