§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 1 [Submission and approval of schemes]:
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, the Amendments down in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("thereof") to ("may") in line 10.
§ Page 3, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the last foregoing subsection")
§ Page 3, line 25, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to the provisions of this Act)")—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ Poll an question whether scheme to remain in force.
§ 3.—(1) Every scheme except a substitutional scheme shall require a poll of the registered producers to be taken, within such time as may be specified in the scheme, on the question whether the scheme shall remain in force.
1244§ (2) If the poll aforesaid shows that there have voted in favour of the scheme remaining in force—
- (a) not less than two-thirds of the total number of registered producers voting on the poll; and
- (b) registered producers who are capable of producing not less than two-thirds of the quantity of the regulated product which all the registered producers voting on the poll are capable of producing;
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "expiration of that period" and to insert "date on which the result of the poll is declared." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is that where the poll goes against the scheme, the scheme will cease to have effect at once, without waiting till the end of the suspensory period. This Amendment really restores a proviso that was originally in the Bill when it was introduced into your Lordships' House. The words in question were altered by an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because it appeared to be consequential on one of his Amendments to provide a suspensory period during which the Minister might revoke a scheme. On reconsideration, however, it appears to be clear that in a case where a poll goes against a scheme there is no reason to keep the scheme in force any longer.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("expiration of that period") and insert ("date on which the result of the poll is declared ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, the next Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("found") and insert "proved").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Information to be furnished for purposes of register.
1245
§
(2) The Minister, as soon as practicable after any scheme approved by him (other than a substitutional scheme) comes into force—
(b) if he has not sufficient information at his disposal to enable such a list as aforesaid to be compiled, shall inform the board accordingly.
§
EARL DE LA WARE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
(b) if it appears to him that he has so little information at his disposal that the list aforesaid would serve no useful purpose, shall inform the board accordingly.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this really is a drafting Amendment. It is a direction that is employed in the Bill, and it is clerical. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5:
§ Regulation of marketing and encouragement of co-operation, education and research.
§
5. Subject to the approval of the Minister, a scheme may provide for all or any of the matters set out in one or more of the following paragraphs, that is to say:—
(f) for regulating the manner in which the regulated product is to be graded, marked, packed, stored, adapted for sale, insured, advertised or transported by or on behalf of registered producers;
§ EARL DE LA WARE moved, in paragraph (f), after "product," to insert "or any kind, variety or quantity thereof." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the following Amendment are partly consequential upon the first Amendment to Clause 1. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("product") insert ("or any kind, variety or quantity thereof").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why he leaves out these Amendments throughout the Bill? It seems to me, reading the Amendments this morning, that they seem to be rather contradictory to the Amendments made in Clause 1. I do not quite understand why the noble Earl leaves them out throughout the rest of the Bill, and then alters Clause 1 the other way.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, this particular Amendment and the next one really are to make it clear that paragraph (f) of Clause 5 applies not only to the regulated product, but also to any kind, variety, grade or quantity thereof. I think it is necessary to have these Amendments to make that point clear.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("graded") insert ("by or on behalf of registered producers, or the manner in which the regulated product or any kind, variety, grade or quantity thereof is to be").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 6 [Miscellaneous provisions of schemes]:
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, the Amendment standing in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 6, leave out the third ("the") and insert ("a").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD SWINFEN moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
Provided that no provision of a scheme made in pursuance of this subsection shall be deemed to empower the board to establish any market or slaughter-house unless that provision in terms confers on the board a specific power to establish markets or slaughter-houses, as the case may be.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Swinfen.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, I accept this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7:
§ Financial powers and duties of boards.
§
(2) Any scheme may empower the board—
(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;
§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out 1247 "sums not exceeding" and insert "a portion of". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("sums not exceeding") and insert ("a portion of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9:
§ Consumers' committees and committee of investigation.
§ (5) 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 interest 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—
- (a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
- (b) may by order revoke the scheme;
- (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—
(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 annulled, the order shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order; and
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (5), after "subsection," to insert "made with the consent of the board administering the scheme." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has taken the place of an Amendment I had on the Paper in Committee stage which it was felt went too far. This is really a very important matter, and one that requires a good deal of consideration as to what ought to be done. Your Lordships will 1248 see, if you look on page 15 of the Bill as amended in Committee, that under subsections (a) and (c) the Minister, as the Bill is drafted, reserved to himself the right to give such effective instructions to the board as he thinks proper and that an affirmative decision of Parliament is not required. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in Committee stage, represented that it was necessary that the Minister should have such powers in order to give his protection to any individual trader who might be in the process of suffering in the course of his business by some action of the board.
§ Personally, I retain the opinion that it is certainly desirable that these powers should be accorded to the Minister in cases where he and the board are in agreement that improper or undue hardship is being inflicted, and where it is desirable that some speedy method should be at the disposal of the Minister and the board for redressing any such grievance. I am entirely in agreement with that. But where the Minister and the board are at variance the Bill proposes that the Minister should have an overriding power. Now it is not to be forgotten that these boards are constituted in part on the nomination of the Minister himself. Two nominees of the Minister will sit on every board. Moreover, it is a certain fact that no board will be able to function unless it has among its membership in all probability a banker, a member of the banking firm which is financing the operations of the board. This is not going to be a board merely composed of farmers who might—not at all probably, but I will grant not impossibly—be actuated by motives not of the broadest kind. It is going to be a business board composed as I have already described. Is it right that the Minister should have these over-riding powers, moved—as we made clear at the Committee stage—to exercise those powers by in all probability a consumers' committee, which has in turned moved the committee of investigation, which in turn moves the Minister?
§ I ventured to submit at the Committee stage that it was really almost exposing the Minister to a kind of pressure of which it would be to a kindness to relieve him. It would be better that the Minister should be able to say "I cannot exercise these over-riding powers" rather 1249 than "I will not exercise these overriding powers." My Amendment stands on the Paper and unless much stronger arguments are brought to bear against it than have hitherto been expressed I propose to adhere to the Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, after ("subsection") insert ("made with the consent of the board administering the scheme").—(Lord Hastings.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, this point, you will remember, was discussed at fairly considerable length on the last stage of the Bill. I think there is one point on which the noble Lord is misinformed. He asked your Lordships to remember that the Minister was to have two of his own representatives on the board. The Minister only has power to have two representatives on the board during the initial year, the first year, and that, as was explained, was because really until the poll is taken—and the poll is going to take a considerable time—the Exchequer is responsible for any expenditure. On the general point I really think it is very difficult to add anything to what was said before. We feel that the powers which are given under this Bill to a board—rightly given, we think—are very drastic powers. For instance, if you look at Clause; 5 (e) (ii) you will see that the board is given power to determine to whom to sell. This is an essential power, because if the board have to go to an association of traders to fulfil certain regular contracts it is essential that they should be in a position to direct the produce to the right quarter. But at the same time it might mean that a board did unjustifiably keep off supplies. That is a case that would have to be enquired into by a committee of investigation. The Committee would have to report to the Minister and the Minister would then have to act.
The noble Lord said he wants to free the Minister from the necessity of saying "I will not." I venture to suggest that a Minister who cannot say "I will not" on certain occasions should not be a Minister, and there is no reason for not giving him the necessary power to protect the public. Your Lordships will remember the example I gave was of a board coming to a decision at the end of July and then, because the Minister 1250 was not able to take any action until October or November when the House was sitting, nothing could be done. During that three, four or five months period the traders or the minority interests or whatever interest was aggrieved would have no opportunity of doing anything. I really see no other way round the difficulty than to give the Minister on these occasions power to say "I will" or "I will not." If he has either made a mistake, or if—as the noble Lord suggested he might have done—he had succumbed to undue political pressure, then he would have to lay his action as soon as possible before Parliament, and I venture to suggest that he would very soon get rapped over the knuckles by Parliament if he had acted unwisely or unjudicially. For these reasons I am afraid we really cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOWMy Lords, it is quite clear that there are two points of view in this matter, and I myself prefer the view advanced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, for reasons which I will give. I will take a concrete case which I think is perfectly possible. A board is doing something which is going seriously to prejudice the interests of a group, let us say, of middlemen. That is quite conceivable. As I understand it, the middlemen, the distributors, will not be able to seek protection from the' Courts by asking for an injunction to restrain the board, provided the board was acting within the four corners of the Statute. The damage that was being done to the distributors might be considerable. Week by week their monetary interests or their good will might be seriously affected and prejudiced. Is it really reasonable to suggest that in those circumstances the Minister ought to be compelled to stand idly by until Parliament could step in and prevent the middlemen suffering further damage? That sort of case seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable possibility. I am pretty certain that in experience something of the kind in connection with this scheme or that will arise. For that reason, if the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall support the noble Earl opposite.
THE EARL OF RADNORMy Lords, we have heard the case of the middleman 1251 put forward, but if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that as it is drawn at present the Minister may by order make such amendment in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient. There is the other side of the question—the point of view of the board. Arguments which apply to the middlemen apply with just as much force to the board. The Minister under acute political pressure might be persuaded to make such amendments in the scheme by order at the end of July as he thought fit, and in the next two or three months the board itself might be broken financially. The argument tells both ways. I think It really resolves itself into this—that we are rather inclined to assume that either the board or the Minister is going to behave like a fool. I do not think your Lordships' House is entitled to assume this in either case.
It therefore comes down in my mind to a question of principle, as to whether these boards are to have the overriding powers of the Minister hanging over their heads or not. I think your Lordships should assume that both the Minister and the boards are going to behave as reasonable human beings and in the best interests of the organisations which they represent. It comes down to the question whether the board should have the Minister over their heads and in the position to break them financially or whether the board should be in the impossible position of being in conflict with the distributors. I personally favour Lord Hastings' Amendments very strongly indeed, because in my experience the distributors are well able to look after themselves, and I am quite convinced that these boards, in their own interests, will find it very undesirable to come into conflict with any distributor to whom they hope to sell their produce.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMy Lords, forty years experience of either House of Parliament compels me to disagree with the noble Earl who has just sat down in his assumption that either the Minister or the board would be reasonable. My experience is that they are certainly not reasonable.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 13 [Short-term loans]:
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, my next Amendment is really consequential 1252 upon the introduction of the suspensory period.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("as the result of the initial poll") and insert ("at or before the expiration of the suspensory period").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 15:
§ Constitution and functions of Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions.
§ (5) If any such Commission reports to the Minister—
- (a) 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
- (b) that it has reason to believe that information with respect to that matter relating to the volume, quantity, destination or channels of distribution of a product, is being, or is likely to be, with held,
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "report," to insert "being a matter relating to the place of origin, use, channels of distribution or destination of any agricultural product or of any commodity produced from such a product, or to the quantity of any such product or commodity which is being or has been produced, sold or otherwise dealt with." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the words as printed are a substitute for the words which I persuaded your Lordships to insert in the Bill. Again I have reason to suppose that these words, and the Amendment that follows, may be accepted by His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, after ("report") insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, leave out from ("matter") to the first ("is") in line 12.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, my Amendment to this clause is drafting.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 21, line 30, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1253§ Clause 16 [Expenses of commissions and committees]:
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 33, leave out ("every") and insert ("any").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment 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:—
Minister" means—
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved in paragraph (a) in the definition of "Minister," in the reference "the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission," to substitute "an" for "the." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are intended to correct a mistake that was made on the Committee stage. Lord Cranworth moved Amendments altering "an" to "the" as being consequential on another Amendment that had been made in the Bill. As a matter of fact, they were consequential on an Amendment which had been withdrawn. The noble Lord will forgive my saying that the Government did mention this at the time, but they were corrected.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 3, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 24, line 13, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
§ Page 24,line 21, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
§ Page 24, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("or any kind or variety of any product")
§ Page 24, line 33, leave out ("kind or variety")
1254§ Page 25, line 8, leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is approved").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ First Schedule:
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, my Amendments to this Schedule are drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 30, line 8, leave out ("or of any kind or variety of such a product ")
§ Page 30, line 11, leave out ("kind or variety")
§ Page 30, line 14, leave out ("kind or variety")
§ Page 32, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("expiration of the suspensory period") and insert ("date of the declaration of the result of the initial poll").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Second Schedule:
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, my Amendments are consequential on a point with which we have already dealt.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 33, line 35, leave out ("other")
§ Page 34, line 3, at end insert ("by reason only of his being of having been a registered producer or a member of the board").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.