AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.

HL Deb 24 July 1931 vol 81 cc1098-154

House again in Committee (according to Order):

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 5 [Regulation of marketing and encouragement of co-operation, education and research]:

Discussion resumed of the Amendment proposed by Lord Swinfen to insert, after paragraph (i), the following proviso: Provided that a board shall not acquire or occupy premises for the sale of regulated products or of commodities produced there-from or for the slaughtering of cattle unless expressly authorised by a provision contained in the scheme.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)

I am quite sure I shall be expressing the feelings of your Lordships in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on the maiden speech which he made last night and in expressing the hope of members of the House that he will frequently take part in our debates. Certainly his first speech showed that he had examined a very detailed matter with the greatest thoroughness, and since hearing his speech we in the Department have been considering very seriously the point which he brought up. I take it that his Amendment is really intended to deal with the fear of certain market authorities, particularly local authorities, that a board might be empowered to set up slaughter houses without the market authorities being given any opportunity of opposing the scheme before a committee of investigation. We have been into that point very carefully again and have taken what legal advice is at our disposal. I must repeat the assurance of the Solicitor-General in another place that the Bill, as it stands, really does cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because a scheme will have to specify what a board intends to do.

If the board intends to sell products, obviously in the consideration of the scheme premises for sale will also have to be considered. If a board is set up for the marketing of cattle—say fat cattle—they will require premises for sale. That will have to be in the scheme. If they want to convert these cattle into meat, and therefore to have slaughter houses, provision for that will also have to be made in the scheme. As that is so, and as this prohibition is really included in the general terms of the Bill, we are naturally not desirous of inserting this specific declaration, for a reason that has frequently been given in the Committee. If we insert a proviso that a board "shall not acquire or occupy premises for the sale of regulated products … unless expressly authorised," inevitably that prohibition contains the implication that a board may do other things that are not expressly authorised. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord not to press this point, but to accept the assurance of the Government—we are quite prepared to discuss this matter with him further if he likes before a later stage—that this power is included in the Bill and that it is undesirable for the reasons I have given to insert this proviso.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I cannot say that I feel quite reassured by what the noble Earl says, or that what he says will allay the apprehensions so well expressed by my noble friend last night. The noble Earl keeps on telling us that obviously it is embodied in the Bill and that it is quite unnecessary, but yet he seems entirely to agree with the point which my noble friend has raised. The question is are there going to be new slaughter houses, for example, set up in any large marketing town, the authorities of which have already made very good and, as they think, most economical provision, for that kind of thing, without the express consent of the Minister? That is all, I think, that the municipal authorities are asking for. Although assurances were given by the learned Solicitor-General in the other House which caused Sir Douglas Newton to withdraw his Amendment, they do feel they want a little more protection than merely the power to quote a speech by the learned Solicitor-General in another place or even by the noble Earl here. If his intention is exactly the same as that of my noble friend, I cannot see any particular reason why it should not be put in the Bill somewhere that no new slaughter-house or market shall be established without the direct consent of the Minister. Then a municipal authority would have an opportunity of contesting the case before he confirms it and I think that would be quite satisfactory.

EARL DE LA WARR

This is a very important subject. I certainly see the points that have been put and would be quite willing to consider the matter. But I do not think the noble Lord has told us how we are to get round this point, and I rather appeal to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition as a lawyer. While we may agree with the object of the Amendment to such an extent that we say it is already in the Bill, how, if you are to state in an Amendment to this Bill that the board may not undertake certain acts which are not expressly authorised by a provision contained in the scheme, are you to resist the implication that there is in the Bill a power to enable the board to take action that is not authorised by the scheme? That is the trouble of putting in specific declarations—I hope the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me—on points such as this. It inevitably means implying that there is a general power of acting without authorisation by the scheme and that does not exist here.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The noble Earl has made an appeal and I am not slow to do my best to respond to it. It is quite true, as the noble Earl has said, that it is undesirable to put an express limitation in the Bill limiting the power of the board or of the Ministry with regard to one specific thing because it rather tends to assist the Court to think that without that limitation the board would have been able to do it, and, therefore, that something analogous which is not expressly prohibited can be done. The Court is apt to say that Parliament obviously thought that the board could do anything except that which was expressly excluded from its power. I think that is a point of substance. On the other hand, if he will forgive me for saying so, I am not quite satisfied with his assurance that this limitation is included in the Bill as it stands. It may be so, but I have looked to see the exact subsection of the exact clause which he says removes that doubt. I see in paragraph (a) of this clause that there is a provision, among the things which the scheme may empower the board to do, empowering them to adapt for sale the regulated products, and I suppose you could say that slaughtering cattle for sale was adaptation for sale, though it is not a very usual way of expressing it. I can see nothing beyond that that refers, for instance, to the express power to provide an abattoir.

If that is so, I think a good many corporations would be surprised if they failed to oppose a scheme which merely contained general powers enabling the board to adapt for sale its regulated products, and then found that by failing to oppose the scheme they had authorised the board to erect a slaughter house within the limits of their jurisdiction. I do not think that it would occur to many municipalities or to many butchers, if you will, that the somewhat general words that the board may deal in cattle and adapt them for sale would enable them to set up slaughter houses in competition with existing interests. If that is the only clause in which abattoirs are dealt with, it seems to me that you are perhaps laying a trap for the unwary and for persons unskilled in the law, and I know the Government do not want to catch people napping in that way and allow them to find that they have let something slip through which, if they had realised it, they would perhaps have successfully opposed before the Ministry.

I would suggest to the noble Earl that while it is quite true that the Amendment itself as it is framed may go rather too far, and raise the objection to which he has given expression, there ought at the same time to be some protection provided on the lines which my noble friend Lord Swinfen has suggested. I know that we are working at high pressure, but I would venture to suggest to him that if my noble friend could see his way not to press his Amendment to a Division now, the noble Earl might undertake to look into the matter with his advisers and bring up something which, while meeting the anxieties to which he has given expression, will at the same time afford protection against the danger to which my noble friend Lord Swinfen has called attention. I think something ought to be done. My noble friend has raised a point of substance, and the noble Earl knows very well that when the thing is done it will be no use for somebody to raise an appeal and say: "We were assured in the House of Commons by the Solicitor-General and in the House of Lords by no less an authority than the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture that this could not be done." I am afraid the Courts would not even hear what those responsible parties had said. They would say that they are there to construe the Act of Parliament as it stands, and they think it does not have the effect which the parties in perfect good faith were advised that it did have. I think something should be done, and I would ask the noble Earl, if my noble friend does not press the Amendment now, to see if he can do something between now and Report.

EARL DE LA WARR

I most gladly give that assurance. I hope I may be able to convince noble Lords that the Amendment is not necessary, because Clause 5 provides that the details of the scheme have to be specified and approved. Later, if the scheme is in operation, perhaps two or three years after, and the board decides to set up abattoirs, the scheme must either be amended or you come then to Clause 9, and any complaint is investigated by the committee of investigation.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Only after two years.

EARL DE LA WARR

No, the provision applies at any time.

LORD SWINFEN

I am willing to withdraw the Amendment on that assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, standing in the name of Lord Hastings, is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 24, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 26 and insert ("expiration of the suspensory period").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Miscellaneous provisions of schemes.

6.—(1) Every scheme shall provide for the following matters, that is to say:—

1. (a) for requiring that no sale of the regulated product shall he made by any producer who is not either a registered producer or a person exempted from registration by or under the provisions of the scheme;
2. (b) for exempting from all or any of the provisions of the scheme producers and sales of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the board;

Provided that except in the case of a sub-stitutional scheme, the operation of the provisions of the scheme made in pursuance of paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section shall be suspended until the declaration of the result of the poll to be taken as provided hereinbefore on the question whether the scheme shall remain in force.

(3) Any producer who sells the regulated product in contravention of the provisions of a scheme made in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, and in either case to an additional fine not exceeding half the price at which the product was sold: Provided that the fines imposed on summary conviction for any offence under this subsection shall not exceed in the aggregate one hundred pounds.

THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a), to insert: (b) for requiring that where the board require registered producers to sell the regulated product only to or through the agency of the board, the board shall buy the whole of such regulated product.

The noble Lord said: This was more or less consequential on the Amendment I moved yesterday, and I do not therefore propose to move it.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "and providing for the right of a person who has become a registered producer to be exempted from registration and to cease to be registered if he is a person who desires to come within a class or description of producers who are exempted from registration." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down to provide for what I think will be a hardship in a great many cases for which I see no provision in the Bill. I might instance what I mean by a case which will not occur, I think, in many industries. If you take the milk industry, you will find a man engaged in a small way on a milk round in a village. He has a few cows, and probably he has the only means of supplying the people in that village with milk. I take it that that man will probably be a man exempted under any scheme that is passed, but he may be seduced by the apparent advantages to be gained by going into the major plan and will cease his milk round. The people in that village will probably have to replace him with tinned foreign milk. Later on he will find that the advantages of the major plan are not so great as he thought, and he will also be importuned by the people in that village, who will say that they do not like tinned milk and wish him to resume his round. Under the scheme it seems to me that it is impossible for him to yield to their importunities and to supply them with fresh milk in any way. I may be wrong, but that is my case, and it will apply to other commodities as well.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 37, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think this Amendment was put down rather to clarify a certain point in subsection (1) (b), and if I tell the noble Earl that the exemption mentioned there does not only apply to the initiation of the scheme but can be applied for at any time during the operation of the scheme, and that although a man has given up his round and become a registered producer selling milk wholesale, he can again apply for exemption under the clause—

LORD CRANWORTH

Is that clear? It is not in the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

This subsection (1) (b) does not specify that the actual list of exemptees shall be drawn up, but it does say that the scheme should "make provision for such classes and descriptions as may be specified in the scheme," etc. So it is purely general to begin with. It obviously must be so, because if a scheme is started next year, in 20 or 30 years time we hope it will still be in operation, and great numbers will be coming in and going out, and obviously it will be necessary to make provision for those exemptions. I have looked into the point and it really is all right.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am glad to accept the noble Earl's assurance, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert as a new paragraph: (c) providing for the removal from the register of the name of a registered producer who makes application for such removal.

The noble Lord said: Here again the noble Earl may be able to reassure me, but I cannot see in the Bill anything which meets the case of a man who is a registered producer and wishes to cease to be a registered producer. I quite admit that in the last paragraph but one of the last Schedule if he goes out of business he may cease to be a registered producer; but suppose he wishes to keep a cow or two and supply himself, and so on, he has not ceased to be a producer, and I see no method by which he can cease to be a registered producer and liable to the liabilities thereby imposed upon him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 37, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Cranworth.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not think that when I read this Amendment I quite understood what was going to be the point of the noble Lord, so perhaps he will allow me to look into the matter and deal with it on Report. I rather thought he was going to raise a different point.

LORD CRANWORTH

I shall be very pleased to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 23, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Amendment here is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 24, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 26 and insert ("expiration of the suspensory period").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD had on the Paper an Amendment, to insert at the end of subsection (3): Provided that the purchaser of a regulated product shall not be concerned to see that the seller is a registered producer or a person exempted from registration by or under the provisions of a scheme made as aforesaid.

LORD STRACHIE

I see that my noble friend Lord Bayford is not here, and had I thought he would not be present I would have duplicated this Amendment. I desire to move it on my own behalf, because it seems to me that it is only fair that there should be power to exempt from penalty a purchaser who unknowingly buys from an unregistered seller. I do not think a purchaser ought to be required to go through all the trouble of enquiring whether the seller is registered or not. It seems to me that the onus lies upon the man who sells unregistered goods and not upon the purchaser.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 41, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I would certainly accept the Amendment if it was necessary, but under the existing law, the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, a person who aids and abets the commission of a summary offence is himself guilty, and therefore a purchaser who aided and abetted a producer to sell without being registered might be convicted of an offence; but no person under the existing law could be convicted of aiding and abetting unless he knew that the seller was selling in contravention of the scheme. If he does not know he cannot be convicted. If he does know, then he is guilty of an ordinary offence under the Common Law of the country, and I think he ought to be convicted.

LORD STRACHIE

I am not convinced by what the noble Earl has said, bilk of course if he will not put in this proviso and make it perfectly safe I must withdraw.

LORD CRANWORTH

Lord Bayford asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf, and I would just rise to say that I, personally, am convinced by the explanation of the noble Earl.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7;

Financial powers and duties of boards.

7.—(1) Every scheme shall provide for the following matters, that is to say:—

1. (b) for enabling the board to recover from every registered producer contributions to the fund of such amounts as may be necessary for the operation of the scheme, and for the assessment of the contributions of each producer in such manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by the scheme;
2. (c) for requiring the board to pay out of the fund such sums by way of compensation as may be necessary for securing that the provisions of the scheme operate equitably as between all registered producers, and for the distribution to registered producers, in proportion to their respective contributions to the fund, of all moneys standing to the credit of the fund which are not required for the operation of the scheme;

(2) Any scheme may empower the board—

1. (a) to lend to any registered producer sums not exceeding the amount which the board estimate that he will receive from the sale of any quantity of the regulated product produced or in course of production by him;

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1) (b), at end, to insert: Provided that no persons who voted against the scheme on the poll shall suffer financial loss as a result of having been compelled to market his produce through the board. The noble Lord said: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment, because I think it will come in better as a proviso at the end of line 20, paragraph (b), rather than after "producers" in subsection (1) (c) at line 25. The object of my proviso is that no person who voted against the scheme in the Bill shall suffer financial loss as the result of having been compelled to market produce through the board. I am afraid that the noble Earl will say that this does not matter, but it seems only fair when you are putting heavy obligations upon these producers that a man should be protected who is brought into this matter unwillingly.

Of course, as was explained by the noble Earl on the Second Reading, this is a very mandatory clause. The noble Earl did not go very much into detail, and, after all, the Second Reading was not the time. But I cannot help thinking that when the Bill enables the board to draw contributions from any distributor under a scheme it is giving a very large power, especially as this clause leaves it perfectly vague, and the contribution may be any amount the board likes. The words of paragraph (b), defining some of these powers, are . … and for the assessment of the contributions of each producer in such manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by the scheme. So that under the scheme the producer may be placed under what may be very hard regulations, and when a person affected objects to the scheme I do not see why he should suffer in this manner.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am sorry the noble Lord should think I do not want to accept any of his Amendments. I can assure him that we are only too anxious to accept any Amendments that are likely to help the Bill. I think we have accepted quite a number. But this Amendment is really quite inacceptable, because, to begin with, even if it were desirable in principle to do what the noble Lord wants, it really is quite impossible to begin to measure either the loss or the gain that a registered society may either suffer or obtain by adopting new methods for selling its goods. Of course, it is impossible to estimate how much more or how much less a hop grower has got for his product as a result of going into a scheme. I might point out to the noble Lord that the logical effect of his Amendment could only be obtained if he put down another Amendment saying that all those who voted against the scheme should forego all profits which have been obtained as a result of the scheme. I am sure the noble Lord would not want to carry the matter as far as that.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I cannot help thinking that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is of more importance than the noble Earl seems to admit. What this Bill is setting out to do is to encourage a system of price fixation in a wholesale commodity on behalf of these boards, arid the question of whether or not there will be a loss, if such a procedure is adopted, is one of imminence and of great probability. This attempt has been made time and time again. There is at the present moment the American Federal Farm Board. There was quite recently the Stevenson rubber restriction scheme. There have been numerous cases of attempts even in this country, by means of wholesale cooperative societies, of which the Southern Wool Growers' Co-operative Society is one of the latest, to hold off goods from the market with a view to better prices. In every case this has led to heavy losses. Now under this Bill the noble Earl proposes to force reluctant farmers into a board and to leave them to carry the losses equally with those who favour his scheme.

It is quite true to say, as the noble Earl suggests that the ascertainment of these losses and their proper partition would be very difficult, but I submit that it is not a complete answer to Lord Strachie to say that the ascertainment would be difficult. Certain payments made by the unwilling contributors to this scheme could at any rate be repaid to them in the event of the board being wound up and a loss incurred; and I suggest that, possibly on Report, Lord Strachie might bring up an Amendment of that character, and that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill might be disposed, in view of the many failures—in fact, the universal failure—of this system of price fixation, to look more favourably on the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF RADNOR had on the Paper an Amendment, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "exceeding", to insert "seventy-five per cent. of". The noble Earl said: It is contrary, I think, to all canons of good finance to allow an advance up to 100 per cent, on any product, but I understand—I have had some conversation with the noble Earl in charge of the Bill—that he is willing to redraft this particular clause on the lines of not having in any specific amount; and I am quite willing to abstain from moving the Amendment on condition that he will bring it up later.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, I will put down an Amendment to that effect on Report.

LORD HASTINGS

The next Amendment is also consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 5, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 7, and insert ("expiration of the suspensory period").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Effect of schemes on contracts]:

LORD HASTINGS

The next Amendment is also consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 1, leave out from the first ("the") to ("or") in line 42, and insert ("expiration of the suspensory period").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Consumers' committees and committee of investigation.

9.—(1) The Minister shall, immediately after it is first decided as the result of the initial poll that any scheme approved by him shall remain in force, appoint a committee (hereafter in this section referred to as "a consumers' committee"), which shall be charged with the duty of considering, and reporting to the Minister on—

1. (a) the effect of the scheme, and of any scheme subsequently approved by the Minister which is for the time being in force, on consumers of the regulated product; and
2. (b) any complaints which may be made to the committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of the regulated product.

A consumers' committee shall consist of a chairman and of not less than six other members, who shall be such persons as appear to the Minister, after consultation with the Board of Trade and, as to one member, with the Co-operative Union, to represent the interests of the consumers of all the products the marketing of which is for the time being regulated by schemes approved by the Minister.

(2) The Minister shall, immediately after it is first decided as the result of the initial poll that any scheme approved by him shall remain in force, appoint a committee (hereafter in this section referred to as "a committee of investigation") consisting of a chairman and four other members, which shall be charged with the duty, if the Minister in any case so directs, of considering, and reporting to the Minister on, any report made by a consumers' committee and any complaint made to the Minister as to the operation of any scheme which, in the opinion of the Minister, could not be considered by a consumers' committee under the last foregoing subsection.

(3) The members of every committee appointed under this section shall be appointed for such period and subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Minister, and the meetings and procedure of every such committee shall be regulated in accordance with regulations made by the Minister, and, for the purpose of enabling any such committee to consider any matter which it is their duty under this section to consider, the board administering the scheme to which the matter relates shall furnish the committee with such accounts and other information relating to the affairs of the board as the committee may reasonably require, and shall be entitled to make representations to the committee with respect to the matter in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations made by the Minister as aforesaid.

(4) If a committee of investigation reports to the Minister that any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme is contrary to the interests of consumers of the regulated product, or is contrary to the interest of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the Minister, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report and consulting the Board of Trade—

1. (a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
2. (b) may by order revoke the scheme;
3. (c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the board forthwith to comply with the order: Provided that—
1. (i) every order under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of this subsection shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it, resolves that the order shall be an-hulled, the order shall thenceforth he void, but without prejudice to anything previously done there under or to the making of a new order; and
2. (ii) a draft of every order under paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and the order shall not come into force unless and until both Houses have resolved that the draft shall be approved; and
3. (iii) before taking any action under this subsection, the Minister shall give the board administering the scheme notice of the action which he proposes to take and shall consider any representations made by the board within fourteen days from the date of the notice.

(5) In considering for the purpose of this Act whether any person represents the interests of consumers of any product, or whether any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of the hoard administering a scheme is contrary to the interests of consumers of any product, regard shall be heal to the interest of persons who purchase the product, or commodities produced wholly or partly there from, for their own consumption or use and not to the interests of persons who purchase the product, or such commodities as aforesaid, for the purpose of any trade or industry carried on by them.

(6) Any regulation made by the Minister under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it, resolves that the regulation be annulled, the regulation shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words down to and including "A consumers' committee shall" and to insert: (1) The Minister shall appoint two committees (hereinafter in this Act referred to as 'a consumers' committee' and a committee of investigation') for Great Britain, England and Scotland respectively: Provided that no such committee shall be appointed for Great Britain unless a scheme applicable both in England and in Scotland remains in force after the expiration of the suspensory period and no such committee shall be appointed for England or Scotland unless a scheme applicable in England or Scotland, as the case may be, remains in force after the expiration of the suspensory period. (2) A consumers' committee shall— (a) The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not very formidable, and I think it will be accepted. The producers look upon these committees, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, as the bodies which are going to stand between them and their possible expectation of any profit. That being so, they naturally look with still more fear on their multiplicity—and under the Bill they might be multiplied. Under this Amendment, which I am glad to say the noble Earl views with favour—as, indeed, he drafted it—they will be reduced to three. There is also another point. As far as I can see, under Clause 7 the members of these committees are almost certain to go to prison for two years for illegally disclosing information that they are forced under the Bill to disclose. So it is desirable that their number should be as limited as possible.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 17, leave out from the beginning to ("consist") in line 31, and insert the said subsection.—(Lord Cranworth.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I will not be drawn into debate on the subject, as we are going to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH

My next two Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 13, line 38, at end insert ("and (b) be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on—

1. (i) the effect of any scheme approved by the Minister, which is for the time being in force, on consumers of the regulated product; and
2. (ii) any complaints made to the committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of the regulated product.")

Page 13, line 39, leave out from the beginning to ("be") on page 14, line 2, and insert: ("(3) A committee of investigation shall—

1. (a) consist of a chairman and four other members; and
2. (b) ")

—(Lord Cranworth.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (3), to omit all words preceding "for the purpose of enabling". The noble Earl said: This is one of a series of drafting Amendments, as a result of which the issue of regulations governing the appointment and procedure of all committees and commissions is provided for in Clause 16. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 10, leave out from the beginning to ("for") in line 15.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 16, leave out ("such").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 16, after ("committee") insert ("appointed under this section").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("under this Act with respect to the procedure of the committee").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out paragraph (i) of subsection (4). The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of considerable importance and I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is not altogether willing to accept either the Amendment or the point of view which I shall put forward in recommending it to your Lordships. I am very well aware that there are strong arguments against the Amendment. I shall not, of course, put them to the Committee. I have no doubt the noble Earl will do that for himself. I am still of opinion, however, that the arguments which are to be advanced in favour of the Amendment are stronger than those which are to be advanced against it, but that the Committee itself will decide when the arguments have been heard on both sides.

If your Lordships will turn to subsection (4) of Clause 9 you will find under paragraphs (a) and (b) that in certain circumstances under the Bill the Minister may by order make such arrangements in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter and so on, and that under (c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the board administering the scheme to rectify, the Minister may by order direct the board to take such steps, and so on. As the Bill stands, there is on the next page this proviso that the orders which be makes under paragraphs (a) and (c) shall come before Parliament, but in the negative sense; that is to say, they will take effect unless one House or both Houses resolve that the order shall be annulled, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.

It is perfectly clear that under paragraphs (a) and (c) assisted by proviso (i) the Minister may in effect bring to an end or bring to nothing—make impossible are better words—a scheme which has been set on foot by a particular board. That is a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of boards which in my view ought not to be there. In another place this view was taken very strongly and it was felt that some means should be provided to the board for at least getting out of an impossible situation when it declined to rectify. That is to say, if the orders of the Minister were incompatible with the majority view of the board and the board found it impossible to comply with those orders, provision is made in Part II of the Schedule giving power to the board to wind itself up and to revoke the whole scheme; that is to say, to come to an end. That would be rather a drastic step to have to take. Because a board has done a certain thing which the Minister disapproves of its only way of meeting the Minister, if it finds itself unable to obey his behests, is to wind itself up. If the board was merely to be subject to the overriding power of the Minister, one might find it in one's heart to believe that the Minister would be unlikely ever to desire to interfere with a board in so drastic a manner. But if your Lordships will further examine Clause 9 you will find that the Minister is to be moved by a committee of investigation, and the committee of investigation is in turn to be moved by the consumers' committee—though not solely.

There are other persons who can move the committee of investigation besides the consumers' committee; but for the purpose of my argument the consumers' committee is the important initiator. If the consumers' committee has the power which the Bill gives it to move the committee of investigation and the committee of investigation has the power and duty of moving the Minister, and the Minister in turn has the power to make orders for amendment and rectification in the schemes of a board, and if the Minister has that power without any other overriding power existing and gives his order for a scheme to be annulled before it has taken effect, then we have a serious situation. What is at the back of my mind and the minds of others who support me in this is that the consumers' committee, however necessary it may be, is not the kind of committee which the board can be expected to look upon with favour. The consumers' committee undoubtedly will perform what, in the circumstances of the time, are necessary functions, but it ought not to be within the power of the consumers' committee through the committee of investigation, through the Minister and without the authority of Parliament, to make a complete wreck of the schemes Of any of these boards.

Put perfectly frankly, the terms of the Bill as they now read open the door to what can only be described as political jobbery. It is not supposed that anything of that kind will be allowed to creep in if any Minister can prevent it, but the avenue of approach is there, and in my view that avenue of approach ought to be closed. It ought not to be possible for the boards to be held, so to speak, to ransom at the initiation of a consumers' committee, and the procedure makes it possible for that to be done. Without doubt the noble Lord will expound to the House the reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted; but I beg your Lordships to bear in mind that, however desirable or however strong his arguments may be, they cannot get over the particular objection which I have laid before the House—namely, that the consumers' committee, through those particular avenues, has a power over these hoards which, in my view, is a dangerous power to give them and which they ought not to possess. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 4, leave out paragraph (i).—(Lord Hastings.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has put the matter before your Lordships very clearly, very completely and very fairly. But I noticed one phrase. He said that the clause as it stands now leaves the way open to certain political jobbery. I would point out to your Lordships that really that does not come into the question at all, because sooner or later, whether the noble Lord's Amendments are carried or not, the Minister has to answer to Parliament. In dealing with certain powers he has to answer to Parliament before he can operate those powers. In dealing with certain other powers he is allowed to act first and then to justify himself to Parliament.

Why is it that we need these two different methods of procedure? We are dealing with the public safeguards which have to be inserted in the Bill. They are necessary because we are giving to the producers of food in this country the power of setting up monopolies in certain commodities and of coercing minorities. It is, therefore, obvious that we have to set up machinery for meeting the criticism, or unjust, that the consumers may make of schemes; also for dealing with the objections of minorities to the operation of the scheme. I think your Lordships will agree that both those sections of the community must have some form of protection. In some cases the Minister is to have power to revoke a scheme altogether. That action is irrevocable in itself, and therefore it is felt that it should have to be sanctioned by Parliament before it can be put into operation. That power is in Clause 9, subsection (4) (b), on page 14 of the Bill. On page 15 there are powers for giving instructions to the board to comply with certain orders which are revocable—that is, they are merely temporary and, therefore, if the Minister takes certain action under those powers, as soon as Parliament meets he has to have his action justified or not justified by Parliament. If Parliament considers he has taken wrong action then his decision can be reversed.

The sort of objection that consumers bring forward is not likely to be upon matters of very great urgency. It may be upon matters of great importance, but not necessarily of urgency in the sense, possibly, of entailing ruin on a. particular individual or a particular interest. It might be possible that a board took unreasonable action as regards, for example, its own minority, Or as regards a particular trade or interest that it is dealing with. In an extreme ease the board might be quite unjustifiably refusing supplies to a particular trader or a particular trading interest. That is a matter of urgency. I am giving an extreme case which we hope may riot occur, but it is a matter of urgency that must be dealt with at once. Parliament is adjourning on July 31. Supposing that that complaint was made on August 1 and the dispute came to a stage where it was necessary for the Minister to intervene with strong action on August 3. If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is passed, no action can be taken until October or November, when, we meet again, and then an, order has to be laid before the House, and we have to wait until it has gone through the House. All that time this action of the board, possibly entailing ruin to a private interest, might have been going on.

I admit we are discussing extreme cases which we hope may never arise; still I venture to suggest it is necessary to have this power in the Bill. The noble Lord said he thought that on general cases we ought to be able to assume that the Minister was friendly to the producers' scheme, and that he would not be likely to take action that was unjustifiably prejudicial to them, but he added that we cannot always be sure of that. I think we have to assume one of two things in a case like this, either that the Minister is likely to be friendly or unfriendly, and I think we ought to be able to assume that the Minister is friendly to a scheme. The Minister of Agriculture will naturally be friendly to a scheme of the producers. It is natural for the Ministry of Agriculture to favour the organisation of farmers, and therefore it is not likely that he will operate unjustifiably against the interests of producers. If you do not make that assumption, then it is necessary to have this Amendment of the noble Lord's, but it will prevent the Minister from taking action which might at times be very necessary from the point of view of minorities of consumers or of traders who are in trading relationships with the board.

EARL STANHOPE

I think a large part of the noble Earl's speech really reinforces the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Hastings. After all, a board is unable to take action such as he suggests against an individual. That power would have had to be given to it in the original scheme, and I presume the Minister of Agriculture will take Very great care, when the scheme comes before him, that the board is not given any such power. If it should do anything illegal the matter can he brought before the Courts, and an injunction can be obtained by which the private individual can be protected. But the noble Earl says the real argument in favour of leaving the Bill as it is is that there might be a long time during which damage might be done. I agree damage might be done for a very long time, but the point is the damage might be done for a very long time against the board and against its producers. Supposing the Minister brings in an order soon after Parliament rises. The board will then have to carry on till Parliament re-assembles, and until one or the other House brings in a Resolution asking that the order should be rescinded. Everybody knows that once a Minister has taken action it is difficult to get Parliament to upset the Minister in power. It is much easier, when a Minister makes an order, to say that perhaps on further consideration he will withdraw the order. Once an order has come into operation it is much more difficult to upset it.

I am further reinforced in this argument by what I read in the Bill. If your Lordships look at subsection (4) on page 14 you will see that the committee of investigation reports where a scheme is contrary to the interests of consumers of the regulated product, or is contrary to the interests of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interests, and the Minister may by order make such amendments in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient. What I understand those words to mean is this. If it is contrary to the interests of consumers, then the Minister takes action; if it is contrary to the interests of persons affected by this scheme he does not take action unless it is also contrary to the public interests. That is the second thing that the Minister has to assure himself about, in addition to the matter being contrary to the interests of the persons affected by this scheme. Therefore, it tells against the board and against the producers under the scheme.

I think my noble friend is correct in asking for a further safeguard against acts of which he disapproves. If it goes on for two or three months there may be damage which cannot be put right. On the other hand, I suggest that my noble friend's Amendment perhaps goes a little too far. There might be cases where the board and the producers generally would be anxious that the scheme should be altered, and they would not wish to have to wait for a positive Resolution from both Houses of Parliament before that could be done. Perhaps my noble friend would agree to put into Clause 15 some words to say that every order under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of the subsection shall, unless the board request otherwise, be laid before each House of Parliament for a negative resolution? I think that would meet the case because then if the board disagrees with the Minister it will come under (ii) which requires a positive instead of a negative Resolution. I would suggest to ray noble friend that he might think it worth while to amend his proposal so that where a board agrees with the Minister it would only require a negative Resolution, whereas if it disagreed it would require a positive Resolution.

EARL DE LA WARR

I quite appreciate that the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is intended to be helpful, but I do not think it really meets the point. It is quite obvious that the Minister, in fact, never does get to the point of using a drastic power such as admittedly this is unless he has done everything in his power by voluntary means and persuasion to persuade the hoard to alter its course. I really think I must ask your Lordships to have a certain amount of faith in the men to be appointed on the committee of investigation and in the Minister himself. I cannot help thinking that the Amendment rather proceeds on the assumption that the Minister is either a fool or a knave—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No.

EARL DE LA WARR

—and that Parliament is not even permitted to trust him for two or three months to take action of a judicial character which has been recommended, mark you, after careful investigation of the subject by the committee of investigation. It is just a case whether or not your Lordships are prepared to allow His Majesty's Minister two or three months' grace, two or three months' trust, when he is taking action of a judicial character and when that action is based on the report of a responsible committee of investigation appointed for the specific purpose of investigating troubles such as this. I am afraid we are divided on this matter, but I do not see for the moment any opportunity of compromise.

LORD HASTINGS

If the Committee will pardon me I would like to say another word or two about this. In the first place—it is really a minor point—the noble Earl tries to fasten on me a suspicion of the Minister which really does not exist. What I would beg him to bear in mind is that all the excellent attributes which he would like to attach to the consumers' committee and the committee of investigation might surely also be attached to the members of the board which has the commercial task of making the thing work. If we trust one we can trust the other. The board is just as deserving of trust as the committee of investigation and even more so than the consumers' committee. The point really is that the Minister is not always able to resist popular clamour. It is not always possible for him to refute claims put forward by powerful bodies of consumers, even though he may know, in effect, and in fact, that these claims are really not claims which ought to be given legislative sanction. It would be better that a Minister should not be placed in the way of temptation. It is much more comforting and convenient for the Minister not to be able to do a thing which, under the Bill, the consumers' committee practically would be able to force him to do. I myself would prefer to be in the position of saving "I cannot" than in the position of saving "I will not" If you put it that the Minister cannot then I think he will only say "Thank you" to this House for putting him in that position.

With regard to the, to my mind, most helpful suggestion by my noble friend Earl Stanhope, I do not think the noble Tart opposite quite appreciates—he surely should—that without some of these powers provided on page 15, it might happen, even if the board were fully seized of the wisdom of the Minister's representations and were most anxious to fall into line with them and rectify the matter to which the Minister had drawn their attention, that the procedure would he long and difficult if this proviso was taken out completely. Therefore, on those occasions when the board found themselves in agreement with the Minister the Minister might come to Parliament in the terms of this proviso and implement at once an agreed rectification between himself and the board. That would be infinitely better than laying it down as a hard and fast rule that no alteration can be made until Parliament is sitting and both Houses have passed affirmative Resolutions. I think my noble friend's suggestion very helpful to the boards themselves and to the Minister. It would be only in those cases where a hoard found themselves unable—for, no doubt, sound commercial reasons—to fall into line with the Minister's views that it would require an affirmative Resolution on the part of both Houses.

I do not know that I really care to press the Amendment that I have down on the Paper in its present form, because I am so much impressed by the argument put, forward by my noble friend Earl Stanhope, which I had not thought of before. It would he in order, no doubt, to redraft this Amendment in such a way as to give to the board and the Minister the latitude which the proviso now gives in the case of agreement between the Minister and the board, and to limit the affirmative Resolution required to cases when the Minister and the board were at variance. I think it would probably meet the convenience of the Committee that I should not press the Amendment in its present form but redraft it and present it to the House on Report in its amended form. If that meets with approval generally I propose to take that course, but the noble Earl will bear in mind that that is only deferring the Division which might take place now but which, if his attitude remains un altered, must take place on the Report stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am quite willing to fall in with the noble Lord's suggestion, and I quite agree with him on the last point that we are not in any way committed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in sub section (4), to leave out paragraph (ii) and to insert: (ii) an order under paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament; and

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 15, leave out paragraph (ii) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD HASTINGS had given Notice to move to amend the proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words "paragraph (b) of." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment must hang together with the Amendment which I have just withdrawn, and so I will not move it now.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it is consequential on the last Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Earl said: This is one of a series of Amendments in regard to the appointment and powers of Committees and Commissions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 39, leave out subsection (6).—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10;

Report to be laid before Parliament.

10. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland shall, in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-two and in each subsequent year, lay before Parliament a report upon the operation of all the schemes for the time being in force under this Act.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out "thirty-two" and insert "thirty-three." The noble Earl said: This is really due to the time which the Bill has taken in getting through another place. It is thought that not much is likely to occur now before 1933. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 7, leave out ("thirty-two") and insert ("thirty-three").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to add the words "and upon the schemes which have been submitted to them since the last report was laid before Parliament under this section, or, in the case of the first report, since the commencement of this Act, but which have not come into force at the date of the report." The noble Earl said: Parliament will, I think, want a general report on the whole administration of this Act, and so it was considered desirable that a report should deal with schemes that have not matured as well as those that have come into operation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Constitution and functions of Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions.

15.—(1) The Minister may constitute one or more Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions for Great Britain, England or Scotland, which shall be charged with the duty of preparing, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act, schemes (applicable respectively both in England and Scotland, in England only and in Scotland only) for regulating the marketing of such agricultural products as the Minister may direct; and where any scheme has been prepared by such a Commission, the Minister shall take such steps as he thinks fit to bring the scheme to the notice of the producers concerned.

(2) Any such Commission may, and shall if the Minister so directs, investigate any matter affecting the operation of a scheme prepared or in course of preparation by it, and shall, if the Minister so directs, investigate any matter affecting the operation of any other scheme, and may, and shall in a case where the Minister has directed the investigation to be held, make such recommendations with respect to the matter investigated as it thinks expedient, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, any such Commission may, and shall if the Minister so directs:—

1. (a) investigate the extent to which the operation of the scheme can be facilitated by co-operation between the board administering the scheme and other persons, and make such recommendations as the Commission thinks expedient for promoting such co-operation;
2. (b) investigate the extent to which the operation of the scheme is or will be hampered by the fact that facilities for producing commodities from the product to which the scheme relates or for distributing that product or commodities produced therefrom are inadequate, and make such recommendations as the Commission thinks expedient for securing the improvement of those facilities either by coordinating undertakings engaged in providing those facilities or otherwise;

and where any recommendations have been made under this subsection, the Minister shall take such steps as he thinks fit to brim such recommendations to the notice of persons concerned.

(3) Every such Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by the Minister for such period and subject to such conditions as may be determined by him, and every such Commission shall have power to regulate its own procedure and may act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members thereof.

(4) Every such Commission may hold such inquiries as it considers necessary or desirable for the discharge of its functions under this section.

(5) If any such Commission reports to the Minister that it is necessary for the discharge of its functions under this section that it should inquire into a definite matter specified in the report, and that it has reason to believe that information with respect to that matter is being, or is likely to be, withheld, the Minister may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order providing that, in respect of any meeting of the Commission held for the purpose of inquiring into that matter, at which not less than three members of the Commission are present, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 (other than the provisions of paragraph (a) of Section two thereof), shall apply to the Commission as if it were a tribunal established in manner provided by that Act and as if that Act had been applied thereto in manner thereby provided, and unless either House before the expiration of twenty days on which that House has sat next after the draft is laid before it resolves that the order shall not be made, the Minister may make an order in terms of the draft to take effect on such (late after the expiration of the said period as may be specified in the order.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), after "The Minister," to substitute "shall" for "may." The noble Lord said: We have now come to a clause which is probably, or will be in the long run, far the most important operative clause in the Bill. That was made perfectly clear on Second Reading. In putsing down the Amendment that is now under discussion, and the further Amend merit on the same page of the Paper, I am merely endeavouring to give expression to an individual view. If I am fortunate enough to convince the Committee, particularly those members who sit on the same side of the House as I do, I shall be glad, but it is for me to express that individual view and not in any way to attempt.to confuse it with the general view of those with whom I usually act.

The Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions are unquestionably regarded at the moment by the agricultural community as little better than a pest. They at the moment believe, unfortunately, that these Commissions will exist for the purpose of coercing and hunting them and generally making them do things that they do not wish to do. It is perfectly natural that any person who has not made a complete study both of the Bill itself and of the urgent needs of agriculture at the present time should take that view. But there are others who have been into the matter far more deeply and are convinced that, whatever these Commissions may fail to do at the outset, it will only be a very short time before they will be regarded by the agricultural community itself as being its one means of salvation. These Agricultural Reorganisation Commissions—incidentally, I should prefer to see only one—will be for the first time an authority which can speak for agriculture to the Government of the day with a voice which it will be impossible for any Government to hush. They will be Commissions to whom agriculturists will come in the hope and expectation that their point of view will be put with a conciseness, a precision and a; degree of accuracy which hitherto has been entirely impossible. They are going to be equipped with means of getting together information more accurate than it has ever been possible to collect before in respect of British agriculture. Whatever may be the present unpopularity of these Commissions, I am convinced that before a long time has passed the agricultural community itself will be most thankful for their establishment. That is an individual view. I should not be in the least surprised if a majority of those on this side of the House take a totally different view. I hope they do not. I hope they take the same view as I do. Whether they do or not, I regret to say that I shall be compelled to hold to the same view as I hold now. I think that anything that can be done by this House to strengthen these Agricultural Reorganisation Commissions, to make certain that they are perfect and to assist them to the establishment of a process without which they cannot function in the most satisfactory manner, will repay agriculture a hundredfold.

Now I come to the exact point of my Amendment. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at Clause 15, you will find that the Minister may constitute one or more Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions, and in the Bill as it stands the creation of these all-important Commissions is permissive to the Minister. He may create them or he may not, and having created them there is nothing in the Bill to prevent him from dissolving them. Agriculturists would not have any use for a Commission which might or might not be constituted and might or might not be dissolved, and I should like to make it clear that, in putting this Amendment on the Paper, I am not interfering in any way whatever with the personnel of the Commissions. The personnel may, and probably ought to, be changed from time to time according to the circumstances of the case, and quite clearly it would be ludicrous to insist upon the personnel originally appointed remaining as Commissioners after it had been proved to the satisfaction of the Minister and of others that they could be replaced to advantage.

It is nothing of that kind that I wish to put into the Bill. It is merely that I wish to see the Commissions definitely set up and, once they have been set up, not to be liable to dissolution at the behest of the Minister. Any noble Lord who wishes ill to the Commissions and considers that they are not going to be useful to agriculture will not hold the same view as I do, but if he holds the view that these Commissions can be useful and ought to be made to be useful, he will then, I think, agree with me that the Minister ought to have the duty of setting them up, that they ought to be permanent and that there should be no permission attached to it. I think I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships as to the reason of my putting this Amendment on the Paper, and I shall not speak again when I come to the second Amendment, which makes the Commission a body corporate with a common seal. That is the approved method of making a Commission permanent. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 12, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CRANWORTH

As the Amendment standing in my name which follows is to a great extent consequential on that of my noble friend, perhaps I may just say one word. I can say what I want to say quite shortly. I venture to suggest that a very considerable proportion, I think a majority of your Lordships who supported the Bill thought, as I did in supporting it, that under present circumstances the Bill as it stands is likely to inflict more hardship on the producer than it is likely to do good. It will do good in some cases, but I believe that in a majority of cases it will do more harm. If my noble friend Lord Banbury were here, I would take the opportunity of explaining to him exactly why it is that, holding that view, I should find myself in the opposite Lobby to him.

I believe that this Bill will never achieve its full value, or in fact any real value, unless there is at the same time control of imported articles. I think the large majority of your Lordships think that. I do not say in what form that control should take place. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill is in favour, I believe, of import boards. That is one method. I and many others are in favour of duties. There are others who are in favour of partial control and partial duties. Whichever way we go, I believe the noble Earl rather agrees with me that to get the full value out of this Bill control of some sort is essential. I find confirmation of that in a remark that he made just now when he talked about giving monopolies to certain articles. You cannot have a monopoly unless you have control of foreign imports. I welcome that, and that being my view, and I venture to think the view of the majority of your Lordships, I feel that this Commission is in fact the most important part of the whole Bill. I think that this Commission will stand as the advisory agricultural committee either to the tariff commission or the import board, and I therefore want it to be as strong as possible, and removed as far as possible from Party influence—to be above Party considerations and above the counting of votes, and to think solely of the good of the nation, which is a thing sometimes forgotten.Therefore, I venture to associate myself with this Amendment of my noble friend, and I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships on both sides of the House.

LORD STRACHIE

I hope the noble Earl will not accept the Amendment. In most matters I am a humble supporter of the noble Lord, but I cannot support him when he goes in for compulsion in this matter.Surely, if, as the noble Lord seems to imply, agriculturists are in favour of this Commission being in force, then the Minister will do it, but why put compulsion upon him? I thought my noble friend was, rather like myself, one of those who did not believe in. compulsion about everything, but, on the other hand, I am afraid the noble Earl opposite will be inclined to accept the Amendment because this Government are rather inclined to have compulsion in every Act.

EARL STANHOPE

I find myself in some agreement with Lord Strachic, and I am afraid that Lord Hastings and I differ in this matter. Of course, I am only speaking from a personal point of view, and I would like to say this. I think a great deal of value can be obtained from a Commission, but some of us remember a Commission presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. It presented a very valuable Report, but I am not aware that it has been adopted by any Government which has been in office since that Commission reported. Therefore, I am not very hopeful of finding such a Commission as will lay down the law in such a way that any Government will have to do what they say. Where will my noble friend find such super-men? All of us would find objections to one or more of any body of men who were selected. Some would be professors, and some men well known for their publications, and I think many of us would find ourselves in complete disagreement with them on one or more matters, because in our view they are theorists rather than practical agriculturists.

Therefore, if the Minister found himself saddled with a statutory body he might find himself in considerable difficulty. He might find it would really be of great advantage to agriculture and farmers generally that the existing Commission should be brought to an end and another or others set up. That would he quite easy if the Commission was set up for a certain purpose, and it had fnished its inquiry. Hardly anybody, as I think my noble friend will admit, is an expert on all forms of farming, because there are so many different forms, and I fail to understand, even with the supermen which my noble friend hopes to find, how he will be able to find a body which is going to do all that he wishes.

So far as this particular Amendment is concerned I see very little in it, because we all know that a Commission is going to be set up, and it does not matter much whether we say "may" or "shall"; but with regard to the other Amendments, which are linked up with this, I am afraid that I shall find myself in disagreement with my noble friend, because. I have not much hopes of setting up a Commission at this moment which is going to obtain the whole-hearted support and faith of the farmers. That is, I think, a thing which the Commission has got to build up for itself. If we are successful in building up a Commission which is fortunate enough to win the support and confidence of the farmers it will go on automatically because of that support, but if it fails then I should like `the Minister to have power to bring that Commission to an end and to set up another, or possibly two or three. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am afraid I must differ from Lord Stanhope. I think this Amendment is of considerable importance. I know that a large number of farmers look upon the Reorganisation Commissions with very considerable fear, but I think that in the Bill there are so many safeguards for the farmers themselves that no Reorganisation Commission has any hope of imposing upon the farmers a scheme which the farmers do not want. On the other hand, I think your Reorganisation Commission will in time get such a position that farmers who want to have a scheme of their own will go to the Reorganisation Commission and will get from them sound advice. The Commission will not necessarily consist of men with knowledge of particular subjects, but they will be men of experience and sound common sense, and I think this Commission should be set up compulsorily—that the Minister should have to set it up—and that it should not be merely permissive as it now is in the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

One thing which is very welcome in this discussion is the very general recognition of the use that either one or one or more Reorganisation Commissions can be to the agricultural industry. Perhaps, as we have had rather a general discussion on the point, I might venture to reassure Lord Strachie. There is no power of compulsion in this clause whatever. There is no power in the clause as it stands for the Minister or Commission to compel farmers to adopt any scheme, and one of the main uses to which I think this Commission may be put—certainly it would be a very great use—would be to work out a scheme for a commodity where at the moment a scheme was very much wanted, but where the farmers were nervous of the scheme because they did not know really how it would be operated. This will be an opportunity to show them how useful an organisation of their own may be to them, and also an opportunity to bring into the service of agriculture the very best brains of the nation. Then we come to the question of the two Amendments, and I am glad they are being taken together. Personally, I should say that if the Government were going to accept Lord Cranworth's Amendment—

LORD CRANWORTH

I hope the noble Earl will not take them entirely as one because if the first is lost I shall still move the other.

EARL DE LA WARR

In this debate we were rather discussing the two together. If Lord Cranworth did carry his Amendments for having only one Commission there would be a lot to be said for making it compulsory on the Minister to set it up. But I think Lord Hastings would agree that there is no point in inserting "shall" for "may" if there is going to be more than one Commission, because one would at once say that if you are going to have a number of Commissions you have got to specify how many and for what purpose, and so on.

LORD HASTINGS

It is Lord Cranworth's Amendment really, which is much more important than mine. They do all hang together.

EARL DE LA WARR

On this point of whether there should be one Commission or more than one there is a great deal to be said on both sides, but I any not at all sure that the main argument which is in the noble Lord's mind—I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, let the cat out of the bag more than anybody—is not that this body would become a very useful tariff commission, so to speak. We may or may not be agreed on the desirability of some form of import control in connection with certain commodities. That, I venture to say, is beside the point in considering this question, because it would be the greatest pity that a body such as this should deteriorate into a mere advisory body, or almost semi-political—certainly an advisory body—expressing general ideas on the desirability of the Minister adopting this or that policy. What we want to do is to be able to get hold of four or five first-rate men and give them each one specific job of working out a scheme, say for milk, or potatoes, or pigs, or bacon, or whatever we want them to do; and when they have done their job and prepared that scheme, and that scheme has been put before the producers, and the producers have had the opportunity of discussing the difficulties that they see under the scheme, that that body should be dissolved, and that, for the consideration of other problems, other specialist bodies should be appointed. For that reason I hope that we will not have just one rather general body which may give itself rather a roving commission for making general recommendations.

Further than that, I think it is also certain—at the beginning undoubtedly, when schemes are coming in rather rapidly, or are needed rather rapidly—that it will be necessary to have a number of Commissions sitting at the same time. We all know that we are shortly going to be faced with a milk crisis. It might be necessary to have a Milk Reorganisation Commission engaged in working out proposals. It might be necessary to have a potato scheme or a pig scheme; and really there is no reason why you should not have all the Commissions sitting together. The noble Lord may say that might be met by having subcommittees of a general body, and in the end—I have a perfectly open mind on this point—we may well work up to that. But for the moment—and we have discussed this a great deal—it would be better to start in rather a more modest way, and simply confine these Commissions to the specialised work of working out special schemes; and for that purpose I think we should do better to stick to a number of Commissions rather than one body. I hope therefore that we shall not insert Lord Cranworth's Amendment, and I think Lord Hastings agrees that, if we do not do that, we should not insert "shall".

LORD CRANWORTH

If I may say so, I have not yet had an opportunity of saying anything about my Amendments at all. I intervened after my noble friend's Amendment because mine is closely connected with it, but it is, in fact, an entirely different Amendment, and I am hoping to get the support of my noble friend on mine. I must say I am not convinced by the noble Earl's remarks on this point. He wishes to set up, if the Minister likes, a number of these Commissions—for milk, potatoes and so forth—and I rather gathered that he acceded to the Amendment of my noble friend, or that he will do so, because he said that they are so emphatically necessary that I can hardly feel that he will not do so. I venture to think that that is a mistake. For the reasons I have stated before I want to see one strong central Commission, which will be an advisory Commission, either as a tariff commission or an import board. But I do not want to see a lot of these Commissions. I do not believe the country generally loves a lot of Commissions. We have had a vast number of them, there are several more in this Bill already, and here it is a question of an unlimited number to be set up.

One of the troubles is that if you set up a Commission to deal with potatoes or any one product, they shut their eyes to the implications of other forms of agriculture and other industries, and look upon it with a single view. They will press the case for potatoes or the case for sugar beet, and they will not take a board, comprehensive view. And who will be left to take a broad, comprehensive view? There will be left the Ministry and the Minister, who, after all, is a changing man, and no doubt subject to political influence. I believe the noble Earl himself is hardly above political influence, and I do not see how he could help it. I want to lift this matter out of that atmosphere and above it. This is a step in that direction, and I press very strongly that there should be only one Commission.

LORD HASTINGS

The rules of the Committee happily permit these roving discussions, and, while my noble friend said, when he rose, that he had not yet had the opportunity of speaking about his Amendment, I would remind the Committee that neither have 1. I did confine myself as exclusively as possible to my own desire to compel the Minister to set up the Commission and to make it impossible for him to dissolve the Commission when it was once set up. I have not yet said anything about having only one Commission. My noble friend Lord Cranworth explained, I think conclusively, and gave excellent reasons why he desired only one Commission. But he did not touch as fully as he might have done upon the reasons which, I have not any doubt, actuated him, as they have actuated me. I am perfectly convinced that noble Lords will agree with me when I say that agriculture has suffered more than it has benefited by assistance given in a piecemeal manner. It is perfectly obvious that where the State becomes seized with the necessity of giving assistance in a particular direction, and gives it, agriculturists are depressed in the cultivation of other kinds of produce, and relinquish the cultivation of those kinds of produce and rush to the protected kind. It has happened with sugar beet, and it has happened in sundry other directions—leading, of course, to the eventual collapse of the over—flooded branch of the industry to which this undue number of adherents has come.

What is absolutely necessary in agriculture, I submit, is a scheme which embraces all the many varied kinds of production at once so as to make it possible for those who specialise in a particular production to remain remuneratively in the production of that particular kind of produce; to prevent them, that is to say, from leaving that kind of cultivation and going to another kind of cultivation which has had the good fortune to receive an early report from one of these Commissions and upon which the Government of the day has acted. Confusion only results from that kind of piecemeal dealing with agriculture. If you have one Agricultural Commission set up for England and one for Scotland, sitting jointly, perhaps, for Great Britain in such cases as may be necessary, you will have in existence a Commission which will have the ability—and no other body can have—to treat the whole of the various agricultural cultivations and productions as one, to avoid assisting one and leaving another behind and thereby unbalancing the whole.

Whereas it would be possible, of course, for me to continue almost ad lib. on these particular lines, I know that this is the Committee and not the Second Reading stage and I do not feel justified in doing so. But the arguments behind by noble friend's Amendments are, I submit, remarkably sound. You are going to lose the greater part of the advantage of these Agricultural Reorganisation Commissions if you dissipate their authority and confine them to the consideration of only one subject at a time—their own particular subject. You want something much bigger than that. You want a body before which innumerable sub-committees will come and report so that they can coordinate and be of general utility to agriculture as a whole and not to agriculture piece by piece.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

If I may intervene for one moment, I did not realise that the Amendments standing in Lord Cranworth's name were being taken together. Your Lordships will see that my noble friend is moving to insert "respectively" after "Scotland" in Clause 15. I most humbly advise that in this case we should have a second organisation for Scotland. Is it clear that. according to the Bill, we are in all cases to have a separate one for Scotland?

EARL DE LA WARR

Not under our drafting of the Bill.

LORD CRANWORTH

Not under the Bill, but under the Amendment.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

It is to my mind most important that it should be emphasised that Scotland should have a separate organisation. After all we are two different countries although we speak more or less the same language and have the same ideas. But our climates are very different and it is essential that such matters should be looked at from Scotland's point of view. I would like to support the noble Earl very strongly in this matter.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not know whether I might be allowed to intervene again, but I would ask the noble Earl to consider this point for a moment. I know that Scotland always wants recognition, and quite rightly, in every scheme. But certain poor English farmers in the neighbourhood of Bournemouth have to put up with the dumping of milk surplus from Glasgow. I would ask the noble Earl if it is possible to have a milk scheme which is not on Great Britain lines? It would be impossible to do that. Whether you are marketing eggs, milk, potatoes or anything, you cannot really draw a line across the country and maintain that that boundary has any relation at all to economics. There is provision in the Bill under Clause 1, subsection (2) for local schemes. It says: A scheme submitted and approved as aforesaid may be applicable to Great Britain or to any part thereof. That admits Scotland and local schemes in cases where such schemes are appropriate. There are schemes for the purpose of building up special markets and so on and in such cases local schemes are quite appropriate. I do not think that in regard to a Reorganisation Commission, which would consider the whole subject in relation to the national economic life and the whole industry of agriculture, there is really any case at all for separate Commissions for the two countries.

I should like to deal with one or two points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I think he took the line that this Commission must be capable of taking a comprehensive view of agriculture. It is perfectly true that somebody has to take a comprehensive view of policy before it is presented to Parliament. Whether this Commission does that or not, and whatever the noble Lord thinks of the Minister and whether he likes it or not, ultimately it is the Minister and the Cabinet which have to decide what to present to Parliament. Therefore we have to consider what body will be best able to present to the industry first and later to the Minister, because he has to lay it on the Table of the House, the best worked out scheme in detail, and it has to be in very great detail. I suggest to your Lordships it should be a small specialised ad hoc body appointed specially for the purpose.

I venture to put one other point to your Lordships. Admittedly, it is rather an experimental or a new step that we are taking and the Reorganisation Commissions will be faced with new problems. Supposing in working out a scheme—we hope it will not be so and obviously we are going to get the very best men we can—the Commission make a mistake in regard to a certain scheme and present one which is not entirely satisfactory. It might happen at the beginning. We hope not, and we will take every precaution against it, but supposing it happens, if you start off with only one Commission you have the commission idea discredited right from the very beginning. Whereas if you have a special ad hoc Commission, and any mistakes are made it is only that one Commission that is discredited and the rest of the idea is left untouched. I hope, therefore, that you will leave the machinery of the Bill as it is, with provision for the appointment of these small specialised bodies.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

In regard to the remarks of the noble Earl about Scotland, I appreciate his difficulty regarding the supply of Bournemouth with some milk coming from Glasgow. I have always understood there is a golden rule that if you are in a great difficulty you should apply to a Scotsman to solve it. I suggest that there should be a Scottish Commission in this particular case.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I agree with the noble Earl opposite that you cannot

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD CRANWORTH had down an Amendment to leave out from subsection (1) "one or more" and to insert "an". The noble Lord said: In view of the

draw a line between Scotland and England. I come from a place not very far from Bournemouth and I appreciate his point in that regard, but is it not an argument in another direction against himself? Are you able to draw a hard and fast line as between one agricultural commodity and another? I do not think you are able to do that, and think that is an argument in favour of one central Commission which has the whole of agricultural production under its review and recommends to the Minister who can accept its recommendations or not. If you look at the Amendment you will see it is suggested that there shall be really two Commissions, one for England and one for Scotland, and that the line between the two shall be bridged by a Joint Commission. I think it is very essential that agriculture should not be dealt with any longer piecemeal as it has been in the past, but that there should be some central authority who can pull together the whole organisation of marketing. I therefore support both Amendments.

On Question, whether the word "may" shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.
Wellington, D.	Stanhope, E.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]
Linlithgow, M.	Bridgeman, V.	Lamington, L.
	Hailsham, V.	Marks, L.
		Marley, L. [Teller.]
De La Warr, E.	Aberdare, L.	Phillimore, L.
Doneaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Addington, L.	Saltoun, L.
	Brancepeth, L. (V, Boyne.)	Snell, L.
Lucan, E.	Chesham, L.	Strachie, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Daryngton, L.	Templemore, L.
Midleton, E.	Forester, L.	Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Airlie, E.	Radnor, E.	Cranworth, L. [Teller.]
Harewood, E.	Stradbroke, E.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Iddesleigh, E.		Hastings, L. [Teller.]
Lauderdale, E.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Somerleyton, L.
Minto, E.	Ullswater, V.	Swinfen, L.
		Trenchard, L.

decision upon the last Amendment I will, with your Lordships' permission, not move this Amendment or the consequential ones in my name.

EARL DE LA WARR

The Amendment in my name in line 16 is drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 16, leave out ("foregoing").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS had down an Amendment to move, in subsection (3), after the first "Commission", to insert "shall be a body corporate with a common seal and". The noble Lord said: This Amendment falls with the others, and I do not move.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "Minister." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 17, leave out from ("Minister") to the end of line 22.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in subsection (5), after the first "matter", to insert "relating to the volume, quantity, destination, or channels of distribution of a product". The noble Marquess said: This Bill is for regulating the marketing of agricultural produce, and I should like to think that it is a direct descendant of the Committee upon the distribution and the price of agricultural products, which Committee I had the honour to preside over. I understand that during my temporary absence from the House my noble friend Lord Stanhope suggested that the recommendations of that Committee had resulted in little or nothing being done. I resent very strongly the notion that my mountain could produce nothing better than a mouse. What are the facts? I think we made some 450 recommendations. A great many of those recommendations have received attention, and amongst other of our trophies there stand on the Statute Book to-day the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1926, the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Com mission) Act, 1926, the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 192S, and. as I think, this Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. If the recommendations of every Committee or Commission received as ample a reward in terms of legislation as that over which I had the honour to preside, I am inclined to think your Lordships' House would be in constant session and even working in two shifts.

The purpose of the Bill is to prove the manner and condition in which agricultural produce is passed from the producer to the distributing trades, and so to the ultimate consumer. This improvement includes a better control of the rate of flow of produce so as to mitigate the ill effects of alternating periods of glut and shortage. If the provisions of this Bill are to benefit the farmer those provisions must command the active support of the distributing trades. Let no man suppose that either farmers or the various bodies to be constituted under the Bill will be able themselves to do the middleman's work. The business of distribution is highly specialised and highly skilled. Experience has shown that when Whitehall farms it is the blood of the taxpayer that must fertilise the enterprise, and if Whitehall is to embark upon the business of distribution the taxpayer will not be merely bankrupted but will also be starved. To attempt to eliminate the distributing trades would, in my judgment, be madness. The noble Earl agrees. The co-operation of the middleman is vital to the success of schemes under this Bill.

How, then, does His Majesty's Government propose to commend this Bill to the good will of distributors? By inserting in Clause 15 (5) provisions which, if put upon the Statute Book, would arm Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions with power to conduct into the private and lawful affairs of these traders a scrutiny which need Lot be satisfied until their very bank pass books have been examined. These men are not criminals. They have to bear the risk of their enterprise. The State does not rescue traders if they fail, and their profits if they make them are taxed to the bone. The effect of the first Amendment standing in my name is to limit the power of inquiry by the Commissions to matters of quantity, destination or distribution. I think it is certain that many schemes which one contemplates as coming into effect under this Bill can he framed, and satisfactorily framed, without any exact knowledge such as that with which His Majesty's Government suggests Commissions should be armed under this clause. I am also persuaded on reflection that in some cases it will be in the public interest that facts relating to the volume of produce passing, and to the direction of the flow of produce, down the distributing channels should be at the disposal of the Commissions. But the matter of costs and margins of profit are in quite a different field.

I have had some experience of the problems of marketing both in this country and in the East, and as part of my duty I have been at pains to inform myself of the practice in vogue both on the Continent of Europe and in America. I say with a full sense of responsibility that I cannot conceive of any scheme in which it will be necessary or even helpful to the Commissions to be seized of detailed facts about costs, margins of profit and the general details of the distributing business on the financial side. I shall be very interested to learn whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can himself suggest any scheme for the satisfactory operation of which this information would be required. I believe my Amendment is required in fairness to the distributing trades, and also I am convinced it is essential to the success of this Bill which, as I think, is an experiment, bold it is true, but not without good hope for the benefit of the agricultural industry. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 29, after ("matter") insert ("relating to the volume, quantity, destination or channels of distribution of a product.")—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)

EARL DE LA WARR

When some one who has investigated a subject as closely as the noble Marquess speaks on that subject the Government must obviously take account of what he says. The first thing he said was that the good will of the distributors was important to the success of any scheme to be operated by producers. There, it is hardly necessary to say, we are in absolute agreement with him. In so far as the powers of this Bill, as it now stands, are really unnecessary for the actual preparation of schemes, let me say at once that we are perfectly prepared to consider how we can meet the demands of the noble Marquess. There is a criticism contained in a further Amendment which he has on the Paper dealing with the secrecy of these discussions and inquiries. There is no reason whatsoever why these discussions and inquiries should not be secret. These Commissions are not appointed for Lire general information of the public, but simply and solely in order to prepare detailed schemes for reorganising the marketing of particular commodities. For that purpose I think the noble Marquess is probably right in saying that certain elements should be eliminated. I am not sure that the noble Marquess mentioned it this morning, but he has before mentioned questions of costs and margins of profit, and so on, which really, I think, in a very large number of instances might be said to belong to a consumers' council rather than the sort of body that we are setting up.

The noble Marquess has suggested certain words relating to "the volume, quantity, destination or channels of distribution of a product." I think that is a very useful attempt to meet the point which we are considering, but I have discussed the matter with my advisers and they are not quite happy about the words. They feel that to sonic extent they are too limiting. Of course it is all right as regards a scheme relating to primary products, but in working out a scheme to deal with the manufacture of milk, or the production of bacon and so on, you are going to deal with very complicated problems of factory organisation and it may be necessary to get very detailed information—information which in the vast majority of cases I am quite convinced will be forthcoming voluntarily. At the same time it may be necessary to use some compulsion. If it is in the national interest that a scheme should be prepared I think we should be all agreed that, subject to the safeguards in the Bill, that information should he obtained. Let me make it quite clear that we quite admit that there is a case for some alteration of this clause, but I want to say to your Lordships that possibly we may not go quite as far as the noble Marquess suggests.

I would remind your Lordships of the safeguards which have been put in the Bill as it stands. If a Commission … has reason to believe that information with respect to that matter is being, or is likely to be, withheld, the Minister may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order providing that, in respect of any meeting of t he Commission held for the purpose of inquiring into that matter, at which not less than three members of the Commission are present, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 (other than the provisons of paragraph (a) or Section two thereof), shall apply. Then it is for Parliament to say whether or not the powers are to be given, and it would be necessary for the Commission to specify the actual matter into which they desire to enquire. They would have to make out their case for the necessity of so doing, and if Parliament thought that the inquiry was outside the scope of that necessity and that it was not necessary for the purpose of the scheme that they should have that information, it would be for Parliament to refuse that power.

I think your Lordships will agree that this is a very considerable safeguard, but we are quite prepared to consider the matter further and discuss it with the noble Marquess, if he would withdraw his Amendment now. I think there is a good opportunity of our coming to agreement on the point. If we do not, he is perfectly free to put down the same Amendment on Report.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the way in which he has received this Amendment. I confess that, though I listened with the best attention of which I was capable to his remarks, I am still not quite clear in what respect exactly it is that the noble Earl feels anxiety as to the effect of my Amendment. I suppose it is not that the Amendment does not cover the matter of commodities produced from agricultural products, because I turn to Clause 18, which is the Interpretation Clause, and I find that an agricultural product includes: any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such products. and so on. I think the provision as regards the power to deal with manufactured or partly manufactured goods made from agricultural produce is probably safe under the Amendment that I have submitted to your Lordships. The noble Earl has been so courteous to me that I do not like to appear obdurate in any way; but, unless he can offer some strong objection, I feel very much inclined to ask him to allow my Amendment to be accepted at this stage, and it can be dealt with later if the noble Earl has any positive suggestions to make as to the form in which it should be moved. I should be sorry to see the Bill leave the Committee without my Amendment in it.

EARL DE LA WARR

As the noble Marquess has put it that way, provided I am not in any way committed, we will leave it at that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

I also accept the remaining Amendments in the name of the noble Marquess.

Amendments moved—

Page 20, line 37, leave out from ("1921") to ("shall") in line 38.

Page 21, line 4, at end insert: ("Provided that where the said Act is applied to a Commission in pursuance of this section, the Commission shall, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (a) of Section two of that Act, refuse to allow the public, or any portion of the public, to be present while any evidence is being given by any witness summoned before the Commission under that Act.")—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out Clause 15. The noble Lord said: I did not move my Amendment to leave out subsection (5), because, even if I had been able to carry it, which is very doubtful, I am sure the noble Earl would have said that we should have to alter the decision on Report or in another place. It. seems to me quite clear that without this clause the Commission would be able to do very little and would be very little used. I have an objection to the clause as a whole, and not only to subsection (5). Neither here nor in another place was any indication whatever given as to what the constitution of the Commission is going to be. We do not know whether a very important office is going to be set up with a large number of paid officials. I think we ought to have a great deal more explanation of the exact meaning.

The clause was known in another place as the "Star Chamber Clause," and, no doubt, very properly so. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, commenting on it on the Second Reading, pointed out very truly what enormous powers this Commission would have as a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. It would have power to summon witnesses, to compel evidence upon oath and to order the production of documents and any person who did not comply with the orders of this Commission would be table to be called before the High Court for contempt. To show how very carefully Parliament regarded this particular section of the Act to which I have referred, A is provided that the section should come into force only after both Houses of Parliament have agreed by Resolution to its doing so. It seems to me, therefore, to be very undesirable to leave in the reference to this clause, for the reason that I have given in objecting to subsection (5). Generally, there is no reason why the Commission should be given these enormous powers. Nor have we any idea who the members of the Commission are going to be. They may be people who know very little about the matter, or people appointed for political considerations. No doubt the noble Earl will tell me that this cannot take place, but it seems to me very desirable that we should have some indication as to who are going to be the Commissioners and what the scope of the Commission will be.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 15.—(Lord Strachie.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think this matter really was fairly thoroughly discussed on the first Amendment to the clause. I do not think it is possible for me to add anything more on behalf of the Government, except to say that this clause has been discussed in this House and in another place very carefully, and I am afraid we must insist upon its retention in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 [Expenses of Commissions and Committees]:

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (2), to insert: ( ) The chairman and other members of every such commission or committee shall be appointed by the Minister for such period and subject to such conditions as may he determined by him, and the meetings and procedure of any such commission or committee shall be regulated in accordance with regulations made by the Minister for the purpose, and every such commission or committee shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members thereof. ( ) Any regulations made by the Minister under this section shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulations are laid before it, resolves that the regulations be annulled, the regulations shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done there-under or to the making of new regulations. The noble Earl said: This is consequential, but I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, proposes to move an Amendment to it.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 17, insert the said new subsections.—(Earl De La Warr.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to amend the Amendment by inserting at the end of the first subsection: "If ally member of any such commission or committee becomes in the opinion of the Minister unfit for any reason to continue to be a member of such commission or committee, the Minister may terminate his appointment." The noble Viscount said: Does the noble Earl accept this Amendment? It preserves the power to the Minister to get rid of unsuitable members, thus covering a point which does not appear to be included in the clause. It is a phrase which is usually inserted in similar Bills.

EARL DE LA WARR

It is quite true that this is generally inserted, but the subsection that I propose provides that the members shall be appointed by the Minister "for such periods and subject to such conditions as may be determined by him." I think, therefore, there is power to deal with the noble Viscount's point.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I do not quite follow that, because in the Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill, 1931, there is a very similar clause. It runs as follows:— The Minister of Health … may … on the recommendation of a committee … appointed by him with the approval of the Treasury— do certain things; and in subsection (2) of the first clause I find the words: If any member of the committee becomes, in the opinion of the Minister, unfit for any reason to continue to be a member of the committee, the Minister may terminate his appointment. I think if it is in that Bill it ought also to be in this Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me not to move the Amendment now but to talk it over with him between now and Report.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, certainly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

Interpretation.

18.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them:— Agricultural product" includes any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals; Minister" means—

1. (a) in relation to a scheme applicable both in England and in Scotland, or in relation to the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee or an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain, both the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting in conjunction;
2. (b) in relation to a scheme applicable only in England, or in relation to the English fund, or in relation to the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee or an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission for England, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries;
3. (c) in relation to a scheme applicable only in Scotland, or in relation to the Scottish fund, or in relation to the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee or an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland:

Regulated product" means, in relation to any scheme, any product, or any kind or variety of any product, the marketing of which is regulated by the scheme, but does not (except in the expression "consumers of the regulated product") include any product, kind, or variety, in so far as it is produced outside the area to which the scheme is applicable": (2) For the purposes of a scheme regulating the marketing of live stock of any kind, every person whose business it is to keep live stock of that kind for the purpose of breeding from it or selling it in an improved condition shall (except in so far as the scheme otherwise provides) be deemed to produce it.

LORD BAYFORD had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out from the definition of "agricultural product" "any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals," and to insert "milk, butter and cheese."

EARL STANHOPE

In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, I would like to ask whether the Government have considered this definition of agricultural product. I think we are all agreed that it goes very far indeed, and probably a great deal further than any of us desire. Lord Bayford's Amendment does seem to meet the point, and I beg formally to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 13, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 16 and insert ("milk, butter and cheese").—(Earl Stanhope.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This is a very difficult point. It is perfectly true that this definition could possibly be carried rather farther than it is intended to go. On the other hand, the scheme is purely optional on the producers, and each scheme must be for the producers of the particular commodity for which the scheme is formulated. Barley growers could not compel the producers of beer, for instance, to have a scheme. We have discussed this question at tremendous length.

EARL STANHOPE

May I ask, how about bread?

EARL DE LA WARR

It is exactly the same. Theoretically, I suppose, the bakers could formulate a scheme, but if you had seen the newspapers lately your Lordships would see how they object to any interference by a consumers' committee. The wheat producers could not compel the bread producers to formulate a scheme. We have discussed this at tremendous length. We started out without specifying commodities, and then we started specifying the commodities, and we got into such a mess that we had to come down, under an agreement with the parties, to this general definition, which is the same definition as your Lordships inserted in the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Amendment Bill a fortnight ago.

EARL STANHOPE

Is the noble Earl satisfied that pig producers will be able to run bacon factories?

EARL DE LA WARR

I am satisfied that pig producers cannot compel bacon producers to formulate a scheme under the Bill. If the pig producers get a 3eherne for starting a bacon factory, that is a different thing.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Could the pig producers, for instance, put into their scheme words as to the production of bacon, and then compel every bacon factory to close unless it came in under the pig producers' scheme?

EARL DE LA WARR

I am, of course, speaking only as a layman, but I should say not unless they build so many bacon factories that they thereby become a majority of the bacon producers under the Bill.

EARL STANHOPE

I do not know whether the noble Earl would be prepared to consider Lord Bayford's Amendment?

EARL DE LA WARR

We have already considered this matter so very fully that I do not think I can accept the Amendment.

EARL STANHOPE

As my noble friend is not here, I hope that I shall not by moving his Amendment and withdrawing it have prejudiced his position on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH

All my amendments are consequential Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 22, line 38, leave out ("or") and insert ("consumers' committee or committee of investigation for Great Britain, or in relation to ")

Page 22, line 38, leave out ("an") and insert ("the")

Page 23, line 4, leave out ("or") and insert ("consumers' committee or committee of investigation for England, or in relation to")

Page 23, line 4, leave out ("an") and insert ("the")

Page 23, line 11, leave out ("or") and insert ("consumers' committee or committee of investigation for Scotland, or in relation to")

leave out ("an") and insert ("the").—(Lord Cranworth.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Are these not consequential on an Amendment of the noble Lord's which was defeated?

LORD CRANWORTH

No, this is not the Reorganisation Commission, but the consumers' committee.

EARL DE LA WARR

If the noble Lord assures me of that I will not oppose, on the understanding that I am free to reconsider the matter on Report if necessary.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in the definition of "regulated products," to omit all words after the second "scheme." The noble Earl said: If this Amendment is not introduced it would be open for producers situate outside an area covered by the scheme to sell produce in an area which is covered by the scheme, and therefore it would considerably impede the working of the scheme in that area. Of course, it is a very deep question, and has been impressed upon me by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, who wish this Amendment to be introduced.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 21, leave out from ("scheme") to the end of line 25.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)

LORD STRACHIE

The object of this Amendment is to amend the definition so as to make the Bill more applicable to produce imported from an outside district and competing with regulated produce in another area. The noble Earl who moved it is speaking, of course, for the organised agricultural interest of Scotland. I have no right to say that the organised agricultural interest in England, represented by the National Farmers' Union, approve of this Amendment, because I have had no direct communication with them on the subject. On the other hand, I do not think I should be blamed by the National Farmers' Union if I said that the great majority of agriculturists in this country would approve of the Amendment. If you are going to fix these particular prices surely you ought not to have competition in one area from goods coming hi from another.

Of course that is almost certain to happen. What would happen would be that it would be much easier to produce one particular product in one area than in another and then to introduce it into that other. It would be imported from a cheaper area into an area where it is more expensive to produce. I do not see why the noble Earl, on general principles, should object to this Amendment. If he does I hope the noble Earl who moved it will go to a Division, as the matter is of great interest to agriculturists, both in Scotland and in this country.

EARL DE LA WARR

I really think this Amendment is based on a total misconception of the purposes of the Bill. It visualises that this Bill is designed for a partition of markets among certain producers, whereas it does not attempt to do that. It has never been said that it attempted to do that. All it does is to offer certain powers to producers to enable them to organise the methods of their marketing. There is another misconception which the noble Earl gas in his mind, and that is that the primary function of this Bill is really that of price fixing; whereas, in the discussion in another place and here, we have tried to make it clear that we have to do a great deal more than merely to hold up the prices of agricultural commodities if we are to get a proper organisation of marketing. You can really only get price-fixing in your national schemes, such as milk, and so on, where you do not suffer very much from foreign competition. Your local schemes will obviously be dealing with questions such as grading, packing, delivery, and so on. Apart from that, I do not know how the noble Earl thinks he is going to carry this out, unless we go in for a complete system of French octroi round every district. It is really quite impossible. I know this Amendment does come from Scotland, but what the Aberdeen beef producers are thinking of, or what the Bournemouth milk interests are thinking of, I do not know. The first thing that would happen is that we should see the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, running round to his area and drawing a line round Bournemouth, in order that there should be no dumping there.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

With regard to Bournemouth milk, I understood the noble Earl to say in the discussion on one part of the Bill that if there was already a market for the sale of any goods they would not be interfered with by anything under this scheme. They would not be in the scheme in that case. I had intended going to a Division on this question, but seeing that there would not be a House if I did so, and I do not want to defeat the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has handed in a manuscript Amendment, the same as an Amendment which appears on the Paper, except that the words in brackets, instead of being "not being more than one month," should be "not being less than one month nor more than two months."

LORD HASTINGS moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: 'Suspensory period' in relation to a scheme, means a period beginning on the date when the scheme comes into force and ending at the expiration of such period (not being less than one month nor more than two months) commencing on the date of the declaration of the result of the initial poll as may be provided by the scheme. The noble Lord said: The Amendment is consequential up to a certain point. It is unfortunate that those words to which the Lord Chairman has referred have found their way on to the Paper, because clearly, after the decision of the Committee yesterday that those who thought themselves to be a majority should be given the opportunity of making representations to the Minister, it would be impossible to allow the scheme to provide for a date of less than one month during which they had the opportunity of making those representations.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is really drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 39, at end insert: (" (2) A declaration by the Minister, contained in an order approving a scheme, that the scheme is a substitutional scheme shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2) after "any kind," to insert "other than pedigree stock registered in a recognised herd book." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I believe, was debated in another place, and I am not sure of the reasons why the Minister in charge of the Bill found it impossible to accept it. Obviously the breeding of pedigree stock is, at least as far as my experience goes, an entirely non-commercial process. I think it would be definitely inadvisable to draw into any one of these commercial schemes the breeders of pedigree stock. It is very largely because a number of persons are sufficiently philanthropic to spend money on the breeding of pedigree stock that other people who are not willing to take risks have such stock as they have got, and it would be inadvisable to draw in those pedigree stock breeders. I should very much like to hear what reasons the noble Earl has to advance against this Amendment—unless he is going to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 41, after ("kind") insert ("other than pedigree stock registered in a recognised herd book").—(Lord Hastings.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord may have found the production of pedigree stock not very commercial, but sometimes pedigree stock breeders do enter into commercial operations. The breeders of beef cattle, for instance, will fatten their cattle and send them to market as ordinary cattle, and, of course, we want that to increase in this country. Obviously it would be impossible to get any scheme for fat stock if you exempt from it what we hope will become an increasing proportion of the cattle that have to be dealt with. That, I think, really might be held to apply even to potatoes. If one carried the use of the word "pedigree" too far it might even Knock out well-bred potatoes.

LORD HASTINGS

The word in the clause is "live stock".

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, that is true; but still you would keep out the fat stock. Therefore I think it would be a pity to insert this Amendment. I would remind your Lordships that in so far as pedigree stock do not enter into the ordinary commercial operations of this Bill breeders could perfectly well obtain exemption, just in the same way as a man with his own milk round wishes to obtain exemption. I think that meets the point.

LORD HASTINGS

I am inclined to think that the noble Earl's arguments are stronger than anything I could bring forward, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule: