HL Deb 27 July 1931 vol 81 cc1217-23

Order of the Day read for consideration of the Commons Amendments.

LORD MARLEY

My Lords, on behalf o my noble friend Earl De La Warr, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Marley.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, there are one or two things in theses Amendments to which I should like to draw attention. On Clause 5 the Commons have inserted Amendments which will make subsection (2) read as follows: For the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult. This is how the Bill reads as it has come back to your Lordships from another place. I submit that is very unfortunate drafting. As the Bill left your Lordships' House is was agreed that the Minister should consult such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as he thought it expedient to consult. As it comes back it reads that he shall appoint certain persons on the recommendation of those associations and the associations are still associations which he may think it expedient to consult. The effect of that is that if he consults any association or breed society he is bound, under the new reading, to appoint the persons recommended to him by those particular associations or breed societies. He still has the option to consult or not as he pleases. Once he has consulted them he has to accept the recommendation. The temptation of the Minister would obviously be not to consult at all.

Under the original wording of the Bill, if I may once again direct your Lordships' attention to it, he had a complete option. He might pick out such breed and other societies as he thought desirable and consult with them and make the appointments. He obviously would consult. Now that the Bill makes it obligatory upon him to appoint the persons recommended to him but does not make it obligatory on him to consult, the inclination of the Minister would be, obviously, not to consult at all. It appears to me to be most unfortunate drafting. It cuts clean across exactly what the instigators of this Amendment really wished. The noble Lord sees the point?

LORD MARLEY

I quite see the point. As it stands it would read in this way—that for the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult.

LORD HASTINGS

Quite so.

LORD MARLEY

That is as it appears to me to read after coming back from the Commons.

LORD HASTINGS

Yes. I submit that is very unfortunate drafting and that it really defeats the purpose for which the words are inserted.

LORD MARLEY

I do not see that it is so very different from the original drafting, which was that the panel shall consist of such persons as may be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such associations as the Minister thinks fit.

LORD HASTINGS

I do not know whether the noble Lord quite has my point. As the Bill left this House, the whole thing was optional for the Minister; that is to say, lie could consult or not as he pleased. Having consulted, he could appoint or not appoint as he pleased. As the Bill has come back from the Commons he is not to consult if he does not wish to, but if he does consult he has to appoint the persons recommended to him. That is the whole difference, and his inclination would be not to consult. If you are afraid of being made to appoint a person you do not wish to appoint the obvious way out is not to consult at all.

LORD MARLEY

Frankly, I do not quite read it like that. It is: For the purposes of this section, there shall he constituted a panel of referees consisting of persons appointed by the Minister"— persons appointed by the Minister— on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and so on, as he thinks it expedient to consult. It does not limit it to the recommendations of those associations.

LORD HASTINGS

No; but if lie does consult he has to appoint the persons who are recommended.

LORD MARLEY

I suppose so, but it is not limited to that. Supposing, for instance, he wants to appoint ten people and three have been recommended, he would appoint the three and seven others.

LORD HASTINGS

I hardly think the noble Lord could read it in that way. If your Lordships will pardon me for reading again the words as they come back from the Commons, they are: For the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting not of persons taken from the general field of the acquaintance of the Minister, not at all, but consisting of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult. There is a direct and definite limitation there. He cannot appoint anybody other than those who are recommended to him by the societies, if he once consults them. But the Bill does not lay it down that he shall consult them. If he does not want to appoint persons who are likely to be recommended to him, the only way he can avoid doing so is not to consult.

LORD MARLEY

I think it is a difficulty, and if we can avoid it I think it is very important that we should try to settle it now. If it is not very serious, I do not know whether the noble Lord would wish to press it. I suppose the right thing would have been for him to put down an Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

No, I think not. I do not think I could have done that. The only thing I could do would be to move that the Commons Amendment be not accepted. I could not put down an Amendment.

LORD MARLEY

To disagree?

LORD HASTINGS

I could put down a Motion to disagree.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me, but I do not think that is quite right. It is perfectly true that my noble friend is not entitled to move an Amendment to the Commons Amendment without having put it down, but he can, if he pleases, put an Amendment on the Paper. I speak with some confidence because I have actually taken that course with regard to something for to-morrow. He is not in the least precluded from dealing with it now though it is not on the Paper—he may move that the Commons Amendment be disagreed with and this House will decide. May I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Marley? My noble friend Lord Hastings indicated the objection he feels to the Amendment made in another place. Could the noble Lord tell us—I do not think he has yet done so—what is the advantage and the reason of the Amendment made in another place, and why it is better than the words which left here? Presumably it was moved in Committee and there must have been some discussion and some reasons given why they departed from the language which the Bill contained when it left your Lordships' House.

LORD HASTINGS

That is exactly my point.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I think it would help those of us to whom it comes as a new matter and who are a little doubtful of its exact significance if the purpose of the Commons Amendment and the circumstances in which it was made were explained to us.

LORD MARLEY

The position, as I understand it, is this. Under the clause as amended the Minister must consult to ascertain who has been recommended. As the noble Lord says, he must appoint from those recommended, though he need not appoint anybody. I think that was the point made.

LORD HASTINGS

He must appoint those who are recommended to him.

LORD MARLEY

Yes, that is the difficulty. With regard to the question put by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, it is intended to be only a drafting Amendment. The Government preferred the original wording. It was the Opposition in another place who pressed us to accept the alteration which, they said, was merely a drafting alteration. It was on the pressure of the Conservatives in another place that this alteration was made.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, that is perfectly accurate. But the Opposition, moved thereto by the farming community, were most anxious that the representatives of agricultural associations and breed societies should be the persons appointed by the Minister, and they got those words inserted. But they forgot, apparently, that by getting those words inserted they did not, at the same time, compel the Minister to consult them. The Minister is compelled, under the new wording, to appoint such persons as are recommended, but is not compelled to consult anybody. If he does not wish to appoint certain persons that he believes are going to be recommended to him his only way out is not to consult anybody at all. That is what I want to get away from.

LORD MARLEY

Surely he must consult them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

My Lords, if you look at the subsection it can be read in this way. It restricts the power of the Minister, and that is its object. The subsection reads: For the purposes of this section, there shall be constituted a panel of referees consisting of such persons as may be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult. Let us stop there. Supposing he does not consult anybody, then the position is that "after consultation" does not apply. The object of this Amendment is this, he is not obliged to consult them at all, but if he does consult them he is obliged to take their advice. The object of it is to say to the Minister that while it is perfectly true you are not obliged to consult, if you do consult you must take their recommendations.

LORD HASTINGS

I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for helping me in that way, but would it not be true to say that the original words "the Minister after consultation" do oblige the Minister to consult?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I doubt it for this reason. He has only to consult such people as he thinks it expedient to consult, and if he thinks it expedient not to consult anybody, it does not mean that he is obliged to consult them.

LORD PARMOOR

May I say one word upon this? I have enquired why the change was made in the other House, and was told that objection was taken that the Bill as it came down to them gave too much power to the Minister, and what they wanted was that the Minister should not have this power, but should merely have the power to recommend. Surely that is an outlook very often pressed in this House.

EARL STANHOPE

With great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is he quite right in his reading of the clause as amended? As I read it the Minister has to appoint a panel of referees, which must consist, and can only consist, of people recommended by various societies. He can choose which societies he goes to for consultation, but he can only appoint referees who are recommended to him by the societies, and in no other way can be appoint them. I think that is the case.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think if you look at it again you will see it is intended to restrict the powers of the Minister. Whichever way you read it, he is not obliged to consult, but if he does consult, and they make recommendations, he must follow their recommendations. Unless you have the Amendment he might consult them, and not follow their recommendations. It restricts the power of the Minister.

LORD HASTINGS

Is it not true to say that as the Bill originally went down the words were "by the Minister after consultation with such agricultural associations"? We all took it that that meant an obligation on the Minister to consult those associations and the noble and learned Lord now tells us that is not so. If that is not so my whole argument falls to the ground.

On Question, Motion agreed to.