COMMONS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 27 July 1931)

§ LORD HASTINGS
All these Amendments are to be read as one. I would like to say a word about them. Can the noble Lord give us any real reason why Scotland should have had different treatment meted out to it from England in this matter? The noble Lord will see from the Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill that in the case of Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland is to be enabled to bring the Act into force within a period of not less than one year of the date of the passing of the Act, but in England it is to be a period of not less than three years. The period has been extended from two to three years, whereas we know that agricultural opinion differs very much in this matter and there is a considerable consensus 1228 of agricultural opinion in England which did desire postponement or clearly the Government would not have given way in the matter. At the same time, there is a very strong minority that is exceedingly desirous of seeing this measure brought into force at an earlier date. Their feelings are outraged by the fact that Scotland is to be given a pull of two years over England in the bull market. It seems to me most unjust.

§ EARL STANHOPE
My Lords, perhaps I can explain to my noble friend what has happened. I have looked up the debate in your Lordships' House, and may I say in passing that the Minister in another place has been much more accommodating than the noble Earl the Under-Secretary in this House, because I observe that a good many of the Amendments which appear on the Paper are those which your Lordships suggested in the course of debate and which have been accepted in another place. This is one of them. It was stated that the farming community generally in Scotland were anxious that the Bill should come into operation at the end of the year, but, on the other hand, the farming community in England were in favour of extension.

§ LORD HASTINGS
A majority.

§ EARL STANHOPE
A majority, certainly. They wanted three years instead of two. Many of us wanted to see the Bill come into operation at a very much earlier date, but there was the strongest opposition amongst members of the National Farmers' Union in England. It was pressed on the Minister—briefly in this House because the hour was late, but still it was suggested in this House—that there should be an extension to three years in the hope that in the interval there might be a voluntary scheme in England so that by the end of three years everybody would so much approve that it would be unnecessary to have compulsion. That was the case put forward by the Farmers' Union, and I understand the Amendment was accepted in the other House for that reason. There are many obvious disadvantages. One of them is that the scrub bull in Scotland is going to be sent to England in the same way that in the past scrub bulls have come from Ireland. I personally should very much like to have seen in the Bill a clause on the same lines as Clause 9, to which 1229 my noble friend referred, so that the Scottish scrub bull should not be dumped into England, but Scotland unfortunately has once again got away with it and I suppose we shall have to accept Scottish scrub bulls for two years. I hope my noble friend will not insist because it would mean sending the Bill back to another place with the possibility of losing it.

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, I suppose I shall have to respond to my noble friend's appeal, but I do it with extreme reluctance. I cannot see why those English farmers who want to see the Bill passed into law should have the disappointment of finding the date at which the Bill can come into operation extended to three years and during two of those years have to put up with the scrub bull of Scotland.

§ LORD MARLEY
It is not earlier than two years.

§ LORD HASTINGS
We know that, but the same pressure which had the words inserted will be sufficient to induce the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring it into force in one year. The bull which is not considered good enough for the Scottish farmer is to be put on the market in England in the same way as the Irish bull in the past which this Bill will prevent coming in. It is not right. It is thoroughly bad legislation, and I strongly object to it. I do not quite know what can be done, but so little do I like the new clause that I would not at all mind holding up the Bill. It will be no use to England for three years, so why should we not hold up the Bill? It is no use to us.

§ LORD MARLEY
Unless there is a voluntary scheme.

§ LORD HASTINGS
No legislation will stop a voluntary scheme; that is obvious. I was once anxious that the Bill should pass into law, but I am not in the least anxious now. I cannot see that the Bill is of the slightest advantage to the English stockbreeder at the present moment. On the contrary, it is a disadvantage.

§ EARL STANHOPE
I hope that my noble friend will find that if this Bill does go through there will be more incentive to bring up calves and to have decent bulls. I know that the milk farmer does not care what type of calf he has so long as his cow produces milk, but I think that under this Bill it is much more likely that he will be induced to produce decent calves. The milk market will be such that a voluntary scheme may have far more effect than is anticipated at this moment. Therefore the Bill may come into operation to some extent voluntarily.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, may I before we part with these Amendments say that, although no doubt it is a very good thing in the circumstances of this Bill that everybody should speak as often as he likes, I hope it will not be taken as a precedent. The fact, as your Lordships know, is that no one can speak more than once on any Motion put from the Woolsack. I only put in that caveat lest on some future occasion the present reasonable latitude should degenerate into licence.

§ LORD PARMOOR
My Lords, may I be allowed to concur entirely in what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has just said? I know it is difficult in particular cases, and it has been a great advantage to have an adequate discussion on this point.